An Empirical Evaluation of a School System
Model of Differentiated Staffing
By
Max Stephen Skidmore
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTiAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1971
DEDICATION
To Stephen and David -- two good reasons for having a differentiated staff
ACKNOW4LEDGEMENTS
The writer wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Ralph Kimbrough, chairman of the supervisory committee, for his help and direction throughout the study. Appreciation is also expressed to the other members of the committee, Dr. Michael Y. Nunnery and Dr. G. Alexander Moore, Jr., for their wise counsel and many helpful suggestions.
Many persons in the Sarasota County Schools provided assistance during the study. Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Rick Nations, Supervisor 6f Research and Evaluation, who administered and scored the Purdue test; to Mr. Guy Rose, Principal of Venice Junior High School, whose friendship was an additional dividend during the study and beyond; and to Dr. Gene Pillot, Acting Superintendent, who encouraged the writer to conduct the study and who maintained a steady faith in the value of its outcome. Great appreciation is expressed to the staff of Venice Junior High School, without whose help the study could not have been done.
Finally, the writer wishes to acknowledge the great debt owed to his wife, Barbara, who was a constant source of inspiration and who, throughout the study, remained calm.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWILEDGEMENTS............................. i i i
LIST OF TABLES............................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES........................................... viii
ABSTRACT.................................................. ix
CHA PTER
I. INTRODUCTION.....................................
The Problem ....................... 3
Justification for the Study...... ...... 4
Definition of Terms.......... ....... 6
Procedures ... . ....... *.............. 8
Organization of the Study by Chapters......... 12
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE....................... 15
Effects of Organizational Structure on Persons. 16 University Faculty Structure................... 19
Minimum Criteria for Differentiated Staffing... 23
Rationale for the Development of Differentiated
Staffing...................... ............... 23
Description of Soie Selected Models............ 27
Evaluation of Models of Differentiated
Staffing........................ ..... ..... 30
S umma r y ........................................ 32
Ill. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING AT VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL........................ 34
The Sarasota County School System ....... ....... 34
Venice Junior High School.................. 35
Activities That Led to the Implementation
of Differentiated Staffing.................. 37
Summary ...................................... 50
I V. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM MODEL..... 52
Qualities of the Model.............. ........... 52
, sic Components of the Mode; ................. 54
Venice Junior High School Staffing Model........ .65 Summary ................................ ....... ... . 68
iv
CHA PTER Page
V. THE EVALUATION OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM MODEL ........... 70
Evaluation of the Components of the Model....... 71 Teacher Opinions s............................... 117
Student Opinions....................... ...*..... 127
Summary......................................... 129
VI. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.............................. 131
Summary.................................... ..... 131
Discussion...................................... 134
Conclusions and Racommendations for
Further Study.......... .......... ... ... ... 1140
BIBLIOGRAP FHY............................................... 143
APPENDIX A................................................. 147
APPENDIX B............................,.. .................. 148
APPENDIX C................................................. 150
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. COST IN STAFF ALLOCATION UNITS FOR EACH POSITION IN THE SYSTEM MODEL................................... 63
2. DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING PATTERN FOR VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 1970-71 .................................. 66
3. TRADITIONAL ORGANIZATION VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ...... 67
4. DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING PATTERN FOR VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 1970-71.................................. 72
5. JOB SPECIFICATION OF DIRECTING TEACHER.................. 78
6. JOB PERFORMANCE OF DIRECTING TEACHER.................... 80
7. JOB SPECIFICATION OF STAFF lEACHER................ 83
8. JOB PERFORMANCE OF STAFF TEACHER........................ 86
9. JOB SPECIFICATION OF INSTRUCTOR......................... 90
10. JOB PERFORMANCE OF INSTRUCTOR ........................... 93
11. J0S SPECIFICATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANT............ 96
12. JOB PERFORMANCE OF INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANT............. 98
13. JOB SPECIFICATION OF AIDE............................ 101
14. JOB PEPFORiANCE OF AIDE................ ....... .. .... 103
15. JOB SPECIFICATION OF STUDENT ASSISTANT................... 106
16. JOB PERFORMANCE OF STUDENT ASSISTANT..................,, 108
17. JOB SPECIFICATION OF DIRECTING TEACHER OF RESEaRCHEVALUATION-REPORTING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT............ 110
18. JOB PERFORMANCE OF DIRECTING TEACHER OF RESEARCHEVALLU TION-REPORTING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT ........ 112 vi
TABLE PAGE 19. .JOB PERFORMANCE OF STAFF TEACHER OF GUIDANCE AND
COUNSELING........................................... 114
20. ITEMS OF BUSINESS CONSIDERED BY THE FACULTY BOARD,
SEPTEMBER THROUGH MARCH............................ 118
21. PURDUE TEACHER OPItIONi RE RESULTS..................... 121
22. PERCEIVED IMPROVEMENTS OF THE PROGRAM.................. 124
23. PERCEIVED WdEAKNESSES OF THE PROGRAM.................... 124
24. IMMEDIATE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROGRAM................... 124
25. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DIFFERENTIATED
STAFFING PROGRAM..................................... 126
26. TEACHER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING A
STRUCTURED INTERVIEW................................. 126
27. STUDENT OPINION SURVEY................................. 128
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. The Total Vertical Hierarchy and Concomitant
Positions in the System Model...................... 56
2. Major Horizontally Differentiated Function
Areas in the System Model .......................... 60
viii
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the
Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education
AN EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF A SCHOOL SYSTEM MODEL OF DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING
By
Max Stephen Skidmore
- August, 1971
Chairman: Dr. Ralph S. Kimbrough
Major Department: Educational Administration
The purpose of this study was to conduct an empirical evaluation of a school system model of differentiated staffing during the initial year of operation. The study focused on a determination of the opinions of the staff and students toward the program as well as an evaluation of some components of the model.
