University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Characteristics of juvenile court/correction teachers and job satisfaction

(USC Thesis Other)

Characteristics of juvenile court/correction teachers and job satisfaction

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CHARACTERISTICS OF JUVENILE COURT/CORRECTION
TEACHERS AND JOB SATISFACTION
by
Cedric L. Anderson
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
August 2003
Copyright 2003 Cedric L. Anderson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3116657
Copyright 2003 by
Anderson, Cedric L.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3116657
Copyright 2004 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.
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation written by
Cedric L . Anderson
under the discretion of K i s Dissertation Com m ittee,
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
Doctor of Education
Dean
F ’ i Committee *
st.
Chairperson
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wonderful mother, Dorothy, who
believed that education was the career best suited for me. This doctorate degree
will serve as a living testament to her life.
This study also recognizes the value of the many educators who dedicate
their careers by taking the “high-risk” to help the “at-risk” youths, so they can
become potential “non-risk” adults.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The planning, development and completion of this dissertation required six
years of determination, effort, and time, and would not have been achieved without
the professionalism, encouragement and support of many people.
First, I would like to extend a very special thanks to these professional
educators from the Los Angeles County Office of Education who were instrumental
in the completion of the survey portion of this disseration. First and foremost,
Mr. Larry Springer, Director, Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools,
who first suggested and then encouraged me to do research study on teacher job
satisfaction during our first semester at USC. To Mrs. Judy Fenderson, Area
Administrator, who supported this research from the beginning to the end. To Mr.
David Flores, Director, Division of Alternative Education, and Mr. Bruce Petersen,
Principal, who allowed me to expand the research on teachers. To Ms. Dana
House-Jones, Coordinator-in-Charge of the Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment, and Ms. Tara Swall, Consultant, for supporting my research to include
beginning teachers. I would like to recognize Dr. H. Jennifer Hartman, former
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Programs who initially recommended me
to the Rossier School of Education.
Equally important, I would like to recognize the members of my dissertation
committee. Dr. Stuart Gothold, Chairman, a symbol of inspiration, a beacon of
light, and an authentic educational leader. To Dr. Robert Baker, committee
member, a gifted professional and quality person who diligently supported the
completion of this research. To Dr. Ferris, committee member, a catalyst, a coach,
and a person I am glad to have been associate with during doctorate studies.
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Individually and collectively, I admire who you are, what you have done, and what I
will be through our tireless efforts. You will never be forgotten.
Special appreciation is extended to cohort members Dr. Lupe Delgado,
Dr. Rita Wolenik, Dr. Marsha Brown, Dr. Ed Robillard and Dr. Frank Tocco, who
constantly reassured me to stay the course, complete my classes, finish the
dissertation and to get that doctorate degree.
To Sandy Osborn, my wonderful teaching partner at Bermudez Community
Day School who understood the trials and tribulations of completing this task. To
Peggy Terrell, for her patience and friendship and who supplied lots of
encouragement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
iii
vii
xi
1
4
4
12
13
14
14
14
Definitions and Glossary of Terms 15
Summary 20
Outline of the Remainder of the Study 21
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 22
Introduction 22
Historical Context of Correctional Education 22
Characteristics of Incarcerated Youth 25
Educationally Disabled Youth 32
Correctional Programs, Curriculum and Facilities 35
Types of Schools 40
Classroom and School Learning Environment 46
Teachers and Teaching 52
Teacher Factors 56
Summary 91
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Importance of the Study
Research Questions
Assumptions of the Study
Delimitations of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 93
Introduction 93
Research Questions 93
Sample Population 94
Instrumentation 94
Administration and Data Collection Procedures 102
Data Analysis 103
Design of the Study 104
4 RESULTS 106
Introduction 106
Survey Responses 106
Statistics and Measures 107
General Interpretations of the Empirically-
Derived Scales and Reliability Analysis 113
Summary of Findings 148
5 DISCUSSION, SUMMARY, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 152
Introduction 152
Summary of Findings 154
Discussion 163
Recommendations and Implications 166
Suggestions for Future Research 172
BIBLIOGRAPHY 174
APPENDIX
A TEACHER JOB DESCRIPTIONS 204
B CONSENT AND PARTICIPATION 211
C HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH FORMS 218
D SURVEY INSTRUMENT 227
E RELIABILITIES, FREQUENCIES, AND CENTRAL
TENDENCIES 234
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
1. “At-Risk” Factors of Youth 27
2. “High-Risk” Factors of Youth 27
3. Demographics on Students in Juvenile Camps -
L.A. County Probation Report 31
4. Demographics Data on Students in Community
Education Centers 32
5. Los Angeles County Office of Education Student
Stanford 9 Test Results 33
6. Youth with Disabilities 34
7. Educational Approaches 55
8. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Demographic and
Process Variables 111
9. Personal Characteristics: Empirically-Derived Scales
and Alpha Reliability of Likert Items 114
10. Locus of Control: Empirically-Derived Scales and
Alpha Reliabilities of Likert Items 116
11. Overall School (Program) Performance and
Effectiveness: Empirically-Derived Scales and Alpha
Reliabilities of Likert Items 117
12. Expanded Job Satisfaction: Empirically-Derived
Scales and Alpha Reliabilities of Likert Items 119
13. Descriptive Statistics of Scales: Means and Standard
Deviations (N = 243) 120
14. Pearson Product Movement Correlation Coefficient
Matrix by Scale (N = 243) 123
V ll
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Gender 125
16. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Gender 125
17. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Age 127
18. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Age 128
19. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Degree 129
20. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Degree 130
21. Descriptive Statistics by Subj ect’s Credential 131
22. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Credential 132
23. Descriptive Statistics on Subject’s Position 133
24. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Position 134
25. Descriptive Statistics on Subject’s Teaching Status 135
26. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Teaching Status 136
27. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Years of
Teaching 137
28. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Years of
Teaching 138
29. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Years of Teaching
at LACOE 139
30. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Years of Teaching
at LACOE 140
31. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Teacher’s
Primary School Assignment 142
32. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s
Primary School Assignment 143
v iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33. Descriptive Statistics by Student’s Length of Stay
34. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Length
of Student Stay
35. Coefficients: Dependent Variable - School
Effectiveness
36. Coefficients: Dependent Variable - Expanded
Job Satisfaction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Hypothesized Judge, et al. (1998) model relating
dispositional characteristics to perceptions of
intrinsic work characteristics, job satisfaction,
and life satisfaction.
2. Hypothetical model relating core self-evaluations to
school effectiveness.
3. Theoretical model relating the core self-evaluations
and school effectiveness to expanded job
satisfaction.
4. Theoretical model relating core self-evaluations
mediated by school effectiveness to expanded
job satisfaction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
Correctional education has a long history dating to the 1790’s. Yet,
minimal research has been done on the teaching professionals who serve in juvenile
detention and alternative education facilities. This research study consisted of 243
secondary teachers from the Los Angeles County Office of Education, Division of
Juvenile Court Schools and Alternative Education (JCCAT).
The design of the study was modeled after Judge, Locke, and Durham
(1997), which has given rise to the hypothesis that factors within the individual
affect the degree of satisfaction experienced on the job. According to the theory,
core evaluations may explain the dispositional source of job and life satisfaction.
A two-part survey instrument consisted of a demographic profile of the
sample population, and a correlational study of four core self-evaluations (personal
characteristics) efficacious and confident, conscientious and responsible,
collaborative and supportive, locus of control, and school effectiveness (mediator
effect), to show if any relationship exist to job satisfaction.
Results from the demographic profile of JCCAT met or exceeded the
national average of secondary public school teachers. Overall, the sample
population was mature, multi-ethnic, experienced, possessed multi-subject
credentials and had advanced degrees.
xi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Judge’s research supported the results of the correlational study. All four
core self-evaluations had a positive direct effect on job satisfaction. When the
perception of school effectiveness became a mediator between the core self-
evaluations and job satisfaction, the most significant affected indirectly was
collaborative and supportive.
An implication of this study is that one’s core self-evaluations are very
important factors in organizational behavior and job satisfaction. They strongly
suggest the need to nurture and develop employees. The adverse relationship was
efficacious and confident and school effectiveness, which suggest that there could
be issues related to assertiveness and organizational criticism.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Juvenile crime is a national priority issue confronting our society. In 1995,
the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention wrote: “The U.S. had the highest incarceration rate of young people in
the world, and it represents a threat and possible failure of democratic society itself,
socially, culturally, economically, and educationally.” In the report A Nation at
Risk, on the status of the nation’s schools, a specific segment of the school juvenile
population labeled the “at-risk” became a focal point (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983).
The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that nationally, 2,838,300
juvenile - persons under age 18 - were arrested (1997). This was a 35% increase
from 1988-97. In 1997, 17% of all the violent crimes reported involved juveniles
which included: 30% of all robberies; 17% of all forcible rapes; 14% of all
aggravated assaults, and 14% of all murder crimes (Snyder, 1999). In California,
which had the highest youth incarceration rate of any state, crimes committed by
juveniles ages 15-19, increased by 275% during the period of 1952-1993. In fact
the proportion of violent crimes committed by juveniles has changed little since
1980. Persons aged 15-19 had the highest rate of violent and property crimes
among any age group (California Department of Justice, April 2001). Also, the rate
of violent victimization in 2000 was the highest among persons ages 16-19 (64.3 in
1,000), and ages 12-15 (60.1 in 1,000) than in any other group (Rennison, 2001).
Juvenile detention rates have dramatically increased in recent years. In a
national study by the Bureau of the Census (1994-95) reported that on a one day
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
count, 108,746 juveniles were either in public and private custody facilities
Sickmund (1997). In California, the 58 County Offices of Education (COE)
reported 30,524 juveniles detained. The Los Angeles County had the highest total,
6,197 juveniles or 20.3% of the state’s population in juvenile facilities. In 1999,
the total juvenile arrest rate fell below the total adult arrest rate for the first time
(California Department of Justice, April 2001); however, this trend is expected to
change. According to demographic studies, the highest rate of juvenile arrest was
in 1974 and a similar scenario is expected to occur in 2005, as the juvenile
population is projected to be the largest proportion of the overall state population.
(California Department of Justice, April 2001). As Yablonsky (1997) concluded:
On any given evening, along with the weather report and sports
scores, the TV evening news in large and small cities
throughout America presents the horrendous toll of assaults
and deaths that result from youth and gang violence. The
incidence of this violence... and the patterns of violence have
become increasingly lethal in the past fifty years.
Juvenile crime and delinquency are not isolated to the streets. It is often
seen in our school classrooms. In schools nationwide, educators concur: “there
used to be only one behavioral problem student in every classroom and that has
now multiplied several times over in which each class has serious student problems
that inhibit learning and the education of other students” (Wilson, 1992). Ashcroft
(1987,1992) indicated that the number of students identified “at-risk” exceeds the
total number of students served in special education.
In a major research by Frymier (1992) on “risk” factors of 21,000 students
in grades 4, 7, and 10 in 275 schools, and over 80 communities in the U.S., he
discovered five significant categories of “risk” were identified: personal pain,
academic failure, socioeconomic situation of the family, family instability and
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
family tragedy. Walker, O’Neil, and Ramsey (1987) reported these youth exhibited
serious personal, emotional, and behavioral problems in school and would likely
experience school dropout, adult criminality, bad conduct, depression, poor
relationships, psychiatric problems and a high level of hospitalization. With the
profileration of youth associated with “risk,” there was been a sizeable increase in
the number of county-operated and state-operated educational facilities. The
Education Codes of California (1991) authorize teachers for these settings as well
as for other preventative and diversionary programs. Some of the alternative
instructional settings for expelled, and incarcerated youth are: juvenile camps and
halls; alternative, charter, and continuation schools; group homes; licensed child
care facilities; and residential substance treatment programs. National statistics
reported that 1.2% or 985 schools were of these types in 1986 and they increased to
3.9% or 3,428 schools, a 325% increase in one decade by 1996. In California, the
percentage of these schools is a staggering 9.7% or 7,984 schools (NCES, 1999).
Williamson (1992) stated: “There is a strong positive correlation between
the lack of education, and the incidence of criminal behavior.” The National
Institute of Justice reported that many studies on incarcerated juveniles had one
thing in common and that these juveniles had severe deficiency in reading skills. A
disproportionate number of these youth had learning disabilities, and were
functionally illiterate (Nelson, 1985).
Data collected by the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE),
Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools (JCCS) during the first six
months of 2000 revealed that more than 90% of the estimated 45,000 pupils
(enrolled in one year) had reading levels two grades below their age equivalency.
In a sample of 7,669 pupils, 3,080 or 40% were considered functionally illiterate,
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reading at or below the fourth grade level (Springer, Hartman, and Ingwerson,
2000). An estimated 35.5% of the population were non- or limited-English
proficient students (Springer, 1994).
Statement of the Problem
Teachers play an essential role in a student’s successes and failures. A
quality education is contingent upon having a cadre of quality educators, who in
collaboration with the administrators, strive for one common mission; which is to
educate all children. Therefore, it is essential that school district personnel and
administrators hire and retain quality teachers (Cegelka and Doorlag, 1995). In
order to assist administrators in establishing which teachers will be most effective,
certain innate characteristics exist that have been shown to produce successful,
competent, and satisfied teachers (Baker and Grayson, 1994).
There are many attributes needed to be quality teachers in this profession.
Essential is a strong knowledge content of the subject areas, providing and
demonstrating successful learning strategies, and good classroom and behavioral
management skills. Students need teachers who are caring, committed, personable,
educated and credentialed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to develop an understanding of the relationship
of personal characteristics and job satisfaction of secondary teachers in the Los
Angeles County Office of Education, Division of Juvenile Court and Community
Schools and Alternative Education. An understanding of these factors may
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
influence teacher selection, retention, placement and evaluations policies. It may
then provide information which is useful in keeping the “best” teachers in the
profession. Certain innate characteristics exist in individuals who are quality
teachers and leaders (Baker, 1994; Baker and Grayson, 1994). It is these
characteristics that seem to have a correlation to those quality teachers remaining in
the profession. Clark and Guest (1995) stated on teacher personality and job
satisfaction: “Identifying certain characteristics will enable teachers to be more
effective in the classrooms of tomorrow, and once you recognize these
characteristics and how to identify them, you will be able to identify teachers who
will be personally satisfied with their work and will be successful with their
students. The conventional wisdom in California is that it is almost impossible to
get rid of incompetent teachers; so, it is absolutely essential to select competent
teachers initially and retain them as long as possible.” Gothold (1992) stated:
If we are to ensure quality in the teaching ranks, it would only
happen if we identify standards, criteria for effectiveness... and
agree that in the interest of our children, some teachers might
be better advised to work in other careers. Furthermore, we
need to address teaching style and personality traits compared
to the make-up of the student population.
JCCAT skills and knowledge
JCCAT serves a specific student population identified as having personal,
social, and emotional factors related to “risk.” The California Department of
Education (1999) and the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice (1995) recognized JCCAT
as possibly the critical link between success or failure for many delinquent youth.
As Brown (1990) stated:
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Traditional classroom teachers understand the relevant content
areas and disciplines, but none of them embodies the fullness
of the correctional education profession which may include
general educational development and preparation, personal and
social development, communication and anger management,
vocational awareness, work experience, survival skills,
behavior management, special education, basic skill instruction
and a general academic program. These diversified areas create
a more complex role for the teacher in a court and alternative
school. They must be proficient in more subject areas than a
regular high school teacher.
Teaching students associated with “risk” is a demanding task, physically,
emotionally and mentally. These students present legal, social, behavioral,
emotional, psychological and instructional challenges that educators themselves
report they are unequipped to address (Ashcroft, 1992). Often, teachers are
expected to serve as psychologist, counselor, minister, law enforcer, politician,
social worker, friend, and surrogate parent. These teachers often have to struggle to
educate challenging students in harsh and isolated institutional settings where
security and control may be in conflict with educational goals (Ashcroft, 1992).
Many teachers have concerns about their personal safety and are exposed to verbal
abuse, threats, physical violence, and feel stressed in certain confined school
environments.
Mesinger (1987) described adult correctional educators as “typically female,
Caucasian, and middle-class...just out of adolescence themselves, they are easy
marks for power plays because they have little, or no experience with delinquent
students...they are frequently bewildered when their adolescent pupils do not
respond as expected to their manifested good will. They often lack the
sophistication and ‘street-smarts’ to effectively teach and survive in the institutional
settings. There are chauvinistic attitudes by delinquent males toward female
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers which also create problems.” Dr. Barden (1963) enumerated the qualities
needed to work in corrections:
One must have fantastic patience, and must settle for small
gains to be a successful institutional teacher. You work with
the unlovely and you work with the unloved. You have to see
through physical and mental distortions, to see the human being
who is behind these distortions. Most people cannot do
this...personality attributes must be elevated to super human
designations rather than qualities normally found in mere
mortals.
Teacher shortages
Nationwide, there is a critical shortage of teachers. It has been estimated
that future teacher vacancies would escalate up to two million over the next decade
(NCTAF, 1996) and this may be only a conservative number. Western and
Southern regions in particular, will have the greatest problem with the rising
population growth due to immigration and migration. In almost every subject area,
schools with the largest number of low-income, non-English proficient speaking,
culturally diverse, and minority students report difficulties filling vacancies (NCES,
America’s Teachers, 1997). In many cases, these schools had to fill vacancies with
unqualified, non-credential teachers, substitute teachers, or teachers from other
disciplines.
In The Need for Teachers in California, published by the Policy Analysis
for California Education (PACE, 1996), an estimated 200,000 new teachers would
be needed by the year 2004, and will probably impact JCCAT vacancies due to a
teenage population boom. In correctional institutions and schools, there are an
estimated 20,000-25,000 positions in education, programs, services and training,
and an equivalent number of counselors, case managers, health services workers,
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
community-based personnel and group homes and alternative school staff). It is
anticipated that there will a sizeable increase in staff at juvenile and adult facilities
(Werner, 1994).
Teacher retention
One of the major challenges for school districts in urban areas is the
retention of first- and second-year beginning teachers. These teachers have less
invested in the teaching profession and therefore have greater financial freedom to
leave. They are relatively young, single, with fewer responsibilities, and have been
presented with more career opportunities. For teachers with minority backgrounds,
there may be more career options and a greater selection of school districts (Gold,
1992).
Nationwide and in California, statistics indicate that more than 30% of
beginning teachers leave the profession within the first five years because they
work with a high percentage of low-income and minority students. The vast
majority are not educated or trained to work in poor and difficult working
conditions and facilities. They are often given larger class sizes, fewer materials,
and more student behavior problems. They are placed in the most difficult district,
school, grade level, and class with no consideration for their inexperience. There
are fewer preparation programs and less qualified staff development, and also a
lower salary scale. These teachers typically have little decision-making influence
on issues related to curriculum, textbooks, and school materials. Most of them feel
that they have more control over classroom decisions such as teaching methods and
strategies, class and homework, grading policy, but minimal influence on
disciplinary policies, in-service programs or the hiring and evaluation of teachers.
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In public schools, teachers feel they have far less influence over important decision
making than the teachers in private schools (NCES, America’s Teachers, 1997).
Teacher attrition
Teacher attrition is a major issue for school districts and human resource
departments throughout the United States. In a study of the Clark County School
District in Las Vegas, Nevada (the ninth largest school district and one of the fastest
growing), two-thirds of the teachers with three or less years of experience resigned.
First-year teachers reported that they left primarily because of great dissatisfaction
with administrative support and supervision, and secondly for personal and family
reasons (Chance, 1999).
The National Center for Education Statistics report on Characteristics o f
Stayers, Movers, and Leavers reported that between 1988 and 1994, teacher
attrition rates rose from 5.6% to 6.6% for all teachers, which is partially due to the
higher retirement rates. By 1998, the teachers’ average age was 43, up from 40
years in 1994. Approximately, one-fourth of all public school teachers were 50
years or older (NCES, America’s Teachers, 1997).
Attrition rates for teachers are very high in comparison to many other
professions. In two separate surveys by Harris and Associates (1991), teachers
reported that they had few incentives to work harder or to stay in the profession.
The survey revealed that 74% of the teachers cited students’ social problems, 68%
cited salary, and 61% stated a lack of support from their administration. Harris and
Associates (1992) study on former teachers indicated that they left the profession
for the following reasons: 60% poor salaries, 36% poor working conditions, 30%
student-related factors, and 30% administrative reasons. In the first year, 26% of
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the public school teachers left the profession, and within five years it ranged from
30% to 40%. The two most cited reasons for leaving were, accepting a higher
paying job, and an inability to cope with situations, e.g., classroom management,
student discipline, and instructional demands (Henry, 1988; California Teachers
Association, 1997). In 1997, NCES {America’ s Teachers) reported that of the
approximate 30% of the teachers who left the profession in the first five years, 27%
had retired, 37% left for family or personal reasons, and 26% were dissatisfied with
teaching or sought another career.
Extrinsic and intrinsic rewards were major problems for teacher attrition.
Heller, Clay, and Perkins (1993) reported that 42% of teachers were either
“dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with their profession citing salary as the main
issue. Hall, Pearson, and Carol (1992) random sample of schools involving 6,500
teachers in a large urban school district in Florida. The results showed that 22% of
the teachers were going to quit the profession because of either insufficient rewards
and recognition, limited opportunity for advancement, or stressful working
conditions. Hart and Murphy (1992) reviewed research from 1985-1991 in Utah,
Colorado, and Missouri, on teacher turnover and concluded that the most promising
teachers who left the field expressed a lack of confidence that the schools would
reward good teachers with responsibility, advancement, and salary. Cutrer and
Daniel (1992) studied teacher work-related problems and identified five areas of
concern: lack of respect; emotional aspects; working conditions; salary and
benefits issues; students, parents and the community.
Teacher attrition is a major concern for the educational profession.
Snowden (1988) said: “Burnout is a common response, and maintaining the
morale, motivation and quality of faculty is a problem in correctional education.”
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ashcroft (1987) stated: “The correctional educator must at the minimum and
maintain an island of sanity in a storm of psychosis.” Gehring (1993) said:
“Correctional educators as a group tend to be burned out, stressed, depressed, living
scripts written by alien institutional authority figures.”
Professional staff development
Professional development for experienced teacher and induction programs
for beginning teachers are crucial in the retention of the teaching corp. New
teachers are the ones most likely to leave the profession due to a feeling of non
support from administrators. Since most teacher education programs cannot fully
prepare beginning teachers for the changes in responsibility, time commitment,
class and behavioral management, issues and isolation occurs during the transition
from a student in college to a teacher of students. Natale (1993) recommended a
mentor program for new teachers;that is, formally pairing experienced teachers with
beginning teachers to offer support and assistance.
In correctional education, the lack of teacher preparation and training
programs is a major issue (DeGraw, 1987). Most traditionally, prepared teachers
are not experienced or trained to become JCCAT. Most of them attended teacher
college or education programs and field studies to work in regular, special or adult
education environments - not in correctional or alternative education settings.
Many colleges trained teachers to educate regular or special education students;
few, if any, prepared them for juvenile delinquents. Beginning and experienced
teachers have single and multiple subject credentials in a specific teaching
discipline such as English, Language Arts, Mathematics, History/Social Sciences
and the sciences; but there is usually little, or no preparation or training in student
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
behavior interventions, strategies, teaching students of “risk,” crisis management,
liability, health, working conditions and safety training.
In a comparison of the experiences of first year teachers in an urban school
and a suburban school, Guyton (1994) found that teaching in an urban setting was
different and that teachers have to be different to succeed in schools with high
numbers of “at-risk” students. Urban teachers need more education about
developing the social skills of their students, and information about poverty and
ethnic cultures. They wanted more opportunities to know the parents of their
students. They lacked the interpersonal skills that would enable them to deal with
rejection, discouragement, and frustration. A study reported that 78% of the
teachers in California having four or more years of experience wanted more
opportunities to improve their skills and knowledge citing the importance of
meeting the new State academic standards (Ed Source, 1999).
Importance of the Study
School district decisions are made by school administrators daily, but none
are more important than those involving teacher selection. The significant benefit
of this study is for the administrators and principals in the 58 California County
Offices of Education that have juvenile wards of the court. It could impact the 999
school districts or 8,000 California public schools (LACOE, 1998) that have either
expelled or suspended students. Specifically, it could assist all schools categorized
as follows: juvenile court, alternative, continuation, home, hospital, chartered and
opportunity. It could benefit the U.S. and California Department of Education, and
Juvenile Justice, the Attorney General’s Office, the Presley Institute at California
State University, and other educational and law enforcement agencies.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Recruiting personnel is a key responsibility in human resources. This
research could assist in the processing of applicants, writing job descriptions,
advertising teacher positions, and establishing an applicant pool. It could provide
interviewers with pertinent pre-employment, written and oral interview questions.
The assumption is that selecting the “right” person will increase organizational
effectiveness, job satisfaction, and student learning.
Some of the data could impact retention policies related to personnel,
employment, explaining why teachers, stay, transfer or leave the classroom, and/or
the organization. It could assist in placing the “right” candidate in the “right” grade
level or school environment. The data may be helpful in teacher assessment and
evaluation practices, as well as professional staff development programs.
The study could assist in school organizations in strategic planning by
determining whether there is a supportive job environment conducive for teacher
recruitment, retention, and placement. Gothold (1990) stated: “There must be a
strategic perspective of the school organization that must be in tuned with the
environment. Every organization needs an operating plan that states what it stands
for, what it wants to accomplish, and how it is going to accomplish its goals.”
Research Questions
The study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of secondary juvenile court/correctional, and
alternative education teachers?
2. What personal characteristics are associated with teacher job satisfaction?
3. Is there any significance to the demographic variables in relation to personal
characteristics, locus of control, school effectiveness and job satisfaction?
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. What is the relationship of the core self-evaluations (efficacious and confident,
conscientious and responsible, collaborative and supportive, the locus of
control) and school effectiveness as predictors of teacher job satisfaction?
Assumptions of the Study
1. All court/correction and alternative teachers will accurately answer all the
questions, individually and honestly using the survey instrument.
2. The measures assessing personality characteristics, locus of control, school
effectiveness and job satisfaction, will provide an accurate teacher profile and
information.
Delimitations of the Study
1. The study was limited to the Los Angeles County Office of Education.
2. The teachers in this study were from the Division of Juvenile Court and
Community Schools and Alternative Education.
3. All teachers taught at the secondary grade levels.
4. Teachers had to answer all closed-ended questions in the study.
Limitations of the Study
1. The results may be generalized only to schools matching the sample selection.
2. The data collected are subject to Type 1 sampling error, non-response, or
personal bias.
3. Demographic information, characteristics and job satisfaction are confidential
issues that could influence data collection, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. The personal contacts, survey, and techniques used to measure characteristics,
job satisfaction required the researcher to use considerable care to ascertain
sufficient data.
5. Extraneous variables may influence the variables.
Definitions and Glossary of Terms
Beginning Teachers - Either a first or second year pre-intern or intern; also
referred to as new or novice teachers.
California County Offices of Education - The state has 58 offices that work
as partners with the California Department of Education and the state has 999
school districts. They provide programs, services, resources and education.
California Youth Authority (CYA) - State of California agency
administering reception centers, training schools, forestry camp programs and the
youth parole system for delinquent children referred from the juvenile courts.
Characteristics - Characteristics of teachers refers to gender, age, race,
ethnicity, salary, years of experience, education degree held, subjects taught, etc.
Community Schools (CS) - This type of schools serve as transition sites for
juveniles expelled from local school district, or released from detention facilities.
They are located in urban or suburban communities.
Correctional Education (CE) - Persons under the supervision of the
judiciary, sentenced, awaiting trial, or incarcerated who receive educational
opportunities in literacy and basic skills, vocational training, cultural activities,
physical education, interpersonal and functional life skills.
Correctional Educator - Staff working in state and federal facilities, or
county office of education - teachers, administrators, supervisors, instructional
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aides or support staff. It provides educational services to incarcerated youth and
adults. The term educator implies a credentialed or non-credentialed teacher.
Corrections - An area of criminal justice dealing with convicted offenders
in jails, prisons, probation, or parole.
Division of Alternative Education (DAE) - A Division in the Los Angeles
County Office of Education that has community-based programs for probationary
and non-probationary juvenile offenders, truants, dropouts, teen parents, or hardship
cases. These students are generally assigned to a community school, independent
studies, or related programs.
Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools (JCCS) - A Division
in the Los Angeles County Office of Education that provides educational programs
for juvenile offender on probation in juvenile halls, camps, residential and
community schools, and independent programs.
Experienced Teacher - A veteran teacher who has completed a two-year
probationary period and is fully credentialed.
Independent Studies Program - An educational home study program
designed for juveniles 17 years or older experiencing family, personal problems or
economic hardship.
Job Dissatisfaction - The extent to which the teacher is perceived to be
discontent with various factors of the work situation.
Job Satisfaction - An affective state; the extent that teachers perceive as
values and factors.
Juvenile Camp (JC) - A school that is highly structured, long-term
detention facilities in rural areas. Juveniles are assigned to a single sex camp and
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they generally stay 3 to 12 months. Camps are under maximum or minimum
security depending on the crime the age of the juvenile.
Juvenile Delinquent - A boy or girl who has not reached the age of
criminal liability and who commits an act which would be a misdemeanor or felony
if he/she were an adult.
Juvenile Hall (JH) - A detention facility for juveniles detained before,
during, and after trial, for 1 to 21 days. They are on a short-term basis, highly
secured and structured by the Probation Department.
Juvenile Offender - A boy or girl who commits an act which would be a
misdemeanor or felony.
Los Angeles County Office of Education - Provides comprehensive
educational programs for children with disabilities, juvenile delinquents and
offenders, or those who have special needs.
Non-Traditional School - An alternative educational method apart from the
traditional classroom wherein the teacher and/or curriculum methodology is
expanded to encompass many focal points of learning to accommodate the unique
needs of the student (see traditional school).
Personality - The totality of an individual’s behavioral and emotional
tendencies; the organization of the individual distinguishing character traits,
attitudes, or habits.
Probation - A period of supervision and guidance of a ward by a probation
officer, ordered by the court, and conditioned on the ward’s adjustment and
behavior - an alternative to imprisonment.
Probation Department - The duty is to protect the community by
recommending minors to juvenile courts, enforcing court orders, operating
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
correctional facilities, incarcerating delinquent minors, and designing and
implementing programs to reduce crime and insure victims’ rights.
Residential School (RS) - Typically referred to as a group home. These
juveniles have serious personal instability or was neglected in the home that result
in behavioral, social, mental problems. Psychological or emotional problems are
common in this setting. Juveniles stay from 6 to 12 months in a highly structured
setting.
Teacher Intern - Certificates issued for two years to persons completing a
program that was developed and implemented by a school district with a
Professional Development. This is a plan for the training and certification of
prospective teachers.
Teacher Pre-Interns - A California state program designed to provide
support and assistance to individuals who still need to meet the subject matter
requirements before entering an internship program, and have little or no teaching
experience.
Teacher Emergency Permit (Long-Term) - A permit issued at the request
of an employing school district to fill a temporary staffing vacancy, or need for one
year. Individuals must complete a baccalaureate degree, CBEST, and a minimum
number of units or verify subject matter competence to qualify for the permit. The
employers must provide orientation, guidance and assistance.
Teacher Life Credential - All teaching credential requirements are met and
a life-time credential is granted.
Teacher Multiple Subject Credential - Authorizes the teaching of a variety
of subjects in a self-contained K-12 classroom usually in the elementary level. The
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
holder demonstrate knowledge required to teach multiple subjects by successful
completion of an approved teacher education program.
Teacher Pre-Internship Certificate Program - In response to teacher
shortage, the program assists teachers with little or no experience in meeting
subject matter competencies. Employers are required to provide basic training in
class management, lesson plans and teaching methods. They later apply for a
teacher internship program.
Teacher Preliminary Credential - Issued to California-trained individuals
who have a bachelor's degree, teacher preparation program including student
teaching, CBEST, and subject matter competence. Additional academic
requirements must be completed to qualify for the Professional Clear Credential.
Teacher Professional Clear Credential - Issued to individuals who qualify
for their initial Ryan clear basic teaching credential and completion of a fifth year
of study, plus health education, mainstreaming, and computer education
requirements. They must complete professional growth requirements every five
years in order to renew the credential.
Teacher Single Subject Credential - Authorizes teaching of a specific
subject in a departmental K-12 classroom, usually at the middle or secondary level.
The holder has demonstrated the subject matter knowledge required to teach the
single subject through successful completion of an approved academic program and
by completion of subject matter course work or passage of multiple choice and
standardized constructed response examinations.
Teacher Variable Term Waiver - Provides the employing agency up to one
year for the following purposes: (i) to allow individuals additional time to
complete a credential requirement; (ii) to facilitate assignment in school programs
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
addressing issues of educational reform; and (iii) to allow geographically isolated
regions with severely limited ability to assist personnel in obtaining waivers for
situations when all other hiring efforts have been exhausted.
Traditional School - A school where students attend school for a full day
with a teacher, and learns in a progressive fashion from kindergarten through the
twelfth grade
Summary
Gehring (1981) asked: “How much do we know about correctional
education and correctional teachers?” The answer is probably no one really cared
until crime, juvenile delinquency and incarceration rates skyrocketed in the 1980’s
and became a major economic, political, social and cultural issue.
As we begin the new millennium, grave educational concerns persisted due
to increased student enrollments, projected juvenile higher crime rates, and a
declining supply of qualified teachers. There needs to be a greater focus on
court/correction and alternative education teachers. Pecht-Miller (1987) stated:
If successful correctional educators can be identified, it can be
a tremendous resource for the development of teacher selection
process. If information obtained on education, experience,
personal characteristics, skills, performance, job satisfaction,
and self-efficacy, can be compared and differentiated between
the effective and ineffective teachers, a profile of the most
desirable correctional educator could be developed. It may also
result in a higher retention level among correctional educators.
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Outline of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of the dissertation is organized as follows:
• Chapter 2 reviews the current and related literature on correctional education,
and human resource issues.
• Chapter 3 provides an introduction of the methodology used, the sample and
population, the instrumentation, data collection procedures, and data analysis.
• Chapter 4 presents an introduction and the findings of the research questions
with a subsequent discussion.
• Chapter 5 presents a summary of the study, with conclusions and
recommendation for additional research.
The study concludes with a bibliography and appendices.
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The review of this literature on correctional and alternative education was
conducted to establish background information on the human issues, religious and
political influences, and the justice and education system from the beginning of the
historical context to the present day. The second section of this review discusses
teacher topics on the following issues: demographic and personal characteristics,
job satisfaction, self-efficacy, teacher morale, locus of control, school’s
effectiveness, organizational structures and school’s climate.
The issues reviewed were: (1) historical context of correctional education;
(2) characteristics of incarcerated youth; (3) educational disabled youth;
(4) correctional programs, curriculum and facilities; (5) types of schools; and
(6) teachers and teaching.
Historical Context of Correctional Education
As juvenile corrections moved into the twenty-first century, it is important
to understand the policies and practices that have greatly impacted this field and
profession today. In 1784, the first school for prisoners opened in Philadelphia.
The Quakers were the first group of prison reformers to introduce education in
correctional institutions. They viewed education as an effective means of dealing
with idleness in prison, and believed that offenders required exposure to religious
readings to help achieve a moral reformation critical for their rehabilitations. In the
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
early 1800’s, prison education was minimal except for religious instruction at cell
doors and in Sabbath schools which provided some instruction in reading, writing,
and arithmetic. In the nineteenth century most correctional educators were
chaplains. Wardens and keepers focused on prisoner control, and actively
encouraged convicts to feel guilty (Carney, 1980; Imel, 1986).
The education of juveniles improved in the 1850's with the establishment of
juvenile reformatories and prison libraries, provision of basic education services,
and the hiring of teachers. In 1846, the Lyman School was the first state juvenile
reform institution. During the 1870’s, teaching basic reading and writing skills
were expanded to become an organized system of formal academic, vocational, and
social education. By 1876, there were 51 reform schools or houses of refuge that
opened nationwide; about three-quarters were operated by state or local
government. The first juvenile reformatory was built in New York in 1824. In
1878, Superintendent Zebulon Brockways at the Elmira Reformatory in New York
established the first trade schools, manual arts, self-discipline programs, and
academic subjects for prisoners. By 1890, nearly every state outside the South had
a reform school, and many states had separate facilities for males and females, and
for racial segregation. Youngsters were admitted to these facilities for a broad
range of behaviors, including criminal offenses, status offenses, and dependency.
Facility administrators regulated the length of stay, and had broad discretion to
transfer disruptive young inmates to adult prisons. Society sought retribution from
the persons it condemned, so prisons were built on a punitive philosophy.
Hippchen (1982) described the differences between punitive and correctional
philosophies:
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The punitive philosophy through many years has been an
advocate of capital punishment, corporal punishment, long
sentences, incarceration in gothic-like, impenetrable prisons,
and a revenge-oriented group of methods of handling offenders
within the walls and cages of the prison. In contrast, the
philosophy of corrections has emphasized more humane
handling of criminals and provision of institutions, staff, and
programs for offender rehabilitation.
Three major events occurred in the 1890’s that permanently Affected
juvenile CE: (1) the mandated responsibility of county boards of education to
educate juvenile wards of the court; (2) the juvenile court system; and (3) the
introduction of a high school curriculum as part of correctional education
(Eggleston and Gehring, 1986; Angle 1982).
The modem era of CE began when Austin MacCormick wrote The
Education o f Adult Prisoners (1931) and did a comprehensive survey of prison
facilities. He discovered that no prisons had a well-rounded program, financing or
proper staffing, and an inappropriate education system for juvenile offenders. For
most of the century, juvenile offenders were housed in institutions in which the
warden or superintendent dictated all educational policies (Gehring, 1988). These
institutions were independent entities, and juvenile offenders could not be
guaranteed an education because the prevailing philosophy was work rather than
schooling. Furthermore, some educational practices in the early 1900’s were based
on quasi-scientific studies linking juvenile delinquents with feeble-minded
administrators who believed in education, often hired harsh men who would teach
with a heavy hand, or missionaries who would teach only the word of God. It was
not until the 1960’s that correctional school districts seized the opportunity for
educators to control curriculum, budgets, and personnel (Harper, 1988).
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In 1970’s, CE emerged as formal issue for the federal government due to
three major pieces of legislation: (1) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974
which guaranteed handicapped minor(s) the right to special education services;
(2) the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142) that
extended the right to all incarcerated persons ages 21 and those with physically
challenging conditions including mental retardation, emotionally disturbed, visual
and hearing impairment, cerebral palsy, autism, and learning disability (Warboys,
Burrell, Peters, and Ramiu, 1994); and (3) the U.S. Department of Education policy
in 1984, which states that education was a necessity for every American including
the more than 2.2 million adults, and juveniles under the jurisdiction of the criminal
justice system. This initiated a commitment to educate offenders as a means of
social integration and hope for rehabilitation (Wolford, 1985; Reffett, 1983). For
many in corrections, education was part of the rehabilitation program because a
degree or diploma meant success and a greater integration into society for
supporters of the old system, only good behavior, personality change, and post
released success were important (Rider-Hankins, 1992; Collins, 1988).
Characteristics of Incarcerated Youth
In the Great American Novel written by Mark Twain, he
described life along the Mississippi River...and a young
Huckleberry Finn, as a child-man without parents, rules or
boundaries.. .Huck lived each day fearlessly fresh and new,
guided only by the free flow of his own life force and youthful
energy... yet if Huck were living today in California, he would
be attending a placement home as a student. Reports on
Huck’s early childhood indicated that he had an abusive home
environment that would require a foster home placement by
Child Protective Services. Huck was rebellious and displayed
anti-social behaviors toward adult authority. He was always a
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
truant from school. Huck also engaged in occasional thievery
to survive an arrest warrant, for this behavior would lead to his
arrest and a criminal conviction. Our modem day Huck is no
longer a cute scamp; he is probably armed, is involved with
drugs, and should be considered quite dangerous. Huckleberry
Finn was no longer an aberration of a student, but rather a
disturbing trend in every public school district in California and
across the nation.
There are many “risk” factors associated with youth identified as either “at-
risk” or “high-risk.” A comprehensive study of “risk” factors by Phi Delta Kappa
(Frymier, 1992) of more than 21,000 students, grades 4, 7, and 10, and from 275
schools in 80 communities across the United States was conducted. The conclusion
reached was that more than 98% of the 1,122 comparisons found that a student
identified as “at-risk” on one item was more likely to be “at-risk” on additional
items when compared with students not “at-risk.” Only 20% of the students studied
had no “risk” factors evident, 25% had three or more “risk” factors, and 10% were
found to have five or more of the factors operating in their daily lives. The
presence of three or more factors in a student’s life loosely defined “at-risk.” There
were five categories of “risk” factors associated with youth: personal pain,
academic failure, socioeconomic situation of the family, family instability, and
family tragedy, as well as 34 “risk” factors. The higher the number meant a greater
probability that the youth’s environment was unhealthy and detrimental to proper
physical, social, and mental development. In conclusion, four actions were
suggested that would help “at-risk” students succeed: to be understanding, to have
a sense of caring; to cultivate a sense of responsibility; and to nurture academic
achievement and skills.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 1. “At-Risk” Factors of Youth
• Suspend from school* • Attempted suicide • Involved in pregnancy
• Student sold drugs • Student used drug • Language primary not English
• Studet used alcohol • Parent alcoholic • Student arrested
• Student abused • Low grades in school* • Parents divorced last year
• Overage in grade* • Retained in grade* • Excessive absences*
■ Low self-esteem • Low reading scores* • Referred to special education*
• Parent sick last year • Parent died last year • Parent lost job last year
• Friend died last year • Student ill last year • Sibling died last year
• Father low-level job • Broken home • Father not a high school grad
• Moved frequently • Change schools often • Parents/attitude negative
“ Family used drugs • Failed courses* • Mother not a high school grad
* Item that apply to school.
Juvenile violence (mild, moderate, or severe) had no boundaries, as such
new terms for identifying these criminal offender were adopted. The term “at-risk,”
potential for violence, was raised to a higher standard “high-risk” having committed
a violent act. In 1998, California Senate Bill 1095, originated by the Los Angeles
County Office of Education (LACOE) identified “high-risk” juveniles in Article 1.
Eligible Participants 47660 (West’s California Code, 1995).
TABLE 2. “High-Risk” Factors of Youth
■ A first-time offender_______________ “15 years of age or younger__________________
“ A ward of the juvenile court________ “ Being supervised by the probation department
“ Possesses three or more risk factors » Frequent occurrences in a 12 month period
(1) Significant school behavior of multiple occurrences:____________________________
________ (a) truancy resulting informal school action; or _____
________ (b) behavior problems resulting in suspension or expulsion. _______________
(2) Significant family problems with at least one of the following:______ _____________
(a) minor has a family member or relative with a criminal record, or been in jail or
prison, or probation or parole.
(3) Use of illegal drugs by the pupil, abuse of alcohol, or illegal drugs in the pupil’s home.
(4) Delinquent behavior: criminal activity, incorrigibility, gang member, or gang association.
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Like Huck, when a youth first enter the juvenile justice system, he or she
had already been in a downward spiral for most or all of their life. Youth in
institutions have a higher rate of mental health and physical problems, sexual abuse,
and learning deficiencies than their peers outside the institution (Murphy, 1986;
Rincker, Reilly, and Bratten, 1990). Meltzer and Flanagan (1984) described these
youth as having been exposed to “a lethal cluster of educational, developmental,
health, family and environmental factors.” The average incarcerated youth came
from an economically deprived community, a failing physical environment, high
rates of mobility, and crime. Most juvenile offenders, especially those charged with
violent crimes, came from lower social economic status groups, and are ethnic
minorities (Cook and Hull, 1990; Amster, 1984; Westendorp, 1986).
Statistics from the California Department of Education (1999) on socio
economics status indicated that 21.4% of the families were on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC), and 61% of the children received free, or reduced
price meals. Delinquent youth experienced a high degree of conflict, isolation, and
alienation from family members and community. Vandalism, alcohol and drug use
at school are expressions of youths’ alienation. There is often a family history of
incarceration, drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness, parental rejection and neglect,
verbal, emotional, physical and sexual abuse, and poor communication (Novotny,
Seifert, and Werner, 1991; Finn, 1988). Values and morals are often lacking and
parental supervision is either poor or non-existent. Springer (1994) stated:
There is a direct relationship between crime and gang
participation. Most gang members have hurt others and have
been hurt themselves. Victimization is thus a major aspect of a
child’s life, and it is of critical importance that school staff and
society help students become in touch with what it means to be
a victim and a youth “at- risk.”
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School failure is very common among youth offenders. The single best
prediction of adolescent criminal behavior is a long established pattern of early
school anti-social behavior. They generally have low achievement skills, lack
interest in school, have poor attendance, and numerous discipline problems
resulting in school suspensions and expulsion from one or more schools or districts
(Broader, 1981). Truancy often begins in elementary school, and the family’s
frequent moves and changes of schools magnify the problem. These youths lack
commitment to learning and lack respect for authority figures (Roush, 1983; Rabak
and Walker, 1991). They tend to be alienated, seek greater independence, and
spend more time in the streets (Hawkins, 1987; Meltzer and Flanagan 1984). They
typically end up being transferred from a traditional regular school to more isolated
and restrictive environments (Westat, 1991; Bullock, 1990) such as an alternative
or a juvenile court school.
Due to repeated academic setbacks, youth in correction schools are on
average three years below grade level (Ball, 1982; Sedlak, 1990). Personality and
cognitive deficits cause learning disabled youth to be more vulnerable to delinquent
behavior such as anger, irritability, retaliation, impulsiveness, poor ability to learn
from experience, poor perception of cues, inability to anticipate future
consequences (Rabak and Walker, 1991). Incarcerated youths are more “street
smart” and knowledgeable about the juvenile justice system and ways to survive.
In terms of alcohol and drug usage, most juveniles become experienced before age
14 (Duguid, 1990). Most of them were put in placement homes when they were
young and continued moving from one home to another as their behavior became
more dysfunctional. They continue to have unrealistic ideas not just in school, but
also job expectations and the competencies needed to survive in legal employment.
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
They lack the appropriate living skills to deal with anger and frustration. The age
of these youths is the most important factor related to their returning to school and
remaining enrolled. The younger the youth, the greater the likelihood that he or she
will continue in school (Maddox, 1984; Forbes, 1991; Watanabe, 1990; Hawkins,
1989).
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) was recognized as a primary factor in a person’s
abilities to cope. The average IQ of institutionalized youth, in general, fall within
the upper limits of the below-average range, and the lower limits of the average
range. A youth with lower intelligence frequently is more vulnerable to suggestions
of defiant behavior and less able to avoid detection (Harper, 1988). The youth’s
inability to succeed at school progresses into a pattern of poorly assimilated
learning abilities, delays in mastering the basic academic skills, non-completion of
schoolwork, and remaining in the same grade level. Low self-esteem and poor self-
image are a given for these youths. They vacillate between two extreme self
perceptions of the all-powerful or worthlessness. The youth’s self-esteem
deteriorates and academic difficulties and disinterest can result in behavior
problems of aggression and toughness (Westat, 1991; Ferguson, 1990; Finn, 1988).
In the United States about one-third of all juvenile dispositions are females
(Fejes-Mendoza, 1987). Families tend to put their daughters into mental health
rather than correctional facilities, however, in the past decade, females have been
committing more aggressive and violent offenses (Allen-Hagen, 1991). Female
offenders are more likely to come from dysfunctional family backgrounds and have
been rejected by their parents. They are generally less educated than males, less
motivated, and less likely to become involved in institutional training programs
(Westendorp, 1986; Maguire, 1991).
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Los Angeles County Probation Department provided a profile of 4,092
youth incarcerated in several juvenile camps (see Table 3). The data on Los
Angeles County Camp Program Fact Sheet (1995) indicated that the population was
mostly male (94%), average age was 16 years old, and minority (Hispanic 56%,
Africian-American 29%). Educationally their reading level was 5th grade level,
and math, 6th grade level, when tested by the Basic Skill Inventory. These levels
are 5-6 years below their age equivalent level (about 16 years).
TABLE 3. Demographics on Students in Juvenile Camps - L.A. County
Probation Report
• Gender: Males 94% Female 6%
• Average age: 15.7 years
• Ethnic background: Hispanic 56% African-American 29%
Caucasian 10% Other 3% Asian 2%
• Average grade: Reading, 5 th Math, 6th
• Recidivism rate : 30%
• Average camp stay: 24 weeks
• Probation status: 100% on probation
The most significant factor was the poor academic performance, 5-7 years
below their grade level. As discussed earlier, these students often either drop out of
school, have disabilities, lack interest in school, and are influenced by negative
parental influence. In terms of their stay at camp, it ranges from 22-28 weeks.
In a demographic study (see Table 4) of 480 students at the Rosewood
Community Education Center (Anderson, 1995), the general profile of a CEC
student was male (91%), average age was 15 years old, and minority (Hispanic
50%, Africian-American 28%). Academically, their reading level was above the
5th grade level, and math, 6th grade level, when tested by the Basic Skill Inventory.
The typical CEC students were academically 4-5 years below their grade level and
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
age equivalency (15 years). Also, 84% of the students are from the juvenile camps,
halls, or residential homes, and 16% are expelled students from local school
districts. Gang participation was at 68%, and the grade point average (GPA) was
1.38/4.00 which is equivalent to a letter “D” grade or poor academic achievement.
TABLE 4. Demographics Data on Students in Community Education Centers
• Gender: Male 91% Female 9%
• Average Age: 15.3 years
• Ethnicity: Hispanic 50% Afro-American 28%
Caucasian 19% Asian 2% Pacific Islander 1%
• Gang Participation: 68%
• Average Academic level: Reading 5.5 Math 6.2
• GPA of Youth Entering CEC: 1.38/4.0
• Special Education: 30% (read below 3.0)
• Average CEC stay: 19 weeks
• Probation Status: Formal (WIC 602) 84%; Informal (WIC 654) 16%
Educationally Disabled Youths
The incarcerated youth learning disabilities and deficiencies are key issues
in CE. The prevalence of emotional disturbance, learning disability, mental
retardation among incarcerated youths, is highly disproportionate to the prevalence
among non-delinquent youths. This incorporates the need for special education
services. Gagne (1977) cited speech disorders at 12 times the normal rate and
hearing disorders at 5 times. Nationwide, an estimated 6.5% to 13.7% of the
school-age population had an educational disability rang,e and in the juvenile
courts, the range was 50% to 75% (Murphy, 1986). In two related studies,
Rutherford, Nelson and Wolford (1985) estimated that 28% of juvenile offenders
had special needs,. Eggleston (1984) estimated that 35% to 42% of all juveniles and
adult inmates were educationally handicapped.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Learning disabled youths are over-represented in the juvenile justice system.
Nine out of every 100 learning disabled males versus four of every 100 non-
learning disabled males are adjudicated delinquents. They were more involved in
violent crimes, used greater amounts of alcohol and marijuana, and had many
school discipline problems (Amster, 1984).
In assessing the educational skills of juvenile court education students in the
Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), the Stanford 9, a standardized
test, was administered to 4,640 in Spring of 2001, 4,932, in the Spring of 1999, and
4,679 students in Spring of 1998. Students in grades 2 through 11 were tested in
reading, math, and writing. The results indicated the scores in 1998, 1999 and
2001, for grades 8 and 10 (Los Angeles Times, August 4, 1999; Ed-Data, 2002). A
percentile was used with 75-100 being highest range, and from 0-25 the lowest
achievement range (see Table 5).
TABLE 5. Los Angeles County Office of Education Student Stanford 9
Test Results
Grade Read 98 Read 99 Read 01 Math 98 Math 99 Math 01
8 12 11 10 13 14 18
10 11 11 7 19 20 15
A fundamental element of juvenile crime and delinquency is the lack of
reading ability. Learning disabilities are the most common type among incarcerated
children in California which is comparable to national data (Morgan, 1989). The
Federal Office of Special Education Programs stated that about 4.5% of all school-
age children receiving special education had specific learning disabilities (Nelson,
Rutherford and Wolford, 1985).
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The court case of Green v. Johnson (1981) provided national data that
10.6% of the children in correctional facilities had specific learning disabilities
(although the court noted that the percentages may be substantially higher). Table 6
compares the rates of prevalence of disabilities among all school-age children and
those in juvenile court schools).
TABLE 6. Youth with Disabilities
Disabilities All Youth Delinquents Incarcerated
Youth
Dependents
(non-delinquent)
All disabilities 7 - 12% 28 - 46% 28 - 60% 21 - 25%
Learning Disability 5% 9 - 42% 11% NA
Severely Emotional 2 - 5% 16 - 50 % 20% 13 - 66%
Attention Deficit 3 - 5% NA 18% NA
Mental Retardation 1 - 2 % 3 - 30% 3 - 10% 18%
Disability is another affliction that is more prevalent among incarcerated
youths than those in the general population. Nationwide, it is estimated that 7% to
12% of all youths have a disability, whereas, among incarcerated youths, the range
is 28%-60%.
Nationwide, between 2%-5% of the general population of school-aged
youths are estimated to be seriously emotional disturbed (National Mental Health
Association, 1993). In the Court v. Green, 16% of youth in correctional facilities
had this behavioral condition. A study of youth in juvenile hall identified 20% of
the population eligible for special education services due to emotional disability.
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mental retardation and developmental disabilities were estimated between 1.3%-
2.3% among all school children (Murphy, 1986). In Court v. Green, there was a
7.7% prevalence of mentally retarded children in correctional facilities, and the
range was from 3% to 9.5% (Green v. Johnson, 1981). Another disability
associated with learning deficits is Attention Deficit Disorders Hyperactivity
(ADD/H). Nationwide, 3% to 5% of all school-age youth suffer from ADD/H. In
one study of randomly selected incarcerated youth, there was a rate of 18.5% in
Ohio. Other studies based on individual clinical reviews set the range from 19% to
46%. Youths in the juvenile court population who were victims of child abuse or
other incidents of violence are more likely to have suffered a traumatic brain injury
and other health impairments, such as tuberculosis, AIDS, and lead poisoning. One
study estimates that 8.2% of all delinquents had physical disabilities, and 9.4% had
chronic physically illnesses (Otto, 1992; Davis, Bean, Schumacker, and Stringer,
1991).
Correctional Programs, Curriculum and Facilities
From 1850 to the present, there has been an emphasis on educational
programs, curriculum, and school facilities. It began with the Cincinnati National
Prison Congress, which initiated the American Correctional Association, Ohio
Governor Rutherford B. Hayes (later the 19th U.S. President), and 130 wardens,
judges, chaplains, and humanitarians. Collectively, they adopted a new principle to
transform harsh and cruel punishment of prisoners to a more humane and education
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rehabilitation (Gaither, 1982). As Wines (1871) stated: “Education is a vital force
in the reformation of fallen men and women. We must quicken the intellect, inspire
self-respect, excite to higher aims, and afford a healthful substitute for low and
vicious amusements. Education is, therefore, a matter of primary importance in
prisons, and should be carried to the utmost extent consistent with the other
purposes of such institutions.”
A hundred years later, legislation from The Office of Correctional
Education in the U.S. Department of Education enacted Public Law 101-392, which
states that “Congress finds and declares that education is important to, and makes a
significant contribution to the readjustment of incarcerated individuals to society.”
The focus of CE programs is to keep the students current with their class
assignments from their home, and from their schools, to enhance academic skills, to
help maintain the fragile educational relationship between youth and education, and
to provide remedial education. The aim was to aid in transition to the next
educational situation, and incorporate specialized education methodology that
meets minimum state educational standards. Educational programs for incarcerated
adults and youth had served a variety of goals and objectives, which included
controlling behavior and reducing violence and tension. It has provided a method
for inmates to broaden their understanding and knowledge in academic and
vocational skills. Quality in morals and civic responsibility could change their
personal behavior and values; reducing recidivism, and providing a more educated
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
work force to support the overall operation of the institution (Dell Apa, 1973;
Rider-Hankins, 1992). Although education is a vital component of each individual
correctional facility, it is not the primary goal of most intervention or rehabilitation
sites but the behavior modification (Gehring, 1988).
A cornerstone for all curriculum development and implementation in
juvenile court schools is based on awareness that each student who enters a
program is a unique individual with a personal learning style. Different
backgrounds, academic levels, and learning difficulties, are taken into consideration
(Price and Orange County Department of Education, 1998). The curriculum is
individualized for instruction, and for each academic course to meet the specified
educational need of each student. It includes literacy and basic education, academic
studies, vocational education, and training. The creative and cultural activities are
included with the physical education and sports, and the accessing of information
resources. Interpersonal communication, thinking, and functional life skills may
play a large part in CE programs. Teaching strategies and instruction shown to be
effective in student learning and attitudes have been:
1. Literacy programs using computers (CEA, 1988; Jones, 1989).
2. Case management of individualized educational plans (IEP) developed from
assessment test, while the youth is incarcerated and released to the appropriate
school (CEA, 1997; Mayer, 1982).
3. Involvement of special education youth in their own individualized education
planning (IEP) process (Eggleston, 1990; Freasier, 1986).
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. Community involvement or outreach programs designed to promote
communications and partnerships between local agencies (C E A , 1988).
5. Integration of law related education which focused on cognitive and social
interaction skills, citizenship, and the legal system via interactive teaching
strategies (Buzzell, 1988).
6. Experimental programs such as wilderness programs that rely on group
interaction, and provide action-oriented tasks and personal and group
empowerment (Mixdorf, 1989; Van Nagel, 1986).
7. Moral education programs based on sensitivity training, values and ethics.
8. Life skills, alcohol and drug abuse, personal development, work assistance,
communications, and problem-solving.
9. Basic reading instruction, cooperative learning strategies, and experiential
sessions.
10. Social interaction emphasized over content (Gehring, 1989; Ferguson, 1990).
In regards to educating juvenile of risk, Springer (1994) stated:
Juveniles with all of their challenges, strengths, and
weaknesses, gifts and liabilities must accomplish successful
minimum standards in literacy including: (1) develop reading
proficiency; (2) gain computational proficiency; (3) learn to
follow oral and written directions; (4) effectively communicate
in standard English; (5) solve simple and complex problems;
(6) interact with formal groups; and (7) to learn in an
increasingly technological society.
The facilities used to house-incarcerated youth vary by state and county.
The nation’s largest school system for juvenile offenders is the LACOE, which is
comprised of two divisions, Juvenile Court and Community Schools (JCCS) and
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Alternative Education (DAE). They have juvenile halls, camps, residential homes,
children centers, community education centers, and day schools. These sites
provide comprehensive accredited educational programs to an estimated 55,000
juveniles annually, ages 13-18 years old. This school district has the most complex
array of “risk” factors of any educational district in the United States. In 1998,
more than two-thirds of the students in this school district were arrested for felony
convictions (Los Angeles County Office of Education, 1998).
Most COE follow the curriculum standards of the California Department of
Education State Framework, and are aligned with the course of study. Both serve
as a guide to a balance, comprehensive curriculum in eight areas: english/language
arts, history/social science, mathematics, science, health education, technology,
physical education, and visual and performing arts. The curriculum needs to be
relevant to older adolescents who have failed in the regular educational system
(Eggleston, 1990; Forbes, 1991). There is a positive effect of combining discipline
with a controlled environment and a structured educational program, especially for
the learning disabled students (Bullock, 1986; Westat, 1991). COE offers students
support services such as counseling by a psychologist, social workers, resource
specialist, language speech specialist, counselors, and work experience. Even with
these additional experts, teaching in correctional facilities are extremely difficult.
There are many reasons for this difficulty, including the incarcerated short length of
detention, differing learning abilities, and inadequate or poor facilities. Excessive
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student to teacher turnover contributes to the difficulty in maintain in g quality
programs, rehabilitation, education, and control (Amster, 1984).
Student learning and achievement has improved for a greater portion of
incarcerated students who are wards of the court, are required to attend school
everyday, and have passing grades (Wolford and Snarr, 1987). Many of these
incarcerated youths who seldom or never attend school may now have their best
opportunity to complete a high school education. Sherer (1983) found that
students’ interest in learning and achievement resembled a U-shape design, with a
decrease during the middle of their incarceration time and an increase as they
approach their time of release. Studies have shown that these students were able to
learn twice as much subject material than if they had attended a traditional
classroom. Factors taken into account for this increase in learning can be the
advantage of a small class size, 17:1, student-to-teacher ratio. A controlled learning
environment, probation staff on site, and rewards and consequence through the
juvenile court system are also key factors for this improvement.
Types of Schools
There are five types of schools that are operated by LACOE in collaboration
with the Los Angeles County Probation Department: juvenile camps, halls,
community, residential schools, and independent study programs.
The Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools Juvenile Hall (JH)
schools are short-term detention facilities, where wards are placed pending action
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
by the juvenile court. Probation staff have instrumental roles in all daily operations
and planning of youths’ incarceration. They handle discipline problems and
monitor all student activities. Collaboration between probation staff and teachers
are considered imperative in all the schools. JH is the first stop for virtually all
youths in the juvenile justice system. Students remain in JH for an average of just
21 days. Students take assessment test that adapts to their level of proficiency in
the basic subject areas in reading, writing and math. Afterwards, an Individualized
Learning Plan (ILP) is established within the student’s first days in the program.
The student has a 300 minutes instructional day, which is highly structured by
teachers. Students are assigned to a living unit contingent on what type of alleged
crime was committed. All minors are placed in grade level by age and do
individualized class work.
The Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools has Juvenile Camp
(JC) schools, which are highly structured and have long-term detention facilities,
where a student is placed after he or she has been in JH and orders are placed by the
court. Probation staff plays a critical role in handling discipline problems and
monitor all youth activities during their incarceration. Students are assigned to
single-sex camps, and stay from 3 to 12 months. Some camps are designated as
maximum security or minimum security camp depending on the type of crime and
age of the student. The difference is in the level of supervision, confined quarters
and counseling programs. Each student receives an individualized education plan
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(IEP), and while most have basic skills education similar to JH, there are other
special learning programs. Some camps offer pre-vocational and job-training
programs ranging from fire suppression to carpenter apprenticeship program. Some
youths participate in outdoors and wilderness programs. Other camps offer
military-style boot camp training, or comprehensive drug prevention curriculum.
Family preservation programs is another type of intermediate sanction. It is
involved in highly individualized and family and home-based treatment that deals
with offenders in the context of their family and community problems. There is one
children’s center that is a 24-hour emergency shelter, where neglected, abused, or
abandoned children and teens are placed by the County Department of Children’s
Services. These youths stay at the center until they can be returned to their home,
sent to foster care, or to a group home. Since the student’s stay is short-term, the
educational program is similar to the JH. The youths are offered educational
programs K-12.
The Division of Alternative Education supervises all Community Schools
(CS), which are considered transition schools. Unlike the other school institutions
identified above, about 75% of the youths are on probation through the courts, the
other 25% are expelled youths who are referred by the local school district. The CS
program helps youths avoid further problems with the law and prepares them for
transition back to their home school districts and community. Full-time students
receive 300 minutes of classroom instruction and can also participate in an after
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school activities program for 180 minutes. The majority of students return home to
their family, others may be placed in a group home. There are community-based
programs involving the public and private sectors, and parents or guardians are
involved.
The Residential School (RS) or group homes is under the Division of
Alternative Education. In the RS, youths are placed by the juvenile court who have
determined that serious instability in their own homes are among the negative
influences that are promoting their delinquent behavior. They stay an average of 6
to 12 months where they work toward long-term educational and behavioral goals.
These schools typically offer pre-vocational training, drug, alcohol and family
counseling, psychological counseling, and pre-natal care and parenting programs,
all of which supplement the regular instructional program. Students are encouraged
to participate in field trips, part-time employment, training programs and academic
courses in public school, adult or community colleges. Students are educated like
those in JH or CS. There are specialized counselors and usually intense therapy for
the youth with behavior conditions — psychological, social, emotional or mental.
Probation plays an active supervisory role for these youths.
The Division of Alternative Education operates the Independent Study
Programs (ISP), which are designated for students having a family, personal, or
economic hardship. These students are generally 17 years and older. They receive
an hour or more of instruction and consultation with a teacher each week to review
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and discuss assignments. The program offers students a flexible school schedule.
Services and programs are available depending on the individual’s circumstances
and needs. The probation department or the court usually authorizes youths to be in
this program.
Most COE offer auxiliary services to students who need to further their
academic skills, employment competencies, and life skills. These are some of the
services offered: (1) counseling services by licensed school psychologist, clinical
social workers, and speech pathologist; (2) support services by resource specialist,
language speech specialist, transition counselors, and transcript evaluators; (3)
tutoring by college students to assist youths in basic skills; and (4) the Job Training
Partnership Act which prepares students for the workplace.
A cornerstone for all curriculum development and implementation in
juvenile court schools are based on awareness that each student who enters a
program is a unique individual with a personal learning style. Different
backgrounds, academic levels, and learning difficulties, are taken into
consideration.
CE consists of the educational activities undertaken by persons who are
under the supervision of the judiciary, whether sentenced or awaiting trial, and
whether serving a sentence in jail, in person, or in the community. CE activities are
focused on the perceived educational needs and interest of those under supervision
of the judiciary. The curriculum is individualized for instruction and for each
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
academic course to meet the specified educational need of each student. It includes
literacy and basic education, academic studies, vocational education and training,
creative and cultural activities, physical education and sports, and the accessing of
information resources. Interpersonal communication, thinking and functional life
skills may play a large part in CE programs. There are opportunities to develop
personal skills that may enable participants to act in a socially acceptable manner
and to form and maintain relationships and vocational skills to gain and keep
employment. Educational activities also serve as a vehicle for changing attitudes.
Education may in this sense “correct” criminal behavior and contribute to
rehabilitation/habilitation (Bedford, 1994).
Students who have special education needs may be generally grouped in
three categories: self-contained classrooms, resource centers, and mainstream
classrooms. These students average three years or more behind grade level of their
peers. Many correctional schools rely on curricula aimed at younger pupils and do
not try to relate the curriculum to the world outside the classroom. There is a great
need for a course of study designed appropriate for special education students
which parallel the content of curriculum for regular correctional students.
Curriculum needs to be relevant to older adolescents who have failed in the regular
educational system (Rutherford, Nelson, and Wolford, 1986; Eggleston, 1990;
Forbes, 1991). Many correctional educators suggest that an ideal model for special
education services in correctional schools would be a continuum of services
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
incorporating educational, vocational, and special education needs. Educators
should have degrees, or at the minimum, course in CE and special education. A
coordination of efforts by those who service the handicapped juvenile in
correctional schools is essential (Rider-Hankins, 1992).
Classroom and School Learning Environment
What is the role of the classroom and school learning environment? One of
the most compelling findings with the corpus of reviewed research is that the
demonstration of how much a student learns depends on the identity of the
classroom to which that student is assigned.
JC and JH security of incarcerated youths is a top priority, and in some
respects the teacher is a member of the security team along with probation staff.
This is especially true in CEC where teachers are essentially the on-site enforcer of
safety and security for other staff and students. Unfortunately, teachers are often
unprepared for such responsibilities and the stress they encounter in a prison
environment. Snowden (1988) identified that bum out is a common response, and
maintaining the morale, motivation, and quality of faculty is a problem for many
CE programs. He identified several characteristics as essential for prison faculty,
including listening skills, the ability to curb their own aggressive behavior, and the
capacity to work effectively in a relaxed classroom atmosphere. Instructors must be
able to work on a one-on-one basis with the inmate, because large student turnover
makes modular individualized instruction the most effective format.
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The educator entering juvenile CE not only must adjust her teaching style to
a new population of youths defined as “high risk,” but also adapt to working in
either a youth detention center, maximum-minimum security camp, a treatment
center for drug, alcohol, physical or sexual abuse, behavioral modification or
learning basic academic skills. Although education is a vital component of each
individual correctional facility, it is not the primary goal of most intervention or
rehabilitation sites, but behavior modification (Gehring, 1988). Teaching in a non-
traditional school environment clearly challenges many new teachers. As a result,
beginning and veteran teachers from traditional schools face many challenges
including teaching students with special needs ranging from no skills to post 12th
levels, and all in the same clasroom (Rider-Hankins, 1992). In these classrooms,
teachers may be expected to play several roles similar to those identified with
family, school, church, and community. This is particularly evident in the
increasing number of young parents who were themselves unsuccessful in school,
and needed support for their own children’s education (Hixson and Tinzmann,
1990). The court school settings consist of school structure, academic climate,
teacher practices, and collegiality. Problems with workload and non-teaching
duties appear to have the greatest effect on orderly school climate and teachers’
attitudes toward their jobs. In a public school, a principal’s leadership is the
strongest prediction of school climate. In a correctional institution, it is the
administrator who sets the tone (Hawkins, 1987).
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A Juvenile Court School (JCS) is generally referred to as a hall, jail, or
camp facility. Communications between the home school and the JCS are usually
rare due to staff limitations at the facility, therefore, the parent or guardian is
burdened with providing information to both the home school and the facility.
The focus of CE programs is to keep the students current with their class
assignments from their home, schools, enhance academic skills, help maintain the
fragile educational relationship between youth and education, provide remedial
education, aid in transition to the next educational situation, and incorporate
specialized education methodology that meets minimum state educational
standards.
Providing educational services in a JH and CC setting is difficult due to the
very short lengths of stay. Youths are placed in detention for control and protection
while they await disposition of their cases. The short length of stay, differing
abilities, achievement levels, inadequate facilities, and excessive turnover, make it
difficult to develop and maintain programs that simultaneously rehabilitate,
educate, and control (Amster, 1984); however, detention facilities can provide
diagnostic screening and intervention for youth with learning and emotional
problems and make recommendations for appropriate services (Roush, 1983; Jones,
1989). Detention education programs have to take into consideration the following
rights which they are charged with safeguarding: (1) child’s right to be held in an
environment conducive to normal growth and development; (2) the community’s
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
right to protection from youth; and (3) the court’s right to immediate access to
youth for hearings (Bullock, 1983).
The school schedule is similar to that in public school, although many
institutions include group counseling sessions during the day (Westat, 1991). Many
classes are composed of youth functioning at a variety of grade and ability levels.
Therefore, much of the teaching is done via individualized learning packets or
books emphasizing basic skills. Sherer (1983) found that students’ interest in
learning and achievement resembled a U-shape with a decrease during the middle
of their incarceration, and then an increase as they approach their time of release.
Transition between the institution and the community is a key area and one
which has been largely neglected, especially for special education students.
Successful negotiation of this phase helps deter recidivism. Ideally, the continuum
between educational services in the institution and those provided in the
community, the probation department, children services, human resources, social
services and the parents or guardians, should be unbroken. Unfortunately, there is a
lack of communiction between agencies and institutions. A poor system of
transferring school records with an overlapping or duplications of course work exist
especially for those identified with special education needs.
Most youths do return to their families and are in transition to CS and RS
and remain dependent on the social service and juvenile justice systems. The
youth’s age is the single factor that appears to be most closely related to returning
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to school and remaining enrolled. The younger the youth the greater the likelihood
that he or she will continue in school (Wolford, 1985; Maddox, 1984; Forbes, 1991;
Bullock, 1990; Watanabe, 1990). They listed the following goals for transition
programs which represent three main areas of focus (educational, vocational and
social): (1) self-help/social/survival skill training; (2) improvement of self-control;
(3) development of family and community involvement; (4) student awareness of
social services; (5) development of crime-free attitudes; and (6) remediation of
attitude deficiencies.
Many incarcerated youths seldom or never attended school; therefore,
attending a correctional facility may be their best opportunity to complete a high
school education. Studies have shown that these students were able to learn twice
as much subject material than if they were in a traditional classroom because the
class size is small, 17:1, student-to-teacher, and a control learning environment
(Haberman, 1986; Wolford, 1987; Forbes, 1991). The teaching strategies, remedial
and basic skills, are more appropriate for this kind of student. Students do not have
the option of being truant or late to school. There is the positive effect of
combining discipline with a controlled environment and a structured educational
program, this is especially true for learning disabled student. Unfortunately, for
most Correctional Education (CE) students, this is their final educational
experience (Bullock, 1986; Ball, 1982; Westat, 1991).
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The COE follows the curriculum standards of the California Department of
Education State Framework and are aligned with the course of study. Both serve as
a guide to a balance, comprehensive curriculum in eight areas: english/language
arts, history/social science, mathematics, science, health education, technology,
physical education, and visual and performing arts. The curriculum needs to be
relevant to older adolescents who have failed in the regular educational system
(Eggleston, 1990; and Forbes, 1991). There is positive effect of combining
discipline with a controlled environment and a structured educational program,
especially for learning disabled students (Bullock, 1986; Westat, 1991).
The COE offers student support services such as counseling by a school
psychologist, clinical social workers, resource specialist, language speech specialist,
transition counselors, transcript evaluators, and work experience teachers. Even
with these added human resources, providing education in correctional facilities is
extremely difficult. There are many reasons for this difficulty, including the
incarcerated short length of detention, differing learning abilities, and inadequate
poor facilities. Excessive student/teacher turnover contributes to the difficulty in
maintaining quality programs that simultaneously rehabilitate, educate, and control
(Amster, 1984).
Student learning and achievement has improved for a greater portion of
incarcerated students who are wards of the court, and are required to attend school
everyday and have passing grades (Wolford and Snarr, 1987). Many of these
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
incarcerated youths who seldom or never attend school, may now have their best
opportunity to complete a high school education. Sherer (1983) found that
students’ interest in learning and achievement resembled a U-shape design, with a
decrease during the middle of their incarceration time and an increase as they
approach their time of release. Studies have shown that these students were able to
learn twice as much subject material than if they had attended a traditional
classroom. Factors taken into account for this increase in learning can be the
advantage of small class size, 17:1, student-to-teacher ratio. A controlled learning
environment, on-site probation staff, and rewards and consequence through the
juvenile court system, are also key factors for this improvement.
Teachers and Teaching
According to Ciuros, Jr. (1988) on court/correctional educators:
They are asked to take individuals who have been failed by all
society’s basic institutions and to work miracles with them.
Whether we are talking about hardened career criminals, or
children who have no stable home base for academic
achievement, and often inadequate diet, clothing, parental
support, health care and other basic elements, we are expected
to overcome all obstacles and make them better.
The Departments of Education and Juvenile Justice have recognized that
educators for youths associated with “risk” face a multitude of challenges.
Teachers who work with youths in correctional schools typically have no
specialized training to prepare them to educate difficult students, especially in the
context of atypical instructional settings. Many teachers who have had careers
teaching incarcerated youths in these atypical institutions did not plan this, and
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
most of them learned the skills needed on-the-job. There is also a significant
problem in terms of the teacher training for regular, special education, and
correction or alternative education. While colleges and universities offer credential
programs for public school teachers at the elementary and secondary levels, few, if
any, offer courses or credentials in alternative and correctional programs. Many CE
are trained in a particular discipline such as, reading, math, language arts, science or
history, and teachers identified with the field, which includes special education,
adult education, or counseling. They were all basically trained and educated for
traditional public school teacher roles; virtually none were trained to be JCCAT.
Teaching and being a teacher in CE is atypical from the modeled tradition
K-12 public school sector. Teaching in a non-traditional classroom is probably far
more challenging because student’s academic ability can range from being illiterate
to higher education levels, and it can be all in the same classroom. The most
significant difference of teaching in CE is that all the students are associated with
“risk” factors. Teaching in a traditional classroom is a formidable task. For
teachers in CE settings, these variances are pushed to the extremes because students
have social, behavioral, emotional, psychological, and instructional challenges that
they are unequipped to handle (Ashcroft, 1992). These school settings undertake
the challenge of motivating students, sometimes hostile, often recalcitrant students
to succeed in educational endeavors, perhaps for the first time in their lives. The
potential risk to students and staff in these types of learning environment are
enormous. Correctional teachers must possess different styles and methods to
motivate all the students. Garfunkel (1986) stated on correctional education and
educators:
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Must develop effective education programs for students who
have not succeeded in an educational system that was designed
to meet student needs, or deal with their circumstances.
Correctional educators must work each day to bring
educational success to “high-risk” students who display an
awesome variance of personalities, learning styles, and
ambitions. They must possess different teaching styles and
methods to motivate the “high-risk” students who either lack
motivation or skills (Fox, 1989; Wiley, 1989; McDougall
1990).
In the non-tradition classrooms, the teacher uses direct instruction of
teaching. Teacher directions are brief and includes audio, visual, and kinetic types
of teaching. There are a number of interactive group activities and plenty of
language and discussion. They are problem-centered rather than subject-centered.
Duguid (1988) stated that the content of the curriculum is less crucial than the
pedagogy chosen and the quality of the teachers. As Springer (1994) concluded on
student learning and teacher style:
Our task is to identify both the individual student’s learning
needs (through an assessment of learning styles and behavior
factors) and the appropriate methods for empowering students
to maximize their learning. To the extent that we tailor our
teaching strategies to the diverse learning needs of our students,
we can be confident that each student is developing to his or
her full potential. We must end the debilitating effects of
“dyspedagogia.”
Most correctional educators use a non-traditional approach to teaching, in
contrast to the traditional approach (see Table 7). The non-traditional approach
focuses on any educational method apart from the traditional classroom, wherein
the teacher and curriculum methodology is expanded to encompass many focal
points of learning to accommodate the unique needs of the individual (O’Neil,
1995).
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 7. Educational Approaches
Traditional Non-Traditional
Brings success to most students through: Believes in success for all students through:
1. Knowledge expectations: student is 1. Attitude expectation: student learns to
predetermined academic content. given focus on goals and personal growth.
2. Skills expectation: student arrives with 2. Skills expectation: student is taught the
process skills. process of successful learning.
3. Attitude expectation: student arrives 3. Knowledge expectation: curriculum is
ready to learn and prepared to follow student-driven, individualized content.
the program.
Most significant is the philosophical stance and chronological aspects of
learning that is emphasized by the traditional and non-traditional environment. In
K-12 public schools system, knowledge, skills, and attitudes are pursued in this
order. In CE schools, the student learning is the reverse: attitudes, skills, and
knowledge. Other approaches would be based on the assumption that “high risk”
students already possess social attitudes such as responsibility, respect for others,
work ethics, and an ability to establish life goals. For most students, attitudes and
skills must be prioritized for learning (Ashcroft, 1987).
A key issue that teachers encounter is the adverse working conditions. In all
CE facilities, the security of students and staff is a top priority, and in many
situations the teacher is a member of the security team along with the probation
staff. Most teachers are often unprepared for such responsibilities. Security needs
are emphasized and teachers need to be vigilant for the potential of violence.
Problems with workload and non-teaching duties appear to have greatest effect on
orderly school climate and teachers’ attitudes toward their responsibilities (Rider-
Hankins, 1992).
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher Factors
To understand what influences may contribute to a teacher’s decision to
enter, stay, or leave the profession, the factors examined were: (1) teacher
demographics; (2) teacher morale; (3) personal characteristics; (4) job satisfaction;
(5) self-efficacy; (6) locus of control; (7) effective schools; and (8) school climate.
Teacher demographics
The demographic factors of teachers are significant variables used in all
research and descriptive studies. These factors may include age, gender, ethnicity,
degrees, credentials, and years of experience. In a study on the demographics of
5,002 teachers in Texas noting who stayed in the teaching profession, data showed
that based on gender, 82% were females and 79% were males (Texas Education
Agency, 1995). In terms of ethnic background, there were no sufficient variations
on who stayed in the teaching profession. Eighty-four percent African American,
82% Hispanics, 81% Whites, and 78% of both American Indians and Asians,
remained in teaching. Teachers with the fewest years (less than 1 year experience,
16%) of experience are most likely to leave while those most experienced (25 years
or more) stay, 83%. Teachers with low salaries were more likely to leave the
profession after their first year. Those staying were slightly more likely to change
districts that offer higher than average salaries. Teachers with advanced degrees
tend to leave teaching at higher rates than teachers with a bachelor’s degree. Those
who scored highest on teacher certification examinations were more likely to leave
the teaching profession. School conditions such as size and type of community
were not related to attrition rates. Characteristics of students, minority, or
economically disadvantaged, were not related to attrition.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 1994) indicates that
male and female teachers tend to stay, move, and leave the teaching profession at
approximately the same rate. Caucasians, African Americans, and Hispanics tend
to stay in the profession at a higher rate than Asians, or Pacific Islanders. Teachers
under age 30 are likely to leave their profession more frequently than those teachers
ages 30-59. Salary studies indicate that teachers that were being paid at comparably
lower rates were more likely to leave the profession (Mumane, 1991). This is
especially true in the early years of a teaching career, when the retention rate is
lowest and the attrition rate is the highest. The higher the education degree, the
higher the attrition rate. Other factors that may determine whether a teacher decides
to stay or leave teaching are the grade point average, rank and class and college
major. Teachers with the greatest ability and potential have quit teaching in greater
numbers than their less able counter parts (Hart and Murphy, 1990). A retention
study revealed that only 37% of teachers in the top 10% of the measured verbal
ability on the Scholastic Appitude Test (SAT) remained in teaching. More than
60% of those in the lowest 10% continued in the profession (Educational Testing
Service, 1948-96). Turnover rate has been higher among teachers in the fields of
science and mathematics because of more opportunities presented and a higher pay
scale. A longitudinal study of teachers from Indiana revealed that by the end of the
5th year of teaching, 70% of the chemistry and physics instructors had left teaching
(Kirby and Grissmer, 1993).
Gender and age are factors that influence the teaching profession
immensely. Older, new teachers, especially women, have been found to have
higher moral qualities (Thomson and Schuck, 1987), strong and positive self-
efficacy, and are more likely to remain in teaching. Karge (1993) discovered that
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
older female teachers were more susceptible to the stress of elementary grade
teaching. Mature-age teachers (ages 24-52) also scored higher in psychological
maturity and demonstrated higher levels of self-realization (Haipt, 1990).
No relationships exist between gender and work commitment, career choice,
retention (Sclan, 1993), or stress (Butler and Smith, 1989). No age or grade level
taught, grade point average, subject area, or personality were found to differentiate
stress levels in new teachers.
Pigge and Marso (1995) found no relationship between new teacher
concerns and basic academic skills, their major field, family characteristics, ACT
scores, or locus of control. When looking at work commitment, career choice, and
retention, Sclan (1993) noted no distinctions between White and Black teachers. In
general, only age (more mature) and gender (female) had positive effects on the
experience of beginning teachers.
The type and location of a school has significant implications in teaching.
Most urban schools, in contrast to suburban and rural schools, have a larger student
population. Generally, the larger the district and school size, the more bureaucracy,
and they are not always aware of the needs of children, at least where students are
in lower socioeconomic status (Wallberg, 1989). For teachers, there is an added
problem; that is, these larger schools in lower socioeconomic communities tend to
develop a lesser “sense of community” among teachers that do other schools (Bryk
and Driscoll, 1988). The nature of work in urban schools is hurried, focused on the
short term, and subject to interruption. The number of “at-risk” factors contributes
to the contextual environment. Few teachers and administrators are easily able to
be reflective practitioners who eagerly seek complex information to improve their
work. Instead, they are often harassed and they look for information that will solve
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the problem of the day (Louis, 1996). Urban teachers participate less in policy
decisions, and administrators treat them with less respect. They have fewer
opportunities to engage in significant work with each other and are generally
subject to unprofessional working conditions (Corcoran, 1988).
Baker and Grayson (1994) suggested that innate teacher characteristics seem
to have a considerable impact on teacher retention. They stated: “These factors
seem to act as predictors of teachers who are able to experience successful teaching
commitment to the profession, and satisfaction with their career. Ultimately, it is
these teachers who choose to remain in the profession.”
Teacher morale
Since the 1990’s state departments and local school boards have sought for
solutions on how to keep the best qualified teachers in the classroom in the face of
an escalating school-age population boom. In general, if students are to learn more,
quality teachers must be retained in the profession. Sweeney, Warren and Kemis
(1991) suggested that the perceptions of the teaching profession, early years of
teaching, teacher morale and job satisfaction may have a relationship to retention.
Gallup (1984) surveyed the American public and asked who would be
pleased to have their child become a teacher. Of nearly 2,000 public school
teachers in 1984, 53% indicate they would not advise a young person to pursue a
career in education, 52% felt they were not respected by society, and another 20%
were dissatisfied with their job as a public school teacher. When teachers were
asked to rank twelve occupations (teacher, physician, clergy, principal, judge,
funeral director, politician, baker, and advertiser) in terms of contribution to the
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
good of society and societal prestige, they ranked themselves first in contribution
and last in prestige (Metropolitan Life, 1985).
In a publication called Conditions o f Teaching (NCES, 1990), 61% of the
teachers reported morale at their school was either “fair” or “poor.” Nationwide,
only 50% of the teachers said they were more enthusiastic about their work since
they started teaching. On the issue of students, 46% of secondary teachers and 19%
of elementary teachers said apathy was a serious problem compared to 30% for
secondary and 13% for elementary.
Report on working conditions are as follows: 96% of the teachers spent an
average of $250.00 of their own money for supplies; 70% said counseling services
are “fair” or “poor;” 64% had less than one hour a day of preparation time, or none;
56% said political interference in education had increased; 41% said support
services were “excellent” or “good;” 38% said their class was too large; and 18%
were assigned to instruct on subjects they were unqualified to teach. On the status
of the profession, 40% of the teachers reported that if they had to do it over again,
they would not become a public school teacher.
The NCES (1994) conducted a study to determine the percentage of teachers
who would select teaching as a career if they could choose over again (based on
statistics in five-year intervals). Beginning in 1961, 77% of teachers indicated that
they would certainly or probably choose teaching as a career again. The
percentages remained fairly consistent until 1981 when it dropped substantially to
46%, and remained around that percentage until 1991 when it increased to 59%.
Attrition rates are not only a problem with our experienced teacher, but with
a beginning teacher — the rate is quite alarming. The California Teacher
Association (1997) studies found that 26% of the public school teachers left the
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
profession the first year and 50-60% left within the next five years. The main
reasons for leaving were as follows: (1) accepting a higher paying job; (2) an
inability to cope with classroom management; (3) student discipline; (4) the
physical demands of teaching; (5) managing the instructional demands; (6)
difficulties managing interpersonal relationships with parents and staff; (7) the
sacrifice of leisure time; and (8) justification of work. Personnel department also
was a factor because of inefficient and cumbersome hiring practices, barriers to
teacher mobility, and lack of attention to teacher qualifications.
Marso and Pigge (1997) performed a longitudinal follow-up study of 552
teacher candidates in a Midwestern university teacher preparation program. A
follow-up study indicated that seven years from the beginning of the teacher
preparation program, 29% of the candidates made a successful transition to full
time teaching; 28% became certified as teachers but did not enter the profession;
22% made a limited transition (taught part-time); and 21% never became certified
teachers. The degree of the candidates’ success in making the transition from
students to teachers was found to be related to gender, their major, initial degree of
assurance about becoming a teacher, and time at which the candidates had first
decided to become teachers. Those teacher candidates who felt certain or very
certain about becoming teachers increased the commencement of teacher
preparation and were almost twice as likely to actually complete the program and
actively teach than those who were uncertain about their choice of teaching as a
profession.
Teachers who were certain about their choice of careers were found to be
twice as likely to complete their certification program and go on to actually teach.
They also found that those with a high external locus of control had more positive
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
attitudes toward teaching after their first year’s experience. Teacher autonomy,
school leadership, and perceptions of principal support and encouragement, have
positive effects on new teacher views of their work commitment, their career
choice, and retention. Elementary teachers are generally less discouraged and more
likely to stay in the profession than middle and secondary teachers (Sclan, 1993).
In Michigan, between 1972-1978, 21% of the new teachers had left at the
end of the first year, and another 13% at the end of the second year. In North
Carolina, 11% of the new teachers quit after one year and another 8% after two
years (Mumane, 1991). In Pennsylvania, between 1988 and 1990, the National
Center for Educational Statistics Schools showed an attrition rate of 18.3% after
one year of teaching between 1978-88 (NCES, 1990).
A longitudinal study of 50,000 full-time Indiana public school teachers was
conducted between 1965 -1987 (Kirby, Grissmer, and Hudson, 1991). The results
indicated 20% of the new teachers quit after one year of teaching, another 13% left
by the end of the second year, and by the end of the fourth year, a total of 52% of
the new teacher cohort had quit teaching.
Beginning teachers have traditionally been expected to fulfill the same
responsibilities as teachers with many years of experience without the support or
guidance of expert practitioners. Moreover, some reports indicate that because new
teachers have no seniority, they often receive the most challenging teaching
assignments, exacerbating the stress of the already difficult first year of teaching.
(Darling-Hammond, 1995). Frase (1992) concluded that these teachers were placed
with the most difficult students, difficult grade levels, and the roughest schools.
Many new teachers were frustrated with: (1) a lack of student motivation;
(2) classroom discipline; (3) adjusting to the physically demanding needs of
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teaching; (4) engagement in instructional tasks; and (5) sacrificing personal leisure
time.
Beginning teachers are also the most unstable or mobile group. They are
generally younger and have more alternative career opportunities. Some of them
are not educated or trained to work in difficult conditions. Beginning teachers have
less investment in the teaching profession; therefore, they have greater financial
freedom to leave. Many are single with fewer responsibilities, and career
opportunities are growing increasingly more accessible for minorities (Gold, 1992).
Personal characteristics
There is mounting evidence which suggest that personality variables are
related to successful teaching behaviors. Personality has shown evidence in
predictors of diverse criteria (Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, and McCloy, 1990)
such as job performance and selection of staff. Many researchers and educators
argue that personality assessment should be an essential component of teacher
preparation programs and in selecting future teachers (Baldwin 1990; Cureton and
Cook, 1990).
Baker, Grayson, Guarino, and Colyar (1998) studied student teacher
characteristics that were predictive of completing a successful teaching experience
in metropolitan inner-city schools. Research was conducted on identifying
differential characteristics of pre-professional student teachers who just completed
their first semester of student teaching and were transitioning their first year of
teaching full-time professional teaching. The importance of having a great deal of
background information about the student prior to admission to the pre-service
program could be critical to both the initial success of a teacher and the desire to
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
remain in the profession (Hargreaves, 1994; Kagan, 1992; Sabers, Cushing and
Berliner, 1991).
Items were developed into three factors that reflected “types of people”
rather than personalities: “efficacious and confident;” “conscientious and
responsible;” and “collaborative and supportive.” The findings concluded that the
measure of self-esteem and self-efficacy (“efficacious and confident”) contributed
most to the measure of job performance (student teaching effectiveness). It
suggests that if one has a positive self-image, they would be happier, feel more in
control, and see more challenges and the intrinsic value of their profession. While
“efficacious and confident” scale was clearly aligned with the student teaching
competence rubrics, the “collaborative and supportive,” and “conscientious and
responsible” scales appeared not to be aligned with the rubrics. The rationale being
that there may have been limited opportunities for student teachers to engage in
either professional or social integration activities in their environment.
Norton (1997) examined reflective thinking as it relates to instructional and
personality characteristics of effective teachers. During semi-structured interviews,
42 first-year elementary school teachers identified characteristics of effective
teachers and pre-service activities that, for them, were significantly related to
professional development. The predominantly white, female participants
represented three very different undergraduate academic institutions and a variety
of public school teaching assignments. Specifically, for these novice teachers, the
effective practitioner was a caring, committed, highly creative, and a proficient
reflective thinker with a strong internal locus of control. These characteristics were
not isolated traits, but instead were related. Participants identified six pre-service
activities that may maximize growth in technical expertise, teaching artistry, and
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reflective thinking: clinical field experiences during methods and foundations
courses; micro teaching lessons; video analyses of student teaching performances;
weekly seminars for pre-service teachers during full-time student teaching;
reflective journals; and professor-modeled reflective thinking.
Ganser (1996) explored the beliefs and ideas of what pre-service and in-
service teachers held about themselves as teachers, the children they teach, and the
setting in which they taught at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. The
respondents consistently indicated that teacher factors, e.g., intelligence,
personality, background, and preparation program, contributed more to teacher
effectiveness than pupil factors such as intelligence and personality.
In an analysis using the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Pigge and
Marso (1994) used the personal and affective attributes of prospective teachers.
The finding suggested that aspiring teachers’ level of performance are likely to be
impeded by a personal preference for “sensing” or “intuiting” rather than using a
judging process. Pigge and Marso (1995), in a study of beginning teachers,
discovered that the “sensing” as measured by the MBTI was the personality type
identified with teacher concerns of new teachers. Someone considered to be a
“sensor” tended to be practical, realistic, factual and specific. New teachers with a
high external locus of control demonstrated greater satisfaction with teaching.
Those who were more internally controlled experienced significant declines in their
attitude toward teaching.
The Gallup Urban Teacher Themes (1993) identified eleven central themes
necessary for the teaching profession: commitment, dedication, individualized
perception, caring, involvement, empathy, positive, initiator, simulator, input and
concept.
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kourilsky and others (1993) sought to determine the relations between
generative teaching and personality characteristics of student teachers. Profiles of
“more effective” and “less effective” student teachers were compared with 97
elementary student teachers. The results indicated that: (1) effective teaching is
positively related to one’s ability to use generative teaching principles; and (2)
effective generative teaching is positively related to student teachers’ social
maturity, receptivity to criticism, and ability to incorporate suggestions from
critiques of their teaching.
Haipt (1990) studied 74 mature and college-age students to identify any
special personal qualities that could affect the teaching profession. They gathered
empirical data from both groups on personality characteristics, dominant
personality types, levels of self-realization and integration — the reasons for
becoming teachers and personal and professional goals. Using the California
Psychological Inventory (CPI), the twelve scales of the CPA on which the mature-
age students scored significantly higher than the traditional college-age students,
were emotional classroom climates, and were detrimental to low SES children.
However, they appeared to have no effect on the achievement of higher SES
students. Similarly, Solomon and Kendall (1979) concluded that low SES students
did best in warm, encouraging personalized classrooms, but high SES students did
best in more impersonal and academically demanding situations.
According to Rogers (1983), the facilitation of significant learning does not
depend on the teacher’s teaching skills, content knowledge, or methods of
curriculum planning, but upon the quality of the personal relationship between the
teacher and the student. “At-risk” students achieved more in classes that are
structured and conform to a daily routine. They found that low SES students
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
responded better to a higher degree of teacher control and structure and achieved
more than did higher SES students. High-anxiety students also preferred more
structured teaching situations as did highly compulsive students (Rubin, 1971;
Grimes and Allinsmith, 1961). Findings agreed with Maslow’s (1970) theory of
motivation, in which students who are deficient in safety needs required an
organized, structure environment, and incorporated some kind of routine on which
they could depend upon.
Peterson, Bennet, and Sherman (1991) studied the commonality of 12
successful elementary and secondary teachers from a large metropolitan district
who taught “at-risk” students. The commonality among the teachers were:
(1) creating a place of belonging and identify for students; (2) an academic
program that emphasized relevant applications; (3) teachers were willing to delay
instruction to discuss a conflict or fight; (4) use coaching strategies with students on
schoolwork, social skills, personal behavior, and problems; (5) place demands on
students for academic expectations; (6) set goals on academic and personal success;
(7) utilize teacher vision, experience, training and learning in handling disruptive
student and home environment situations; and (8) limit class to 12 students to
ensure individual instruction and accountability for misbehavior.
Barnes (1990) studied the interpersonal relationships of mentor and non
mentor teachers with “at-risk” students in a Texas high school in which one-half the
student body was considered “at-risk.” Using the mean ratings for teachers on the
Pupil-Teacher Rapport Scale, the higher-scoring teachers had: (1) a higher quality
of social interaction; (2) had more interest in the task at hand; (3) enjoyed being
with others; (4) an atmosphere of mild-moderate physical group tension; and (5)
positive emotional attitude.
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction has increasingly become an important factor in teacher
retention. Job satisfaction is defined as the feelings an individual has toward his or
her occupation (Locke, 1983). Often, job satisfaction is associated with extrinsic
and intrinsic rewards. Extrinsic satisfaction comes from rewards dispensed by the
organization such as salary and benefits, promotion, status, a safe environment and
job security. Some researchers indicate that those entering teaching place greater
emphasis on intrinsic rewards such as job satisfaction, educating youth, and service
over extrinsic rewards such as salaries (DeLong, 1987; Zimpher, 1989). According
to Dumaresq and Blunt (1984), job satisfaction and productivity are interwoven and
are keys to both the quality and excellence in successful schools.
Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1998) focused on the concept of core
self-evaluations, which were hypothesized to comprise of self-esteem, generalized
self-efficacy, locus of control, and non-neuroticism. The results indicated that core
self-evaluation had direct and indirect effects on job and life satisfaction. Statistical
and logical relationship among core evaluations, affective disposition, and
satisfaction, were explored. The dispositional approach to the study of job
satisfaction argues that there are relatively stable characteristics of the person that
affect job satisfaction independently to the attributes of the job or situation.
In a study of job and life satisfaction, Judge, et al. (1998) determination of
how individuals see themselves affects how they experience their jobs and their
lives, supported the “dispositional model.” They found that self-esteem and self-
efficacy contributed the most to a person’s core self-evaluation (how they viewed
themselves, other people, and the world as a whole). Locus of control was highly
correlated with self-efficacy. Those with a positive self-concept saw their jobs and
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lives more positively because they possessed the disposition that allowed them to
do so. Thus, it was posed that when people describe the attributes of their work,
their focus is not just external, but also, at least implicitly internal. Factor analysis
and causal modeling techniques identified two fundamental constructs. The first
construct was core self-evaluations, which was comprised of self-esteem, self-
efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. This fundamental self-appraisal showed
a direct influence on perceptions of work characteristics, job satisfaction and life
satisfaction. The second construct was the external core evaluations that appraised
one’s environment. In the model, the core self-evaluation has a direct causal
relationship with perceptions of work characteristics and also a moderating
influence on the causal relationship between perceptions of work characteristics and
job satisfaction. Core self-evaluations had a direct causal relationship with job
satisfaction, independent of the attributes of the job. It was discovered that core
evaluations of the self had consistent effects on job satisfaction, independent of the
attributes of the job itself. This means that the way in which people saw themselves
affected how they experienced their jobs and even their lives. People who
considered themselves worthy and able to cope with life’s exigencies brought a
positive frame to the events and situations they encountered, while people who did
not see themselves as worthy and able brought a negative frame to the same
situation.
Judge, Bono, and Locke (2000) tested a model of the relationship between
the core self-evaluation, intrinsic job characteristics, and job satisfaction. The core
self-evaluation was assumed to be a broad personality concept manifested in four
specific traits: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and low
neuroticism. The results of this study revealed that job complexity (the actual
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
attainment of a challenging job) was an important explanatory variable in the
relationship between core self-evaluation and job satisfaction, and persisted from
childhood to early adulthood.
Locke (1976) suggested the possible usefulness of looking at dispositional
factors. Staw and Ross (1985) found that job satisfaction is stable over time and
across job situations. Staw, Bell, and Clausen (1986) found that people
characterized by the trait of positive affectivity remained happy with their jobs
across a span of many years, despite life and job changes. Other research have
found that negative affectivity (a direct derivative of neuroticism) also significantly
influenced job satisfaction (Levin and Stokes, 1989; Watson and Slack, 1993).
An integral part of the dispositional model are perceptions of work
characteristics and what is a good job or occupation. Hackman and Oldham (1976)
developed a concept that attempted to understand what is a “good job” and what are
the characteristics of motivating jobs. They suggested that different workers react
differently to their job. Their research led them to conclude that five key
characteristics could be used to describe the motivating potential of a job. These
characteristics are: skill, variety, task identify, task significance, autonomy and
feedback. Their research found that the jobs scoring high in terms of a combination
of these five characteristics resulted in higher job satisfaction and productivity than
jobs scoring low. For a job to be intrinsically motivating, all five characteristics
must be simultaneously present, to some extent. Thompson, McNamera, and Hoyle
(1997) conducted a meta-analysis of 41 articles on job satisfaction and it concluded
that current research supported the “situational models” of job satisfaction. It
determined that three variables were important: (1) characteristics of the job
task(s); (2) characteristics of the organization; and (3) characteristics of the
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
employee. The meta-analysis also concluded that job characteristics contributed the
most to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of teachers. Current research supports
both the “situational” and “dispositional” models of job satisfaction in
consideration of the following variables: (1) characteristics of the job task; (2)
characteristics of the organization; and (3) characteristics (disposition) of the
employees. When teachers are involved, job characteristics and disposition appear
to contribute the most to job satisfaction which encompasses intrinsic rewards
related to the mission of teaching, which is critical for job satisfaction.
According to the NCTAF (1996), the major areas of dissatisfaction were:
lack of student motivation, lack of discipline, lack of recognition, and lack of
support from administrators. To a lesser degree, salaries, politics, personnel, and
parents were significant sources of dissatisfaction. Teacher attrition rates were
higher in high poverty schools, and those who left high poverty schools were more
probable to leave because of dissatisfaction with teaching, the same as those in low
poverty schools (NCTAF, 1996). Teachers who left teaching in 1994 were more
satisfied with all aspects of their new, non-teaching positions than those who stayed
in the profession. These former teachers indicated higher satisfaction than their
teaching peers with their influence over policy, professional prestige, resources
available, support from administrators and the manageability of work. Those who
left also viewed their salaries, general working conditions, and opportunities for
advancement as more favorable, than did those who remained in the profession.
Several studies have investigated teachers’ job satisfaction in relationship to
Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs, and discovered that lower level needs, e.g.,
job security, physiological needs, and belonging, were met in the teaching field,
while higher level needs, e.g., esteem and self-actualization, were not (Chapman
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and Lowther, 1982; Sweeney, 1987). Lester (1987) suggested that there were nine
key job satisfaction factors that were needed for further research: supervision, pay,
colleagues, working conditions, responsibility, work itself, security, advancement,
and recognition. Harris and Associates (1992) conducted a three-part nationwide
survey of 1,000 new teachers and discovered these satisfaction factors: rapport
with principal, satisfaction with teaching, rapport among teachers, salary, teacher
load, curriculum, facilities, teacher status, community support and pressure,
recognition and social prestige. Darling-Hammond (1984) reported that the
primary item giving teachers job satisfaction was being instrumental in the
students’ learning achievements, the intrinsic reward. In short, teachers derive the
greatest satisfaction from working with students and seeing them learn and succeed,
and not from any extrinsic system such as salary, benefits or working conditions.
A considerable amount of literature has been focused on teacher job
satisfaction as it relates to commitment to the profession and it appears to enhance
retention. A study by Shin and Reyes (1991) investigated the relationship between
teacher commitment to the school organization and job satisfaction. The research
revealed that commitment was a different form of satisfaction. Satisfaction had a
greater causal predominance over commitment and more predictive power than
commitment. Satisfaction would be a good predictor of commitment. Another
implication of the study was the importance of school administrators creating a
supportive environment to stimulate teacher satisfaction, which, in turn, would
yield a cadre of committed teachers and a lower attrition rate. When a teacher is
committed to teaching at a given site, retention was likely to follow. The
production of satisfied and committed teachers yielded professionals who found
value in teaching children (Sagor, 1992). The lack of administrative support,
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
particularly at the site level, has been cited as a primary reason for teacher attrition
(Jenkins, Jenkins, Hall, Ware, and Heintzleman, 1998; Natale, 1993). Chance and
Rice (1999) found that supervision and support were the most frequently cited areas
of dissatisfaction. Teachers reported that the rewards from working with children
observing student progress, recognition and help from administrators and teachers,
and having adequate resources were the most important sources of job satisfaction.
Other findings include teacher autonomy, curriculum, texts, teaching strategies and
a collaborative school culture, as having a positive effect on teacher retention
(Shepston and Jensen, 1997).
Self-efficacy
According to the behavior theory set forth by B.F. Skinner, behavior is
controlled by immediate consequences, and behavior patterns develop as a direct
result of the reinforcement individual experiences over a period of time. The
theoretical foundation of self-efficacy is founded in social cognitive theory
developed by Bandura (1997). This theory assumes that people are capable of
human agency or intentional pursuit of courses of action called triadic reciprocal
causation. This multi-directional model suggests that our agency results in future
behavior as a function of three forces: environmental influences, our behavior, and
internal personal factors such as cognitive, affective, and biological processes.
Essentially, we are products of the dynamic interplay between the external, the
internal, and our current and past behavior. Over the last quarter century, Bandura
has defended the idea that our beliefs in our abilities powerfully affect behavior,
motivation, and ultimately our success or failure. Hoy and Woolfolk (1993)
defined teacher efficacy as a teacher’s judgment of one’s capabilities to bring about
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students
who may be difficult or unmotivated. They noted that researchers have found few
consistent relationships between characteristics of teachers and the behavior or the
learning of students. A substantial body of research has indicated that self-efficacy
is related to task effort and performance, choice, persistence, resilience in the face
of failure, effective problem solving, and self-control (Ashton, 1985; Bandura,
1986; Gist and Mitchell, 1992).
Research on collective teacher efficacy has been limited based on the
findings by Goddard (1998, 2000). The research reported that collective teacher
efficacy was more predictive of elementary student’s math and reading achievement
than gender, ethnic background or SES. The report suggested that collective
teacher efficacy explained 53.27% and 69.64% of the between-school variance in
math and reading. This collective efficacy was not the simple aggregate of
individual perceptions of the self; instead, it was the individual perceptions of the
capabilities of the entire faculty in the school’s organization. It reflected what a
group of teachers can do rather than what an individual can do.
In a study of high school teachers, Kurz (2000) noted that goal consensus, a
component of organizational coupling, was more predictive than individual
personal teaching efficacy, which may be an important variable in the study of
collective teacher efficacy. In a related study, Newmann, Rutter, and Smith (1989)
noted that the variance in teachers’ own sense of efficacy in a given school could be
conceptualized as a measure of efficacy consensus, and this within-group consensus
may differ between schools. Newmann treated the within-school variance of
individual efficacy as a consensus variable in the prediction of collective efficacy.
Group efficacy consensus yielded the strongest effect on teacher collective efficacy.
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research has shown that persons entering the teaching profession have
placed greater emphasis on intrinsic rewards such as job satisfaction, educating
youth, and service related aims, than extrinsic rewards such as salaries and benefits.
The major ecological structure influencing teachers’ self-perception and satisfaction
was their performance in the classroom. Denham and Michael (1981) indicated
that it is related to student achievement, classroom management, teachers’
adaptation of innovations, teacher competence, and student performance. They
proposed that efficacy beliefs could be affected by teachers’ personal
characteristics, professional preparation, experiences in the classroom and
characteristics of their workplace. Bandura (1982) proposed that the higher the
level of self-efficacy, the higher the level of performance for the perseverance of
new teachers individually, as well as high attrition rate of beginning teachers in a
challenging profession. Individuals with high self-efficacy seem better able to deal
with work- and career-related difficulties (Stumpf, Brief, and Hartman, 1987).
Self-efficacy was highest during pre-service years and decreased with teaching
experience. However, some studies comparing efficacy ratings of pre-service and
experienced teachers have reported no differences and found pre-service teachers’
efficacy beliefs and commitment to teaching were only weakly related in their
comparison of experienced and pre-service teachers (Pajares 1996; Guskey and
Passaro, 1994).
Students of efficacious teachers generally have outperformed students in
other classes. Teacher efficacy was also related to students’ own sense of efficacy
and student motivation. Regarding teacher behaviors, efficacious teachers persist
with struggling students and criticize less after incorrect student answers (Gibson
and Dembo, 1984). They were more likely to agree that a low SES student should
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
be placed in a regular education setting and less likely to refer students for special
education (Podell and Soodak, 1993). Teachers with high efficacy tended to
experiment with methods of instruction, and seek improved teaching methods, and
experiment with instructional materials observed higher professional commitment
for efficacious in-service teachers (Allinder, 1994; Coladarci, 1992).
Student characteristics affect teacher efficacy and satisfaction. If students
are seen as having low ability, or as being unable to learn, teachers tend to lower
their expectations of their own ability to teach them. When dealing with
uncooperative students, teachers, because of their lowered sense of efficacy,
focused on discipline over instruction (Metz, 1988; Brophy and Evertson, 1981).
Rosenholtz (1987) suggested that a sense of control over one’s environment
may contribute to perceptions of efficacy. For teachers, work goals based on
intrinsic sources of satisfaction and self-efficacy were: curriculum, freedom and
flexibility in controlling the classroom environment, selecting materials, planning
the daily agenda, and exercising classroom discipline. These teachers were likely to
feel effective in teaching the revised curriculum than those not having freedom to
alter course work. Control over classroom discipline enabled teachers to decide on
the agenda and operation of the classroom, while the lack of control often makes
them feel hindered and ineffective. Teachers without control over the classroom
environment were unable to make independent decisions concerning daily work
goals and work operations (Mohrman, Cooke and Mohrman, 1992; Metz, 1988).
Studies on classroom discipline suggested that a lack of control could
contribute to stress in trying to cope with the daily problems of teaching and
produce a lowered sense of efficacy and job satisfaction. Research on secondary
schools indicated that teachers with various classes each day, subject matter, grade
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
level, student academic abilities, or class sizes, could pose a different set of
circumstances and challenges could affect these classes so that the teacher may be
viewed as having personal self-efficacy (Schwab and Iwaniki, 1982; Raudenbush
and Bryk, 1986).
Locus of control
Much attention has been given to the psychological construct of locus of
control since its introduction by social learning theorist in the 1950’s. The term
locus of control refers to a construct that originated from Rotter’s social learning
theory (Rotter, Chance, and Phares, 1972). He proposed the concept of locus of
control as the perception of the individual’s ability to exercise control over the
environment. In social learning terminology, locus of control is a generalized
expectancy pertaining to the connection between personal characteristics actions
and experienced outcomes.
Locus of control refers to assumed internal states that explain why certain
people actively, resiliently, and willingly, try to deal with difficult circumstances,
while others succumb to a range of negative emotions. Locus of control implies the
degree to which individuals believe that they control events in their lives (internal
locus of control), or believe that the environment or fate controls events (external
locus of control). Taylor (1982) summarized that persons with internal locus of
control tend to view themselves as having more control and personal responsibility
for the direction of their lives than do externals, which are likely to feel themselves
powerless to control events. Thus, internally focused individuals may take both an
active role in the direction of their education, career futures and personal
responsibility for decision making and for gathering the kinds of information
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
necessary to such decisions. Externals, in contrast, may believe that career plans
are largely influenced by chance factors, and thus fail to invest time and energy in
information gathering and career decision making activities.
Locus of control is also linked to self-efficacy in psychology literature.
Thibodeau (1997) wrote that one important determinant of self-efficacy is one’s
locus of control. Self-efficacy is described as our belief about self-competence and
effectiveness. People with self-efficacy are likely to be more successful, persistent,
less depressed, and anxious than others (Gecas, 1989). Thus, locus of control is an
important indicator of self-efficacy that may describe a student’s willingness to risk
choosing a non-traditional delivery mode, as well as to persist in the new learning
environment.
Several studies have shown that internal locus of control is associated with
problems focused coping strategies, and individuals with an internal locus of
control are less likely to suffer the ill effects of stress. Similarly, locus of control
beliefs significantly moderated the relationship between changes in job demands
and psychological strain over time. Research has suggested a link between locus of
control and coping with organizational change (Callan, Terry, and Schweitzer,
1994; Newton and Keenan, 1990). Two studies involving organizational change
found that employees with internal locus of control reported more positive attitudes
in their organizations experiencing changes than employees with external locus of
control. Given the general pattern of associations between locus of control and
major life and work-related events, one would expect similar relationships between
this construct and individual differences in coping with organizational change
(Nelson, Cooper, and Jackson, 1995; Lau and Woodman, 1995). Indeed, there is
evidence for a robust relationship between internal locus of control and individual
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
adaptation to change within work organizations (Callan, Terry, and Schweizer,
1994).
This concept of internal versus external locus of control has been effectively
applied to occupational behavior. It is one area in which an individual difference
variable has been extensively and systematically examined with relation to work
motivation. In a longitudinal study, an abbreviated Rotter locus of control scale to
study the work-related behaviors of 976 young men concluded that internal control
was associated with race, years of formal schooling, weeks worked and hourly
wages (Furnham, 1992; Frantz, 1980). A study by Becker and Krzytofiak (1982)
examined the effect of the labor market discrimination over a two-year period with
a sample of 2,857 persons on locus of control beliefs. They found that perceptions
of employment discrimination influenced the level of externality among Blacks,
over and above their racial status. The results provided powerful evidence that
work experiences and labor market discrimination can significantly affect locus of
control.
Flammer and Vardi (1981) tested a number of hypotheses regarding the
effect of locus of control on work-related behavior. They believed that in
organizational settings that facilitated career self-management, internals more than
externals would exert more effort toward attaining the jobs they wanted. There
would be more specific strategies used to attain preferred jobs such as upward or
perceived mobility, contingent upon personal factors such as skills and competence,
experience and performance rather than seniority or sponsorship. Spector (1982)
suggested that because internals tended to believe that they can control the work
setting through their behavior, they should attempt to exert more control than would
externals, provided that control is perceived to lead to desired outcomes and
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rewards. He noted that internals tended to respond to reinforcement contingencies
(incentives) on the job, prefer participative supervision, demonstrate initiative, and
tend to take personal action on the job. Externals on the other hand, seemed
unresponsive to incentives (they wanted them but will not necessarily work hard for
them) and preferred directive supervision.
O’Brien (1982) examined the internal-external determinants of occupational
choice and career planning, and concluded that internals performed better than
externals on the job, and obtained jobs with higher skill utilization and occupational
status. Internals showed: (1) greater job mobility as a function of their career
planning and choice; (2) internals got better job because of greater effort, work
motivation and therefore promotion; and (3) internals got promoted because they
choose task behaviors that approximate more closely the behaviors required for
optimal job performance. Spector’s (1986) meta-analysis of locus of control
studies found that high levels of perceived internal control were associated with
high levels of job satisfaction overall and individual facets such as commitment,
involvement, performance, and motivation, as well as lower levels of physical
symptoms, emotional distress, role stress, absenteeism, intent to leave, and actual
turnover. There should be no doubt that locus of control variable accounted for an
important and significant amount of individual difference variance in work
motivation and productivity (Furham, 1992).
Marso and Pigge (1991) found that student teachers who are more anxious
about teaching and feel they have less control over their environment (external
locus of control) have lower self-ratings of future success. Thus, counseling and
other strategies aimed at reducing anxiety and building self-esteem would increase
internal control. A study of 83 teacher volunteers from large urban schools and
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
districts in the southwestern U.S. completed a demographic survey to measure
locus of control and a job satisfaction survey. It concluded that there was a
relationship between locus of control and job satisfaction in secondary school
teachers. Those who had greater internal locus of control were more satisfied with
their jobs in terms of their school setting, as well as with teaching as a career (Bein,
Anderson, and Maes, 1990).
Cadavid and Lunenburg (1991) conducted an investigation on how teachers
at different degrees of burnout perceived stressful situations, and how they
perceived the control and teacher burnout. Using the Internal-External Locus of
Control Scales, and the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the study sampled 191 public
school teachers from 13 schools and concluded that teachers who have a custodial
pupil control ideology would most likely experience more emotional exhaustion,
de-personalization, and a lack of personal accomplishment. Also, teachers with a
custodial pupil control ideology appeared to have an external locus of control.
Pigge and Marso (1995) studied 150 prospective teachers on attitude, anxiety, and
personality measures. As candidates progressed through teacher preparation,
anxiety decreased and attitude remained high and positive. Introverted candidates
expressed more anxiety and experienced a smaller decrease in anxiety than
extroverts. On the other hand, internally controlled candidates reported less anxiety
than candidates with average or high externality. People who have high internal
locus of control had a generalized expectancy that reinforcers or outcomes would
depend largely on their own efforts, whereas people who have high external locus
of control had a generalized expectancy that outcomes will depend largely on luck,
fate, chance, or other external forces. Internal locus of control people have a
generalized expectancy that personal effort would make a difference, whereas,
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
external locus of control people had a generalized expectancy that their efforts will
make little difference. External locus of control people felt relatively helpless in
relation to events (Pervin, 1996).
Effective schools
Effective school research is one of the most important topics about
education. Research abounds on the woes of urban schools. Student violence, high
dropout rates are low teacher morale, high rates of turnover, alienation, shrinking
resources and old facilities, have become the norm. Urban schools which serve
predominantly low-SES students and minorities, rank at or near the bottom of
districts and states in various measures of student performance. Furthermore,
minority students who attend urban schools are much more likely to join gangs,
become pregnant, and drop out of school; however, not all urban schools are
doomed to failure. Characteristics of many effective schools included strong and
supportive instructional leadership, high teacher expectations, clear goals, a safe
and orderly environment conducive to student learning, careful evaluation of pupil
progress, a schoolwide academic emphasis, and salient parent involvement.
(Haycock and Navarro, 1998; Kozol, 1995; Poplin and Weeres, 1992; Valencia,
1991; Rosenholtz, 1985).
Effective schools research has played a major role in establishing links
between school climate and student achievement (Edmonds, 1986; Rutter, 1979),
which provided evidence that schools do make a difference, and that there are
recognizable and measurable differences between effective and ineffective schools
(Lightfoot, 1983). However, effective schools research has not been able to
ascertain how such schools develop. In fact, the research provided a caution that
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
efforts to change ineffective schools into effective schools would probably fail
without an understanding of change processes and the commitment of key
participants to change (Boyd, 1991). As a result, while schools tend to have certain
common characteristics, there is little understanding how a school becomes
effective or ineffective. Furthermore, because much of the research is correlational
and based on the definition of learning centered and standardized test scores (rather
than a variety of learning assessments), these schools are effective because they
possess those characteristics that are natural results of becoming effective schools
or making sure that the precise elements are identified. More importantly, we do
not understand the interactions and relationships of the elements which
characterized effective schools. Boyd cautioned that the findings from effective
schools research have repeatedly been found to be simplistic, as well as the research
on which the findings are based upon. Research has not shown that schools can
simply decide to become effective or to adopt certain practices and develop
effectiveness.
What we do know about the change process in those schools that have
undergone significant improvement is that change is often arduously slow and must
be precipitated by particular catalysts (Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991). Yet,
additional research has shown that merely making structural changes in a school
does not necessarily produce the kind of improvement for what we hope (Weiss,
Cambone, and Wyeth, 1992). In a successful urban school, there exists a particular
culture or ethos, or climate which pervades the school, and which stakeholders in
the school recognize as central to the school’s success. This phenonmenon is
labeled “community,” or “sense of community” (Sergiovanni, 1994; Rutter, Smith,
Lesko, and Fernandez, 1992). Using data from the prospects study of the
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Congressionally Mandated Study of Educational Growth and Opportunity, the
individual characteristics that distinguish academically successful,
or resilient, elementary school students of minority and low socioeconomic status
(SES) backgrounds from their less successful, non-resilient counterparts were
identified. Four distinct models of the risk factors and resilience promoting
features of schools were tested: the effective schools model, peer-group
composition, school resources, and the supportive school community model.
Results suggested that minority students from low-SES backgrounds were exposed
to greater risks and fewer resilience promoting conditions than otherwise similar
low-SES white students. Greater engagement in academic activities, an internal
locus of control, efficacy in math, a more positive outlook toward school, and a
more positive self-esteem were characteristic of all low-SES students who achieved
resilient outcomes. The most powerful school characteristics for promoting
resilience was represented by the supportive school community model, which,
unlike the other school models, included elements that actively shielded children
from adversity (Borman and Rachuba, 2000).
Research has little to say about the qualities of a teacher teaching
credentials, teachers competency testing, teacher salary and benefit, or the years of
service to a single school. Successful schools and unsuccessful ones are equally
well staffed by veteran teachers. Teachers who remain in their schools for long
periods of time may improve with each year of experience, or they may simply
reach a performance plateau and proceed no further. Given the personnel rules of
most public schools, which reward seniority more than performance, it is quite
plausible that teacher experience and student achievement are unrelated (Chubb and
Moe, 1990). The differences in the teaching staff of high and low performance
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools appear to have much more to do with the quality of teacher service than
with its quantity. A larger proportion of teachers are in successful schools than in
unsuccessful schools. This may suggest that better schools have teachers who are
objectively better teachers, with perhaps superior training or greater competence. It
can also mean that better schools have teachers who are subjectively better; that is,
who are held in higher esteem by their principal. Furthermore, teachers held in high
regard by their principal are more entrusted with relatively greater responsibility
and discretion. Teachers in high performance schools have more efficacy than
teachers in low performance schools. Teachers with more influence over matters
affecting their teaching would feel more efficacious. Teachers in low performance
schools present much more of a problem of absenteeism. Influence, efficacy and
absenteeism are likely to represent a force of some independent importance in the
educational process. Together, these facts suggest that this is the basis for figuring
out what is meant by teacher professionalism. Truly professional teachers are the
ones who are sufficiently knowledgeable, wise, dedicated, and can be trusted to
work effectively without extensive direction and supervision and to contribute
constructively to the overall operation of an effective school. The more closely a
personality is aligned to the profession, the greater the probability of teacher
success with “high-risk” students and in different correctional environments
(Quinlan, 1991). When principals encourage teachers to participate in planning and
policymaking outside of the classroom, there is greater mutual respect of
professional knowledge, skills, and judgment. Schools with these qualities tend to
buoy teachers’ feelings, helping them to overcome the isolation, and victimization
by students, parents, and administrators that they often experience in the classroom.
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Brownsville Consolidated Independent School District and Hopkins
(1999) conducted a survey of effective school practices in 1995 to 1996. It
examined key characteristics, common elements, and unique qualities that
contributed to several elementary schools and one middle school in a large Texas
school district, which became recognized statewide as exemplary. Results indicate
that high quality teaching, setting high expectations, monitoring standards,
rewarding results, using resources that facilitated the teaching process, creating a
cooperative work environment, and having effective and frequent communication,
were all significant factors. What set these schools apart were staff commitment,
creativity, persistence, professionalism, and instructional methods. One of the
fundamental elements of this success was the collaborative culture that was
dedicated to continuous improvement.
School climate
How schools are organized as workplaces strongly influences teachers’
overall teacher satisfaction and efficacy. The two types of interaction that take
place in a school organization were either “loosely coupled” or “integrated”
authority structures. The differences in these two authority structures are in the
nature of communications among staff and in the consensus on organizational goals
in the school versus the formal organization of rules and procedures (Bryk and
Driscoll 1988; Tack and Patitu, 1992).
Weick’s (1976) phrased “loosely coupled” as an organizational structure in
which the activities of person “A” have little impact on person “B” performance,
and vice versa. Educational activities constituting the technical core of instruction
in a typical public high school are loosely connected to the school principal and
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
superintendent. Secondary school teachers often work in isolation not only from
their administrators but also from their peers, which limits their knowledge of
school activities outside their own classrooms (Lortie, 1975). This detachment of
instruction from the formal management system is a buffering mechanism that
allows public schools to operate as institutions that respond to external demands
without necessarily altering the operations (Weick, 1976).
The loose coupling of instruction with authority mechanisms is related
largely to the environmental linkages of schools and their constituencies. Chubb
and Moe (1990) suggested that the bureaucratic organization of public schools
renders them both less willing to respond to their clients, parents and students and
more able to respond to the political environments to which they are accountable.
Managers of daily classroom activities are separated from one another so that each
operates in an information vacuum about the whole organization (Forsyth and Hoy,
1978). Classroom doors are closed, teachers’ salaries are negotiated through third-
party mechanisms, teachers are infrequently or never evaluated, and daily
supervision of teachers is typically absent. Thus, the cultural linkages, the structure
of social interaction within the school, must either succumb to the bureaucratic
structure or provide a more integrated functioning of authority. These schools
exhibit a division of labor between organizational functions resulting in ambiguity
about the central purpose of the school and uncertainty about each member’s role
(Schwab and Iwaniki, 1982). A consequence of such uncertainty is the lack of
consensus about school goals and mission, and teachers having different goals for
their students (Fuller and Izu, 1986). Interaction among different group members
are often assumed to result in conflict since various agendas require different
procedures to resolve daily problems (Hoy and Ferguson, 1985). Such schools tend
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to develop a bureaucratic and legalistic authority structure, wherein members must
move through formalized mechanisms to interact with other members. Colleague
interaction is limited, which results in little communication about work either
among teachers or between the principal and teachers. Consequently, teachers’
control over the environment is hypothesized to determine their efficacy and
satisfaction associated with their work (Herriot and Firestone, 1984).
The other type of structure is called “integrated,” which exhibits a strong
sense of central purpose and a shared value system about education (Purkey and
Smith, 1983). Effective schools seemed to operate under unified organizational
goals creating a social consensus about the academic mission of the school. The
convergence of beliefs about the organizational mission has been related to a
school’s environmental linkages to its external community (Scott and Meyer,
1988). Schools with a strong central purpose work to coordinate the technical core
operations with this purpose; thus, teachers would regularly monitor operations at a
larger scale than only in their own classroom (Edmonds, 1979). Classroom
activities are supplemented by a consensus among the group on the school’s agenda
and communication about teaching that occurs outside the classroom. With less
reliance on classroom operations to determine one’s performance, personal control
over specific classroom may be supplemented by schoolwide choices and possibly
more consensus about classroom environments. Communication among members
is part of the daily school operation, and it is more common about work-related
activities (Rosenholtz, 1985 and 1987). Certain structural features of schools
appear to facilitate cultural linkages among organizational participants, in
particular, smaller size and private (especially Catholic), school governance
structure (Bryk and Driscoll, 1988). The amount of communication that teachers
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
have with their colleagues and principals has been shown to contribute positively to
several teacher outcomes including overall level of satisfaction, performance and
organizational efficacy. The factor of colleague communication has been a
participant in such an organizational culture to have access to both intrinsic and
extrinsic sources of information about their performance. Such teachers are better
able to establish external goal-directed criteria about their performance (Rutter,
1986; Little, 1982).
In a study by Alltounian (1992) to determine relationship between school
organization, school climate and teacher job satisfaction, 10 middle schools
involving 198 teachers participated in the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire and the
Organizational Climate Descriptor Questionnaire - Rutgers Secondary. The study
concluded that teachers working within the interdisciplinary middle school
perceived a greater job satisfaction and positive school climate of trust, esprite, and
engagement, than teachers in a departmentalized pattern that were perceived to be
more closed with higher disengagement and little satisfaction. The factors of
teacher work load, principal control, and frustration, indicated no significant
differences.
A research study by Lee, Dedrick, and Smith (1991) explored the links
between school organization, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction of secondary school
teachers, and the relationship between a teacher’s sense of control over classroom
practice and self-efficacy. A sample of 8,488 full-time teachers in 354 Catholic and
public high schools showed that principal leadership, communal school
organization, orderly environment, and average levels of control granted to teachers
influenced efficacy. Kreis and Brockopp (1986) sampled 60 school teachers from
public and private school in New York to investigate the relationship between
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers’ perceived degree of autonomy within the work situation and their sense of
job satisfaction. It concluded that teachers defined their autonomy and perception
of job satisfaction as limited to the classroom environment.
Conley (1989) sampled 42 elementary schools and 45 secondary schools in
New York State on organizational work characteristics that contributed to teachers’
career dissatisfaction and how they viewed themselves as professionals. It
concluded that teachers with infrequent contact with supervisors and peers,
experienced a higher level of career dissatisfaction. Interaction and communication
among teachers and their supervisors were important because it provided
information and instruction needed to perform their jobs as well as colleague
support.
A study of 1,802 teachers in Kansas City to identify the relationship among
the context variables of sense of efficacy, teacher empowerment, and school
climate, revealed that schools that had greater collegiality had significantly higher
reading and math achievement scores (about three months) than those with less
perceived collegiality. Also, efficacy was strongly related to both classroom and
school decision-making influences. School atmosphere tended to be related to a
lack of impediments to effective instruction and collegiality of teachers (Moore and
Esselman, 1992). Brophy and Good (1982) found that teachers were the most
concerned with classroom atmosphere, and that affective needs of students tended
to be low achievement oriented, while high achievement-oriented teachers
attempted to promote learning and were academically more successful with all
students.
Baker and Matakovich (1999) designed a School Status Survey for the
purpose of school improvement planning in secondary schools. The basic premise
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was that only the teaching staff could effectively set priorities and guide schoolwide
reform and improvement efforts. Using the California Department of Education
(CDE) and Western Association of School and Colleges (WASC) as a framework,
four criteria were established: (1) overall school performance and effectivity,
which implied the general effectiveness of the total school program; (2)
collaborative and participatory involvement of the faculty that emphasized staff
participation in professional development, daily school operations, and effective
instructional programs; (3) student services, personal, academic, and motivation,
which determined how proactive the school was in preparing students for a
successful future; and (4) systematic integration of instructional technology, which
included items for teachers and students to utilize technology in vocational
activities in community-related and public service work. The survey concluded that
all four scales had a considerable closeness among items. This study was found to
be useful in studying how school environments were perceived by teachers.
Summary
Correctional education for incarcerated adults began in the late 18th
century; however, it was not until the late 20th century that correctional teachers
and educators gained some public and profession attention and support due to
increasing juvenile crime rates since the 1980’s.
There has been an extensive amount of research about public and private
school teachers, less about adult correctional teachers, and virtually nothing has
been known about JCCAT. As such, issues related to the historical background of
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
juvenile and adult corrections were investigated to provide an educational and
institutional context for understanding.
A study by Sweeney, Warren, and Kemis (1991) suggested that a career path
model for teachers is based on four determinant factors: (1) personal and
background factors — age, gender, academic achievement; (2) employment factors -
- qualifications, work conditions, rewards, commitment; (3) satisfaction factors —
job satisfaction, satisfaction with student teaching; and (4) preparation factors —
student teaching and a sense of efficacy. This study will provide information
relative to these four factors. This research was designed to provide both
qualitative and quantitative data on JCCAT personal characteristics and job
satisfaction factors. As Fullen and Stiegelbauer (1991) stated:
The teacher remains the key element in the success of the
educational organization. Therefore, it is critical that teachers
remain motivated and committed to their profession in order
for the school and its students to be successful. Teacher
selection, as in any occupation, is critical to the successful
development and growth of an organization. Many teachers
who are prepared for traditional public schools, are unprepared
for the non-traditional (court/correction and alternative
schools). Without proper education, training and course work,
the possibility of high attrition rates is not only possible, but
highly probable.
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study was designed to determine if there were any relationships among
demographic background, personal characteristics, school effectiveness, and job
satisfaction, between juvenile court/correction and alternative education teachers.
Any significant relationships among these variables may assist county offices,
school districts, human resources, and administrators, in teacher selection,
induction, placement retention, and evaluations policies. The research
methodology and procedures described in this chapter were divided into six
sections: (1) Research Questions; (2) Sample Population; (3) Instrumentation; (4)
Administration and Data Collection Procedures; (5) Data Analysis; and (6) Design
of the Study.
Research Questions
1. What is the demographic profile of secondary juvenile court/correctional, and
alternative education teachers?
2. What personal characteristics are associated with teacher job satisfaction?
3. Is there any significant relationship between the demographic variables and
personal characteristics, locus of control, school effectiveness and job
satisfaction?
4. What is the relationships of the core self-evaluations, efficacious and confident,
conscientious and responsible, collaborative and supportive, the locus of
control, and school effectiveness, as predictors of teacher job satisfaction?
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sample Population
The subject pool for this study were juvenile court/correction and alternative
education teachers from the Los Angeles County Office of Education, Division of
Juvenile Court and Community Schools and the Division of Alternative Education.
The participants were all secondary teachers. Most surveyed teachers worked in
the classroom, others were in support services such as reading or language speech
specialist, psychologist, and resource specialist. All teachers were allowed to
participate in the study regardless of their experience, credentials, age, or other
background information.
To further expand the research, teachers from several types of educational
facilities or programs were involved: juvenile halls, camps, residential schools,
community schools, independent study, and teenage mothers. These teachers were
representatives of the entire County of Los Angeles, which encompasses a 3,000
mile radius, and distinct urban, suburbs, and rural areas. A total of 54 schools were
selected for this study in consultation with directors and principals. These
variations of school locations, and type and size of school, are important when
collecting data on job satisfaction. Educators relate more positively to smaller,
suburban school districts (Jolly, 1999). As an organization, LACOE serves as a
collaborative partner with 83 local school districts.
Instrumentation
A survey instrument (see Appendix B) consisted of 82 items. The first 14
items asked statements about the respondent’s personal background. The other 68
items were related to personal characteristics, expanded job satisfaction, school
effectiveness, and locus of control. A five-point Likert response format was used
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with indicators of strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, or strongly agree, to
measure the strength of the responses.
Teacher demographic information
The teacher demographic information was generated from the Teacher
Characteristic Survey, Form 797st (Baker, 1998). A total of 14 items identified as
factors were used: gender, age, ethnic background, degree, credential, employment
status, years of teaching, before LACOE, at LACOE, school assignment, grade
level, type of class, and student stay. The purpose for this information was to
establish a teacher profile.
Personal characteristics scale
This survey was modeled after the research of Baker (1998), and Baker,
Grayson, and Colyar (1998), at the University of Southern California. Using the
Teacher Characteristics Survey, Form 797st, it identified differential characteristics
of pre-professional student teachers and teachers who had successfully completed
one or more years of teaching. The results of Form 797st had: ‘Efficacious and
Confident’ alpha reliability of .82; ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ alpha
reliability of .80; and ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ alpha reliability of .81.
The blueprint for constructing the original item pool was strongly
influenced by Clifton and Nelson (1990), who identified nine personal “themes” or
reappearing patterns of behavior in specified settings as a hypothesis for expert
teachers (e.g., achiever, stimulator, command, etc.). This model has been
empirically supported by Harding and Harter (1993) across-themes and composite
scores. It was influenced by the Five Factor Model of Personality (FFM) (Fiske,
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1949; Costa and McCrae, 1992; John, 1990), and a meta-analysis by Salgado
(1997), which was supported as a useful predictor of job performance.
The initial form was designed to provide insight on characteristics that
might be useful when making professional choices for students and their academic
advisors. The original sample of students included teacher education majors and
non-majors. The abbreviated form Teacher Characteristics Survey, Form 797st,
was created to ensure that the general characteristics being sampled were, for the
most part, embedded in an education context. Out of the original 68 items, 42
provided the sample. These items were subjected to a principal component factor
analysis, and three reliable factors were identified and transformed into rating scales
that seemed to reflect “types of people,” rather than single “themes” or personality
characteristics. Using Form 797st, 21 of 30 items in this measure were
incorporated into the current study. The three scales and a sample statement of
each are as follows: ‘Efficacious and Confident’ persons are achievers, in
command and efficacious, productive, and motivators — “ In most situations, I am
resourceful, ” ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ persons are task-oriented, seldom
late to work, have self-discipline, persistent, and well organized - “ For most
assignments, I do very good follow-up work;” ‘Collaborative and Supportive’
persons are motivating team players, and create a positive, productive and
professional environment — “ I would describe myself as a very helpful person. ”
Locus o f control scale
Levenson’s (1981) Intemality (I), Powerful Others (P), and Chance (C)
scales represent three separate components of the locus of control construct. The I,
P, and C, subscales are derived from Rotter’s I-E Scale and written specifically to
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assess components or attributions for control. The IPC was developed from a larger
36-item measure that was reduced following item analysis and correlations with the
Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. The locus of control is within degrees
to allow for multi-causation, and makes a distinction between personal and
ideological statements by the use of the “first” person rather than describing people
in general. The items contained no wording that suggest modifiability of the
specific issues presented, and there was no social desirability bias in these scales
(Levenson, 1981). The I, P, and C scales have been used in a wide variety of
samples including students, reformatory prisoners, adults in different walks of like,
psychiatric patients, and members of some non-American cultures.
In terms of reliability, the internal consistency for a student sample of 152,
the Kuder-Richardson reliabilities were r = .64 for I; r = .77 for P, and r = .78 for C.
Similar estimates were found among 115 adults (.51, .72, and .73). The Spearman-
Brown split-half reliabilities were r = .62, r = .66, and r = .64 for the three scales.
Test-retest reliabilities with a one-week interval range between r = .60 and
r =.79, while a seven-week interval produced values between r = .66 and r = .73.
Factor analysis supports the independence of the three subscales. The validity of
the convergent for the P and C subscales have been found to correlate with each
other from r = .41 to r = .60, whereas the P and C scales correlated with I between
r = .25 and r = .19. Rotter’s I-E Scale the P and C subscales produced values of r =
.25 and r = .56, respectively, while the I scale is correlated negatively, r = .41. In
this study, all 24 items of the orignal instrument were used.
Each scale was viewed as independent and used in a profile of causal beliefs
as identified with a sample statement as follows: (i) Internality (I) measure the
extent to which people believe that they have control over their own lives — “ My
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
life is determined by my own actions; ” (ii) Powerful Others (P) Scale concerns the
belief that other persons control the events in one’s life — “ My life is controlled by
powerful others', ” and (iii) Chance (C) Scale measures the degree to which a person
believes that chance affects his/her experiences and outcomes — “ I t’ s chiefly a
matter offate whether or not I have a few friends or many friends. ”
School effectiveness scale
The overall school effectiveness scale was derived from the School Status
Survey, Experimental Form 997 (Baker, 1997; Baker and Matakovich, 1998;
Matakovich, 1999) that used the California Distinguished High School Criteria, and
standards of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges as a basis for faculty
participation in school reform and improvement efforts. The central purpose was to
provide a secondary school improvement planning process. The focus of this study
was that only the teaching staff itself can effectively set priorities and guide
schoolwide reform. This model was supported by Baker and Matakovich (1998),
Imber (1990), and Conley (1989).
The reliabilities for the four scale descriptors in this study were: (1) Overall
School (Program) Performance and Effectiveness, r = .83; (2) Collaborative and
Participatory Involvement of the Faculty, r = .85; (3) Student Services: Personal,
Academic, and Motivation, r = .84; and (4) Systematic Integration of Instructional
Technology, r = .82. The common thread in the items was its reference to the
“whole” rather than the technical aspects of its “parts.” There were 13 items in this
study that defined the Overall General Effectiveness of the total school program.
The five criteria of this scale and a sample statement were as follows:
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Vision, Leadership, and Culture — The vision of what all students should know
and be able to do was shared by all segments of the school community, and the
evidence of learning results is in place. “The entire school community actively
supports the school in achieving its vision and goals. ”
2. Curricular Paths — All students are engaged in a thinking, meaning-centered
academic foundation, reflecting current educational research and practice. “ In
general, students receive instruction which is based on current research and
exemplary practices. ”
3. Powerful Teaching and Learning — Instructional practices emphasize high
expectations for all students. “ Students are expected to be responsible and
productive and hold high expectation for themselves. ”
4. Assessment and Accountability — Student assessment, and if there is strong
evidence that assessment was linked to the school’s goals. “There is evidence
that assessment is closely aligned with the school’ s vision, goals and
schoolwide learning results. ”
5. Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth — All students can learn in
a challenging and rigorous curriculum, become independent learners, and
achieve the school’s learning results. Support was provided within and beyond
the classroom. “ A high level core curriculum is provided to all students. ”
Expanded job satisfaction scale
Job satisfaction was measured using two instruments. The Job
Characteristics Model (JCM) by Hackman and Oldham (1976) was regarded as one
of the most influential theories ever presented in the field of organizational
psychology. It has been used in numerous studies and job redesign interventions
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
over the past two decades, and has been extensively reviewed (Taber and Taylor,
1990). The majority of research has supported the validity of the JCM, although
critiques and modifications have been offered (Roberts and Glick, 1981). In 1980,
Hackman and Oldham studied perceptions of work characteristics (autonomy,
feedback, task variety, identity, and significance) and were identified as the most
accepted framework for explaining relationships between job characteristics and
outcomes (Glick, Jenkins, and Gupta, 1986; Griffin, 1987). The premise of this
theory was that objective characteristics of individual jobs primarily determine
individuals perceptions of and responses to tasks (Fried and Ferris, 1987). In the
job characteristics literature, the job characteristics are those characteristics as
perceived by the worker. These perceived job characteristics are directly influenced
by objective characteristics. According to the theory, what is important is how the
job is perceived, not what the job is, objectively.
Hackman and Oldham (1976) established the first Loci of Work Satisfaction
intrinsic factors (the job itself) into a Five Dimensions of Motivating Potential
Model. Any given job could be analyzed, utilizing these five dimensions for its
motivating potential. The job could then be redesigned to eliminate what was
bothering the workers that were assigned. For a job to be intrinsically motivating,
all five characteristics must be simultaneously present to some extent. These items
and a sample statement are:
1. Skill variety — the degree to which a job requires a variety of challenging skills
and abilities. “ My job provides much variety. ”
2. Task identity - the degree to which a job requires completion of a whole and
identifiable piece of work. “ My job allows me the opportunity to complete the
work I start. ”
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Task significance — the degree to which the job has a perceivable impact on the
lives of others, either within the organization or the world at large. “ My job is
one that may affect a lot o f other people by how well the work is performed. ”
4. Autonomy — the degree to which the job gives the worker freedom and
independence in scheduling work and determining how the work will be carried
out. “ My job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom
in how I do my work. ”
5. Feedback — the degree to which the worker gets information about the
effectiveness of one’s efforts, either directly from the work itself or from other
item. “ My job provides feedback on how well I am performing as I am
working. ”
This research was constructed from a five-item teacher satisfaction survey
to assess teacher internal factors (teacher attitudes) and external factors (alternative
career choice). These items were taken from other instruments or were created
specifically for JCCAT. The items and statements are:
1. Job satisfaction (teacher attitude): “ I am satisfied teaching high risk students. ”
2. Staff development (teacher attitude): “There are opportunities for personal
growth in my job. ’’
3. School placement (teacher attitude): “ I am satisfied with the school I am
assigned to.”
4. Job advancement (career choice): “ I would like to leave teaching for an
administrative position. ”
5. Teacher attrition (career choice): “ Iam likely to leave teaching in less than
three years. ”
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Administration and Data Collection Procedures
Appropriate protocol procedures were followed in the administration, as
well as in the collection of survey instruments (see Appendix B). Permission to
conduct the study was obtained in July 2001, with a formal letter, and an abstract of
the dissertation proposal. This was presented to Mr. Larry Springer, JCCS
Director, and Mrs. Judy Fenderson, JCCS Area Administrator. A presentation was
made by the researcher at the principal’s meeting, with instructions and deadlines
for administering the survey to all teachers. A subsequent meeting was held with
Mr. David Flores, DAE Director, and Ms. Dana Flouse-Jones, Coordinator-in-
Charge of the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Programs, to
get more teacher participants. In addition, a letter from the teacher’s union was
written by Mr. Mark Lewis from Los Angeles County Employees Association, to
authorize participation.
The distribution and collection of the teacher surveys were overseen by
school principals, assistant principals, or designees. Cover letters to the teachers
were enclosed explaining the purpose of the survey, the importance of their
participation, and the results would be made available. The administrators either
distributed the surveys at teachers meetings, or placed them in the individual
teacher box. The collection of surveys was completed from July through
September, 2001. Assurances were made to ensure teacher anonymity, and all
participation was strictly voluntary. Each site had a large self-addressed stamped
envelope for return to the researcher’s school site. In some instances, teachers
returned their surveys via the inter-correspondence mailing system. After two
weeks of the initial distribution of surveys, a follow-up telephone call and e-mails
were done to the school administrators or designee. The researcher visited all the
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
juvenile camps, two-thirds of the juvenile halls, and one-third of the community
and residental schools. To get greater participation, several personal presentations
were made to teachers at lunch time or after class hours. Interested participants
received snack items while they were completing their survey. In instances when
teachers were unavailable or absent, snacks were left in their mailbox. My e-mail
address, work telephone number, fax number, and school mailing address were
made available to all administrators and teachers in case any concerns arose.
Data Analysis
The sampling technique used was the “convenience” approach as the
researcher studied teachers in his own organization. The statistical procedures used
in this study were frequencies and percentages, factor analysis, descriptive
statistics, one-way ANOVAs, correlations, regressions, and measures of central
tendencies. Frequencies distributions were used to calculate the number of
responses and percentages on teacher demographic information in the first 14 items.
Percentages were calculated in association with the frequency or raw scores to
estabish a mechanism for ranking items. Measure of central tendencies, means, and
mode, were conducted on all 82 items. The mean measures the averages and the
mode measures the most frequent occurring score. Standard deviations were
calculated to determine the spread of scores in the distribution. Descriptive
statistics were conducted to help in summarizing, tabulating, organizing and
graphing data. Factor analysis procedures were used to reduce a large number of
variables to a much smaller representative set of variables called “factors.” The
objective is to discover the essential variables that underlie and to summarize the
information in a large set of variables. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
conducted to test the null hypothesis, and to determine if the means of two or more
populations are equal to each other. Duncan Multiple-Range Test were used after
the ANOVA to determine which sample means differed significantly from one
another. Reliabilities were done to measure the extent to which the item measured
the same thing consistently. In testing the null hypothesis, the alpha level — the
probability of committting a Type I error — were done (also called the level of
significance). The Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient was done to show the degree
of linear relationship between two variables. Regression analysis was used to
explain or predict the variability of the dependent variable using information on one
or more independent variables. Correlations were done to determine if any
relationships exit between the scales. Data was categorized and displayed using a
combination of tables and graphs. Tables were based on the responses of teachers
who were surveyed, individually and collectively, according to the total surveys
answered.
Design of the Study
In recent years, increasing attention was given to the hypothesis that factors
within the individual, divorced from the attributes of the job, affect the degree of
satisfaction experienced on the job. These factors, which are called dispositions,
are asserted to affect life satisfaction. Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1997)
composed the concept of “core evaluation,” which refers to fundamental
subconscious conclusions that individuals reach about themselves, other people,
and the world around them. According to Judge et al., core self-evaluation may
explain the dispositional source of job satisfaction. The design of this study was
modeled after the research of Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1998) and Judge
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(2000), who introduced an integrated model potentially useful for understanding the
etiological complexities of job and life satisfaction. Using the theoretical model
(see Figure 1) by Judge, et al. (1998), path analysis, path coefficients, and path
diagrams, were constructed to establish a multi variate analysis wherein causal
relations among several variables are represented by figures (path diagrams)
showing the paths along where causal influences travel. The path analysis would
examine the accuracy of causal models. It was represented by a figure showing the
“paths” along where causal influences travel. This was used specifically to
calculate direct and indirect effects of independent variables. This model will be
replicated in the core self-evaluations (efficacious and confident, conscientious and
responsible, collaborative and supportive and the locus of control), along with
school effectiveness and expanded job satisfaction.
Perceptions
o f work
Characteristics,
/ Job
►V Satisfaction
Life
Satisfaction
Locus o f Control
Self-Esteem
Self-Efficacy
Neuroticism
Core Self-
Evaluations
FIGURE 1. Hypothesized Judge, et al. (1998) model relating dispositional
characteristics to perceptions of intrinsic work characteristics, job
satisfaction, and life satisfaction. (Dashed line depicts a moderating
effect of core self-evaluations on the relationship between perceived
work characteristics and job satisfaction.)
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
This chapter reports on administration and collection of surveys, and discusses
the scales and measures that will be used to interpret the research questions in this
study. This chapter focuses on four areas: (1) Survey Responses; (2) Statistics and
Measures; (3) General Interpretations of the Empirically Derived Scales and
Reliability Analysis; and (4) Summary of Findings.
Survey Responses
Teachers from the Los Angeles County Office of Education, Division of
Juvenile Court and Community School and Alternative Education, were the
participants in this study. From a potential pool of 342 teachers, 263 surveys were
returned or collected for processing. Twenty surveys were discarded because 14
persons were not secondary school teachers, and six other surveys had incomplete
information. As a result, 243 surveys or 71% surveys were used, which is considered
adequate for correlational purposes (Gall, Borg, and Gall, 1996). A vast majority of
the respondents were classroom teachers, others were curriculum specialists, support
staff in reading and language speech, resource specialists, and school psychologists.
This study involved 39 schools from five distinct educational settings. All
juvenile halls (4), juvenile camps (13), and residential schools (5) participated. A
majority of the community schools (17) and several independent study and support
programs were sampled. These schools are located in urban, suburban, and rural areas
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
within a 3,000 mile square radius of Los Angeles County. These dynamics are
important relationships to job satisfaction of teachers who are inclined to be more
positive to smaller size and suburban school districts (Jolly, 1999).
Statistics and Measures
Empirical Assignment of Items to Scales
The School Survey instrument consisted of 82 items. The first 14 items
created the profile of the teachers. Each respondent selected one letter (A-E) to
describe their preferred choice on items such as age, education, and credential.
Descriptive statistics, frequencies, and percentage, were used to measure this portion
of the survey. The remaining 68 items provided data on the core self-evaluations or
personality characteristics scales: ‘Efficacious and Confident’, ‘Conscientious and
Responsible’, ‘Collaborative and Supportive’, ‘Locus of Control’, and the two other
variables, ‘School Effectiveness’ and ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’. Each respondent
would select one number (1-5) from the Likert scale that best represent their attitude
on the item. Factor analysis, correlations, regressions, descriptive statistics and central
tendencies for each item (see Appendices H and I), were calculated.
All responses were transferred onto an Excel program spreadsheet, and then
single variable were coded onto an SPSS data file consistent with the items numbered
on the survey. Scales and their member items were identified and were subjected to a
test of intemal-consistency reliability. Item-to-scale correlations were used as measure
of homogeneity of each scale. In cases where a number of items empirically
contributed to a scale, they were limited to the most homogeneous items since
additional items would not substantially contribute to increased scale reliability. Thus,
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
items were eliminated under two conditions, either they were unreliable, or they were
so highly correlated with another item that it was unnecessary to include. Before
elimination, each item was calculated to ensure that the elimination would not affect
the content validity of the overall scale. The number of items were reduced from 68 to
63 in the Likert portion of the survey.
Descriptive Statistics on Teacher Demographics
The demographic information on JCCATs is reflected in Table 8. There were
138 (56.8%) males and 105 (43.2%) females who were sampled in this study, which is
close to the national percentage of females (53.8%), and males (46.2%) secondary
teachers. Statistics indicate that male and female teachers tend to stay, move and leave
the teaching profession at approximately the same rates (NCES, 1998).
On teacher’s age, the largest proportion of respondents (40.7%) were ages 50-
59, which is considerably higher than the nation (24.9%) and California (33.0%). The
percentage (8.2%) of teachers’ age 20-29 is similar to the nation (10.9%) and
California (8.8%) (NCES, 1998).
The ethnic background of the teachers were Caucasian (56.4%), African-
American (25.5%), Hispanic (11.1%), other groups (4.1%), and (2.9%) Asian. This is
far more representative of the state population than the national percentages which are
Caucasian (88.9%), African-American (5.9%), Hispanic (3.5%), Asian (0.9%), and
other groups (0.8%). Statistics indicate that Caucasians, African-Americans, and
Hispanics, tend to stay in the profession at a higher rate than Asians or Pacific
Islanders (NCES, 1998).
All teachers had at least a college degree, either a Bachelor’s (39.5%), a
Master’s (53.9%) or a Doctorate (6.6%). This exceeds the national statistics for
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
secondary teachers who possess a Bachelor’s (47.0%), a Master’s (51.4%), a Doctorate
(1.1%), or have less than a Bachelor’s (0.5%) (NCES, 1998). Based on these results,
JCCATs have accumulated more advanced degrees (60.5%) than the national average
(52.5%). The reasons may be teacher motivation, incentives, advancement, higher
state teaching standards, or cost of living indices such as housing. Teachers with more
advanced degrees generally have higher attrition rates because more career
opportunities become available to them (NCES, 1998).
Almost four-fifths of the teachers surveyed (77.8%) had either multiple
subjects (57.6%) or a single subject (20.2%) credential. Approximately one-fifth of
the teachers (22.2%) had emergency credential which parallels the national average
(20.1%) (National Commission on Teaching, 1999). The lack of fully credentialed
teacher in every classroom remains a serious challenge for public education. Teachers
who were certain about their choice of careers are twice as likely to complete their
certification program and go on to teach (Sclan, 1993).
Most teachers sampled had a regular teaching position (70.4%) at LACOE.
Other teachers were employed as substitutes (17.7%), or as interns or pre-intern
teachers (11.9%).
On teaching status, about three-fifths (60.9%) have permanent teaching
contracts or tenure. Non-tenured teachers (39.1%) were intems/pre-intems (12.8%),
substitutes either on temporary/emergency contracts (12.3%), or had first year (9.5%)
or second year (4.5%) probationary status.
Statistics indicated that nearly two-thirds (63.8%) of the teachers have a
professional clear (43.2%) or a life (20.6%) credential. These types of credential
generally imply that teachers will stay in the teaching profession longer or
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
permanently. Other teachers were still in the process of completing their credential
requirements. The remaining balance of the teachers (37.2%) had either an emergency
or preliminary credential or in an intem/pre-intem certification program.
In Table 8 (item 9), approximately one-third (35.0%) of the surveyed teachers
had 21 or more years of prior teaching experience followed by (22.6%) with 3-8 years.
The smallest proportion of teachers (7.4%) taught 1-2 years. Significantly, nearly one-
half (49.4%) of the teachers had 15 or more years of experience. This suggests that
recruitment efforts may center more on hiring highly experienced teachers and
possibly more mature adults to teach the “high risk” student population.
The highest percentage (33.7%) of teachers employed by LACOE had 3-8
years of experience. This was followed by teachers with 9-14 years (21.8%) and those
with 1-2 years (19.0%) of experience. The primary school assignment of teachers
were in juvenile camps (37.4%), juvenile halls (24.7%), community schools (21.0%),
residential schools (11.1%), and independent study or support services (5.8%).
All respondents were secondary teachers. Most (93.4%) considered
themselves high school teachers or junior high (6.6%) teachers. In general, secondary
teachers work in self-contained classes where students in grades 7-12 are taught in the
same classroom.
Teachers work in three types of gender-based classes. Most teachers (53.9%)
taught boys-only classes, some in girls-only (5.8%) classes. Instructions for these
classes are usually in juvenile halls and camp facilities. Other teachers taught coed
classes (40.3%) that are located in community and residential schools, independent
study or support programs.
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 8. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Demographic and Process Variables
Number Variable Category Frequency Percentage
1. Gender Male 138 56.8
Female 105 43.2
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
2 . Age 20 to 29 2 0 8 .2
30 to 39 21 8 .6
40 to 49 62 25.5
50 to 59 99 40.8
60 or over 41 16.9
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
3. Ethnic Caucasian 137 56.4
Background African-American 62 25.5
Hispanic 27 1 1.1
Other 10 4.1
Asian 7 2.9
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
4. Degree Bachelor’s 96 39.5
Master’s 131 53.9
Doctorate 16 6 .6
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
5. Credentials Multiple Subject 140 57.6
Emergency 54 2 2 .2
Single Subject 49 2 0 .2
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
6 . Teaching Regular 171 70.4
Position Substitute 43 17.7
Intern/Pre-intem 29 11.9
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
7. Teacher Permanent 148 60.9
Status Intern/Pre-intem 31 1 2 .8
Temporary Contract 30 12.3
1st Year Probationary 23 9.5
2nd Year Probationary 11 4.5
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 8 (continued).
Number Variable Category Frequency Percentage
8 . Credentials Professional Clear 105 43.2
Held Life 50 2 0 .6
Emergency 36 14.8
Intern/Pre-intern 33 13.6
Preliminary 19 7.8
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
9. Years of 1 - 2 18 7.4
Teaching 3 -8 55 2 2 .6
9 - 14 50 2 0 .6
15-20 35 14.4
2 1 or more 85 35.0
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
10. Years of 1 - 2 46 19.0
Teaching 3 -8 82 33.7
at LACOE 9 -1 4 53 2 1 .8
15-20 28 11.5
2 1 or more 34 14.0
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
1 1 . Primary Juvenile Camp 91 37.4
School Juvenile Hall 60 24.7
Assignment Community School 51 2 1 .0
Residential School 27 11 .1
Indep Study/Supp Srv 14 5.8
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
1 2. Grade 9 -1 2 227 93.4
7 -1 2 16 6 .6
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
13. Gender Mix Male Only 131 53.9
of Students Coeducational 98 40.3
Female Only 14 5.8
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
14. Student Stay 1 Month or Less 52 21.4
in School 2 - 4 Months 53 21.9
5- 6 Months 72 29.5
7 Months or More 6 6 27.2
Total 243 1 0 0 .0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The average length of student stay in these facilities was fairly even among the
four choices. The highest percentage of student stay in the district is 5-6 months
(29.5%), usually in either a camp, community, or residential school. The smallest
percentage (21.4%) of students who stayed in the district were those who were
detained, usually in juvenile hall for one month or less.
General Interpretations of the Empirically-Derived Scales
and Reliability Analysis
Tables 9 -12 show the alpha reliabilities for the six scales in this study.
Internal consistency methods were used to determine the degree of similarity of the
items measured. The personal characteristics (scales 1-3) and locus of control (scale
4) represent the core self-evaluation constructs consistent with the dispositional theory
by Judge et al. (1998). ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ (scale 5) and ‘School
Effectiveness’ (scale 6) represent the other constructs.
Scale 1: Efficacious and Confident (Core self-evaluation scale)
Scale 1 had an alpha = .72. Persons who scored high on the items (see Table
9) in this scale perceived themselves as achievers, in command and efficacious,
generally more productive than other teachers, better able to motivate others, highly
reliable, and leaders amongst their colleagues. A single item # 42 was removed from
this scale because it was too non-homogeneous.
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 9. Personal Characteristics: Empirically-Derived Scales and Alpha
Reliability of Likert Items
Scale Item Alpha Scale Descriptor
1 .72 Efficacious and Confident
15. At work or school, I am typically more productive than others.
24. When people seek me out for advice I am usually able to provide a
solution.
27. I believe that I am highly effective in running a meeting.
42. I consider myself as a leader with my students, co-workers, or friends.
52. I consider myself able to “energize” or motivate others.
61. In most situations, I am most resourceful.
65. I have a greater thirst for learning than most of my colleagues.
2 .75 Conscientious and Responsible
19. I am a well organized person at work or school.
33. I am task-oriented and like to get the job finished.
39. I am a very disciplined person.
48. I have always enjoyed school because of what I have learned.
59. My previous employers or teachers would describe me energetic and
persistent.
67. During the past year, I have missed very few days of work or school.
75. For most assignments, I do very good follow-up work.
3 .69 Collaborative and Supportive
23. I function well in cooperative or team activities.
29. I often seek feedback from those I am teaching or working with.
35. I usually do more than my share of work in group projects.
45. Compared to most adults, I get along very well with young people.
55. As a teacher, I would like to help other teachers improve by sharing
my ideas about teaching with them.
70. I would describe myself as a very “helpful” person.
79. If I know something that others don’t, I want them to learn about it, too.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scale 2: Conscientious and Responsible (Core self-evaluation scale)
This scale had an alpha = .75. Persons scoring high on this scale perceived
themselves as task-oriented, never or seldom late to work, were self-disciplined, were
persistent, well-organized, and enjoyed school for what they learned.
Scale 3: Collaborative and Supportive (Core self-evaluation scale)
This scale had an alpha = .69. Persons scoring high on this scale perceived
themselves as motivating team players with a desire to create a positive and productive
professional environment. They were more likely to share ideas with others, to be
supportive, to function well in cooperative or team activities, to seek feedback and to
be sociable.
Scale 4: Locus o f Control Scale (Core self-evaluation scale)
In Table 10, the ‘Locus of Control’ had an alpha = .84. The three scales
comprising the locus of control are Intemality (I), Powerful Others (P), and Chance
(C). They were measured in aggregate to ensure a “tight connection” among the other
scales. These scales provide a profile of causal beliefs.
The “I” is the extent to which people believe that they have control over their
own lives. A single item #44 was discarded because it was too non-homogeneous.
The “P” is the belief that other persons control the events in one’s life. Two items,
#60 and #76, were discarded. The “C” is the degree to which a person believes that
chance affects one’s experiences and outcomes. Literature on the locus of control
(Bandura, 1997) suggest that persons who have a high internal locus of control have
experienced frequent success and are likely higher achievers.
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 10. Locus of Control: Empirically-Derived Scales and Alpha
Reliabilities of Likert Items
Scale Item Alpha Scale Descriptor
.84 Locus of Control (Intemality, Powerful Others,
Chance in aggregate)
1 Internality (I)
17. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability.
21. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.
32. Whether or not 1 get into a car accident depends most on how good a driver I am.
44. How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am.
6 8 . I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life.
69. I am usually able to protect my personal interests.
74. When I get what 1 want, it’s usually because I worked hard for it.
78. My life is determined by my own actions.
2 Powerful Others (P)
28. I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people.
40. Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibility
without appealing to those in positions of power.
49. My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others.
54. People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interests when
they conflict with those of strong pressure groups.
60. Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me.
6 6 . If important people were to decide they didn’t like me, I probably wouldn’t make
many friends.
71. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver.
76. In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of
people who have power over me.
3 Chance (C)
26. To a great extent, my life is controlled by accidental happenings.
34. Often, there is no chance of protecting my personal interests from bad luck
happening.
38. When I get what I want, it’s usually because I’m lucky.
46. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
51. Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck.
57. It’s not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out
to be a matter of good or bad fortune.
63. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I’m lucky enough to be
in the right place at the right time.
82. It’s chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many friends.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scale 5: Schools Effectiveness
In Table 11, the scale for Overall School (Program) Performance and
Effectiveness had an alpha = .88. Persons scoring high on this scale viewed their
school as a place where the teaching staff could set priorities and guide schoolwide
reform. Teachers were aware of the school’s vision and goals, participated in staff
development opportunities, and worked collaboratively in the school setting. They
contributed to decisions made at the school site and worked at improving instruction
through a variety of assessment and accountability items.
There are five criterion areas and seven categories used to measure this scale.
The criterion areas are: Vision, Leadership and Culture, Curricular Paths; Powerful
Teaching and Learning; Assessment and Accountability; and Support for Student
Personal and Academic Growth. The categories are: Vision and Leadership, Teacher
Professionalism, Curriculum Content and Linkages, Instructional Practices,
Assessment, Standards and Accountability, and Personalized Academic Support.
TABLE 11. Overall School (Program) Performance and Effectiveness:
Empirically-Derived Scales and Alpha Reliabilities of Likert Items
Criterion Item Alpha Scale Descriptor
.8 8 Overall School (Program) Performance and Effectiveness
1. Vision, Leadership and Culture. Vision and Leadership (category)
16. The school’s vision of what all students should know and be able to do
upon graduation is clearly understood by all segments of the school
community.
77. The entire school community actively supports the school in achieving its
vision and goals.
1. Vision, Leadership and Culture. Teacher Professionalism (category)
20. Teachers make decisions about all aspects of their school’s operations
including the teaching and learning process.
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 11 (continued).
Criterion Item Alpha Scale Descriptor
2. Curricular Paths. Curriculum Content and Linkages (category)
47. In general, students receive instruction, which is based on current research and
exemplary practices.
3. Powerful Teaching and Learning. Instructional Practices (category)
25. Students are expected to be responsible and productive and hold high
expectations for themselves.
58. Student learning, as opposed to teaching convenience, is the cornerstone of the
school’s accountability policy, by indicating ways in which the school is
accountable for student progress.
4. Assessment and Accountability. Assessment (category)
31. A wide range of procedures for assessing student learning outcomes is clearly
described and accompanied by well-defined performance standards.
53. There is evidence that assessment is closely aligned with the school’s vision,
goals, and schoolwide learning results.
62. Classroom assessment procedures are clearly aligned with the district adopted
curriculum.
4. Assessment and Accountability. Standards and Accountability (category)
37. A variety of evaluation reporting procedures are used to provide the school
community with information supporting the continuous improvement
of the school’s programs.
81. Information exchange is ongoing and feedback is collected continuously to
realize student and program results are achieved.
5. Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth. Personalized Academic Support (category)
41. A high-level core curriculum is provided to all students.
72. Emphasis is placed on ensuring that students and staff accept point responsibility
for student and school performance.
Scale 6: Expanded Job Satisfaction
Table 12 shows the alpha = .74 for ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ included in
aggregate general job satisfaction and work characteristics. Persons scoring high on
this scale perceived themselves as being satisfied “happy” with their job in general and
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
their work characteristics. A single item # 30 was discarded because it was too non-
homogeneous.
TABLE 12. Expanded Job Satisfaction: Empirically-Derived Scales and
Alpha Reliabilities of Likert Items
Item Alpha Scale Descriptor
.74 Expanded Job Satisfaction
General Job Satisfaction
18. I am satisfied teaching high risk students.
22. I am satisfied with the school I am assigned to.
30. I would like to leave teaching for an administrative position.
36. I am likely to leave teaching in less than three years.
43. There are opportunities for personal growth in my job.
Work Characteristics
50. My job provides much variety. Skill Variety
56. My job allows me the opportunity to complete the work I start. Task Identity
64. My job is one that may affect a lot of other people by how well the work is
performed. Task Significant
73. My job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom
in how I do my work. Autonomy
80. My job provides feedback on how well I am performing as I am working.
Feedback
Descriptive Statistics
In context of Judge, et al. (1998) theoretical model on dispositional
characteristics, this study used six scales to assess the variables in this study.
Descriptive statistics, means (M), and standard deviation (SD) for each scales are
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
shown in Table 13. Scores for each item were coded so there could be comparisons of
the scales. For simplicity, a five-point Likert scales for each item in the scale were
added together, divided by 243 teachers and multiplied by ten. Each scale was
converted to a standardized scale score. A score of 50 would indicate perfect
agreement, 30 would indicate agreement, and a zero is no agreement. The standard
deviation is the spread of the scores in the distribution.
Statistics indicate a moderate core self-evaluations on the three personality
characteristics scales — ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ M = 40.92 was highest,
followed by ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ M = 40.42, and ‘Efficacious and
Confident’ M = 39.73, and the fourth scale of the ‘Locus of Control’ M = 38.66.
Individually and collectively, the teachers perceived themselves as possessing, with
moderately high agreement, the personal characteristics chosen for this study. These
core self-evaluations may provide better understanding why teachers, chose to either
stay, transfer, or leave the profession.
TABLE 13. Descriptive Statistics of Scales: Means and Standard Deviation
(N = 243)
Scales Mean Standard
Deviation
Efficacious and Confident 39.7257 5.3477
Conscientious and Responsible 40.9171 5.7289
Collaborative and Supportive 40.4174 5.1362
Locus of Control 38.6577 4.4399
School Effectiveness 34.1595 7.1937
Expanded Job Satisfaction 39.4856 5.9812
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For the other scales, ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ M = 39.48 was within the
range of the core self-evaluations. These results imply that there is a strong
consistency and “good” agreement among teachers relative to these five scales. The
one exception was for ‘School Effectiveness’ M= 34.16, and it also had the largest
skew of SD = 7.19, or variation among teacher responses.
One rationale for the lower mean score ‘School Effectiveness’ scale is that
even though teachers perceived themselves with positive attributes and are generally
satisfied with their job, they do not feel that their schools are performing well
particularly in terms of assessment an accountability. On item #37, teachers were
slightly less than agreeable on the fact that “A variety of evaluation report procedures
are used to provide school-community with information supporting the continuous
improvement of the school’s program.” One explanation could be the new state and
national emphasis on student standardized test scores. With increased pressure for
teachers to perform along with school reforms and restructuring, academic
accountability and assessment policies are increasingly becoming the norm (Delgado,
2001). Stakeholders are working under “public mandates” to improve the
achievement of all students (Clinchy, 1998). Respondent’s scores on the California
state mandated Stanford 9 Test might well be a reflection of how principals and
teachers see their schools as educational institutions.
Also, item #41 was only slightly agreed upon by the teachers, which states: “A
high-level core curriculum is provided to all students.” For some teachers, the issue
may not be providing a high level core curriculum, but rather a quality basic skills
curriculum since most students are three years or more behind their peers. School
failure is very common among youth offenders. They have a host of “risk” factors
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
associated with personality and cognitive deficits, family problems, delinquent
behavior, and substance abuse problems which impedes academic progress
(West California Code, EC 47660). Emphasis on developing appropriate student
behavior is often the first challenge for teachers before instructing the curriculum.
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficient was performed on all six
scales to determine the degree of correlation between each of the scales. The range for
correlation coefficients is a -1.0, a perfect negative correlation, to a +1.0, a perfect
positive correlation. A correlation coefficient of zero means that there is no
relationship between the variables. For a coefficient to be significant, it must differ
enough that such a departure would occur by random sampling variation only (5%). A
more rigorously number is 1% of the time. In Table 14, fifteen correlations were
conducted and all had significant positive correlations that emerged at the p < .01 level
of significance. There were no negative correlations. A two-tailed ‘7 ” test was used
to determine significance, since there was uncertainty on what scale would be larger or
smaller.
The three personal characteristics scales were all highly correlated with each
other. The most statistically significant relationships were teachers who perceived
themselves as task oriented and energetic, the ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ to
‘Collaborative and Supportive’, and those who are team players, sociable and
supportive, (r = .677, p < .01). Similarly, those teachers who perceived themselves as
achievers, in command, and productive, the ‘Efficacious and Confident’ were most
correlated to ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ (r = .647. p < .01). The correlation
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
between ‘Efficacious and Confident’ to ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ was the
lowest, but still very significant (r = .626 < .01).
In relationship to the three personal characteristic scales, ‘Collaborative and
Supportive’ was most highly correlated to ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ (r = .555, p <
.01) and ‘School Effectiveness’ (r = .450, p < .01). ‘Efficacious and Confident’ was
most highly correlated to ‘Locus of Control’( r = .434, p < .01), which is somewhat
predictable since one important determinant of self-efficacy is one’s locus of control
(Thibodeau, 1997). In contrast, ‘Efficacious and Confident’ was the least correlated to
‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ (r = .426, p < .01) and ‘School Effectiveness’ (r = .282, p
< . 01).
TABLE 14. Pearson Product Movement Correlation Coefficient Matrix by Scale
(N = 243)
Scale Conscientious
and Responsible
Collaborative
and Supportive
Locus of
Control
School
Effectiveness
Expanded Job
Satisfaction
Efficacious/Confident .626** .647**
,4 3 4 **
.282** .426**
Conscientious/Responsible .677** .421**
371* *
.468**
Collaborative/Supportive
3 7 9 * *
.450** .555**
Locus of Control .214** .472**
School Effectiveness .586**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Core self-evaluations (‘Collaborative and Supportive’, ‘Conscientious and
Responsible’, ‘Efficacious and Confident’, and ‘Locus of Control’) were all highly
correlated to ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ (range of r = .555 to .426, p < .01). ‘School
Effectiveness’ was the least correlated to (3 of 4) core self-evaluation (range of r =
.450 to .214, p < .01). These results suggest that teachers are personable. They enjoy
their job but are less satisfied with the effectiveness of their school.
‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ contributed most to ‘Locus of Control’ (r = .472,
p < .01). Teacher’s job satisfaction could be linked to their belief they relate to
circumstances internally controlled, influenced by powerful others, or as a matter of
chance. Also, ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ contributed most significantly to ‘School
Effectiveness’ (r = .586, p < .01), meaning teachers were pleased with their job and the
effectiveness of the school.
The least significant correlation among the scales was ‘Locus of Control’ to
‘School Effectiveness’ (r =.214, p < .01). This could imply that teachers believe they
have less influence on issues related to instruction, curriculum, and assessments. The
perception by teachers may be that school district, community, state and national
supporters, and critics, may have greater influence on school decisions than the
teachers who are present everyday.
Descriptive Statistics and One-Way ANOVA - Gender
Table 15 reflects the descriptive statistics on the subject’s gender. A one-way
ANOVA (see Table 16) was used to determine if any differences existed by gender
relative to the six formulated scales. The results show no significant levels of
differences relative to gender.
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 15. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Gender
Scale N Mean Std. Deviation
Efficacious and Confident Male 137 40.0973 5.28504
Female 106 39.2453 5.41472
Total 243 39.7257 5.34766
Conscientious and Responsible Male 137 40.7299 5.95883
Female 106 41.1590 5.43577
Total 243 40.9171 5.72892
Collaborative and Supportive Male 137 40.5422 5.18312
Female 106 40.2561 5.09500
Total 243 40.4174 5.13624
Locus of Control Male 137 38.5923 4.50603
Female 106 38.7421 4.37284
Total 243 38.6577 4.43992
School Effectiveness Male 137 34.0134 7.43022
Female 106 34.3251 6.90756
Total 243 34.1595 7.19374
Expanded Job Satisfaction Male 137 39.8723 5.60922
Female 106 38.9858 6.42288
Total 243 39.4856 5.98123
TABLE 16. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Gender
Scale F
Sig
Efficacious and Confident 1.520 .219
Conscientious and Responsible .334 .564
Collaborative and Supportive .185 .6 6 8
Locus of Control .068 .795
School Effectiveness .099 .753
Expanded Job Satisfaction 1.314 .253
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Descriptive Statistics and One- Way ANO VA - Age
Table 17 shows the descriptive statistics of the subject’s age. Teachers were
asked to select one age bracket: 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, or 60 or over. Using a
one-way ANOVA, Table 18 reveals that there were two significant differences among
the formulated scales, ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ (F = 4.916, df 4/242, Sig .001)
and ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ (F = 3.159, df 4/242, Sig .015). Specifically, for
the core self-evaluations, ages 40-49 were the most ‘Efficacious and Confident’, ages
20-29 were the most ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ and ‘Collaborative and
Supportive’. For ‘Locus of Control’, age 60 and over scored the highest.
There was a significant difference between teachers ages 20-29 and 30-39.
Those teachers ages 20-29, ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ is higher, M = 43.14,
whereas ages 30-39, M = 37.21. Similarly, ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ ages 20-29
had a mean M = 42.57, whereas ages 30-39 had a mean M = 39.18. ‘School
Effectiveness’ and ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ scored highest among ages 20-29 (age
60 and over had almost equivalent scores). The results could imply that teachers who
are just starting in the profession and have greater support, but this diminishes with
time and age, and there is less staff support.
In summation, for all six scales, ages 20-29 had the highest mean average and
the ages 30-39, the lowest. This may suggest that young and beginning teachers have
more optimism when they initially enter the profession that are provided with staff
development training and support from staff. It is possible that the mid-term teachers
ages 30-39, with some experience, have little or no future support that can result in
isolation or despair. At age 40 and beyond, teacher’s perceptions improved and
especially when teachers become 60 and older. This age group had the second highest
mean average for the six scales. This may imply that teachers at retirement age have
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
had a fulfilling career. Age has been identified as a strong predictor of job
satisfaction, with older worker generally being more satisfied with their jobs than
younger workers (Gosnell, 2000). The variable ‘School Effectiveness’ scored lowest,
but was still favorable.
TABLE 17. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Age
Scale N Mean Std. Deviation
Efficacious and Confident 20-29 2 0 39.7500 4.6915
30-39 21 39.5238 6.8949
40-49 62 40.1344 5.2903
50-59 99 39.6465 5.4261
60+ 41 39.3902 4.8556
Total 243 39.7257 5.3477
Conscientious and Responsible 20-29 2 0 43.1429 3.8389
30-39 2 1 37.2109 7.6861
40-49 62 39.8848 5.3346
50-59 99 41.1111 6.0834
60+ 41 42.8223 3.5784
Total 243 40.9171 5.7289
Collaborative and Supportive 20-29 2 0 42.5714 3.0251
30-39 2 1 39.1837 6.7093
40-49 62 41.1521 4.7756
50-59 99 39.3362 5.4735
60+ 41 41.4983 4.0652
Total 243 40.4174 5.1362
Locus of Control 20-29 2 0 38.3810 4.5456
30-39 21 37.4830 2.2745
40-49 62 38.1797 4.1715
50-59 99 38.7302 5.0427
60+ 41 39.9419 3.8981
Total 243 38.6577 4.4399
School Effectiveness 20-29 2 0 36.4615 6.3354
30-39 2 1 34.2125 8.8933
40-49 62 34.2928 6.4155
50-59 99 33.3256 7.3222
60+ 41 34.8218 7.4501
Total 243 34.1595 7.1938
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 17 (continued).
Scale N Mean Std. Deviation
Expanded Job Satisfaction 20-29 2 0 41.4375 4.2972
30-39 2 1 38.8095 6.1552
40-49 62 39.0726 5.6491
50-59 99 39.1919 6.3771
60+ 41 40.2134 6.1039
Total 243 39.4856 5.9812
TABLE 18. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Age
Scale F Sig
Efficacious and Confident .142 .966
Conscientious and Responsible 4.916 .0 0 1
Collaborative/Supportive 3.159 .015
Locus of Control 1.441 .2 2 1
School Effectiveness .936 .444
Expanded Job Satisfaction .883 .475
Descriptive Statistics and One-Way ANOVA - Degree Held
On Table 19, subjects indicated the highest degree earned from three choices:
a Bachelor’s, a Master’s, or a Doctorate. In Table 20, a one-way ANOVA indicated
two significant differences among the formulated scales, the ‘Locus of Control’ (F =
3.758, df 3/242, Sig .012) and a “slightly” less significant difference on the
‘Conscientious and Responsible’ scale (F = 2.023, df 3/242, Sig .111).
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 19. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Degree
Scale N Mean Std. Deviation
Efficacious and Confident Bachelor’s 94 39.1489 5.39782
Master’s 131 39.8346 5.43750
Doctorate 17 41.6667 3.72678
Missing data 1 46.6667
Total 243 39.7257 5.34766
Conscientious and Responsible Bachelor’s 94 39.9392 6.13975
Master’s 131 41.4722 5.44975
Doctorate 17 41.5966 4.86770
Missing data 1 48.5714
Total 243 40.9171 5.72892
Collaborative and Supportive Bachelor’s 94 40.3343 4.91948
Master’s 131 40.5562 5.38202
Doctorate 17 39.6639 4.67105
Missing data 1 42.8571
Total 243 40.4174 5.13624
Locus of Control Bachelor’s 94 37.8926 4.00393
Master’s 131 39.1421 4.67370
Doctorate 17 38.4874 3.75042
Missing data 1 50.0000
Total 243 38.6577 4.43992
School Effectiveness Bachelor’s 94 33.7725 7.13985
Master’s 131 34.3511 7.37436
Doctorate 17 34.3439 6.26074
Missing data 1 42.3077
Total 243 34.1595 7.19374
Expanded Job Satisfaction Bachelor’s 94 38.9628 5.78698
Master’s 131 39.8282 6.09966
Doctorate 17 39.2647 6.12466
Missing data 1 47.5000
Total 243 39.4856 5.98123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 20. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Degree
Scale F
Sig
Efficacious and Confident 1.705 .167
Conscientious and Responsible 2.023 .111
Collaborative and Supportive .235 .872
Locus of Control 3.758 .0 1 2
School Effectiveness 550 .649
Expanded Job Satisfaction .989 .399
Descriptive Statistics and One- Way ANO VA - Credential Held
In Table 21, the Teacher Survey asked teachers whether they had a single
subject, multiple subject, or emergency credential. A one-way ANOVA was
conducted to determine if differences existed between types of credentials relative to
the formulated scales. Table 22 indicates that there were no significant differences
between the scales.
Specifically, results indicate that teachers who possess a multiple subjects
credential perceived themselves highest in ‘Conscientious and Responsible’,
‘Efficacious and Confident’, and on ‘Locus of Control’. Teachers with emergency
credentials rated ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ highest. Teachers with single subject
credentials rated themselves lowest on all four factors of the core self-evaluations.
One possible rational is that human resource prefers hiring multiple subjects teachers
over single subject. Those persons pursuing a career in education and have an
emergency credential may be more aware of the importance of getting a multiple
credential than a single subject. Emergency credentialed teachers perceived ‘School
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Effectiveness’ and ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ highest. One intrepretation could be
that emergency teachers who are seeking permanent positions are more satisfied with
teaching and their school.
TABLE 21. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Credential
Scale Credential N Mean Std. Deviation
Efficacious and Confident Single 48 39.0625 6.83222
Multiple 141 39.9409 5.02143
Emergency 50 39.7000 4.79382
Missing 4 41.6667 3.33333
Total 243 39.7257 5.34766
Conscientious and Responsible Single 48 40.0298 6.69729
Multiple 141 41.2361 5.34310
Emergency 50 40.7429 5.94463
Missing 4 41.4266 3.77964
Total 243 40.9171 5.72892
Collaborative and Supportive Single 48 39.5238 6.04178
Multiple 141 40.2938 5.08103
Emergency 50 41.5714 4.38894
Missing 4 40.9524 0.82479
Total 243 40.4174 5.13624
Locus of Control Single 48 38.1448 4.69378
Multiple 141 38.9531 4.37630
Emergency 50 38.371 4.43284
Missing 4 36.8254 4.69798
Total 243 38.6577 4.43992
School Effectiveness Single 48 33.2212 7.21368
Multiple 141 34.2771 7.50732
Emergency 50 35.0154 6.25166
Missing 4 33.5897 3.94739
Total 243 34.1595 7.19374
Expanded Job Satisfaction Single 48 38.6719 6.83879
Multiple 141 39.6986 6.00576
Emergency 50 39.7750 5.24094
Missing 4 38.3333 2.60208
Total 243 39.4856 5.89123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 22. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Credential
Scale F Sig
Efficacious and Confident .418 .795
Conscientious and Responsible .586 .673
Collaborative and Supportive 1.033 .391
Locus of Control .589 .671
School’s Effectiveness 1.168 .326
Expanded Job Satisfaction .348 .846
Descriptive Statistics and One-Way ANOVA - Teaching Position
In Table 23, teachers are requested to indicate their teaching position as either a
regular teacher, intem/pre-intem, or as a substitute teacher. A one-way ANOVA in
Table 20 shows one significant difference among the scales, the ‘Locus of Control’ (F
= 3.033, df 4/242, Sig .018).
Overall, for ‘School Effectiveness’ and ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ scales,
interns and pre-interns rated these two factors highest. This was followed by regular
and substitute teachers. A possible rationale is that the intems/pre-intems have more
optimism that once they complete their training, a teaching contract will be
forthcoming. In contrast, substitute teachers may feel a little more apprehensive about
a permanent teaching position, especially if they have years of experience and had
several interviews.
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 23. Descriptive Statistics on Subject’s Position
Scale N Mean Std. Deviation
Efficacious and Confident Regular 172 39.9128 5.42617
Intern/Pre-intem 29 39.3678 4.70169
Substitute 34 38.5784 5.64274
No data 7 41.1905 4.04995
Missing data 1 46.6667
Total 243 39.7257 5.34766
Conscientious and Responsible Regular 172 40.9635 5.77016
Intern/Pre-intem 29 40.0985 4.14622
Substitute 34 40.6303 6.84840
No data 7 43.4694 3.94323
Missing data 1 48.5714
Total 243 40.9171 5.72892
Collaborative and Supportive Regular 172 40.1246 5.34041
Intern/Pre-intem 29 40.5419 3.44498
Substitute 34 41.4286 5.50482
No data 7 41.8367 4.18243
Missing data 1 42.8571
Total 243 40.4174 5.13624
Locus of Control Regular 172 38.8234 4.40561
Intern/Pre-intem 29 36.9294 3.78304
Substitute 34 38.6975 4.48289
No data 7 39.9320 5.10234
Missing data 1 50.0000
Total 243 38.6577 4.43992
School Effectiveness Regular 172 34.1324 7.27862
Intern/Pre-intem 29 36.0212 5.26985
Substitute 34 32.7828 8.08334
No data 7 32.6374 6.86381
Missing data 1 42.3077
Total 243 34.1595 7.19374
Expanded Job Satisfaction Regular 172 39.4695 6.27700
Intern/Pre-intem 29 40.8621 3.63059
Substitute 34 37.8676 6.20460
No data 7 40.8929 3.12202
Missing data 1 47.5000
Total 243 39.4856 5.98123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 24. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Position
Scale F Sig
Efficacious and Confident 1.029 .393
Conscientious and Responsible .965 .427
Collaborative and Supportive .660 .621
Locus of Control 3.033 .018
School Effectiveness 1 .2 0 1 .311
Expanded Job Satisfaction 1.567 .184
Descriptive Statistics - Teaching Status
In Table 25, the survey asked respondents to identify their current teaching
status from these choices: permanent, first year or secondary year probationary,
temporary contract, or intem/pre-intem. In Table 26, an ANOVA indicated one
slightly significant difference among the scale, ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ (F
=2.013, df 4/242, Sig .093).
Importantly, on the ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ scale, teachers in their
second and first year of probation perceived themselves higher, followed closely by
temporary contract and intems/pre-intems. This may suggest that beginning teacher
support programs, mentoring, and staff development, positively affect these group of
teachers more than permanent (tenured) teachers. This data also suggests that as one
moves closer toward tenure (from intern to second year probationary), there is greater
support available for these teachers. The results of the two scales indicate that
‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ and ‘School Effectiveness’ were rated highest by the
intem/pre-intem teachers.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 25. Descriptive Statistics on Subject’s Teaching Status
Scale Category N Mean Std. Deviation
Efficacious and Confident Pennanent 148 39.7523 5.43415
1st Yr. Probation 25 39.2667 5.22813
2nd Yr. Probation 12 42.0833 4.27141
Temporary Contract 29 38.5632 5.82012
Intem/Pre-intern 29 40.1724 4.84573
Total 243 39.7257 5.34766
Conscientious/Responsible Pennanent 148 40.9266 5.71153
1st Yr. Probation 25 41.7143 6.46813
2nd Yr. Probation 12 42.0238 3.19196
Temporary Contract 29 39.9507 6.91981
Intern/Pre-intem 29 40.6897 4.74757
Total 243 40.9171 5.72892
Collaborative and Supportive Permanent 148 39.8069 5.14310
1st Yr. Probation 25 42.1714 6.11845
2nd Yr. Probation 12 42.8571 4.83494
Temporary Contract 29 40.7882 5.24316
Intern/Pre-intem 29 40.6404 3.59353
Total 243 40.4174 5.13624
Locus of Control Permanent 148 38.7452 4.24181
1st Yr. Probation 25 38.4381 5.61676
2nd Yr. Probation 12 40.0794 3.52763
Temporary Contract 29 38.4893 4.40328
Intern/Pre-intern 29 37.9803 4.81039
Total 243 38.6577 4.43992
School Effectiveness Pennanent 148 33.8929 7.23064
1st Yr. Probation 25 35.2923 7.39262
2nd Yr. Probation 12 43.2949 8.58748
Temporary Contract 29 32.8382 7.66507
Intern/Pre-intem 29 35.8090 5.66233
Total 243 34.1595 7.19374
Expanded Job Satisfaction Pennanent 148 39.4341 6.05975
1st Yr. Probation 25 39.1500 7.23238
2nd Yr. Probation 12 40.9375 5.30665
Temporary Contract 29 37.7586 6.44672
Intern/Pre-intem 29 41.1638 3.45460
Total 243 39.4856 5.98123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 26 One-way ANOVA of Scales by Teaching Status
Scale F Sig
Efficacious and Confident 1.024 .396
Conscientious and Responsible .447 .775
Collaborative and Supportive 2.013 .093
Locus of Control .512 .727
School Effectiveness .830 .507
Expanded Job Satisfaction 1.383 .240
Descriptive Statistics and One Way ANOVA - Years o f Teaching
The years of teaching, including the current year, is shown in Table 27.
Teachers were asked to select from five categories for their years of experience: 1-2,
3-8, 9-14, 15-20, or 21 or more. An ANOVA, as shown in Table 28, indicates two
scales of significant differences, the ‘Locus of Control’ (F = 3.027, df 4/242, Sig .018)
and the ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ scale (F = 2.778, df 4/242, Sig .028).
In interpreting Table 27, teachers with 21 or more years of experience
perceived themselves as being the most ‘Efficacious and Confident’ and
‘Conscientious and Responsible’. Teachers with 1-2 years experience rated
themselves highest in ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ and appear to have greater
support and training in earlier stages of their career.
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 27. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Years of Teaching
Scale Years N Mean Std. Deviation
Efficacious and Confident 1-2 18 38.1481 5.85469
3-8 54 39.1667 5.52059
9-14 50 39.4333 6.49969
15-20 35 40.2381 4.35633
21 or more 86 40.3682 4.72375
Total 243 39.7257 5.34766
Conscientious and Responsible 1 -2 18 40.9524 7.51150
3-8 54 40.0000 6.34037
9-14 50 39.2000 6.70159
15-20 35 41.5510 4.44212
21 or more 86 42.2259 4.37501
Total 243 40.9171 5.72892
Collaborative and Supportive 1 -2 18 42.0635 4.97828
3-8 54 40.2910 5.68984
9-14 50 39.7143 5.78671
15-20 35 40.0000 4.21510
21 or more 86 40.7309 4.74434
Total 243 40.4174 5.13624
Locus of Control 1 -2 18 36.8519 4.30323
3-8 54 38.3862 4.56598
9-14 50 38.2571 5.09215
15-20 35 37.6327 3.86598
21 or more 86 39.8560 3.97207
Total 243 38.6577 4.43992
School Effectiveness 1-2 18 37.0940 6.44425
3-8 54 33.5470 6.99194
9-14 50 32.9231 7.98199
15-20 35 34.3956 6.60552
21 or more 86 34.5528 7.15714
Total 243 34.1595 7.19374
Expanded Job Satisfaction 1-2 18 38.9583 5.89819
3-8 54 39.3750 5.89186
9-14 50 38.5250 6.47646
15-20 35 39.1429 5.69419
21 or more 86 40.3634 5.88763
Total 243 39.4856 5.98123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teachers who perceived ‘School Effectiveness’ highest were teachers with 1-2
years of experience. The rational could be that emergency teachers are seeking
permanent positions, are more optimist during the beginning years of the teaching, and
have more colleague support, training, and mentoring. Teachers with 21 years or more
experience rated ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’, and ‘Locus of Control’, the highest.
The latter scale is significant. It may imply that the longer one teaches, the more
probable one will remain in the profession, in particular, as one accumulates tenure,
seniority, increased pay, and benefits. Teachers with 9-14 years of experience had a
slightly lower score on ‘School Effectiveness’ and ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’, but
not significantly lower.
TABLE 28. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Years of Teaching
Scale F Sig
Efficacious and Confident .967 .426
Conscientious and Responsible 2.778 .028
Collaborative and Supportive .840 .501
Locus of Control 3.027 .018
School Effectiveness 1.296 .272
Expanded Job Satisfaction .852 .494
Descriptive Statistics and One Way ANOVA - Years o f Teaching at LACOE
Table 29 shows the subject’s years of teaching including the current year with
the Los Angeles County Office of Education: 1-2 ,3-8, 9-14, 15-20, and 21 or more. In
Table 30, a one-way ANOVA measured no significant difference among the scales.
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 29. Descriptive Statistics by Subject’s Years of Teaching at LACOE
Scale Years N Mean Std. Deviation
Efficacious and Confident 1 -2 45 39.5556 5.46338
3-8 83 39.6586 6.14173
9-14 53 39.3711 4.54355
15-20 28 39.5833 4.98196
21 or more 34 40.7843 4.68243
Total 243 39.7257 5.34766
Conscientious and Responsible 1 -2 45 40.7302 6.62137
3-8 83 40.5852 6.23912
9-14 53 40.0539 5.52547
15-20 28 41.2245 4.32459
21 or more 34 43.0672 3.96541
Total 243 40.9171 5.72892
Collaborative and Supportive 1 -2 45 40.9841 5.80945
3-8 83 40.7917 5.38351
9-14 53 39.5418 4.41004
15-20 28 40.0510 4.54227
21 or more 34 40.4202 5.17510
Total 243 40.4174 5.13624
Locus of Control 1-2 45 38.9312 5.17590
3-8 83 38.5427 4.32831
9-14 53 37.7808 4.46115
15-20 28 38.7755 3.98078
21 or more 34 39.8459 3.88935
Total 243 38.6577 4.43992
School Effectiveness 1-2 45 33.9829 7.32935
3-8 83 34.9954 6.91930
9-14 53 33.4833 7.13292
15-20 28 32.4725 7.76421
21 or more 34 34.7964 7.35156
Total 243 34.1595 7.19374
Expanded Job Satisfaction 1-2 45 39.4167 6.15034
3-8 83 39.4277 5.50534
9-14 53 38.7736 6.28113
15-20 28 39.8661 5.91549
21 or more 34 40.5147 6.61522
Total 243 39.4856 5.98123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data indicates that teachers with 21 or more years of experience at LACOE (in
3 of 4 core self-evaluation) perceived themselves as having more positive support than
the other age categories. The exception was teachers with 1-2 years who rated
‘Collaborative and Supportive’ highest. These teachers appear to have greater support,
training and mentoring. The teachers with 9-14 years of experience rated all four core
self-evaluations the lowest. Teachers who perceived ‘School Effectiveness’ highest
were teachers with 3-8 years of experience, followed by teachers with 21 years and
over experience. This latter age group rated ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ the highest.
TABLE 30. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Years of Teaching at LACOE
Scale F Sig
Efficacious and Confident 407 804
Conscientious and Responsible 1.616 .171
Collaborative/Supportive .664 .617
Locus of Control 1.191 .315
School Effectiveness .853 .493
Expanded Job Satisfaction .467 .760
Descriptive Statistics and One Way ANOVA- Primary School Assignment
Table 31 reflects the primary school assignment of the teachers with the Los
Angeles County Office of Education. The Teacher Survey requested teachers to select
one type of school sites they most often worked: juvenile hall, camp, community
school, residential school, independent studies/services.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The ANOVA shown in Table 32 had one significant difference for the scale
‘Collaborative and Supportive’ (F =3.253, df 4/242, Sig .013). Two scales showed
“slight” significant differences, ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ (F = 3.027, df 4/242, Sig
.080) and ‘School’s Effectiveness’ (F =1.820, df 4/242, Sig .126).
The results show that teachers working in community schools perceived
themselves to have the highest core self-evaluations in all four factors. The
independent studies and support teachers rated themselves lowest on all four scales.
The most significant difference was ‘Collaborative and Supportive’, the community
school teachers’ mean was M = 41.95, while independent studies and support teachers’
mean was M = 37.26.
Community school teachers also rated ‘School Effectiveness’ and ‘Expanded
Job Satisfaction’ highest; whereas, independent study and support teachers rated the
former the two lowest. Significantly, community service teachers had a mean of M =
41.08 for ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’, and independent studies and support teachers
had a mean of M = 37.18. A somewhat important difference was ‘School
Effectiveness’, community teachers’ mean score was M = 36.02, and independent
study and support teachers’ mean of M = 32.84. It appears that there is a relationship
with job satisfaction and the effectiveness of the school.
One explanation for these results could be that a community school comprised
of 2-4 teachers, along with 1-2 para-educators. Due to size and necessity, staff must
collaborate and communicate routinely on the operations of their school. The
principal’s leadership style is important because in most cases, especially community
schools, teachers are empowered to make decisions. The most autonomous teachers
are in independent study and support positions; however, most of their relationships
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
are one-on-one between a student or staff, and their working environment is not a
conventional classroom layout.
TABLE 31. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Teacher’s Primary School Assignment
Scale Type of School N Mean Std. Deviation
Efficacious and Confident Hall 60 39.8889 6.01212
Camp 91 39.7802 4.78687
Community Day 52 40.0321 5.23407
Residential 27 39.8148 4.89927
Indep. Study 13 37.1795 7.14871
Total 243 39.7257 5.34766
Conscientious and Responsible Hall 60 40.5476 6.19130
Camp 91 40.5965 6.07984
Community Day 52 42.0055 4.62486
Residential 27 41.587 4.52333
Indep. Study 13 39.1209 7.05996
Total 243 40.9171 5.72892
Collaborative and Supportive Hall 60 40.9048 5.39012
Camp 91 39.5447 4.92059
Community Day 52 41.9505 4.68306
Residential 27 40.7937 4.45337
Indep. Study 13 37.3626 6.62006
Total 243 40.4174 5.13624
Locus of Control Hall 60 38.1587 4.83914
Camp 91 38.9011 4.63736
Community Day 52 38.9103 4.12268
Residential 27 38.7654 3.71743
Indep. Study 13 38.0220 4.06321
Total 243 38.6577 4.43992
School Effectiveness Hall 60 34.9103 7.06588
Camp 91 33.0093 7.54269
Community Day 52 36.0207 7.21558
Residential 27 33.4188 5.17044
Indep. Study 13 32.8402 7.82819
Total 243 34.1595 7.19374
Expanded Job Satisfaction Hall 60 39.5417 6.26044
Camp 91 39.3956 6.15867
Community Day 52 41.0817 4.60464
Residential 27 37.1759 6.49142
Indep. Study 13 38.2692 6.17746
Total 243 39.4856 5.98123
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 32. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Subject’s Primary School Assignment
Scale F Sig
Efficacious and Confident .795 .529
Conscientious and Responsible 1.015 .400
Collaborative and Supportive 3.253 .013
Locus of Control .367 .832
School Effectiveness 1.820 .126
Expanded Job Satisfaction 2.111 .080
Descriptive Statistics - Length o f Student Stay
Table 33 measures the length of student stay with the teacher, and it varies
considerably from less than a month (sometimes a single day) to seven months or more
(occasionally up to two years). The ANOVA used in Table 34 indicates that there
were no significant differences among the scales. A close examination of the means
reflects a pattern of consistencies (in 5 of 6 scales). Teachers who have students that
stay longer in their classroom (7 months or more) had the highest mean of any of the
time frames. This may suggest that teachers are more fulfilled when they can build
meaningful relationships with their students and watch them progress academically
over time.
Other Factors
Four factors were not included in the descriptive statistics and one-way
ANOVA: ethnic background, term of credential, teacher grade level of assignment
and gender mix of the students being taught. In each case, there was either no
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
significant differences in the data, or there were no patterns among the mean scores of
the scales that could be further interpretated.
TABLE 33. Descriptive Statistics by Student’s Length of Stay
Scale N Mean Std. Deviation
Efficacious and Confident 1 month or less 51 39.9346 5.04382
2-4 months 53 39.7484 5.73075
5-6 months 72 39.0046 4.69458
7 or more months 67 40.3234 5.91920
Total 243 39.7257 5.37466
Conscientious and Responsible 1 month or less 51 40.8123 5.35480
2-4 months 53 40.8895 5.75689
5-6 months 72 40.2976 5.81371
7 or more months 67 41.6844 5.92640
Total 243 40.9171 5.72892
Collaborative and Supportive 1 month or less 51 40.9244 5.15731
2-4 months 53 40.3504 4.94797
5-6 months 72 39.8611 5.16004
7 or more months 67 40.6823 5.29500
Total 243 40.4174 5.13624
Locus of Control 1 month or less 51 38.0952 4.72749
2-4 months 53 38.3738 4.10319
5-6 months 72 38.5516 3.98284
7 or more months 67 39.4243 4.90936
Total 243 38.6577 4.43992
School Effectiveness 1 month or less 51 33.5747 7.76858
2-4 months 53 34.2090 7.02360
5-6 months 72 33.2158 7.18167
7 or more months 67 35.5798 6.81125
Total 243 34.1595 7.19374
Expanded Job Satisfaction 1 month or less 51 38.8235 6.52597
2-4 months 53 39.4104 6.01782
5-6 months 72 39.3229 5.78342
7 or more months 67 40.2239 5.78549
Total 243 39.4856 5.98123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 34. One-way ANOVA of Scales by Length of Student Stay
Scale F
Sig
Efficacious and Confident .739 .530
Conscientious and Responsible .685 .562
Collaborative and Supportive .506 .678
Locus of Control 1.025 .382
School Effectiveness 1.404 .242
Expanded Job Satisfaction .566 .638
Regression Analysis
A series of multiple regressions were conducted to determine if a combination
of variables could be identified as the best predictor of ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’.
Similiarly, a second regression was done to determine if any variables could be the
best predictor o f ‘School Effectiveness’. The results of these two regressions were
combined to determine if any significant relationships between the core self-
evalutions, mediated by ‘School Effectiveness’, would be the best predictor of
‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’.
In Table 35, a regression was computed with the core self-evaluations,
‘Efficacious and Confident’, ‘Conscientious and Responsible’, ‘Collaborative and
Supportive’, and ‘Locus of Control’. They were entered into an analysis with the
dependent variable ‘School Effectiveness’. Results show that teachers who were
‘Collaborative and Supportive’ was the strongest predictor of ‘School Effectiveness’
(B = .450). This was followed by one relatively weak predictor ‘Conscientious and
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Responsible’ (B = .134). The levels of significance were .000 and .111, respectively.
The ‘Locus of Control’ was an insignificant predictor (B = .040) and ‘Efficacious and
Confident’ was an negative predictor (B = -.073) o f ‘School Effectiveness’.
TABLE 35. Coefficients: Dependent Variable - School Effectiveness
Scales Beta t Sig
Efficacious and Confident -.073 -.895 .372
Conscientious and Responsible .134 1.599 .111
Collaborative and Supportive .450 7.827 .000
Locus of Control .040 .618 .537
Using the data from Table 35, a path analysis diagram (see Figure 2) was
created similar to Judge’s model (1998, 2000) to illustrate the relationship of the
independent variable associated with the core self-evaluations onto the dependent
variable ‘School Effectiveness’. In Figure 2, boxes represent exogenous or
independent variables, and circles represent endogenous or dependent variables.
Table 36 shows the regression that was computed when ‘Efficacious and
Confident’, ‘Conscientious and Responsible’, ‘Collaborative and Supportive’, ‘Locus
of Control’ and ‘School Effectiveness’ were entered into an analysis with the
dependent variable ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’. Results indicate that ‘School
Effectiveness’ was the strongest predictor of ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ (B = .406),
followed by two adequate predictors, ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ (B = .265) and
‘Locus of Control’ (B = .285). These three scales had a level of significance at .000.
Two insignificant scales were ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ (B = .030) and
‘Efficacious and Confident’ (B = .023) to ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’.
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
p.-.073
p .134
School
Effectiveness
p .450
p .040 Locus of Control
Core Self-
Evaluation
Efficacious
and Confident
Collaborative
and Supportive
Conscientious
and Responsible
FIGURE 2. Hypothetical model relating core self-evaluations to
school effectiveness.
TABLE 36. Coefficients: Dependent Variable - Expanded Job Satisfaction
Scale Beta t Sig
Efficacious and Confident .023 .364 .716
Conscientious and Responsible .030 .450 .653
Collaborative and Supportive .265 4.983 .000
Locus of Control .285 5.865 .000
School Effectiveness .406 8.073 .000
Using the data from Table 26, a path analysis diagram in Figure 3 was
developed to illustrate the most significant relationships of the independent variables,
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the core self-evaluations and ‘School Effectiveness’ to the dependent variable
‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’.
d .134
School \ _____
EffectivenessJ p .40'
Expanded Job
Satisfaction
p .450
p .265
p .285
Core Self
Evaluation
Locus of Control
Efficacious
and Confident
Conscientious
and Responsible
Collaborative
and Supportive
FIGURE 3. Theoretical model relating the core self-evaluations and school
effectiveness to expanded job satisfaction.
Summary of Findings
The design of this study was replicated in part after the dispositional model by
Judge, et al. (1997, 1998, 2000), who introduced an integrated model potentially useful
for understanding job and life satisfaction. In this theoretical model, pathway analysis
and a diagram were constructed that would assist in understanding decisions made by
teachers. This model used as its core self-evaluations ‘Efficacious and Confident’,
‘Collaborative and Supportive’, ‘Conscientious and Responsible’, and ‘Locus of
Control’. In this study, no life satisfaction measures were used; however, job
satisfaction was measured by work characteristics and general satisfaction to
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
determine ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’. ‘School Effectiveness’ was the other scale
used in the study because in the literature, there is a relationship with job satisfaction.
The researcher conducted three preliminary analyses. First, descriptive
statistics (mean and standard deviations) for all the scales were computed. In Table
13, statistics indicated a significant positive core-self evaluation — ‘Conscientious and
Responsible’, ‘Collaborative and Supportive, ‘Efficacious and Confident’ and ‘Locus
of Control’. The (work characteristics and general) ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’
variable was comparatively close. The lowest mean was ‘School Effectiveness’,
which also had the largest skew or variations of opinions among teachers on this
factor.
Second, correlational analysis was done to determine whether a multi-variate
relationship existed on the the core self-evaluations with ‘School Effectiveness’ and
‘Job Satisfaction’. This would guard against Type I errors before conducting other
analysis. In Table 14, all six scales had statistically significant relationships at the p <
.01 level. The core self-evaluations variables and the three personal characteristics
were all highly correlated with one another (r = .626 to .677) and ‘Locus of Control’
was a respectable (r = .379). Thus, how teachers rated themselves on one scale was
strongly related to how they perceived themselves on the other scales.
When these four core self-evaluations were correlated with ‘ School
Effectiveness’, there was a level of significance (r = .214 to .450). Most importantly,
when these cores were measured to ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’, the range were high
(r = .426 to .555). As previously discussed, Judge, et al. poses that core self-
evaluation has a direct effect on job and life satisfaction (1998) and are mediated by
job characteristics (2000). ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ also contributed most
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
significantly to ‘School Effectiveness’ (r = .586, p < .01 ), which implies a direct
relationship between teachers who are satisfied with their job and the overall
effectiveness of their school’s program and performance.
insignificant
p .134
School
Effectiveness
^/Expanded Job
p .406 ^Satisfaction
p .450
p .265
Locus of Control p .285
Core Self
Evaluation
Conscientious
and Responsible
Efficacious
and Confident
Collaborative
and Supportive
FIGURE 4. Theoretical model relating core self-evaluations mediated
by school effectiveness to expanded job satisfaction.
Using the data from two regression analysis on ‘School Effectiveness’ (see
Table 25 and Figure 2) and ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ (see Table 26 and Figure 3),
in aggregate, a diagram and path analysis were constructed in Figure 4 to illustrate the
most significant direct and indirect relationships, personal characteristics, the
effectiveness of the school, and job satisfaction.
The third measure conducted was multiple regression analysis to determine if a
combination of variables could be identified that would best predict ‘Expanded Job
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Satisfaction’. Results of this measure provided four conclusions. Three variables had
a direct effect on ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’. The most significant effect was the
teacher’s perception of ‘School Effectiveness’ (p = .406); followed by two core self-
evaluations factors, ‘Locus of Control’(p = .285) and ‘Collaborative and Supportive’
(p = .265). These factors demonstrated, at some level of significance, an ability to
predict an individual’s perceived job satisfaction.
Two variables had a indirect effect on ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’. The most
significant was ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ (p = .450) to ‘Expanded Job
Satisfaction’, mediated by ‘School Effectiveness’ (p = .406), and a relatively weak
‘Conscientious and Responsible’ (p = .134), mediated by ‘School Effectiveness’ (p =
.406).
One variable had an insignificant effect on ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’.
‘Efficacious and Confident’ (p = .23) was mediated by ‘School Effectiveness’ and the
effect was adverse (p = -.73). These results are similar in other studies, that is, zero
order is modestly high, but when controlled by other cores, meaning is dropped out. A
component of ‘Efficacious and Confident’ relates to assertiveness and organizational
criticism. Another implication is that one’s core self-evaluations is a very important
factor in organizational behavior and job satisfaction. It strongly suggests the need to
nurture and develop employees.
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
In California and the nation, there has been a substantial increase in juvenile
crime and incarceration rates over the past decades. Well-trained and qualified
teachers are essential for approximately 110,000 incarcerated youth on any given
day (U.S. Department of Justice, 1991 and Bureau of the Census, 1995) and over
2,000,000 teens arrested annually (FBI, 1997).
Rutherford, Nelson, and Wolford (1986) wrote that “the teacher is the
essential ingredient in the success and failure of the student and the effectiveness of
an educational organization.” In light of this statement, how much do we know
about the county office of education, juvenile court, and correction and alternative
education teachers?
This study focused on the key factors that are of wide interest to many in
public and private organizations, and educational researchers: individual attributes,
job satisfaction, personality characterisitics, effective schools, locus of control, and
effective organizations. The first factor was demographic characteristics and
discussing their potential effects to job satisfaction. The teacher factors such as
age, gender, race, education, and tenure, have been considered important
correlations to job satisfaction (Spector, 1997). The second factor was personality
characteristics, which are increasingly being associated with effective teachers and
school’s research. Teachers who have high expectations for students believed that
all students can learn, especially the “at-risk” and “high risk” students. The third
factor investigated was effective schools. It has a broad contextual role in the
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
formation of job attitudes. Achieving effectiveness often implies efficiency and
productivity. Research maintains that decisions, communications and relationships
between individuals, and the hierarchy among work units, count in the workplace.
The fourth factor is job characteristics identified in the literature as important to job
satisfaction. Employees job satisfaction is important for its own sake as an
essential component of their personal well-being. For employers, job satisfaction is
important because it is linked to the success of the organization. Conventional
wisdom has long believed that job satisfaction was related to job performance.
After all, a “happy” employee should be a productive employee. What has been
established through research is that job satisfaction influences work motivation and
workplace behaviors. Having a “good” job means having these five elements: skill
variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback (Hackman and
Oldham, 1976). The fifth factor is the locus of control, which refers to how
individuals see themselves in control of, and responsible for, the course of
occurrences (desirable and undesirable) that they experience (Rotter, 1966). The
study of these factors and their results will be used to help formulate JCCAT
policies and procedures. This will produce the strategies and methods that will
assist in the selection of quality teachers, help retain the best, and place them in the
most appropriate site. This will also help to provide meaningful teacher
evaluations.
The design of this study has been modeled after Judge, Locke, and Durham
(1997) article, The Dispositional Causes o f Job Satisfaction: A Core Evaluation
Approach. In recent years, increasing attention has been given to the hypothesis
that factors within the individual affect the degree of satisfaction experienced on the
job. These factors, called dispositions, are asserted to affect life satisfaction, which
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
proposed the concept of “core evaluations.” This refers to fundamental,
subconscious conclusions that individuals reach about themselves, other people,
and the world. Based on the theory of core evaluations, it may explain the
dispositional source of job satisfaction. Judge argued that people’s appraisals of the
external world are affected not just by the attributes of objects and people’s desires,
with respect to those objects, but also the assumptions people hold about
themselves, and about other people and the world. The concept of core evaluations,
as presented by Judge, et al. (1997), was derived from aspects of eight literatures:
philosophy, clinical psychology, research, clinical psychology practice, job
satisfaction, stress, child development, personality, and social psychology.
In discussing the core self-evaluations, a main consideration was to be able
to identify the variables that are associated with teacher job satisfaction. The
understanding that these characteristics have upon teacher retention or attrition,
may then provide information that is useful in keeping the “best” in the profession.
Certain innate characteristics exist in individuals who are quality teachers and
leaders (Baker, 1994; Baker and Grayson, 1994). It is these characteristics that
seem to have a correlation to those quality teachers remaining in the profession, and
may also become a crucial link in the recruitment, selection, placement, induction,
and evaluations of teachers.
Summary of Findings
This study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of secondary juvenile court and correction, and
alternative education teachers?
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The demographic profile of JCCATs is very similiar to that of public
secondary teachers nationwide. In general, the gender ratio is slightly more male
and there is more ethnic diversity among the ranks. JCCATs are near the median
national age of 43 years of age. The staff is highly qualified. These teachers in
aggregate have more masters and doctoral degrees than public school teachers. The
majority have either a life or clear multiple subjects credential, which suggests that
they are generally committed to teaching as a career. They are tenured and have
permanent teaching positions. Most new teachers have several years of teaching
experience prior to their employment at LACOE, which implies that the teachers
are more skilled and mature in this organization. Beginning teachers (1-2 years at
LACOE) represent nearly one-fifth of the workforce, which suggests that there are
opportunities and interest among new recruits. A high percentage of these teachers
worked in juvenile camp facilities.
Specific findings of JCCATs are as follows. A majority of teachers in this
study were male (57%) than female (43%). There was a large amount of ethnic
diversity in the corp of teachers, the majority were Caucasian (56%), the minority
were non-white (44%). Fifty-eight percent were 50 years or older. Educationally,
most teachers were well educated, all (100%) had a bachelor’s degree, and most
(60%) completed an advanced degree, a master’s or a doctorate. Fifty-eight percent
of the teachers had a multiple subject credential, which meant that they could teach
in regular or self contained classes. Two-thirds (66%) of the teachers had either a
professional clear, or life credential, which suggests that they were career-oriented.
On teacher status, a sizeable majority (70.4%) considered themselves regular
employees at LACOE, with (61%) having permanent teaching status or tenure.
Fifty-eight percent of the teachers had a considerable amount of prior teaching
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experience (15 years or more) before they were recruited by LACOE. These
teachers employed by LACOE had a wide variation in experience, but nearly one-
third (35%) had 21 or more years of service and (34%) had 3-8 years of experience.
A large percent of the teachers (62%) were placed in Los Angeles County Probation
facilities, juvenile halls, or camps for incarcerated students, and (60%) taught in
single sex classes. The balance of the teachers (38%) taught in local community or
residential schools or programs and (40%) had co-educational classes.
2. What personality characteristics are associated with teacher expanded job
satisfaction?
The teachers surveyed were “agreeable” and they percieved themselves as
being ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ followed by ‘Collaborative and Supportive’
and ‘Efficacious and Confident’. Significantly, the surveyed teachers reflected a
fairly high level of agreement in all personal characteristics.
‘Conscientious and Responsible’ teachers were the most satisfied. They
missed very few days of work, were well organized, task-oriented, and very self-
disciplined. They believed that other teachers would describe them as energetic and
persistent.
‘Collaborative and Supportive’ teachers viewed themselves as very sociable
and often sought feedback from their colleagues. They viewed themselves as
motivating team players with a desire to create a positive and productive
professional environment. They were more likely to share ideas with others, to help
other teachers to improve by sharing ideas about teaching with them, to be more
supportive, and to function well in cooperative or team activities. These two
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
characteristic types reflect the importance of aligning personal characteristics with
the realistic expectations of the complex teaching-learning process.
‘Efficacious and Confident’ teachers were the slightly least satisfied. They
perceived themselves as achievers in command and efficacious. Generally, they
were more productive than other teachers, better able to motivate others, highly
reliable, and leaders among their colleagues. They reported a more positive self-
image, and tended to be happier and felt more in control. Importantly, they saw
themselves as able to cope, grow, and survive in the profession.
3. Among the demographic variables, are there any significant relationships with
the core self-evaluations, school effectiveness, and teacher job satisfaction?
There were significant differences in four demographic variables: age,
teaching position, years of teaching, and primary school assignment. For age, there
were two core self-evaluations, ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ and ‘Collaborative
and Supportive’, that were significantly different. Teachers aged 20-29 perceived
themselves significantly higher with respect to these personality characteristics,
than teachers aged 30-39 which were the least significant.
Typically young teachers have less teaching experience and therefore they
receive a considerable amount of staff development training. They receive mentor
teacher support through the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA), a
two-year induction program. Teachers entering the profession as pre-intems,
interns, or first year and fully credentialed teachers. They become part of a strong
support system designed to ensure their success (Bloom and Davis, 1999; Darling-
Hammond, 2000). Clearly, it is important and beneficial that these teachers
collaborate and cooperate with their mentors and peers.
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In this study, teachers aged 20-29 appeared to be more disciplined and
organized at school and work. There appears to be a higher level of motivation
among beginning teachers to demonstrate their classroom savvy and responsibility
to students, parents and staff. Many younger teachers were very task-oriented and
they are seldom absent from their teaching responsibilities. Many are still in
college completing their college coursework and credential requirements.
‘Conscientious and Responsible’ traits are very typical if these teachers want to
start in the profession.
At age 30-39, many teachers may have completed their probationary period
and there is a dramatic decrease in staff support which may result in isolation.
Typically, what is offered to these teachers is the Peer Assistance and Review
Program (PAR). Participants for the PAR are either self-referred, designated to
attend because of a poor evaluation from administration, or recommended by the
district’s collective bargaining agreement (Ed Source, 1996). The perception by
some educators is that only unsatisfactory teachers receive this training; however, in
retrospect, it provides beneficial strategies and teaching techniques that most could
use in the classroom. This could be a critical period of time for teachers who are
unsure about remaining in the profession. By the eighth year, attrition begins to
level off and does not rise again until teachers near retirement (Bolich, 2001).
JCCATs having less teacher support while attempting to teach in a non-traditional
school adds further burden on the teacher, particularly after BTSA.
The type of teaching position was an important factor in this study. Those
teachers who had regular positions with the district had a significantly higher
‘Locus of Control’ than those in an internship or pre-intem credential program.
Another significant element for the ‘Locus of Control’ scale was the subject’s years
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of teaching, specifically those with 21 or more years of experience in comparison to
those with 1-2 years of experience. These results imply that teachers who have
regular teaching assignment and the most experience believes that they have more
control (internal locus of control) over their own lives than the interns or pre-intems
(those with 1-2 years of experience). This also suggests a difference between a
career educator and one who hopes to be a career educator. Interns or pre-interns
feel that they are more affected by “powerful others” (external locus of control) and
“chance” than the regular teachers. The reason is that these teachers have little or
no teaching experience. They do not have a regular classroom assignment, but have
day-to-day changes and assigned in a variety of school facilities (juvenile halls,
camps, or community schools). They are on short term teaching contracts, and
whether or not they become a permanent teacher depends heavily on their
evaluations by the school principal. Interns and pre-intems are also constantly
evaluated and assessed by mentor and support provider staff. They are observed by
other teachers and must maintain a good relationship with probation staff and
parents. They must also have a successful interview and be screened by human
resources. Furthermore, since most beginning teachers are still working on their
credentials, they are subject to evaluations by the university field supervisor and
need to fill course requirements. Whether an intern or pre-intem gets a contract
depends highly on all other individuals and circumstances, i.e., teaching vacanies,
location of school.
Teachers whose primary school assignments are in community schools were
significantly more ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ than teachers who were in the
independent study program or in a support services position. One interpretation of
this difference may be that in community schools, there are only 2-4 teachers at one
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
site, and there is a considerable amount of cooperation, collaboration, feedback and
share decision. Each teacher instructs multiple subjects and they instruct the same
students, so communication is imperative. In the independent study program or
support service program, a single teacher operates an educational program or
service. There is a considerable amount of autonomy in these positions with the
exception of an IEP or staff meetings. There is also an enormous amount of
paperwork in these programs which further isolates these teachers from other staff.
4. What relationships exist between the core self-evaluations (Efficacious and
Confident, Collaborative and Supportive, Conscientious and Responsible, and
Locus of Control) with ‘School Effectiveness’ in predicting ‘Expanded Job
Satisfaction’?
The results of this study support the research by Judge, et al. (1998, 2000).
All core self-evaluations (Collaborative and Supportive, Conscientious and
Responsible, Efficacious and Confident, and Locus of Control) had a positive direct
effect on ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’. The regression analysis indicates that
‘Locus of Control’ and ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ contributed most to the core
self-evaluations concept (see Table 36). These factors demonstrate, at some level
of significance, an ability to predict a teacher’s perceived job satisfaction. Teachers
who viewed themselves as ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ are very sociable, sought
feedback from colleagues, were motivating team players, create a positive and
productive professional environment, and are willing to share ideas and help other
teachers to improve. Teachers who have a ‘Locus of Control’ believed that they
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
control events in their lives (internal locus of control), or powerful others or events
that happen by chance (external locus of control). These teachers believe their
“locus” is more concerned with confidence and in being able to control outcomes.
This would suggest that the school as an organization should continue to nurture
teachers and expand the opportunities for professional staff development training
far beyond the initial years of employment.
The regression analysis indicates that ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ and
‘Efficacious and Confident’ contributed the least to the core self-evaluations
concept in terms of predicting teacher job satisfaction. Studies on classroom
discipline suggest that a lack of control could contribute to stress in trying to cope
with the daily problems of teaching and produce a lower sense of efficacy and job
satisfaction (Schwab and Iwaniki, 1982). Student characteristics such as being “at-
risk” or “high-risk” affects teacher efficacy, school effectiveness, and job
satisfaction. If students are seen as having low ability, or as being unable or
unwilling to learn, teachers tend to lower their expectations of their own ability to
teach them (Metz, 1988) and focus on discipline over instruction (Brophy and
Evertson, 1981). Rosenholtz (1987) suggested that a sense of control over one’s
environment may contribute to perceptions of efficacy and a locus of control. A
lack of school or classroom discipline often makes them feel hindered and
ineffective in making independent decisions concerning daily work goals and
operation. Marso and Pigge (1991) found that student teachers who are more
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
anxious about teaching and feel that they have less control over their environment,
(external locus of control) have lower self-rating of future success. Thus,
counseling and other strategies aimed at reducing anxiety while building self
esteem would increase internal control.
The factor that most significantly and affected ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’
is the teacher’s perception o f ‘School Effectiveness’ which is supported by
considerable amount of research literature. Teachers believed their school
environment is a place where they could set priorities and guide schoolwide reform.
They were aware of the following: (1) the school’s vision and goals of what all
students should know and be able to do; (2) all students are engaged in current
educational practices; (3) there is an emphasis on instructional practices for high
expectations for all students; however, teachers believe that students are expected
to be responsible and productive and to hold higher expectations for themselves;
(4) there is a student assessment and accountability linked to the school’s goals; yet,
there remains a need for a variety of evaluation report procedures to provide school
community with information supporting the continuous improvement of the
school’s programs; and (5) teachers slightly believe that all students can learn in a
challenging and rigorous curriculum, become independent learners, and achieve the
school’s learning results.
The Mediator effect was a significant factor in the study. When the
perception o f ‘School Effectiveness’ becomes a mediator between the core self-
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluations and ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ (see Figure 4), the most significant
indirect effect was ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ followed by a somewhat weaker
‘Conscientious and Responsible’. The implication is that one’s core self-
evaluations is a very important factor in organizational behavior and job
satisfaction. It strongly suggests the need to nurture and develop employees.
Prospective teachers currently being trained in teacher preparation programs
include: para-educators, pre-collegiate students, working college students,
credentialed teachers from out of state and country, pre-intern and intern
candidates, and waivered and emergency permit teachers (LACOE, 2000). Strong
district support programs, BTSA, and expanding partnerships with institutions of
higher education, enhance the recruitment capabilities of the intern credential
program under the guidance of the BTSA staff.
Discussion
Consistent with Judge and Bono (2000) hypotheses, there is a link between
self-evaluation to ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’ mediated by ‘School Effectiveness’
and evidence of a direct relationship between these concepts. Judge, et al. (1997,
1998) hypothesized a direct link between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction
and, in most cases, the direct relationship was larger than the mediated relationship.
In his model, core self-evaluations influence job satisfaction through a process of
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
emotional generalization of individuals’ positive feeling about themselves that spill
over onto their jobs.
The most important finding of this study is that core self-evaluations of the
self have consistent effects on ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’. That is, the way people
see themselves affects how they experience their jobs and even their lives. As
Magnusson (1990) noted: “An individual’s view of himself or herself...with
respect to self-evaluation (overall approval and acceptance of himself or herself),
plays a central role in the process of interaction with the environment” (p. 201). It
can be argued that individuals with positive core evaluations would be attracted to
challenging jobs because they see the potential for greater intrinsic rewards,
whereas individuals with a negative self-concept could be expected to focus on the
difficulty and potential for failure of challenging work thereby avoiding it.
Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-regulation further supports a link between
core self-evaluations and job complexity. He predicted that individuals’ beliefs
about their capabilities to perform a task will influence their motivation to seek out
or avoid the task. He noted that: “People avoid activities and environments they
believe exceed their capabilities, but they readily undertake activities and pick
social environments they judge themselves as capable of handling.” The higher the
perceived self-efficacy, the more challenging the activities they select. Thus,
individuals with a positive self-concept should be more willing to take on enriched
jobs because they believe in their ability to handle the challenges the job provides.
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Furthermore, one might also view the link between core self-evaluations and job
challenge as the process by which individuals with positive self concepts gain
control over their work environment. This has been suggested with respect to locus
of control and self-efficacy.
In this study, there was a mildly adverse relationship between ‘Efficacious
and Confident’ and ‘School Effectiveness’ and only a slightly positive relationship
between ‘Efficacious and Confident’ and ‘Expanded Job Satisfaction’, which
suggests that there could be issues related to assertiveness and organizational
criticism.
Judge, et al. (1997) states that external core evaluations are similar to core
self-evaluations in that both are fundamental in nature and global in scope. The
difference between the two is that core self-evaluations are self-appraisals and
external core evaluations are the appraisals individuals make of their environment.
He argued that external core evaluations pertain to other people (trust versus
cynicism) and the world (belief in a benevolent world, belief in a just world).
The importance of developing a sense of trust early in life was noted long
ago by Erikson (1950). The opposite of trust is cynicism, the view that other people
are “out to get you” and that they lack moral principles, including integrity. In
reality, some people can be trusted and others cannot, but this core evaluation goes
deeper than one’s evaluation of others. It pertains to one’s deepest convictions
about the basic nature of other people. Cynicism is sometimes viewed as the basic
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
premise behind “Theory X” management. This premise could affect satisfaction
with life and one’s job to the extent that these involved other people.
Schools operate under some degree of bureaucratic linkage between
management authority and the technical operations of the schools’ teaching. The
degree of consensus about goals and the structure of daily communications among
different members may either reinforce those bureaucratic separations or act to
overcome them. In bureaucratic organizations, managers strive to maximize
participants’ effectiveness and efficiency while minimizing the unhappiness
workers feel over their lack of control of evaluative information (Weber, 1947). He
suggests that the rationalization and bureaucratization of an organization increase
with size, making human interactions and a sense of community more difficult in
larger environments.
Recommendations and Implications
Teacher Selection
The intent of this research is to make a contribution that has both practical
and theoretical suggestions for the superintendent, director of human resources,
division directors, principals, teachers, union administrators, and the board of
education. It will also assist the committees drawn from its school staff, citizens or
parent groups in teacher selection. The critical issue being that it is encumbent
upon these individuals and groups to begin the process by finding teachers who
possess the personal characteristics, experience, and knowledge, that will lead to
job satisfaction as a life-long career educator. It also maintains that selecting the
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“right” person will increase organizational effectiveness and quality student
education.
Personal characteristics could have further implications for personal
competence, educational and motivational factors, and social behavior by helping to
characterize people by their resemblance to certain personality types. According to
the National Association of School Administrators, while there is emphasis on
teacher credentials, instructional skills and strategies of teacher candidates, their
personal traits and non-instructional talents appear to be just as important. As
personnel recruiters and administrators select new and beginning teachers,
they are seeking teacher candidates who have the personal attributes such as
enthusiastic, positive, flexible, a team player, committed and loyal to the
profession, as well as their skill in behavioral and classroom management.
Furthermore, research on effective schools suggests that there is a direct link
with teacher effectiveness and that particular characteristics are being sought by
recruiters and administrators. Teachers who are good role models have high
expectations for students, and believe that all students can learn, and are caring and
concerned about youth. A large number of students who are “at-risk” or “high-risk”
because of dropping out, pregnancy, alienation, crime, and dislike of school, they
have low self-esteem and poor self-concepts. School systems are seeking teachers
who can address these educational concerns and promote positive self-concepts.
With the changing demographics, new and beginning teachers need to have
personal skills and attributes to work in inner city schools with multi-ethnic
students and parents. They need to be involved in alternative and court educational
facilities. They are second language learners and are flexible, innovative and
willing to make changes. The more closely a personality is aligned to the
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
profession, there may be greater probability of teacher success with “high-risk”
students and in different correctional environments (Quinlan, 1991).
The personality characteristic that categorizes the JCCATs in this study
provides several profiles that can predict success in the organization. This can be
accomplished through a systematic effort to assist personnel in adjusting
placements and new assignments so that they can contribute to personal and
professional satisfaction. The need for educational policies should include
information on duties, relationships, responsibilities of the position, and
characteristics of the system (i.e., purpose, procedures, personnel).
‘Efficacious and Confident’ teachers make quality leaders and mentors.
They have a strong desire to grow professionally and seek to enlist in committee,
task force, and staff development opportunities. They should be encouraged to be
in positions as facilitators, trainers, lead teachers, or special assignments that result
in their search for administrative positions. They are good problem solvers and
they seek opportunities and challenges. Since they are highly reliable and make
good leaders, they make excellent mentors working with beginning and new
teachers. The study concluded that teachers aged 40-49 were most associated with
this personal characteristic.
Teachers who are ‘Collaborative and Supportive’ need to work
collaboratively with other teachers who will support their work and effort. They
believe in sharing their skills, knowledge and ideas, and provide meaningful
feedback. They work well in cooperative team-building, join decision-making
committees and activities, and seek others for support. This study concluded that
these teachers were most often the youngest (aged 20-29) and oldest aged (60 and
over).
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Those who are ‘Conscientious and Responsible’ need to know that they will
be appreciated for their organizational skills, classroom and behavioral
management skills, assertive discipline and enthusiasm, and dedication to the
profession. They are very sociable and have excellent rapport with others. These
teachers were most often the youngest (aged 20-29) and the the oldest (aged 60 and
over).
School Effectiveness and Job Satisfaction
The overall school effectiveness as perceived by teachers has a direct effect
on job satisfaction. Teachers must know that their work and career are important
and that they are a highly valued part of both the school environment and the local
community. Their work with the “at risk” and “high risk” students needs to be
commended by all those associated with the field of education.
The contextual school environment should be conducive to reforms at the
State and National level to continue ongoing school academic improvement. All
teachers in the school community should be actively demonstrating in their lesson
plans the visions, goals, objectives of the school, and California State Standards, as
it relates to powerful teaching and student learning opportunities. There must be
ongoing teacher evaluations, assessments, and accountability.
The difficulty of achieving school effectiveness must be communicated to
parents and the school board because of the many educational deficiencies that
students bring to the school enviroinment. If all teachers are supported as a major
contribution to the school environment, they will be satisfied with their job
responsibilities and will select to “stay” in the teaching profession.
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The accreditation organizations, Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, and internal LACOE management and curriculum teams, conduct
evaluations to support educational achievement goals. Ongoing work needs to be
conducted to ensure that the school environment supports and encourages, rather
than criticize the performance of teachers. This is of great importance as it relates
to State and National standardized criterion test results.
Professional Development
The importance of continuous ongoing staff development should not be
limited to the first and second year beginning teachers. It should be a learning and
training experience through the entire career in teaching. This will assist teachers
in meeting the most significant and appropriate teaching practices for students
identified as “risk.” Research and literature has been written to show that teachers
need to play a key role in the development and implementation of professional
development training. Teachers should be encouraged to enhance their
instructional skills in professional relationships that focus on participation in long
term teaching effectiveness. This includes strategies, methods, procedures and
policies, that have successful student academic performance results. This may be
an incentive for teachers to remain in the profession rather than to seek another
career. Utilizing the professional skills and knowledge of experienced teachers in
assisting beginning and new teachers will be beneficial in solving classroom and
school organizational problems.
If we are going to retain teachers in the profession, there must be a united
effort to assist them in being a success. Teachers who have the personal
characteristics identified in this study will meet the challenge and rise to the
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
occasion if they receive the awards of encouragement and support that they are an
essential being. Matching teacher profiles with administrators, mentor teachers,
teacher committees, and schools that can lead to success and achievement, is an
important part of keeping them in the teaching profession.
Placement
The placement of teachers have a positive relationship on teacher job
satisfaction. To be able to place a teacher in the right position and school
environment is paramount to teacher retention. Finding the right “position” for the
“right” teacher is essential to guarantee the higher level of teacher job satisfaction.
Matching years of teacher experience, skills, knowledge, and education, can be
better pridictors of successful indicators of teacher assignments at specific school
sites, grade levels, and types of classes and programs.
The importance of having a significant deal of information about the teacher
prior to placement is essential in the beginning years of a new teacher and their
ability to remain in the profession. Activities related to the induction of a new or
beginning teacher into the teaching profession must be initiated at the beginning of
their first teaching position or even, if possible, at the time of admission to the pre
service teacher preparation program (Baker, et al., 1998).
It has been determined that all three personal characteristics measured in the
“School Self Study Survey” were found to be relevant in coping and surviving in
the teaching field. The Student Characteristics Study conducted by (Baker, et al.,
1998) provided an opportunity for teachers who are new to the profession to be
identified and to be taught how to survive and grow in the profession.
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It has been determined that personality characteristics related to working in
different school facilities should be taken into account when placing a teacher in
their position. Results suggest that teachers who possess the personality
characteristics in this study who exhibit ‘Collaborative and Supportive’,
‘Conscientious and Responsible’, and ‘Efficacious and Confident’, are best suited
to work in community day schools. Furthermore, it indicates slightly greater school
effectiveness and expanded job satisfaction with teachers placed in community day
schools. The next placement option would be juvenile camps, halls, and residential
schools, followed by independent study assignments.
Suggestions for Future Research
This pilot study of juvenile court and alternative education teachers should
first and foremost be further advanced. Research should involve the participation
of several county offices of education that have identical schools and programs to
LACOE, which would help to determine if these teachers can be generalized or
profiled. In addition, a comparative study of COE and USD teachers could be
beneficial in developing more perceptions of the teachers.
Based on the findings in the current study, one area that needs further
examination is teacher recruitment. Specifically, why do highly experienced
teachers leave their employer and decide to work for LACOE? Some factors that
could be investigated are: size of the organization, the twelve-month teaching
schedule, a variety of lateral teaching opportunities and settings in other divisions,
the level of behavioral management support from the probation department, and a
flexible vacation schedule.
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research on selecting and supporting beginning and new teachers are
crucial issues to those staying in the profession and it may suggest the need for
further professional staff development beyond the BTSA or PAR programs for
tenured teachers. Further, research on non-graded and graded classes (elementary
and middle) and all specialized teachers (juvenile court, special education and
alternative schools), would provide additional information and possibly
differentiated characteristics and training needs of other groups of teachers
(Wheeler-Ayers, 2003).
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen-Hagen, B. (1991). Public juvenile facilities: Children in custody 1989.
Update on statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-7.
Allinder, T. (1994). The relationships between efficacy and instructional practices
of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 17, 86-95.
Alltounian, A.R. (1992). The relationship between middle school organization,
school climate, and teacher job satisfaction. Doctoral dissertation:
University of Southern California.
Amster, J. (1984). Identifying learning problems in youthful offenders: Rationale
and model. Journal o f Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation,
8(4), 65-77.
Anderson, C. (1992). High risk students succeed. Journal o f Correctional
Education, 3(1), 2-5.
Angle, T. (1982). The development of educational programs in American adult
prisons and juvenile reformatories during the 19th Century. Journal o f
Correctional Education Association, 33(3), 4-7.
Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective
teacher education. Journal o f Teacher Education, 35(5), 28-32.
Ashcroft, R. (1987). A conceptual model for assessing levels of interpersonal
skills. Teaching Behaviorally Disordered Youth, 16(3), 10-21.
Ashcroft, R. (1992). Attachment and transition. Monograph of the transition
specialist training program. California State University, San Bernardino,
CA.
Ashcroft, R. & McNair, J. (1992). Life along the Sacramento: Teaching in
alternative and institutional settings in California Issues in Teacher
Education.
Ashton, P. & Webb, R. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers ’ sense o f efficacy
and student achievement. New York: Longman.
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Baker, R.L & Grayson, J.A. (1994). USC metropolitan teacher education
program: A follow-up o f its graduates. Paper presented at the American
Education Research Associates, Session 15.5. New Orleans, LA.
Baker, R.L. (1997). Teacher selection and development project. University of
Southern California. USC teacher characteristics survey: Experimental
Form 797st.
Baker, R.L., Grayson, J., Guarino, T., & Colyar, J. (1998). Correlates o f a
successful student teaching experience. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego,
CA.
Baker, R.L. & Matakovich, M. (1998). School status survey, teacher selection and
development project. Rossier School of Education, University of Southern
California.
Baker, R.L. & Matakovich, M. (1999). Development of the School Status Survey,
Form 997. Technical Memorandum 499-1. Unpublished manuscript,
Center for Teacher Selection and Development, Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Baldwin, B. (1990). Personality factors o f elementary and secondary pre-service
teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South
Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Ball, E. (1982). Incarceration and the rate of achievement of learning disabled
juvenile delinquents. Journal o f Experimental Educator, 51(2), 54-56.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychology Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations o f thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewod Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise o f control. New York: Freeman.
Barden, J. (1963). The education of people with problems: Expectations and
limits. The Welfare Reporter, 92-97.
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bames, S. (1990). A contrastive study o f mentor and non-mentor teachers in their
interactions with at-risk students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. Boston, MA.
Becker, B. & Krzytofiak, F. (1982). The influence of labour market discrimination
on locus of control. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 21, 60-70.
Bein, J., Anderson., D.E., & Maes, W.R. (1990). Teacher Locus of Control and
Job Satisfaction. Educational Research Quarterly, 14(3),7-10.
Bimey, L.B. (1998). The relationship between innate teacher characteristics and
secondary teacher retention. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.
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/.
Borman, G.D. & Rachuba, L. (2000). The characteristics o f schools and
classrooms attended by successful minority students. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA, April, 24-28, 2000.
Boyd, W.L. (1991). What makes ghetto schools succeed or fail? Teachers College
Record, 92(3), 331-362.
Broder, P. (1981). Observations on the link between learning disabilities and
juvenile delinquency. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 73(6), 838-850.
Brophy, J.E. & Evertson, C.M. (1981). Student characteristics and teaching.
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Brophy, J.E. & Evertson, C.M. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmental
perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brophy, J. & Good, M. (1982). Successful teaching strategies for the inner city
child. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(2), 527-530.
Brown, M.A. (2001). Differential characteristics o f beginning teachers. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California.
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Brown, R. (1990). Prison education: Long-term aims. Yearbook o f Correctional
Education, 97-103.
Brownsville Consolidated Independent School District & Hopkins, M. (1999).
Effective school practices: What works. Paper presented at the
International conference on Effective Schools. Houston, TX, October 29,
1999.
Bryk, A.S. & Driscoll, M.W. (1988). The high school a community: Contextual
influences and consequences for students and teachers. National Center on
Effective Secondary Schools. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Bullock, R. (1986). Implementing educational services in a detention facility.
Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 8, 21-29.
Bullock, R. (1990). Secure accommodation for very difficult adolescents: Some
recent research findings, Journal o f Adolescence, 13, 205-211.
Bureau of the Census. (1994-95). Children in custody at public and private
juvenile detention, correctional, and shelter facilities. Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Sacramento, CA: Authors.
Butler, D.E. & Smith, D.L. (1989). A study offactors associated with fifth year
teacher interns ’ concerns, problems, and stress. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San
Francisco, CA.
Buzzell, T. (1988). Law related education in a juvenile justice setting. New
Designs forYouth Development, 8, 2-4.
Cadavid, V. & Lunenburg, F.C. (1991). Locus o f control, pupil control ideology,
and dimensions o f teacher burnout. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
California Department of Education. (1999). Factors affecting teen-age youth.
Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Justice, Division of Criminal Justice Information
Services. Crime in California. Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Bureau
of Criminal Information and Analysis, April 2001.
California Teacher Association. (1997). 200,000 teachers wanted. California
Educator, 3(2), 8.
Ill
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Callan, V.J., Terry, D.J., & Schweizer, R. (1994). Coping resources, coping
strategies and adjustment to organizational change: Direct of buffering
effects. Work and Stress, 8, 372-383.
Carnegie Foundation. (1990). The condition o f teaching: A state-by-state
analysis. Princeton, N.J.
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared:
Teachers for the21st Century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Carney, L.P. (1980). Corrections: Treatment and philosophy. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cegelka, P. & Doorlag, D. (1995). Personnel preparation: Relationship to job
satisfaction. In National Dissemination Forum on issues relating to special
education teacher satisfaction, retention and attrition. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No: ED 389-152.
Chance, P. & Rice, R. (1999). The Las Vegas School District, teacher attitrition
and reasons. Journal o f Teacher Education, 77,102-109.
Chapman, D.W. & Lowther, M.A. (1982). Teachers’ satisfaction with teaching.
Journal o f Educational Research, 75(4), 241-247.
Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’ s schools.
Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution.
Ciuros, Jr., W. (1988). Opening address: 1988 Correctional Education Leadership
Forum. Journal o f Correctional Education, 39(1), 2-4.
Clark, J. & Guest, K. (1995). Unveiling the personality traits that make your
teachers well suited to changing times. The Executive Educator, 19-22.
Clark, R. & Keating, W.F. (1995). A fresh look at teacher job satisfaction. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of National Council of States on In-service
Education. Anaheim, CA.
Clifton, D. & Nelson, P. (1990). Soar with your strengths. Lincoln, NE: SRI and
Gallup, Inc.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching.
Journal o f Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Collins, M. (1988). Towards a distinctive vocation for prison educators: Some
key concerns and relevant strategies. Journal o f Correctional Education,
39(1), 24-28.
Conley, S.C., Bacharach, S.D., & Bauer, S. (1989). The school work environment
and teacher career dissatisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly,
25(1), 58-81.
Cook, J. & Hull, G. (1990). Pre-placement characteristics and educational status
of handicapped and non-handicapped youthful offenders. Journal o f
Correctional Education, 41(4), 194-198.
Correctional Education Association. (1988). Standards for adult and juvenile
correctional educational programs. Invest Learning, Inc. Laurel, MD:
Author.
Correctional Education Association. (1997). Strategic plan o f the CEA. Invest
Learning Incorporated. Laurel, MD: Author.
Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). The NEO-PI Personality Inventory. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crandle, V., Katkovsky, W., & Crandal, V. (1965). Children’s belief in their own
control of reinforcements in intellectual academic achievement situations.
Child Development, 36, 91-109.
Cropanzano, R. & James, K. (1990). Some methodological considerations for the
behavioral genetic analysis of work attitudes. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 75, 433-439.
Cureton, C. & Cook, M. (1990). A statewide selection model for teacher
education: A criterion related approach. ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No: 328 518.
Cutrer, S.S. & Daniel L.G. (1992). Teachers 'perceptions o f employment related
problems: A survey o f teachers in two states. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville,
TN. ERIC Document Reproduction Services No: 357-025.
Darling-Hammonds, L. (1994). The current status o f teaching and teacher
development in the United States. Paper prepared for the National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Darling-Hammonds, L. (1996). The quiet revolution. Rethinking teacher
development. Education Leadership, 53(6), 4-10.
Darling-Hammonds, L. (2000). Solving the dilemmas o f teacher supply, demand,
and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified
teacher for every child. Kutztown, PA: National Commission on Teaching
and America’s Future.
Davis, D.L., Bean, G.J., Schumacher, J.E., & Stringer, T.L. (1991). Prevalence of
emotional disorders in a juvenile justice institutional population. American
Journal o f Forensic Psychology, 9(1), 76-79.
DeGraw, D. (1987). A study of correctional educators in adult correctional
institutions. Journal o f Correctional Education, 38(1), 18-20.
Delgado, Lupe L. (2001). Correlates o f job satisfaction among high school
principals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
DeLong, T.J. (1987). Teachers and their careers: Why do they choose teaching?
Journal o f Career Development, 14, 118-125.
Dell’ Apa, F. (1973). Education programs in adult correctional institutions.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Boulder, CO.
Dell’ Apa, F. (1974). Education for the youthful offender in correctional
institutions issues. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Boulder, CO.
Denham, C.H. & Michael, J.J. (1981). Teacher sense of efficacy: A definition of
the constructs and a model for further research. Educational Research
Quarterly, 5, 39-61.
Donndelinger, G.M. (1997). A comparison study: Job satisfaction factors and
retention o f minority versus non-minority teachers. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California.
Duguid, S. (1988). To inform their discretion, prison education and empowerment.
Journal o f Correctional Education, 39(4), 174-181.
Duguid, S. (1990). Education for what: Curriculum, pedagogy, and program
objectives. The Yearbook o f Correctional Education, 113-128.
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dumaresq, R. & Blunt, R. (1984). School climate renewal: A longitudinal study
o f planned change strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
American Educational Research Association. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 243 209.
Edmonds, R.R. (1986). Characteristics o f effective schools. The school
achievement o f minority children, 93-104. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Edmonds, R.R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational
Leadership, 15-24.
EdSource, Inc. (1996). Recruiting, preparing, and credentialing California’s
teachers. EdSource Report. April, 1996.
EdSource, Inc. (1999). An Update: How California recruits, prepares, and assists
new teachers.
Educational Testing Services. (1948-96). Scholastic aptitude test. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Eggleston, C. (1984). Results o f a national correctional/special education survey.
Correctional and special education training project working paper. Tempe,
AZ.
Eggleston, C. (1990). Curriculum issues for the incarcerated handicapped learner.
The Yearbook o f Correctional Education, 129-137.
Eggleston, C. & Gehring, T. (1986). Correctional education paradigms in the
United States and Canada. Journal o f Correctional Education, 37(2), 86-
92.
Fejes-Mendoza, K. (1987). Learning handicapped and non-learning handicapped
female juvenile offenders’ educational and criminal profiles. Journal o f
Correctional Education, 38(4), 148-153.
Ferguson, E. (1990). On the design of motivating learning environments for
intellectually disabled offenders. Journal o f Correctional Education, 41(1),
32-34.
Finn, J. (1988). School performance of adolescents in juvenile court. Urban
Education, 23(2), 150-161.
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Firestone, W. & Wilson, B.L. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to
improve instruction: The principal’s contribution. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 21(2)7-20.
Fiske, D.W. (1949). Consistency of factorial structures of personality ratings from
different sources. Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-44.
Forbes, M.A. (1991). Special education in juvenile correctional facilities. Journal
o f Correctional Education, 42(1), 31-34.
Forsyth, P. & Hoy, W. (1978). Isolation and alienation in educational
organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 14(1), 80-96.
Fox, T. (1989). The necessity of moral education in prisons. Journal o f
Correctional Education, 40(1), 20-25.
Frantz, R. (1980). Internal-external locus of control and labour market
performance: Empirical evidence using longitudinal survey data.
Psychology Quarterly Journal o f Human Behavior, 17, 23-29.
Frase, L.E. (1992). Teacher compensation and motivation. Lancaster, PA:
Technomic.
Frase, L.E. & Sorenson, L. (1992). Teacher motivation and satisfaction: Impact
on participating management. NASSP Bulletin, 37-43.
Freasier, A. (1986). Involving juvenile offenders in the IEP planning process.
Journal o f Correctional Education, 37(4), 134-139.
Fried, Y. & Ferris, G.R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A
review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322.
Frymier, J. (1992). Children who hurt, children who fail. Phi Delta Kappan, 50,
257-259.
Fullan. M.G. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning o f educational change.
New Teachers College Press.
Fuller, D. & Izu, J.A. (1986). Explaining school cohesion: What shapes the
organizational beliefs of teachers? American Journal o f Education, 95,
501-35.
Furnham, A. (1992). Personality at work. Routledge: London and New York.
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gagne, E. (1977). Educating delinquents: A review of research. Journal o f
Special Education, 11, 13-27.
Gaither, T. (1982). An edition. Journal, 20-21.
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational Research: An Introduction.
White Plains, New York: Longman Publishers.
Gallup Incorporated. (1984). Gallup poll: Teacher attitudes on teaching. New
York City, NY.
Gallup Incorporated. (1993). Gallup urban teacher themes. New York City, NY.
Ganser, T. (1996). Teacher effectiveness: Views o f pre-service and I-nservice
teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Mid Western
Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Garfunkel, F. (1986). The conditions of correctional education. Journal o f
Correctional Education, 37(4), 157-160.
Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review
Sociology, 15,291-316.
Gehring, T. & Clark, R. (1979). A proposal from the rehabilitative school
authority for correctional education teacher certification and teacher
training program. Richmond, VA: Rehabilitative School Authority.
Gehring, T. (1981). The correctional education professional identity issue, part 1.
Journal o f Correctional Education, 33(1), 8-9.
Gehring, T. (1981). The correctional education professional identity issue, part 2.
Journal o f Correctional Education, 33(3), 20-23.
Gehring, T. (1985). The correctional education prison reform link, part 1, 1840-
1900. Journal o f Correctional Education, 36(4), 140-146.
Gehring, T. (1985). Correctional teacher skills and characteristics. Richmond:
Virginia Commonwealth University.
Gehring, T. (1988). The connection between democracy and cognitive processes
in correctional education. Journal o f Correctional Education, 39(2), 62-69.
Gehring, T. (1989). A change in our way of thinking. Journal o f Correctional
Education, 40(4), 166-173.
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gehring, T. (1992). Correctional teacher skills, characteristics, and performance
indicators. Issues in Teacher Education, 1(2), 22-42.
Gehring, T. (1993). Teacher selection, moral and spiritual education, and character
formation for confined learners. Journal o f Correctional Education, 44(2),
68-74.
Gersten, R. (1995). Impact ofjob design problems and lack o f support. In
National Dissemination Forum on issues relating to special education
teacher satisfaction, retention, and attrition. ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 389-151.
Getzels, J.W. & Jackson, P.W. (1963). The teacher’s personality and
characteristics. In N.L. Gage (ed.), Handbook o f Research on Teaching,
506-582. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Ghiselli, E.E. & Barthol, R.P. (1953). The validity of personality inventories in the
selection of employees. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 37, 18-20.
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important
factor in school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 173-184.
Gist, M.E. & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational
behavior and human resource management. Academy o f Management
Review, 12, 472-885.
Glick W.H., Jenkins, G.D., Jr., & Gupta, N. (1986). Method versus substance:
How strong are underlying relationships between job characteristics and
attitudinal outcomes? Academy o f Management Journal, 29, 441-464.
Goodard, R. (1998). Efficacy and motivation in education. Teacher Education,
54(4), 10-21.
Goodard, R. (2000). Collective efficacy and student achievement. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
April 2000.
Gold, R. (1992). Teacher attrition and retention. Journal Teacher Education,
32(1) 45-48.
Gold, Y. & Roth. R.A. (1992). Teachers managing stress. London: Falmer Press.
Gosnell, S. (2000). Determinants of job satisfaction. Journal on Behavioral
Research, 27(1), 17-23.
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gothold, S.E. (1992). Herding the sacred cows. A retirement address by the
Superintendent, Los Angeles County Office of Education at the California
Education Summit.
Gothold, S.E. (1990). Bold vision: Questions and answers. Los Angeles County
Office of Education. Downey, CA.
Green v . Johnson. (1981). 513 F.supp. 965, 968. D. Mass.
Griffin, R.W. 1987). Toward an Integrated Theory of Task Design. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 9, 79-120.
Grimes, J. & Allinsmith, W. (1961). Compulsivity, anxiety, and school
achievement. Merrill-Paimer Quarterly, 7, 241-271.
Guskey, T.R. & Passaro, P.D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct
dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 627-643.
Gutek, B.A. & Winter, S.J. (1992). Consistency of job satisfaction across
situations: Fact or framing artifact? Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 41,
61-78.
Guyton, E. (1994). First year teaching experiences o f early childhood urban
teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. New Orleans, Louisiana.
Haberman, M. (1986). The high school re-entry myth. Journal o f Correctional
Education, 37(3), 114-117.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic
survey. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work:
Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16,
250-279.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesly Publishing Company, Inc.
Hafner, A. & Owings, J. (1991). Careers in teaching: Following members of the
high school class of 1972 in and out teaching. National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC.
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Haipt, M. (1990). New teachers with life experiences: How different are they?
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher
Educators. Las Vegas, NV.
Hall, B.W., Pearson, L.C., & Carol, D. (1992). Teachers’ long range teaching
plans: A discriminate analysis. Journal o f Educational Research, 85(4),
221-225.
Hammer, T. & Vardi, Y. (1981). Locus of control and career self-management
among non-supervisory employees in industrial settings. Journal o f
Vocational Behavior, 18, 13-29.
Harding, R.E. & Harter, J. (1993). Urban teacher research interview development
study. Technical Report. Lincoln, NE: Gallup, Inc.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New Teachers
College Press.
Harper, G. (1988). Mental ability and academic achievement of male juvenile
delinquents. Journal o f Correctional Education, 39(1), 18-22.
Harris, L. and Associates. (1991). Teachers’ attitudes toward public school.
Metropolitan Life.
Harris, L. and Associates. (1992). Teachers’ attitudes toward public school.
Metropolitan Life.
Hart, A.W. & Murphy, M.J. (1990). New teachers react to redesigned teacher
work. American Journal o f Education, 98(3), 224-250.
Hartman, J.H. (1988). Los Angeles County Office o f Education. Connections: An
update for educational programs staff. Los Angeles County Office of
Education Communication Department. Downey, CA.
Hawkins, D. (1989). Risk-focused prevention: Prospects and strategies.
Presented by the Federal Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. Washington, D.C.
Hawkins, D. (1987). Teacher practices, social development and delinquency.
Prevention o f delinquent behavior. Beverly Hills: Sage Press, 241-274.
Haycock, K. & Navarro, M.S. (1988). Unfinished business: Fulfilling our
children’ s promise. Oakland, CA: The Achievement Council.
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Heller, W.H.., Clay, R.M., & Perkins, C. (1993). The relationship between teacher
job satisfaction and principal leadership style. Journal o f School
Leadership, 3(3), 74-85.
Henry, M. (1988). Strengths and needs of first year teachers. Teacher Educator,
2, 10-18.
Herriot, R.E. & Firestone, W.A. (1984). Two images of schools as organizations:
A refinement and elaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly,
20(4), 41-57.
Hippchen, L.J. (1982). Holistic approaches to offender rehabilitation.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Hixon, J. & Tinzmann, M.D. (1990). Who are the at-risk students o f the 1990’ s.
NCREL, Oak Brook.
Holland, J. (1963). Explorations of a theory of vocational choice and achievement:
A four year prediction study. Psychological Reports, 12, 537-594.
Holland, J. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory o f careers. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Holland, J. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory o f careers. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Holmes, D.H. (1986). Tomorrow’ s teachers. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper.
Hough, L.M., Eaton, N.K., Dunnette, M.D., Kamp, J.D., & McCloy, R.A. (1990).
Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of
response distortion on those validities. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 75,
581-595.
Hoy, W.K. & Ferguson, J. (1985). A theoretical framework and exploration of
organizational effectiveness of schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 21(2), 117-34.
Hoy, W.K. & Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the
organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 355-372.
Imber, M., Neidt, W.A., & Reyes, P. (1990). Participative decision making.
Journal o f Research and Development in Education, 23(4), 216-225.
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
John, O.P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in
the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (ed.), Handbook o f
personality: Theory and research, 66-100. New York: Guilford Press.
Jolly, E.T. (1999). The impact of school size and location related to school and
organzational factors. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 34-51.
Jones, M. (1989). Computer assisted parallel education for incarcerated youth.
American School Board Association Journal, 11-14.
Judge, T.A. (1992). The dispositional perspective in human resources research.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 31-72.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., & Durham, C.C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job
satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 19, 151-188.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., & Locke, E.A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction:
The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal o f Applied Psychology,
85(2), 237-249.
Judge, T.A., Locke., E.A., Durham., C.C., & Kluger, A.N. (1998). Dispositional
effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17-34.
Kagan, D.M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning
teachers. Review o f Educational Research, 62(2), 129-170.
Karge, B.D. (1993). Beginning teachers: In danger o f attrition. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Atlanta, GA.
Kersting, J. (1978). Correctional education: Perspectives for teacher preparation.
Quarterly Journal o f Corrections, 2(2), 35.
Kirby, S.N., Grissmer, D.W., & Hudson, L. (1991). New and returning teachers in
Indiana: Sources o f supply. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Kobasa, S.C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into
hardiness. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kourilsky, M., et al. (1993). Generative teaching and personality characteristics
o f student teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA. April 12-16, 1993.
Kozol, J. (1995). Amazing grace: The lives o f children and the conscience o f a
nation. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.
Kreis, K. & Brockopp, D.Y. (1986). A component of teacher job satisfaction.
Education, 107(1), 110-115.
Kurz, T. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy and organizational coupling.
Educational Psychology, 39, 39-57. Texas A & M University.
Lau, C.M. & Woodson, R.W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A
schematic perspective. Academy o f Management Journal, 38, 537-554.
Lawler, E. & Porter, T. (1967). Motivation in work organizations. Pacific Grove:
Brooks and Cole. New York.
Lee, V.E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J.B. (1991). The effect of the social
organization of schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology o f
Education, 64, 190-208.
Lefcourt, H.M. (1991). Durability and impact of the locus of control construct.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 411-414.
Lemke, J. (1994). Facilitating successful entry into the profession. Issues in
Teacher Education, 3(2), 24-26.
Lester, P. (1987). Development and factor analysis of the teacher job satisfaction
questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(1), 223-
233.
Levenson, FI. (1981). Differentiating among intemality, powerful others, and
chance. In H.M. Lefcourt (ed.), Research with the locus o f control
construct, 1, 15-63. New York: Academic Press.
Levin, I. & Stokes, J. (1989). Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role of
negative affectivity. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 74, 752-758.
Lightfoot, S.L. (1983). The good high school: Portraits o f character and culture.
Basic Books: N.Y.
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Little, J.W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace
conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19,
325-40.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette
(ed.), Handbook o f industrial and organizational psychology, 1297-1343.
Chicago, IL. Rand McNally.
Locke, C. (1983). Satisfaction factors in the work environment. Issues in Teacher
Education, 1(2), 33-39.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Los Angeles County Office of Education. (1992-93). School accountability report
card assessment areas [Brochure]. Downey, CA. Los Angeles County
Office of Education Communications Department.
Los Angeles County Office of Education. (1998). Information profile: Facts
about the Los Angeles County Office o f Education [Brochure]. Downey,
CA. Los Angeles County Office of Education Communications
Department.
Los Angeles County Office of Education and the Juvenile Justice Coordinating
Council. (1998). New transitions for youth in detention. Los Angeles
County proposal for the high risk youth education and public safety
program. Downey, CA.
Los Angeles County Office of Education. (2000). Facts about the Los Angeles
County Office o f Education and public schools o f Los Angeles County,
1999-2000. [Brochure], Downey, CA. Los Angeles County Office of
Education Communications Department.
Los Angeles County Probation Department. (1995). Camp Probation Fact Sheet.
[Brochure].
Los Angeles County Probation Department, Communications Department. Los
Angeles Times. “Stanford 9 test: Report card for school districts in Los
Angeles County.” August 4, 1999.
Los Angeles Times. “The high cost of crime.” December 25, 1999.
Louis, K.S. (1996). Teacher engagement and real reform in urban schools,
closing the American gap: Vision for changing beliefs and practices.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 120-143.
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Luzzo, D.A. & Ward, B.E. (1995). The relative contributions of self-efficacy and
locus of control to the prediction of vocational congruence. Journal o f
Career Development, 21(4), 307-313.
MacCormick, A. (1931). The education o f adult prisoners. New York: NY.
National Society of Penal Information, 128-129.
McNeil, L.M. (1986). Contradictions o f control school structure and school
knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Maddox, M. (1984). Transition adjudicated youth back to community schools.
Journal o f Correctional Education, 35(4), 124-128.
Maehr, M.L. (1987). Advances in motivation and achievement: Enhancing
motivation. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Maguire, K. (1991). Sourcebook o f criminal justice statistics. U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 568.
Marso, R.N. & Pigge, F.L. (1991). A longitudinal assessment of the affective
impact of preservice training on prospective teachers. Journal o f
Experimental Education, 58(4), 283-290.
Marso, R.N. & Pigge, F.L. (1995). Characteristics associated with teacher
attrition: Pro- and post-preparation teaching concerns o f candidates
teaching or not teaching. Paper presented to Midwestern Educational
Research Association: Chicago, IL.
Marso, R.N. & Pigge, F.L. (1997). A longitudinal study of persisting and non
persisting teachers’ academic personal characteristics. Journal o f
Experimental Education, 65(3), 243-254.
Marth, J. & Newman, I. (1993). The personality structure o f pre-service teachers
as measured by the 16 PF: Estimates o f stability across time and gender.
Paper presented at the Conference of Midwestern Educational Research
Association.
Maslow, A. (1954). The hierarchy of human level needs. Psychology, 24(2), 122-
136.
Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Matakovich, M.A. (1999). Utilization o f criteria o f the California State
Department o f Education and the Western Association o f Schools and
Colleges in Designing a School Improvement Process. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Mayer, E. (1982). Effects of individual instruction with group instructor on the
academic achievement and self-concept of youthful offenders. Journal o f
Correctional Education, 33(4), 11-13.
McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance
than style. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888.
McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs type
indicator from the perspective o f the five-factor model ofpersonality.
McCutcheon, J.W., Schmidt, C.P., & Bolden, S.H. (1991). Relationships among
selected personality variables, academic achievement and student teaching
behavior. Journal o f Research and Development in Education, 24, 38-44.
McDougall, C. (1990). Anger control training with young offenders. The
Yearbook o f Correctional Education, 319-324.
McNamara, J.F. & Hoyle, J.R. (1997). Job satisfaction in educational
organizations: A synthesis of research findings. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 49, 239-250
Meltzer, L. & Flanagan, J. (1984). An analysis of learning styles of adolescent
delinquents. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 17, 600-608.
Mesinger, J. (1987). Educator training a resource model for special and
correctional educators. Journal o f Correctional Education, 38(4), 154-159.
Metropolitan Life. (1985). The Metropolitan Life survey o f American teacher
opinions and attitudes. New York: Author.
Metz, M.H. (1988). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis o f authority in
desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mixdorf, L. (1989). Experiential education and corrections. Corrections Today,
8(3) 8-42.
Mohrman Jr., A.M., Cooke, R.A., & Mohrman, S.A. (1992). Participation in
decision making: A multidimensional perspective. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 14(1), 13-29.
192
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Moore, W. & Esselman, M. (1992, April). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate
and achievement; A desegregating district’ s experience. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
San Francisco.
Morgan, D.I. (1989). Prevalence and types of handicapping conditions found in
juvenile correctional institutions. The Journal o f Special Education, 13(3)
32-41.
Mowday, T.J., Porter, P., & Steers, T. (1982). Organizational factors on employee
job autonomy and job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 55(2), 55-65.
Mumane, R.J. (1991). Who will teach? Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Murphy, D. (1986). The prevalence of handicapping conditions among juvenile
delinquents. Remedial and Special Education, 7(3), 10-17.
Natale, T. (1993). Mentor programs for beginning teacher. Journal o f Teacher
Education, 76, 50-54.
National Center of Education Statistics. (1990). Conditions o f education. U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Education Research, Washington, D.C.
National Center of Education Statistics. (1994). America's Teachers: Profile o f a
profession, 1993-1994. U.S. Department of Education, Office Education
Research, Washington, D.C.
National Center of Education Statistics. (1994). Conditions o f education. U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Education Research, Washington, D.C.
National Center of Education Statistics. (1995). Conditions o f education. U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Education Research, Washington, D.C.
National Center of Education Statistics. (1999). Conditions o f education. U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Education Research, Washington, D.C.
National Center of Education Statistics. (1997). Characteristics o f stayers,
movers, and leavers: Teacher Follow-up Survey, 1994-95. U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Education Research, Washington, D.C.
193
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Commission on Teaching. (1999). America’ s Future. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education.
National Mental Health Association. (1993). All systems failure. Alexandria, VA.
Nelson, A., Cooper, C.L., & Jackson, P.R. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change:
The impact of privatization on employee job satisfaction and well-being.
Journal o f Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 57-71.
Nelson, C.M. (1985). Handicapped offenders in the criminal justice system.
Special Education in the Criminal Justice System. Washington, D.C.
Nelson, C.M., Rutherford, R.B., & Wolford, B.I. (1985). Special education in the
most restrictive environments, correctional special education. Journal o f
Special Education, 19, 112-117.
Newmann, F.M., Rutter, R.A., & Smith, M.P. (1989). Organizational factors that
affect school sense of efficacy, community, and expectations. Sociology o f
Education, 62, 221-238.
Newton, T.J. & Keenan, A. (1990). The moderating effects of the Type A
behavior pattern and locus of control upon the relationship between change
in job demands and change in psychological strain. Human Relations, 43,
1229-1255.
Norton, J.L. (1997). The effective practitioner: Images from first year teachers.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational
Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. November 7, 1996.
Novotny, A., Seifert, R., & Werner, D. (1991). Collective learning: A pro-social
teaching strategy for prison education. Journal o f Correctional Education,
42(2), 154-159.
O’Brien, G. (1982). Evaluation of job characteristics theory of work attitudes and
performance. Australian Journal o f Psychology, 34, 383-401.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1995). California juvenile
crime. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C.
194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
O’Neil, J. (1995). On schools as learning organizations: Conversation with Peter
Senge. Educational Leadership, 35(3), 20-23.
Otto, R.K. (1992). Prevalence o f mental disorders among youth in the juvenile
justice system. The National Coalition for the Mentally 1 1 1 in the Criminal
Justice System. Seattle, WA.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review o f
Educational Research, 66(4), Winter.
Payne, B. & Manning, B.H. (1985). Personal dimensions: Second class variables
in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 7, 79-85.
Pecht, H. (1983). The emergent correctional education profession: Special
problems require tested criteria for the selection of effective teachers.
Journal o f Correctional Education, 34(3), 85-87.
Pecht-Miller, H. (1987). A study of Maryland prison teachers perceived to be
effective. Journal o f Correctional Education, 38(2), 65-70.
Pervin, L.A. (1990). Handbook o f personality theory and research. New York
and London: Guilford Press.
Pervin, L.A. (1996). The science o f personality. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New
York.
Peterson, K.D., Bennet, B., & Sherman, D.F. (1991). Themes of uncommonly
successful teachers of “at-risk” students. Urban Education, 26(2), 176-194.
Pigge, F.L. & Marso, R.N. (1994). Relationships of prospective teachers’
personality type and locus of control orientation with changes in their
attitude and anxiety about teacher. Midwestern Educational Researcher,
7(2), 2-7.
Pigge, F.L. & Marso, R.N. (1995). A seven-year longitudinal multi-factor
assessment o f teaching concerns development through preparation and
early years o f teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, California.
Podell, D. & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors
in special education referral. Journal o f Special Education, 27(1), 66-81.
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Policy Analysis for California Education. (1996). The need for teachers in
California, Department of Education. Sacramento, CA.
Poplin, M. & Weeres, J. (1992). Voices from the inside: A report on schooling
from inside the classroom: Naming the problem. Institute for Education in
Transformation at the laremont Graduate School. Claremont, CA.
Price, T. (1996). School programs and services. Orange County Department of
Education. Orange, CA.
Pulkkinen, L. & Saastomoinen, M. (1986). Cross perspectives on youth violence.
J. Apter & A.P. Goldstein, 262-281. Elmsford, NY.
Purkey, S.C. & Smith, M.S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary
School Journal, 83, 427-54.
Quinlan, J. (1991). Alcohol expectancies, coping responses and self-efficacy.
Educational Psychology, 35, 220-227.
Rabak, T. & Walker, J. (1991). Envisioning and creating change: Project social
responsibility. Journal o f Correctional Education, 42(2), 94-100.
Raudenbush, S.W. & Bryk, J. (1986). A hierarchical model for studying school
effects. Sociology o f Education, 59, 1-17.
Refflett, S. (1983). Correctional school and the public mind. Journal o f
Correctional Education, 34(2), 40-43.
Rennison, C. (2001). Crime victimization changes and trends 1993-2000.
Washington, D.C. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Reyes, P. & Hoyle, D. (1992). Teachers’ satisfaction with principals
communication. Journal o f Educational Research, 85(3), 163-68.
Reyes, P. & Pounder, D.G. (1993). Organizational orientation in public and
private elementary schools. Journal o f Educational Research, 87(2), 86-93.
Rider-Hankins, P. (1992). The educational process in juvenile correctional
schools. American Bar Association, Chicago, IL. Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquent Prevention: Washington, D.C.
Rincker, J. L., Reilly, T.F., & Bratten, S. (1990). Academic and intellectual
characteristics of adolescent juvenile offenders. Journal o f Correctional
Education, 41(3), 124-131.
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Roberts, A.R. & Thomas, C.C. (1979). Readings in prison education, 98-100.
Roberts, IC.H. & Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to task design:
A critical review. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 66, 193-217.
Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to learn for the Eighties. Charles E. Merrell.
Columbus, OH.
Rosenholtz, S.J. (1987). Education reform strategies: Will they increase teacher
commitment? American Journal o f Education, 96, 534-62.
Rosenholtz, S.J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American
Journal o f Education, 94, 352-88.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 609.
Rotter, J., Chance, I.E., & Phares, E.J. (1972). Applications o f a social learning
theory o f personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Roush, D. (1983). Content and process of detention education. Journal o f
Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 3(4), 21-36.
Rubin, L. (1971). A study on teaching style. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Rutherford, R., Nelson, B., & Wolford, B. (1986). Special education programming
in juvenile corrections. Remedial and Special Education, 7(3), 27-33.
Rutter, M. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on
children. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rutter, R.A. (1986). Facilitating teacher engagement. National Center on
Effective Secondary Schools. University of Wisconsin.
Rutter, R.A., Smith, G.A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R.R. (1989). Reducing the
risk: Schools as communities o f support. New York: Falmer Press.
Ryan, A. (1973). Model o f adult basic education in correction. Honolulu,
University of Hawaii.
Sabers, D.S., Cushing, K.S., & Berliner, D.C. (1991). Differences among teachers
in a task characterised by simultaniety, multidimensionality, and
immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 63-88.
197
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sagor, R.D. (1992). Institutionalizing collaborative action research: The role o f
leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Education Research Association. ERIC Document Reproduction Services
No: 350-706.
Salgado, J.F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in
the European community. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30-43.
Schmidt, F.L. & Ones, D.S. (1992). Personnel selection. Annual Review o f
Psychology, 43, 627-670. Palto Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Schmidt, N., Gooding, R.Z., Noe, R.A., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of
validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of
study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407-421.
Schwab, R.L. & Iwaniki, E.G. (1982). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and
teacher burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(1), 60-74.
Sclan, E.M. (1993). The Impact o f Perceived Workplace Conditions on Beginning
Teachers ’ Work Commitment, Career Choice Commitment, and Planned
Retention. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA.
Scott, W.R. & Meyer, J.W. (1988). Environmental linkages and organizational
complexity: public and private schools. Edited by T. James and H.M.
Levin. London: Falmer Press.
Sedlak, R. (1990). Descriptive study of teaching practices and the efficacy of
correctional education. The Yearbook o f Correctional Education, 325-341.
Semmens, R. (1989). Practical theory in correctional education. Journal o f
Correctional Education. The Yearbook of Correctional Education, 197-
209.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1969). Factors which affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction of
teachers. Journal o f Educational Administration, 5, 66-82.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Shepston, T. & Jensen, R.A. (1997). Dodging bullets and BMWs: Two tales of
teacher induction. Journal o f Personnel Administration, 45, 112-125.
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sherer, M. (1983). The incarceration period and educational achievements of
juvenile delinquents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10(1), 109-120.
Shin, H. S. & Reyes, P. (1991). Teaching commitment and job satisfaction. Paper
presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338-506.
Shore, D.N. & Young, T.W. (1984). Locus o f control: Ethnicity, sex, and
academic achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. 254-939.
Sickmund, M. (1997). One day count ofjuveniles in public and private custody
facilities. Juvenile offender victims. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Smith, C. (1987). Legal education in prisons: Special problems and opportunities.
Journal o f Correctional Education, 38(4), 132 -135.
Smith, P.C. (1955). The prediction of individual differences in susceptibility to
industrial monotony. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 39, 322-329.
Snowdon, B. (1988). The community college goes to prison. Community Services
Catalyst, 16(2), 16-17.
Snyder, H. (1999). Violent juvenile crime: The number of violent juvenile
offenders declines. Corrections Today, 96-100.
Soar, R.S. & Soar, R.M. (1979). Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and
implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Solomon, D. & Kendall, A. (1979). Children in classrooms: An investigation o f
person environment interaction. New York: Praeger.
Spector, P. (1982). Behaviour in organizations as a function of employee’s locus
of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482-497.
Spector, P. (1986). Perceived control by employees: Meta-analysis of studies
concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 11,
1005-1016.
Spokane, A.R. (1985). A review of research on person-environment congruence in
Holland’s theory of careers. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 26, 306-343.
199
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Springer, L. (1994). Envisioning to the year 2000. Los Angeles County Office of
Education, Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools. Downey,
CA.
Springer, L., Hartman, H.J., & Ingwerson, D.W. (2000). Report on student
achievement in reading, February-June 2000. Los Angeles County Office
of Education, Communication Department. Downey, CA.
Stanton, H.E. (1982). Modification of locus control: Using the RSI technique in
the schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7(2), 190-194.
State Department of Education. (1998). Juveniles and the California Youth
Authority, State Enrollment. Sacramento, CA: Authors.
Staw, B.M., Bell, N.E., & Clausen, J.A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job
attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly,
31,56-77.
Staw B.M. & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: The dispositional
approach to job attitudes. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480.
Stipek, D.J. & Weisz, J.R. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic
achievement. Review o f Education Research, 51, 101-137.
Stumpf, S.A., Brief, A.P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and
coping with career-related events. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 31, 91-
108.
Super, D.E. (1972). Vocational development theory: Persons, positions,
processes. In J.M. Whiteley & A. Resnikoff (eds.), Perspectives on
Vocational Development. Washington, D.C.: American Personnel and
Guidance Association, 13-22.
Super, D. & Hall, D. (1978). Career development: Exploration and planning.
Annual Review o f Psychology, 29, 29-50.
Sweeney, J.D. (1987). Development and testing o f a model designed to examine
the factors that influence the one year career paths o f teacher education
students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western
Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
200
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sweeney, J.D., Warren, R.D., & Kemis, M.R. (1991). Testing a Career Path
Model for Teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, April 5, 1991. Chicago, IL.
Taber, T.D. & Taylor E. (1990). A review and evaluation of the psycholmetric
properties of the job diagnostic survey. Personnel Psychology, 43, 467-500.
Tack, M.W. & Patitu, C.L. (1992). Faculty job satisfaction: Women and
minorities in peril. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4.
Washington, D.C.: George Washington University.
Talbert, J.E. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1993). Teaching and understanding:
Challenges for policy and practice, 167-206. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Taylor, K.M. (1982). An investigation of vocational indecision in college students:
Correlates and moderators. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 21, 471-476.
Taylor, K.M. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and
treatment of career indecision. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 22, 63-81
Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as
predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Texas Education Agency. Texas teacher retention, mobility, and attrition. Policy
Research Project, May, 1995.
Thibodeau, R. (1997). The self in a social world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thomson, J.R. & Schuck, R.F. (1987). Variable associated with first year teacher
morale which can be identified in a teacher education program. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association. Mobile, AL.
Trice, A.D., Haire, J.R., & Elliott, K.A. (1989). A career locus of control scale for
undergraduate students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 555-561.
Uba, L. (1997). Educating for success: A strategy to motivate independent
learners. College Quarterly.
U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000. Washington, D.C.
201
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
(1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive serious, violent and
chronic juvenile offender. Washington, D.C.
Valencia, R R. (1991). Ctyicano school failure and success: Research and policy
agendas for the 19$ O s. New York: Falmer Press.
Van Nagel, C. (1986). A review of the treatment methods for the rehabilitation of
juvenile delinquents. Journal o f Correctional Education, 37(4), 140-145.
Van Zandt, L.M. (1994). An analysis ofpersonality traits o f effective teachers o f
at-risk students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas.
Walhlberg, H. (1989). District size and learning. Education and Urban Society,
21, 154-163.
Walker, H. & Sylwester R. (1991). Where is school along the path to prison?
Education Leadership, 14-16.
Walker, H., O’Neil, M.R., & Ramsey, E. (1987). A longitudinal assessment of the
development of anti-social behavior in boys: Rationale, methodology, and
first year results. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 7-16.
Warboys, L., Burrell, S., Peters, C., & Ramiu, M. (1994). California Juvenile
Court Special Education Manual. Youth Law Center. San Francisco, CA.
Watanabe, A. (1990). The mentally handicapped juvenile offender: A call for
transition. Journal o f Correctional Education, 41(1), 20-24.
Watson, D. & Slack, A.K. (1993). General factors of affective temperament and
their relation to job satisfaction over time. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 54, 181-202.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
Weiss, C.FL, Cambone, J., & Wyeth, A. (1992). Trouble in paradise: Teacher
conflicts in shared decision making. Educational Administration Quarterly,
28(3), 350-367.
Weitz, J. (1952). A neglected concept in the study of job satisfaction. Personnel
Psychology, 5, 201-205.
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Wemer, E. (1994). High risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study
from birth to 32 years. American Journal o f Orthopsychiatry, 59, 72-81.
Westat, P. (1991). Unlocking learning: In correctional facilities. United States
Department of Education Research and Training Associates, Inc.
Westendorp, F. (1986). Variables which differentiate placement of adolescents
into juvenile justice or mental health systems. Adolescence, 21(81), 23-35.
West’ s California Codes, Education Code o f California. (1995). St. Paul, MN:
West Publishing Company.
Wheeler-Ayers, S. (2002). A substitute teacher pre-service staff development
program: A case study o f the Los Angeles County Office o f Education.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Wiley, L. (1989). The correctional educator as moral change agent. Journal o f
Correctional Education, 40(1), 12-18.
Williamson, L. (1992). Education and incarceration: An examination of
relationships between educational achievement and criminal behavior.
Journal o f Correctional Education, 43(1), 15-22.
Wilson, S.K. ( 1992). A personal communication. New York: Harper and Row.
Wines, E.C. (1871). Transaction o f the National Congress, 542.
Wolenik, R.S. (2001). Correlates influencing teacher job satisfaction. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California.
Wolford, D. (1985). Correctional education opportunities for delinquent and
criminal offenders. Training and education for criminal offenders. Journal
o f Correctional Education, 34, 23-29.
Wolford, D. & Snarr A. (1987). Special education in correctional facilities.
Journal o f Special Education, 12, 30-57.
Yablonsky, L. (1997). Gangsters. New York University Press: New York and
London.
Zimpher, N. (1989). The RATE Project: A profile of teacher education students.
Journal o f Teacher Education, 40, 27-30.
203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
TEACHER JOB DESCRIPTIONS
204
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TEACHERS-JUVENILE COURT AND COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
LOCATION
At Juvenile Court Schools within Los Angeles County Probation Department
facilities (juvenile halls, camps, county community educational centers, and
MacLaren Center for Neglected and Abused Children).
WORK YEAR
Twelve months, including 24 paid vacation days.
SALARY
$44 ,340 - $71,904 minimum-maximum beginning annual salary, depending
upon education and experience (1999-2000 Salary Schedule).
RESPONSIBILITIES
Under the direction of a principal, Juvenile Court Schools, to provide an
educational program for detained wards of the court and students on probation
who are living at home, who often have severe learning problems or who have
social attitudes which prevent them from functioning well in school.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES
Teach delinquent students in a Juvenile Court Schools class the basic learning
skills and subject matter commensurate with their emotional, physical, and
intellectual needs as set forth in the course of study.
Provide an appropriate physical and psychological environment to establish
and reinforce appropriate pupil behavior, attitudes, and social skills.
Provide a variety of educational experiences to stimulate interest and to
broaden students’ social perspective and knowledge.
Maintain a variety of pupil records, including anecdotal records, for each pupil
relating to assessed learning deficiencies.
Design and execute individualized instructional plans for students.
205
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Confer frequently with student and professional staff relative to educational
process.
Maintain student control by utilizing educationally sound approaches.
QUALIFICATIONS
Must hold a valid California teaching credential authorizing basic academic
service, i.e., General Elementary, Standard Elementary, Standard Elementary,
Standard Secondary, or Multiple Subjects; Miller-Unruh, Ryan Reading
Specialist Credential, Learning Handicapped Credential, or Single Subject
credential is eligible for consideration. Cross-Cultural, Language and
Academic Development (CLAD) certification is required. Bilingual Cross-
Cultural, Language and Academic Development or Specially Designed
Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) certification will also meet this
requirement. Bilingual skills are highly desirable. Credentialed out-of-state
teachers with K-12 certification are invited to apply. Foreign residents need to
provide a valid INS visa.
Successful teaching experience, or successful remedial teaching or experience,
or student teaching or internship in a program for at-risk youth. Eligibility of
enrollment for the Multiple Subjects with CLAD/BCLAD University
Internship is acceptable.
Knowledge of behavior management systems.
Must have the demonstrated ability to work effectively with professional and
para-professional personnel.
Must possess knowledge of recent educational trends related to the
educationally at-risk or handicapped delinquent youth.
Successful teaching experience with incarcerated or youth at-risk or youth with
various learning needs in a multi-ethnic setting is required.
Must have available private transportation.
Applicants with credentials not recorded with the Los Angeles County Office of
Education must submit written evidence of an appropriate California credential.
Applicants who have not served in California public schools within the past 39 months
must also show written evidence of a passing score on the California Basic
Educational Skills Test (CBEST).
206
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Applications will be accepted on a continuous basis with interviews scheduled
periodically. In accordance with Public Law 99-603 (U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service), we wish to give all applicants this preliminary advice: PL 99-
603 requires that all employees hired after November 6, 1986, provide proof of work
eligibility and, therefore, we are asking that applicants be prepared to provide
appropriate documentation which establishes their right to work in this country.
Accomodation for Disabled: If you require special accommodations due to a
disability, please inform the Human Resource Services office so we can meet your
needs.
207
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TEACHERS-DIVISION OF ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION
LOCATION
At Division of Alternative Education sites within Los Angeles County.
WORK YEAR
Ten and twelve months.
SALARY
Ten months: $36,950 - $59,920 (minimum-maximum beginning annual salary,
depending upon education and experience (1999-2000 Salary Schedule).
Twelve months: $44,340 - $71,904 minimum-maximum beginning annual
salary, depending upon education and experience (1999-2000 Salary
Schedule).
RESPONSIBILITIES
Under the direction of a coordinator, principal or assistant principal, to provide
an alternative educational program to meet the unique needs of at-risk youth.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES
Teach students the basic learning skills and subject matter commensurate with
their emotional, physical, and intellectual needs as set forth in the course of
study.
Provide an appropriate physical and psychological environment to establish
and reinforce appropriate pupil behavior, attitudes, and social skills.
Provide a variety of educational experiences to stimulate interest and to
broaden students’ social perspective and knowledge.
Maintain a variety of pupil records, including anecdotal records for each pupil
relating to assessed learning deficiencies.
Design and execute individualized instructional plans for students.
Confer frequently with student and professional staff relative to educational
process.
Maintain student control by utilizing educationally sound approaches.
208
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
QUALIFICATIONS
Must hold a valid California teaching credential authorizing basic academic
service, i.e., general Elementary, Standard Elementary, Standard Elementary,
Standard Secondary, or Multiple Subjects; Miller-Unruh, Ryan Reading
Specialist Credential, Learning Handicapped Credential, or Single Subject
credential is eligible for consideration. Cross-Cultural, Language and
Academic Development (CLAD) certification is required. Bilingual Cross-
Cultural, Language and Academic Development or Specially Designed
Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) certification will also meet this
requirement. Credentialed out-of-state teachers with K-12 certification are
invited to apply. Foreign residents need to provide a valid INS visa.
Successful teaching experience, or successful remedial teaching or experience,
or student teaching or internship in a program for at-risk youth. Eligibility of
enrollment for the Multiple Subjects with CLAD/BCLAD University
Internship is acceptable.
Successful teaching experience in developing unique and innovative programs
to meet the changing needs of at-risk youth.
Knowledge of behavior management systems.
Must have the demonstrated ability to work effectively with professional and
para-professional personnel.
Must possess knowledge of recent educational trends related to the
educationally at-risk or handicapped delinquent youth.
Must have available private transportation.
Successful teaching experience with youth at-risk, pregnant minor or youth
with various learning needs in a multi-ethnic setting is required.
Applicants with credentials not recorded with the Los Angeles County Office of
Education must submit written evidence of an appropriate California credential.
Applicants who have not served in California public schools within the past 39 months
must also show written evidence of a passing score on the California Basic
Educational Skills Test (CBEST).
209
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Applications will be accepted on a continuous basis with interviews scheduled
periodically. In accordance with Public Law 99-603 (U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service), we wishto give all applicants this preliminary advice: PL 99-
603 requires that all employees hired after November 6, 1986, provide proof of work
eligibility, we are asking applicants be prepared to provide appropriate documentation
which establishes their right to work in this country.
Accomodation for Disabled: If you require special accommodations due to a
disability, please inform the Human Resource Services office so we can meet your
needs.
210
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
CONSENT AND PARTICIPATION
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools
To: Mr. Larry Springer, Director
From: Cedric Anderson, Teacher
Subject: Ed.D. Survey - Teacher Characteristics and Job Satisfaction
I have just been approved to begin my dissertation survey of JCCS Teachers by
Dr. Stuart Gothold, chairman, and Dr. Robert Baker and Dr. Robert Ferris, committee
members. This dissertation on Characteristic o f Juvenile Court/Correctional
Teachers and Job Satisfaction will study indicators relative to job satisfaction, school
effectiveness, personal characteristics, and locus of control.
Your assistance in completing this survey will be paramount since I need to obtain a
representative sample of teachers from each type of school facility and program (hall,
camp, CEC, RCEC, DES) by the end of August.
The survey will need to be distributed to teachers, so either the principal or I can
deliver and pick up the surveys within 10 working days.
I will need a letter indicating your approval to conduct this research study, it should be
addressed to:
Cindy K. Chui, CIP
IRB Administrator
University Park IRB
University of Southern California
Bovard Administration Bldg., Room 300
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4019
Subject: Date of Preparation: 5/30/2001
USC UPIRB # 01-05-126
Tel: 213/740-6709 Fax 213/740-8919
e-mail: ckchui@usc.edu
212
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Division of Alternative Education
To: Mr. David Flores, Director
From: Cedric Anderson, Teacher
Subject: Ed.D. Survey - Teacher Characteristics and Job Satisfaction
I have just been approved to begin my dissertation survey of JCCS and Alternative
Education Teachers by Dr. Stuart Gothold, chairman, and Dr. Robert Baker and Dr.
Robert Ferris, committee members. This dissertation on Characteristic o f Juvenile
Court/Correctional Teachers and Job Satisfaction will study indicators relative to job
satisfaction, school effectiveness, personal characteristics, and locus of control.
Your assistance will in completing this survey will be paramount since I need to obtain
a representative sample of teachers from each type of school facility and program
(CDS, RCEC, ISP, CAL-SAFE) by the end of August.
The survey will need to be distributed to teachers, so either the principal or I can
deliver and pick up the surveys within 10 working days.
I will need a letter indicating your approval to conduct this research study, it should be
addressed to:
Cindy K. Chui, CIP
IRB Administrator
University Park IRB
University of Southern California
Bovard Administration Bldg., Room 300
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4019
Subject: Date of Preparation: 5/30/2001
USC UPIRB # 01-05-126
Tel: 213/740-6709 Fax 213/740-8919
e-mail: ckchui@usc.edu
213
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Los Angeles County Education Association
11745 E. Telegraph Road, Suite 100
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
562-942-0055 / Fax: 562-942-0971
June 14, 2001
Mr. Cedric Anderson, Teacher
Bermudez Community Education Center
9055 Bermudez Street
Pico Rivera, CA. 90660
Dear Cedric,
You have LACEA’s wholehearted endorsement regarding your doctoral dissertation
survey. While we cannot mandate teacher participation in your study we most
certainly encourage all JCCS teachers to voluntarily take part. Upon completion of
your effort please send a copy of the results to the LACEA office.
Congratulations on your continued outstanding work.
Sincerely,
Mark M. Lewis, President
Los Angeles County Education Association
cc: Larry Springer, Director JCCS
cc: David Flores, Director DAE
214
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
June 27, 2001
Cindy K. Chui, CIP
IRB Administrator
University Park IRB
University of Southern California
Bovard Administration Bldg., Room 300
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4019
Subject: Cedric L. Anderson
USC UPIRB# 01-05-126
This letter serves as my authorization for Cedric L. Anderson to conduct his
research study on Characteristics of Juvenile Court/Correctional Teachers and Job
Satisfaction, in the Los Angeles County Office of Education, Division of Juvenile
Court and Community Schools.
In compliance with the University of Southern California, Information Sheet
for Non-Medical Research, all information that is obtained in connection with this
study will remain confidential and anonymous by the principal investigator.
Approved:
Larry Springer
Director, Juvenile Court and Community Schools
cc: Cedric Anderson
University of Southern California
Department of Administration and Policy
Rossier School of Education
215
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Characteristics of Juvenile Court/Correctional Teachers and Job Satisfaction
Date: July 10, 2001
To: Teachers and Colleagues
From: Cedric Anderson, Teacher, Bermudez Community Day School
Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools
Subject: Research Survey
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Cedric Anderson,
a doctoral candidate in collaboration with Dr. Stuart Gothold, Clinical Professor, and
Coordinator - LA Cohort, from the Division of Administration and Policy, Rossier
School of Education, at the University of Southern California. We are asking you to
participate in this research study in order to obtain information on Juvenile Court and
Community teacher characteristics and job satisfaction.
In the field of education, juvenile court teachers have one of the most challenging
positions of any in the teaching profession. Your school was selected as a possible
participant because it represents teachers in the Division of Juvenile Court and
Community Schools. Identification of any factor(s) relative to teachers may provide
information on strategic planning, staff development, teacher recruitment, retention,
selection, and placement.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this
research project. Please answer all the questions to help insure the validity of the
results, and note that all information obtained will be kept confidential and
anonymous. Your survey will be picked up by the principal investigator, Cedric
Anderson, or it can be mailed in a self-addressed and -stamped envelope to his school
site, Bermudez Community Day School. Results will be available upon completion of
the research. Thank-you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions
please call (562) 801-0687; fax (562) 801-0388; e-mail: Anderson_Cedric@lacoe.edu.
Please be advised that Mr. Mark M. Lewis, President of the Los Angeles County
Education Association has endorsed this dissertation survey as of June 14, 2001.
Date of Preparation: 06/27/01
USC UPIRB # 01-05-126
University of Southern California
Department of Administration and Policy
Rossier School of Education
216
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Characteristics of Juvenile Court/Correctional Teachers and Job Satisfaction
Date: July 10, 2001
To: Alternative Teachers and Colleagues
From: Cedric Anderson, Teacher, Bermudez Community Day School
Division of Alternative Education
Subject: Research Survey
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Cedric Anderson,
doctoral candidate in collaboration with Dr. Stuart Gothold, Clinical Professor, and
Coordinator - LA Cohort, from the Division of Administration and Policy, Rossier
School of Education, at the University of Southern California. We are asking you to
participate in this research study in order to obtain information on Alternative
Education teacher characteristics and job satisfaction.
In the field of education, juvenile court teachers have one of the most challenging
positions of any in the teaching profession. Your school was selected as a possible
participant because it represents teachers in the Division of Alternative. Identification
of any factor(s) relative to teachers may provide information on strategic planning,
staff development, teacher recruitment, retention, selection, and placement.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this
research project. Please answer all the questions to help insure the validity of the
results, and note that all information obtained will be kept confidential and
anonymous. Your survey will be picked up by the principal investigator, Cedric
Anderson, or can be mailed in a self-addressed and -stamped envelope to his school
site, Bermudez Community Day School. Results will be available upon completion of
the research. Thank-you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions
please call (562) 801-0687; fax (562) 801-0388; e-mail: Anderson_Cedric@lacoe.edu.
Please be advised that Mr. Mark M. Lewis, President of the Los Angeles County
Education Association has endorsed this dissertation survey as of June 14, 2001.
Date of Preparation: 06/27/01
USC UPIRB # 01-05-126
University of Southern California
Department of Administration and Policy
Rossier School of Education
217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH FORMS
218
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Date: August 10, 2001
To: Teachers (BTSA, Pre-Interns, New Hires, and Others)
From: Cedric Anderson, Teacher
Bermudez Community Day School
Division of Alternative Education
Subject: Research Survey
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Cedric Anderson,
doctoral candidate in collaboration with Dr. Stuart Gothold, Clinical Professor, and
Coordinator - LA Cohort, from the Division of Administration and Policy, Rossier
School of Education, at the University of Southern California. We are asking you to
participate in this research study in order to obtain information on teacher personal
characteristics and job satisfaction.
In the field of education, county teachers have some of the most challenging positions
of any in the teaching profession. Identification of any factor(s) relative to
new/beginning teachers may provide information on strategic planning, staff
development, teacher recruitment, retention, selection, and placement.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this
research project. Please answer all the questions to help insure the validity of the
results, and note that all information obtained will be kept confidential and
anonymous. Your survey will be picked up by the principal investigator, Cedric
Anderson, or can be mailed in a self-addressed and -stamped envelope to his school
site, Bermudez Community Day School. Results will be available upon completion of
the research. Thank-you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions
please call (562) 801-0687; fax (562) 801-0388; e-mail: Anderson_Cedric@lacoe.edu.
Please be advised that Mr. Mark M. Lewis, President of the Los Angeles County
Education Association has endorsed this dissertation survey as of June 14, 2001.
Date of Preparation: 06/27/01
USC UPIRB # 01-05-126
219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Page 1 o f 4
University of Southern California
Department of Administration and Policy
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Title: Characteristics of Juvenile Court/Correction Teacher and Job Satisfaction
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Cedric L. Anderson,
M.A. M.P.A. who is a doctoral candidate from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. Results of this study will be used to contribute to
the doctoral dissertation. You/your school have been selected as a possible participant
in this study because of your certificated classification as a juvenile court/correctional
teacher in the Division of Juvenile Court and Community, in the Los Angeles County
Office of Education. Your participation in this survey is strictly voluntary.
Purpose of the Study:
We are asking you to take part in a research study of county juvenile court and
community school teachers. This study is designed to assess if any correlation exist
between teacher personal characteristics and job satisfaction as it relates to their
preparation, current position, and the future outlook in this specialized teaching
position.
Your assistance may make contributions to the human resource services in issues
related to teacher selection and those who decide to stay, leave the field, or transfer. It
may also assist teacher placement, and appropriate staff development training and
inservices.
Completion and return o f the survey will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.
Date of Preparation: 06/27/01
USC UPIRB # 01-05-126
220
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Page 2 of 4
Procedures:
Should you decide to participate as a member of the sample population of this study
please follow these procedures to insure the integrity of the study:
Completion of a survey consisting of 82 items.
Please respond to all questions which must be answered.
Please mark or circle the appropriate selection on the answer sheets.
Return or give your results to the principal investigator in person, or in the self-
addressed and -stamped envelope provided.
Complete the survey within 10 days.
Potential Risks and Discomforts:
There is no potential risk, discomfort, or inconvenience associated in the completion
of the survey. Your survey information is confidential, and is not identifiable to any
particular subject in the sample population.
Potential Benefits to Subjects and/or to Society:
The potential results of the study may benefit the county offices of education that have
juvenile court/correctional schools. It can also benefit the human resources services
departments since it has been suggested that innate teacher characteristics seem to
have a considerable impact on teacher retention. These factors seem to act as
predictors of teachers who are able to experience successful teaching commitment to
the profession, and satisfaction with their career. This study cannot provide any
guarantee of benefits and subjects will not directly benefit from participating in this
research study.
Non-Payment for Participation:
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
Date of Preparation: 06/27/01
USC UPIRB # 01-05-126
221
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Page 3 of 4
Confidentiality:
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study that can be identified
with you will remain confidential, and will be disclosed only with your permission, or
as required by law. In the event that results of this research are published or discussed
in conferences or public forum, no information will be included that would reveal any
particular individual’s identity.
Data generated from the survey instrument will be treated statistically, analyzed, and
presented in a manner that does not reflect or identify any specific individual in the
sample population. References to school, staff, and student will be generalized, rather
than specific, so that profiles can be established.
Data compiled for the survey instrument in this research will be coded by number to
protect confidentiality of participants in the sample and stored in a locked facility to
prevent access by unauthorized personnel.
Responses to survey questionnaires shall be shredded and destroyed six months after
completion of the defense of the dissertation, written approval by the University of
Southern California, and bound as a complete dissertation document.
Initial permission to request access to you and your school for this project has been
obtained from the Los Angeles County Office of Education and the University of
Southern California.
Participation and Withdrawal of Subjects in the Sample Population:
Participation in this study is strictly voluntary, and you may withdraw at any time
without consequences of any kind. You are respectfully requested to answer all
questions if you want your results to be included in the research. In addition, the
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so such as incomplete or duplicate data.
Date of Preparation: 06/27/01
USC UPIRB # 01-05-126
222
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Page 4 o f 4
Rights of Research Subjects:
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, you may contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost
for Research, Bovard Administration Building, Room 300, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
4019, (213) 740-6709 or upirb@usc.edu.
Identification of Investigators:
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the
following:
Mr. Cedric Anderson, doctoral candidate and student investigator
Bermudez Community Day School
9055 Bermudez Street
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
Telephone: 562/801-0687
Fax: 562/801-0388;
E-mail: Anderson_Cedric@lacoe.edu.
Dr. Stuart Gothold, Clinical Professor, and Dissertation Chairman,
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education,
University Park
Los Angeles, CA 90007
Telephone: 213/740-3451
Fax: 213/740-0439
E-mail: gothold@mizar.use.edu
Date of Preparation: 06/27/01
USC UPIRB # 01-05-126
223
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
University of Southern California
Department of Administration and Policy
Rossier School of Education
APPLICATION FOR HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW
Title: Characteristics of Juvenile Court/Correctional Teachers and
Job Satisfaction
Principal Investigators:
Stuart Gothold, Ed.D., Clinical Professor, Dissertation Chairman
and Cedric Anderson, Doctorial Candidate
School: University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Telephone: 562/801-0687 (work)
714/374-6601 (home)
562/801-0388 (fax)
Anderson_Cedric@lacoe.edu. (e-mail)
Contact Persons:
Mr. Cedric Anderson, Teacher/Principal Investigator
Division Juvenile Court and Community Schools/Alternative Education
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Mr. Larry Springer, Director and Mr. David Flores
Division Juvenile Court and Community Schools and
Alternative Education
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Objectives: The major objective of this research is to study of county juvenile court
and community project plan school teachers and determine if any correlation between
personal characteristics, and job satisfaction as it relates to human resource issues of
teacher selection and those who decide to stay, leave the field, or transfer. It may also
assist teacher placement, and appropriate staff development training and in-services.
224
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Page 2 of 3
The procedures for participation will be voluntary. The principal investigator will visit
schools sites and make presentations to the staff. Survey results will be collected
immediately, or returned in a self-addressed and -stamped envelope to the principal
investigator. Each participant will complete an 82-item survey and mark their
appropriate selection on the answer sheet provided. All surveys will be completed
within 10 working days. Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent
to participate in this research project.
Subjects: Approximately 150 subjects will participate in the study. All are certificated
teachers with the Los Angeles County Office of Education, Division of Juvenile Court
and Community Schools and Alternative Education. No special groups involved.
Risk: There is no potential risks and/discomforts, or inconvenience to the human
subjects.
Discomfort: There are no negative effects with regard to the subject physical, social
psychological, or legal well-being as a result of the research activity to which they will
be exposed.
Confidentiality: Any information that is obtained in connection with this study that
can be identified with a participant will remain confidential, and will be disclosed only
with permission, or as required by law. In the event that results of this research are
published or discussed in conferences or public forum, no information will be included
that would reveal any particular individual’s identity. Data generated from the survey
instrument will be treated statistically, analyzed, and presented in a manner that does
not reflect or identify any specific individual in the sample population. References to
school, staff, and student will be generalized, not specific, so that profiles can be
established. Data compiles for the survey instrument in this research will be coded by
number to protect confidentiality of participants in the sample.
Benefits: The potential benefits of the study can involved any of the 58 county offices
of education that offer juvenile court/correctional education programs and services to
“high-risk” students. It can also benefit the human resources services departments
because it has been suggested that innate teacher characteristics seem to have a
considerable impact on teacher retention. These factors could act as predictors of
teachers who are able to experience successful teaching commitment to the profession,
and satisfaction with their career.
225
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Page 3 o f 3
Initial permission for this project has been obtained from the Los Angeles County
Office of Education, the Los Angeles County Education Association, and the
University of Southern California.
Dr. Stuart Gothold, Clinical Professor, and Dissertation Chairman
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
University Park
Los Angeles, CA 90007
213/740-3451 (phone); gothold@mizar.usc.edu (e-mail)
Cedric Anderson, Doctoral Candidate and Student Investigator
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Bermudez Community Education Center
9055 Bermudez
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
562/801-0687 (work); 714/ 374-6601 (home)
562/801-0388 (fax); Anderson_Cedric@lacoe.edu. (e-mail)
226
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX D
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools
Division of Alternative Education
To: Teachers
From: Cedric Anderson, Teacher
Subject: Characteristics of Court/Correctional Teachers and Job Satisfaction Survey
• Teacher Profile: (Items 1-14). Each teacher is asked to respond to questions related
to personal, professional and education background.
Instructions: Circle only one letter for each item with the exception of item 05,
“credential(s) held. Please answer all items.
• Teacher Variables (Items 15-82). Each teacher is asked to respond to statements
related to teacher personal characteristics, job satisfaction, school’s effectiveness and
locus of control.
Instructions: Circle only one letter for each item 15- 82. Please answer all items.
• Return of Survey: Please return the survey to Cedric Anderson or with the school
secretary in the self-addressed and stamped envelope provided for in the school office.
I would appreciate return of the surveys by August 30,2001.
Bermudez CDS
c/o Cedric Anderson
Los Angeles County Office of Education
9055 Bermudez
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
• Assistance: If you would like assistance or have any questions regarding this survey,
please contact me by:
work phone: (562) 801-0687
work fax: (562) 801-0687
email: Anderson_Cedric@lacoe.edu
228
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Teacher Survey
Please answer all the questions by selecting and circling the appropriate letter. Use a pencil to
complete this survey.
01. What is your gender?
02. What is your age bracket?
03. Ethnicity (select the primary
one you most identify to).
04. Highest degree held?
05. Credential(s) held
(circle all that apply)
A. Male B. Female
A. 20-29 B. 30-39 C. 40-49 D. 50-59 E. 60 or over
A. African-American B. Asian C. Caucasian
D. Hispanic E. Other, please identify__________________
A. Bachelor B. Master C. Doctorate
A. Single subject B. Multiple subject C. Emergency
D. Variable Term Waiver E. Other identify _______
06. What is your teaching position? A. Regular B. Intern/Trainee/Pre-intern
D. Others, please identify______________
C. Substitute
07. What is your status? A. Permanent B. 1st year Probationary
C. 2nd year Probationary D. Temporary Contact
E. Intern/Trainee/Pre-intern
08. What is the term of your
credential?
09. Years of teaching including
current year.
10. Years of teaching at LACOE,
including current year.
A. Professional clear B. Life C. Preliminary;
D. Emergency E. Intem/Pre-intern
A. 1-2 B. 3-8 C. 9-14 D. 15-20 E. 21 or more
A. 1-2 B. 3-8 C. 9-14 D. 15-20 E. 21 or more
11. Your primary school assignment. A. Juvenile Hall B. Juvenile Camp
C. Community EducationCenter/Community School;
D. Residential Community Education Center;
E. Designated Services/lndependentStudies/Support Services
1 2 . Your primary grade level assignment.
13. What is the proportion of students
you teach?
14. How many month(s) do students
stay with you in an academic period?
A. K-3 B. 4-6 C. 7-8 D. 9-12
A. Male only B. Female only C. Coed
A. 1 or less B. 2-4 C. 5-6 D. 7 or more
Please continue the survey by marking/circling the response which best describes your feelings
about each of the following statements using the scale listed below:
229
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A = Strongly disagree B = Disagree C = Not sure D = Agree
15. At work or school, I am typically more productive than others.
16. The school’s vision of what all students should know and be able to
do upon graduation is clearly understood by all segments of the
school community.
17. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability.
18. I am satisfied teaching high-risk students.
19. I am a well organized person at work or school.
20. Teachers make decisions about all aspects of their school’s
operations including the teaching and learning process.
21. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.
22. I am satisfied with the school I am assigned to.
23. I function well in cooperative or team activities.
24. When people seek me out for advice, I am usually able to provide
a solution.
25. Students are expected to be responsible and productive and to hold
high expectation for themselves.
26. To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings.
27. I believe that I am highly effective in running a meeting.
28. 1 feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful
people.
29. I often seek feedback from those I am teaching or working with.
30. I would like to leave teaching for an administrative position.
31. A wide range of procedures for assessing student learning outcomes
is clearly described and accompanied by well-defined performance
standards.
32. Whether or not I get in a car accident depends most on how good a
driver I am.
33. 1 am task-oriented and like to get the job finished.
E = Strongly agree
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
230
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A = Strongly disagree B = Disagree C = Not sure D = Agree E = Strongly agree
34. Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests from
bad luck happenings.
A B C D E
35. It usually do more than my share of work in group projects. A B C D E
36. I am likely to leave teaching in less than three years. A B C D E
37. A variety of evaluation report procedures are used to provide school A B C D E
community with information supporting the continuous improvement
of the school’s programs.
38. When I get what I want, it’s usually because I’m lucky. A B C D E
39. I am a very disciplined person. A B C D E
40. Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership A B c D E
responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power.
41. A high-level core curriculum is provided to all students.
42. I consider myself as a leader with my students, co-workers or friends.
43. There are opportunities for personal growth in my job.
44. How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am.
45. Compared to most adults, I get along very well with young people.
46. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
47 In general, students receive instruction which is based on current
research and exemplary practices.
48. I have always enjoyed school because of what I have learned.
49. My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others.
50. My j ob provides much variety.
51. Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck.
52. I consider myself able to “energize” or motivate others.
53. There is evidence that assessment is closely aligned with the school’s
vision, goals and schoolwide learning results.
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B c D E
A B c D E
A B c D E
A B c D E
A B c D E
A B c D E
A B c D E
A B c D E
A B c D E
A B c D E
A B c D E
231
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A = Strongly disagree B = Disagree C = Not sure D = Agree E = Strongly agree
54. People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal A B C D E
interest when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups.
55. As a teacher, I would like to help other teachers improve by sharing A B C D E
my ideas about teaching with them.
56. My job allows me the opportunity to complete the work I start. A B C D E
57. It’s not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things A B C D E
turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune.
58. Student learning, as opposed to teaching convenience, is the cornerstone A B C D E
of the school’s accountability policy, by indicating ways in which the
school is accountable for student progress.
59. My previous employers or teachers would describe me as energetic
and persistent.
A B C D E
60. Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me. A B C D E
61. In most situations, I am most resourceful A B C D E
62. Classrom assessment procedures are clearly align with district
adopted curriculum
A B C D E
63. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I’m lucky
enough to be in the right place at the right time.
A B C D E
64. My job is one that may affect a lot of other people by how well work
is performed.
A B C D E
65. I have a greater thrist for learning than most of my colleagues. A B C D E
6 6 . If important people were to decide they didn’t like me, I probably
wouldn’t make many friends.
A B C D E
67. During the past year, 1 have missed very few days of work or school. A B c D E
6 8 . I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life. A B c D E
69. I am usually able to protect my personal interests. A B c D E
70. I would describe myself as a very “helpful” person. A B c D E
71. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other A B c D E
driver.
232
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A = Strongly disagree B = Disagree C = Not sure D = Agree E = Strongly agree
72. Emphasis is place on ensuring that students and staff accept point
responsibility for student and school performance.
A B C D E
73. My job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and
freedom in how I do my work.
A B C D E
74. When I get what I want, it’s usually because I worked hard for it. A B C D E
75. For most assignments, I do very good follow-up work. A B C D E
76. In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the
desires of people who have power over me.
A B C D E
77. The entire school community actively supports the school in achieving
its vision and goals.
A B C D E
78. My life is determined by my own actions. A B C D E
79. If I know something that others don’t, I want them to learn about it too. A B c D E
80. My job provides feedback on how well I am performing as I am working. A B c D E
81. Information exchange is ongoing and feedback is collected continuously
to realize student and program results are achieved.
A B c D E
82. It’s chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or
many friends.
A B c D E
233
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX E
RELIABILITIES, FREQUENCIES,
AND CENTRAL TENDENCIES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFICACIOUS AND CONFIDENT
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
Correlation Matrix
Q15
Q15 1 .0 0 0 0
Q24 .3150
Q27 .3101
Q42 .1868
Q52 .2960
Q61 .3315
Q65 .3040
Q24 Q27 Q42
0 0 0 0
4481 1 .0 0 0 0
1764 .1 1 1 2 1 .0 0 0 0
2925 .4236 .1256
3778 .2613 .0878
1460 .1937 -.1154
Q52 Q61 Q65
1.0000
.4484 1.0000
.2067 .1114 1.0000
N of Cases = 243.0
N. of
Statistics for Scale Mean Variance Std. Dev. Variables
28.0206 24.5161 5.9514 7
Item Means Mean Maximum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
4.0029 3.5144 4.2058 .6914 1.1967 .0640
Item Variances Mean Maximum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
2 .2 1 0 0 .5127 11.2259 10.7132 21.8941 15.8390
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
If Item If Item Total Multiple If Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
Q15 24.0823 19.9684 .4211 .2576 .3260
Q24 23.8519 21.2590 .4156 .2974 .3557
Q27 24.1564 20.9341 .3713 .3110 .3541
Q42 23.8354 10.2951 .1393 .0920 .7053
Q52 23.8765 21.1417 .3919 .3201 .3557
Q61 23.8148 21.7218 .3347 .2939 .3745
Q65 24.5062 22.7303 .0869 .1497 .4345
235
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CONSCIENTIOUS AND RESPONSIBLE
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
Correlation Matrix
Q19 Q33 Q39 Q48 Q59 Q67 Q75
Q19 1
Q33
Q39
Q48
Q59
Q67
Q75
.0 0 0 0
.3911
.3170
.1727
.2900
.2082
.3621
1.0000
.5043
.3424
.4205
.1451
.4012
1.0000
.2649
.3127
.1296
.2859
1.0000
.3019
.1686
.2729
1.0000
.1840
.4658
1.0000
.2773 1.0000
N of Cases = 243.0
Statistics for Scale Mean
28.6420
Variance
16.0820
Std. Dev.
4.0102
N. of
Variables
7
Item Means Mean Maximum
4.0917 3.8519
Maximum
4.3169
Range
.4650
Max/Min
1.1207
Variance
.0321
Item Variances Mean Maximum
.8659 .5669
Maximum
1.3236
Range
.7567
Max/Min
2.3348
Variance
.0811
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
If Item If Item Total Multiple If Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
Q19 24.3251 13.0054 .4401 .2285 .6966
Q33 24.3292 11.8912 .5744 .4008 .6643
Q39 24.6584 12.3167 .4607 .2865 .6899
Q48 24.7901 11.9764 .3878 .1686 .7113
Q59 24.4979 12.1188 .5072 .3044 .6792
Q67 24.6955 12.5432 .2718 .0996 .7467
Q75 24.5556 12.6198 .5412 .3275 .6775
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COLLABORATIVE AND SUPPORTIVE
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
Correlation Matrix
Q23 Q29 Q35 Q45 Q55 Q70 Q79
Q23 1
Q29
Q35
Q45
Q55
Q70
Q79
0000
2949
1402
2364
2195
2827
1275
1.0000
.2282
.2543
.2150
.1445
.1941
1.0000
.3893
.2780
.3102
.1641
1.0000
.2688
.4085
.1367
1.0000
.4049
.1346
1.0000
.2456 1.0000
N of Cases = 243.0
Statistics for Scale Mean
28.2922
Variance
12.9267
Std. Dev.
3.5954
N. of
Variables
7
Item Means Mean Maximum
4.0417 3.7366
Maximum
4.3045
Range
.5679
Max/Min
1.1520
Variance
.0447
Item Variances Mean Maximum
.7608 .5928
Maximum
.9673
Range
.3745
Max/Min
1.6316
Variance
.0173
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
If Item If Item Total Multiple If Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
Q23 24.0658 10.2436 .3538 .1572 .6625
Q29 24.4609 9.7206 .3651 .1675 .6619
Q35 24.5556 9.6198 .4134 .2 1 2 0 .6465
Q45 24.1235 9.8690 .4735 .2718 .6318
Q55 24.2099 9.8277 .4159 .2128 .6457
Q70 23.9877 9.9131 .4993 .3162 .6270
Q79 24.3498 10.7656 .2664 .0904 .6843
237
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOCUS OF CONTROL
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
If Item If Item Total Multiple If Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
Q17 74.9506 109.7496 .2195 .2154 .8521
Q21 74.2222 109.1405 .4388 .2995 .8411
Q26 74.2840 106.0554 .5060 .4419 .8380
Q28 74.6420 105.0820 .5194 .4504 .8372
Q32 75.0000 112.4380 .1458 .1636 .8539
Q34 74.6955 103.8656 .5408 .4172 .8361
Q38 74.2346 106.6679 .5444 .4524 .8372
Q40 75.4486 109.3062 .2653 .2019 .8489
Q46 75.3663 111.1587 .2218 .1645 .8498
Q49 74.4362 104.1230 .5775 .4936 .8349
Q51 74.4527 105.1744 .5464 .4650 .8364
Q54 75.1029 105.3985 .4402 .3597 .8407
Q57 74.4938 103.3006 .6589 .5177 .8320
Q63 74.7490 105.0152 .4986 .3396 .8380
Q6 6 74.5926 104.7383 .5091 .3408 .8376
Q6 8 74.5514 109.2236 .3453 .3809 .8443
Q69 74.2716 110.6780 .4454 .4355 .8418
Q71 74.8395 107.4328 .3990 .2658 .8423
Q74 74.0782 111.9319 .3244 .4357 .8449
Q78 74.2469 109.7239 .3861 .4613 .8428
Q82 74.3374 104.9435 .5347 .3717 .8367
Reliability Coefficients 21 items
Alpha = .8478 Standardized item alpha =.8557
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
N of Cases = 243.0
N. of
Statistics for Scale Mean Variance Std. Dev. Variables
44.4074 87.4573 9.3519 13
Item Means Mean Maximum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
3.4160 3.1523 4.1728 1.0206 1.3238 .0801
Item Variances Mean Maximum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
1.2460 .9133 1.6029 .6896 1.7551 .0390
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
If Item If Item Total Multiple If Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
Q16 41.2099 74.9847 .5637 .3835 .8743
Q20 41.2140 77.5325 .3732 .2024 .8856
Q25 40.2346 79.9571 .3707 .2113 .8832
Q31 41.0000 73.5207 .6413 .4805 .8701
Q37 41.2469 73.3603 .6575 .4982 .8693
Q41 41.2551 73.4305 .5826 .3825 .8734
Q47 41.0370 75.5317 .5776 .3879 .8736
Q53 40.9794 73.5492 .6614 .4971 .8691
Q58 40.8354 76.0389 .5405 .3596 .8755
Q62 40.8066 75.4211 .6057 .4693 .8723
Q72 40.8230 78.0140 .5053 .2953 .8772
Q77 41.2510 73.6268 .6537 .4885 .8695
Q81 40.9959 73.2603 .6555 .4837 .8693
Reliability Coefficients 13 items
Alpha = .8827 Standardized item alpha = .8832
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EXPANDED JOB SATISFACTION
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
If Item If Item Total Multiple If Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
Q18 30.6584 35.6225 .3871 .2919 .6219
Q22 30.8189 34.9505 .4222 .3325 .6148
Q36 31.3498 33.9804 .3242 .1558 .6282
Q43 31.1646 33.3530 .4858 .3088 .5987
Q50 31.0947 26.5736 .2231 .0659 .7462
Q56 31.2346 33.6762 .4945 .2930 .5996
Q64 30.9095 35.7769 .3761 .1916 .6238
Q73 30.9547 35.8864 .4003 .2296 .6219
Q80 31.4198 34.3272 .4117 .2544 .6133
Reliability Coefficients 9 items
Alpha = .6540 Standardized item alpha = .7444
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EXPANDED JOB SATISFACTION
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
Correlation Matrix
Q18 Q22 Q36 Q43 Q56 Q64 Q73
Q18 1 .0 0 0 0
Q22 .4883 1 .0 0 0 0
Q36 .2025 .3029 1 .0 0 0 0
Q43 .2242 .3287 .2252 1 .0 0 0 0
Q56 .2443 .2942 .2127 .4012 1 .0 0 0 0
Q64 .2 1 1 2 .1529 .2564 .2977 .2686 1 .0 0 0 0
Q73 .3027 .2473 .2315 .3809 .2730 .2600 1 .0 0 0 0
Q80 .1504 .2376 .1796 .3595 .4136 .3068 .2689
N ofCases = 243.0
Statistics for Scale Mean Variance
31.0947 26.5736
N. of
Std. Dev. Variables
5.1550 8
Item Means Mean
3.8868
Maximum
3.5309
Maximum
4.2922
Range Max/Min
.7613 1.2156
Variance
.0725
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
If Item If Item Total Multiple If Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
Q18 26.8025 21.9360 .4115 .2883 .7255
Q22 26.9630 2 1 .1 1 0 2 .4803 .3322 .7131
Q36 27.4938 20.2427 .3642 .1555 .7424
Q43 27.3086 20.0407 .5172 .3052 .7046
Q56 27.3786 20.5999 .4941 .2797 .7098
Q64 27.0535 22.0013 .4074 .1909 .7262
Q73 27.0988 21.9406 .4551 .2294 .7191
Q80 27.5638 20.7924 .4421 .2538 .7198
241
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
GENERAL JOB SATISFACTION
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
Correlation Matrix
QI8 Q22 Q36 Q43
Q18 1 .0 0 0 0
Q22 .4883 1 .0 0 0 0
Q36 .2025 .3029 1 .0 0 0 0
Q43 .2242 .3287 .2252 1 .0 0 0 0
N of Cases = 243.0
N. of
Statistics for Scale Mean Variance Std. Dev. Variables
15.8107 9.3359 3.0555 4
Item Means Mean Maximum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
3.9527 3.6008 4.2922 .6914 1.1920 .0996
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
If Item If Item Total Multiple If Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
Q18 11.5185 6.4408 .4029 .2454 .5310
Q22 11.6790 5.7891 .5219 .3176 .4449
Q36 12.2099 3.4144 .3246 .1 1 2 2 .6060
Q43 12.0247 6.1151 .3454 .1295 .5671
Reliability Coefficients 4 items
Alpha = .6067 Standardized item alpha = .6263
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOCUS OF CONTROL
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale
Mean Variance
If Item If Item
Deleted Deleted
Q17 71.0947 95.8546
Q21 70.3663 95.4066
Q26 70.4280 92.7500
Q28 70.7860 91.8218
Q32 71.1440 98.4626
Q34 70.8395 90.7303
Q38 70.3786 93.2528
Q40 71.5926 95.5399
Q46 71.5103 97.4906
Q49 70.5802 90.8066
Q51 70.5967 91.9772
Q54 71.2469 92.1454
Q63 70.8930 91.7406
Q6 6 70.7366 91.5337
Q6 8 70.6955 95.3532
Q69 70.4156 96.7315
Q71 70.9835 93.9667
Q74 70.2222 97.9587
Q78 70.3909 95.8755
Q82 70.4815 91.6639
Corrected
Item- Squared Alpha
Total Multiple If Item
Correlation Correlation Deleted
.2230 .2126 .8361
.4407 .2993 .8237
.4947 .4243 .8206
.5093 .4357 .8196
.1462 .1614 .8385
.5289 .4106 .8183
.5367 .4491 .8195
.2655 .1998 .8326
.2123 .1550 .8342
.5739 .4933 .8165
.5324 .4474 .8188
.4291 .3507 .8236
.4897 .3218 .8204
.4975 .3262 .8200
.3528 .3803 .8271
.4575 .4298 .8243
.3915 .2617 .8254
.3311 .4350 .8280
.3924 .4613 .8255
.5261 .3689 .8188
Reliability Coefficients 20 items
Alpha = .8320 Standardized item alpha =.8412
243
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.
LOCUS OF CONTROL
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
Correlation Matrix
Q17 Q21 Q26 Q28 Q32 Q34 Q38 Q40 Q46 Q49 Q51 Q54 Q63 Q66 Q68 Q69 Q71
Q17 1.0000
Q21 .2474 1.0000
Q26 .0900 .3057 1.0000
Q28 .0426 .2100 .5003 1.0000
Q32 .2051 .0675 -.0474 -.0367 1.0000
Q34 -.0097 .1837 .4391 .3799 .0292 1.0000
Q38 .0276 .3015 .3380 .3369 -.0031 .4070 1.0000
Q40 .1678 .0574 .1823 .2474 .0184 .2147 .1328 1.0000
Q46 -.0069 .0923 .1512 .0668 .0744 .2668 .1832 .0515 1.0000
Q49 .0374 .2545 .3930 .5076 -.0624 .3521 .5257 .1828 .1539 1.0000
Q51 .0905 .2410 .2724 .2112 .1582 .3588 .5179 .1031 .2184 .4235 1.0000
Q54 .1066 .1727 .1325 .2913 .0708 .2977 .3054 .2474 .0635 .3420 .3915 1.0000
Q63 .0449 .2572 .2258 .3344 .0757 .3087 .3240 .2950 .1242 .4083 .3491 .3322 1.0000
Q66 .1182 .2613 .3497 .3053 .0367 .4442 .2919 .1237 .1258 .3718 .3289 .3580 .2655 1.0000
Q68 .1958 .3353 .1566 .2001 .1808 .1502 .1502 .0784 .1577 .1369 .0812 -.0031 .1580 .1413 1.0000
Q69 2850 .3319 .3265 .2557 .2177 .2037 .2374 .0396 .0239 .2956 .1626 .0633 .2185 .1958 .4889 1.0000
Q71 .1009 .1064 .2253 .1853 .1478 .2695 .1879 .1654 .0560 .2565 .3717 .2702 .2835 .2810 .1258 .1543 1.0000
Q74 .2736 .2872 .1837 .2247 .1519 .1095 .1667 -.0115 -.0406 .1713 .0882 -.0157 .0631 .1376 .3546 .4304 .0802
Q78 .1851 .3634 .2392 .2751 .1297 1426 .1979 -.0060 .0364 .2563 .1112 .1239 .1725 .1851 .4353 .3929 .0187
Q82 .0867 .2250 .2791 .3048 ..0599 .3871 .4409 .1182 .2123 .4175 .4434 .3745 .3266 .3307 .0926 .1499 .3354
.5791 1.0000
.1464 .1623
Statistics for Scale
N of Cases = 243.0
Mean Variance Std. Dev. N. of Variables
74.4938 103.3006 10.1637 20
to
£
Item Means Mean
3.7247
Minimum
2.9012
Maximum
4.2716
Range
1.3704
Max/Min
1.4723
Variance
.1538
Q82
1.0000
LOCUS OF CONTROL
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
N of Cases = 243.0
Statistics for Scale Mean Variance Std. Dev. N. of Variables
83.7737 95.7461 9.7850 23
Item Means Mean Maximum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
3.6423 2.9012 4.2716 1.3704 1.4723 .1818
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale
Mean Variance
If Item If Item
Deleted Deleted
Q17 80.3745 87.6402
Q21 79.6461 87.8577
Q26 79.7078 86.1250
Q28 80.0658 85.5163
Q32 80.4239 90.3196
Q34 80.1193 84.1964
Q38 79.6584 86.6638
Q40 80.8724 89.7151
Q44 80.5556 96.2314
Q46 80.7901 90.6293
Q49 79.8601 84.4432
Q51 79.8765 85.2822
Q54 80.5267 86.1346
Q60 80.8272 99.2510
Q63 80.1728 86.0279
Q6 6 80.0165 85.5452
Q6 8 79.9753 87.4457
Q69 79.6955 89.1548
Q71 80.2634 87.4510
Q74 79.5021 89.8543
Q76 80.6584 97.1597
Q78 79.6708 88.2548
Q82 79.7613 85.3312
Corrected
Item- Squared Alpha
Total Multiple If Item
Correlation Correlation Deleted
.2600 .2310 .7626
.4589 .3099 .7511
.4634 .4287 .7489
.4641 .4434 .7482
.1788 .1874 .7674
.4995 .4186 .7452
.4986 .4539 .7482
.1986 .2380 .7663
-.0806 .2161 .7841
.1870 .1852 .7661
.5330 .4973 .7440
.5068 .4509 .7461
.3736 .3544 .7538
-.2098 .2475 .7920
.4156 .3506 .7511
.4382 .3580 .7496
.3872 .3874 .7535
.4782 .4325 .7527
.3542 .2698 .7553
.3852 .4494 .7558
- .1 2 1 0 .2470 .7850
.4130 34667 .7531
.4821 .3757 .7472
Reliability Coefficients 23 items
Alpha = .7663 Standardized item alpha = .7877
245
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.
LOCUS OF CONTROL
Reliability Analysis - Scale (ALPHA)
Correlation Matrix
Q17 Q21 Q26 Q28 Q32 Q34 Q38 Q40 Q44 Q46 Q49 Q51 Q54 Q60 Q63 Q66 Q68 Q69 Q71 Q74
Q17 1.0000
Q21 .2474 1.0000
Q26 .0900 .3057 1.0000
Q2S .0426 .2100 .5003 1.0000
Q32 .2051 .0675 -.0474 -.0367 1.0000
Q34 -.0097 .1837 .4391 .3799 .0292 1.0000
Q38 .0276 .3015 .3380 .3369 -.0031 .4070 1.0000
Q40 .1678 .0574 .1823 .2474 .0184 .2147 .1328 1.0000
Q44 .1242 .0605 -.1081 -.1658 .1574 -.1287 -.1358 -.1546 1.0000
Q46 -.0069 .0923 .1512 .0668 .0744 .2668 .1832 .0515 -.1524 1.0000
Q49 .0374 .2545 .3930 .5076 -.0624 .3521 .5257 .1828 -.1547 .1539 1.0000
Q51 .0905 .2410 .2724 .2112 .1582 .3588 .5179 .1031 -.1322 .2184 .4235 1.0000
Q54 .1066 .1727 .1325 .2913 .0708 .2977 .3054 .2474 -.1323 .0635 .3420 .3915 1.0000
Q60 -.0076 -.0994 -.1994 -.1704 .0648 -.1379 -.1934 -.2592 .2259 -.1368 -.2222 -.1493 -.2158 1.0000
Q63 .0449 .2572 .2258 .3344 .0757 .3087 .3240 .2950 -.2347 .1242 .4083 ..3491 .3322 -.2910 1.0000
Q66 .1182 .2613 .3497 .3053 .0367 .4442 .2919 .1237 -.1448 .1258 .3718 .3289 .3580 -.2383 .2655 1.0000
Q68 .1958 .3353 .1566 .2001 .1808 .1502 .1502 .0784 .0730 .1577 .1369 -.0812 -.0031 .0032 .1580 .1413 1.0000
Q69 2850 .3319 .3265 .2557 .2177 .2037 .2374 .0396 .0254 .0239 .2956 .1626 .0633 -.0156 .2185 .1958 .4889 1.0000
Q71 .1009 .1064 .2253 .1853 .1478 .2695 .1879 .1654 -.1519 .0560 .2565 .3717 .2702 -.1135 .2835 .2810 .1258 .1543 1.0000
Q74 .2736 .2872 .1837 .2247 .1519 .1095 .1667 -.0115 .1871 -.0406 .1713 -.0882 -.0157 .0705 .0631 .1376 .3546 .4304 .0802 1.0000
Q76 .1055 .0379 -.0969 -.1800 -.0089 -.1316 -.1441 -.2115 .2677 .0187 -.1210 -.0898 -.2250 .3349 -.2038 -.2382 .0472 .0045 -.1580 .0686
Q78 .1851 ..3634 .2392 .2751 .1297 1426 .1979 -.0060 .1086 .0364 .2563 .1112 .1239 -.0642 .1725 .1851 .4353 .3929 .0187 .5791
Q82 .0867 .2250 .2791 .3048 .0599 .3871 .4409 .1182 -.1244 .2123 .4175 .4434 .3745 -.1967 .3266 .3307 .0926 .1499 .3354 .1464 .1623 1.0000
to
Os
Scale Descriptor: Personal Characteristics (N = 243)
Scale 1: Efficacious and Confident Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not
Sure
Agree Strongly
Agree
15. At work or school, I am typically more
productive than others.
10 16 70 80 67
Mean: 3.73 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
24. When people seek me out for advice, I
am usually able to provide a solution
2 4 21 137 79
Mean: 4.18 SD: .91 Mode: 4/5
27. I believe that I am highly effective in
running a meeting.
4 13 42 139 45
Mean: 3.84 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
42. 1 consider myself as a leader with my
students, co-workers or friends.
5 17 34 111 76
Mean: 3.81 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
52. I consider myself able to “energize” or
motivate others.
3 6 2 0 137 77
Mean: 4.15 SD: .91 Mode: 4/5
61. In most situations, I am most resourceful. 4 2 29 127 81
Mean: 4.15 SD: .91 Mode: 4/5
65. I have a greater thrist for learning than
most of my colleagues.
8 2 2 95 79 39
Mean: 3.49 SD: .93 Mode: 3/5
247
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scale 2: Conscientious and Resoonsible Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Not
Sure
Agree Strongly
Agree
19. I am a well organized person at work or
school.
1 10 11 111 1 1 0
Mean: 4.31 SD: .94 Mode: 4/5
33. I am task oriented and I like to get the
job finished.
6 6 11 1 0 2 118
Mean: 4.32 SD: .91 Mode: 5/5
39. I am a very disciplined person. 3 2 2 29 131 6 8
Mean: 4.11 SD: .96 Mode: 4/5
48. I have always enjoyed school because of
what I have learned.
11 29 14 121 6 8
Mean: 3.85 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
59. My previous employers or teachers would
describe me as energetic and persistent.
3 10 34 98 98
Mean: 4.14 SD: .91 Mode: 4 & 5/5
67. During the past year, I have missed very
few days of work or school.
12 26 14 1 0 0 91
Mean: 3.95 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
75. For most assigmnents, I do very good
follow-up work.
2 11 14 153 63
Mean: 4.11 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
248
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scale 3: Collaborative and Supportive Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly
Disagree Sure Agree
23. I function well in cooperative or team
activities.
29. I often seek feedback from those I am
teaching or working with.
35. It usually do more than my share of
work in group projects.
45. Compared to most adults, I get along
very well with young people.
55. As a teacher, I would like to help other
teachers improve by sharing my ideas about
teaching with them.
70. I would describe myself as a very helpful
person.
79. If I know something that others don’t,
I want them to learn about it too.
4 10 14 114 101
Mean: 4.23 SD: .91 Mode: 4/5
9 28 15 126 65
Mean: 3.86 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
0 23 58 105 57
Mean: 3.74 SD: .91 Mode: 4/5
2 7 34 119 81
Mean: 4.46 SD: .99 Mode: 4/5
5 12 20 124 82
Mean: 4.09 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
4 3 10 122 104
Mean: 4.31 SD: .91 Mode: 4/5
4 11 38 133 57
Mean: 3.94 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
249
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scale Descriptor: Locus of Control (N= 243)
Scale 1: Internalitv Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not
Sure
Agree Strongly
Agree
17. Whether or not I get to be a leader
depends mostly on my ability.
31 39 23 103 47
Mean: 3.40 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
2 1 . When 1 make plans, I am almost certain
to make them work.
2 15 18 127 81
Mean: 4.11 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
32. Whether or not I get in a car accident
depends most on how good a driver I am.
18 56 28 108 33
Mean: 3.63 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
44. How many friends I have depends on
how nice a person 1 am.
13 71 39 89 31
Mean: 3.22 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
6 8 . I can pretty much determine what will
happen in my life.
9 23 33 125 53
Mean: 3.78 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
69. I am usually able to protect my personal
interests.
1 9 14 165 54
Mean: 4.09 SD: .91 Mode: 4/5
74. When I get what 1 want, it’s usually
becausel worked hard for it.
3 5 8 134 93
Mean: 4.24 SD: .91 Mode: 4/5
78. My life is determined by my own actions. 5 9 21 128 80
Mean: 4.11 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
250
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scale 2: Powerful Others Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly
Disagree Sure Agree
28. I feel like what happens in my life is
mostly determined by powerful people.
40. Although 1 might have good ability, I
will not be given leadership responsibility
without appealing to those in positions
of power.
49. My life is chiefly controlled by powerful
others.
54. People like myself have very little chance
of protecting our personal interest when
they conflict with those of strong pressure
groups.
60. Getting what I want requires pleasing those
people above me.
6 6 . If important people were to decide they
didn’t like me, I probably wouldn’t
make many friends.
71. Whether or not I get into a car accident
depends mostly on the other driver.
76. In order to have my plans work, I make
sure that they fit in with the desires of
people who have power over me.
55 110 35 37 6
Mean: 2.30 SD: .95 Mode: 2/5
2 0 65 59 60 39
Mean: 3.14 SD: .94 Mode: 2/5
75 113 23 25 7
Mean: 2.08 SD: .96 Mode: 2/5
31 96 42 54 2 0
Mean: 2.74 SD: .94 Mode: 2/5
2 2 82 43 74 2 2
Mean: 2.98 SD: .94 Mode: 2/5
65 104 38 23 13
Mean: 2.24 SD: .95 Mode: 2/5
38 1 1 2 39 45 9
Mean: 2.49 SD: .95 Mode: 2/5
14 77 42 91 19
Mean: 3.10 SD: .94 Mode: 4/5
251
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scale 3: Chance Strongly 1
Disagree
Disagree Not
Sure
Agree Stronglj
Agree
26. To a great extent my life is controlled
by accidental happenings.
93 103 24 16 7
Mean: 1.93 SD: .96 Mode: 2/5
34. Often there is no chance of protecting
my personal interests from bad luck
happenings.
60 98 26 49 1 0
Mean: 2.39 SD: .95 Mode: 2/5
38. When I get what I want, it’s usually
because I’m lucky.
83 123 13 17 7
Mean: 1.94 SD: .96 Mode: 2/5
46. I have often found that what is going to
happen will happen.
17 74 64 67 2 1
Mean: 3.01 SD: .94 Mode: 2/5
51. Whether or not I get into a car accident
is mostly a matter of luck.
66 123 29 15 1 0
Mean: 2.09 SD: .94 Mode: 2/5
57. It’s not always wise for me to plan too
far aheadbecause many things turn out
63 117 35 22 6
to be a matter of good or bad fortune. Mean: 2.14 SD: .96 Mode: 2/5
63. Whether or not I get to be a leader
depends on whether I’m lucky enough
to be in the right place at the right time.
43 122 29 37 1 2
Mean: 2.40 SD: .95 Mode: 2/5
82. It’s chiefly a matter of fate whether or
not I have a few friends or many friends.
89 104 24 19 7
Mean: 3.11 SD: .94 Mode: 2/5
252
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scale Descriptor: Overall School’s (Program) Performance
Effectiveness (N = 243)
Criterion 1: Vision, Culture and Leadership
A. Category: Vision and Leadership
16. The school’s vision of what all students
should know and be able to do upon
graduation is clearly understood by all
segments of the school community.
77. The entire school community actively
supports the school in achieving its
vision and goals.
B. Category: Teacher Professionalism
20. Teachers make decisions about all aspects
of their school’s operations including the
teaching and learning process.
Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly
Disagree Sure Agree
23 48 59 87 26
Mean: 3.19 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
17 58 63 82 23
Mean: 3.15 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
27 56 41 81 38
Mean: 3.21 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
Criterion 2: Curricular Paths
47. In general, students receive instruction 11 48 47 111 26
which is based on current research and
exemplary practices. _________________________________________
Mean: 3.38 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
Criterion 3: Powerful Teaching and Learning
and Instructional Practices
25. Students are expected to be responsible 6 16 13 100 108
and productive and to hold high expectation
expectation for themselves. ________________________________________
Mean: 4.16 SD: .91 Mode: 5/5
253
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Criterion 3: Powerful Teaching and Learning Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly
and Instructional Practices Disagree Sure Agree
58. Student learning, as opposed to teaching 17 19 59 107 41
convenience, is the cornerstone of the
school’s accountability policy, by
indicating way in which the school is
accountable for student progress. _______________________________________
Mean: 3.56 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
Criterion 4: Assessment and Accountability
A. Category: Assessment
31. A wide range of procedures for assessing
student learning outcomes is clearly
described and accompanied by well-
defined performance standards.
53. There is evidence that assessment is
closeley aligned with the school’s vision,
goals and schoolwide learning results.
62. Classrom assessment procedures are
clearly align with district adopted
curriculum.
8 9 48 102 36
Mean: 3.41 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
16 37 51 104 35
Mean: 3.43 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
8 35 42 115 43
Mean: 3.62 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
B. Category: Standards and Accountability
21 51 63 79 29
Mean: 2.93 SD: .94 Mode: 4/5
81. Information exchange is ongoing and 18 35 50 84 56
feedbacks is collected continuously to
realize that student and program results
are achieved. _________________________________________
Mean: 3.51 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
37. A variety of evaluation report procedures
are used to provide school community
with information supporting the
continuous improvement of the school’s
programs.
254
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Criterion 5: Support for Student Personal
and Academic Growth
A. Category: Personal Development
41. A high-level core curriculum is provided
to all students.
72. Emphasis is place on ensuring that
staff accept point responsibilityfor
student and school performance.
255
Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly
Disagree Sure Agree
29 63 34 87 30
Mean: 3.11 SD: .94 Mode: 4/5
6 30 56 128 23
Mean: 3.54 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scale Descriptor: Expanded Job Satisfaction (N = 243)
Scale 1: General Job Satisfaction Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not
Sure
Agree Strongly
Agree
18. I am satisfied teaching high-risk students. 8 7 15 87 126
Mean: 4.30 SD: .91 Mode: 5/5
22. I am satisfied with the school I am
assigned to.
7 17 16 100 103
Mean: 4.13 SD: .94 Mode: 5/5
30. I would like to leave teaching for an
administrative position.
91 54 50 30 18
Mean: 2.30 SD: .95 Mode: 1/5
36. I am likely to leave teaching in less
than three years.
81 66 42 24 30
Mean: 2.41 SD: .95 Mode: 1/5
43. There are opportunities for personal
growth in my job.
18 27 19 94 85
Mean: 3.83 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
256
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scale 1: General Job Satisfaction Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly
Disagree Sure Agree
50. My j ob provides much variety.
56. My job allows me the opportunity to
complete the work I start.
64. My job is one that may affect a lot of
other people by how well work is
performed.
7 3. My j ob gives me considerable
opportunity for independence and
freedom in how I do my work.
80. My job provides feedback on how
well I am performing as I am working.
12 37 15 127 52
Mean: 3.70 SD: .94 Mode: 2/5
1 0 33 22 126 52
Mean: 3.73 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
6 17 20 118 82
Mean: 3.56 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
6 17 14 142 64
Mean: 3.99 SD: .92 Mode: 4/5
16 38 23 131 35
Mean: 3.54 SD: .93 Mode: 4/5
257
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among high school principals

PDF

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

PDF

Differential characteristics of beginning teachers

PDF

A causal, dispositional model of common personal characteristics associated with teacher job satisfaction

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among school superintendents

PDF

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

PDF

An analysis of Long Beach Unified School District's EXCEL model of providing gifted programs for urban students and their effect on student achievement

PDF

Elementary school teachers' perceptions of professional development needs

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among California school principals

PDF

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

PDF

Corporate investment in education: Motivational factors and trends in direct giving

PDF

Chinese parents' attitudes toward parental involvement: A case study of the ABC Unified School District

PDF

A comparative study of the role of the principal in conventional public schools and in charter schools

PDF

Academic and social adjustment of Korean "parachute kids" in Southern California

PDF

Communication techniques utilized by superintendents with their governing boards that develop trust, unity, and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities

PDF

California school dropouts: An analysis of the common characteristics and duration of programs identified as successful in retaining students in school

PDF

An evaluation of probation supervision and its role in performance of students identified as living in poverty in Shasta County Court and Community Schools

PDF

California teacher evaluation and improved teacher practice

PDF

Interfacing with a digital archive (ISLA) in enhancing elementary school geography instruction and learning

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Anderson, Cedric L. (author)

Core Title Characteristics of juvenile court/correction teachers and job satisfaction

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, Secondary,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, industrial,sociology, criminology and penology

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart (committee chair), Baker, Robert (committee member), Ferris, Robert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-626635

Unique identifier UC11334943

Identifier 3116657.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-626635 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3116657.pdf

Dmrecord 626635

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Anderson, Cedric L.

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