The existence of two qualities of the model, autonomy and fluidity, was determined through an analysis of the staffing patterns of the various departments and the changes Lhat occurred in the organization of the instructional program during the year. Evaluation of the job specification
charts was accomplished by coparing them to charts of job performance for each staff position. The job performance charts were constructed from data obtained front logs kept by members of the staff and from records of
observation kept by the writer.
The minutes of the faculty board were analyzed to determine what
ite;ms of business were considered by that group. A distinction was made between those items on whici a final decision was made and those on which an advisory opinion. was rendered.
The opinions of the professional staff toward the program were
ascertained hrough structured interviews. Staff morale was determined ix
by a standardized opinionaire administered in September, 1970, and in April, 1971.
A questionnaire was administered -o a sample of students to determine their perception of the program. Students were asked to compare differentiated staffing to the organization of the previous year.
The study shed that the model possessed the qualities of autonomy and fluidity. Autonomy was that quality of the model that enabled the departments of a school to select a staffing pattern consistent with the needs of the instructional program. Fluidity was that quality that enabled a staff to change the design of the model any time the tasks of the instructional program were changed.
The comparison of the charts of job performance to the job specification charts showed that activities listed in the function area of researchevaluation-reporting were not performed by members of the staff. Duties in the function areas of instruction and administration that were not
listed in the job specification were performed by staff members.
The analysis of the minutes of the faculty board showed that few itens of policy and planning were considered by that group. On those items receiving consideration, final decisions were rendered somewhat more often than advisory opinions.
Teacher morale rose slightly during the year, although scores attained by the staff during both administrations of the instrument were below the norm. Teachers approved of the concept of differentiated staffing, but they felt more planning should have been done before the program was begun.
They felt they were better able to perform as professional teachers and to participate in the decision making process than in a traditional program.
x
Student opinions indicated that some changes in the instructional program had occurred since beginning differentiated staffing. They reported that their teachers did not talk to groups of students as much and that they used more instructional materials than in the previous year.
The study was illustrative of the fact that differentiated staffing was in the initial year of operation and that additional program planning was needed before further implementation could be accomplished.
xi
CHAPTER I
iNTRODUCT ION
The increasing awareness of the importance of education to American society, especially during the period, 1955-70, has resulted in greater amounts of funds from both federal and state levels of government. The Congress, state legislatures, and citizens have expected that these increased expenditures would result in more individualized instruction for the learner and a more relevant curriculum to meet his needs (30:2LA-37). These groups have also expected that educators would make the necessary changes to reach these goals.
As teachers attempted to respond to these demands the tasks of tilhe teaching role increased and became more complex. Unruh and Alexander pointed out that the teacher's role was composed of subroles such as diagnostician, decision-maker, cooperator, strategist, manager, facilitator, guide, and evaluator (40:124). To remove nonprofessional duties from the teacher's work day, aides, or paraprofessionals, were edded to the staff.
The addition of nonprofessionals failed to alleviate the frustration of teachers because they still felt incapable of performing the varied professional tasks involved in planning a relevan- curriulujm that would also promote individualized instruction (25:75-76).
English pointed out that teacher military, expressed through demands
for collective negotiations and strikes, could be explained b/ the paternalism
2
of administrators especially school principals, and the recongition by teachers that they were not receiving the necessary support to fulfill their roles in the education of children (16:13). Specialists of many descript ions have been employed to aid teachers, but, as Kimbrough stated, one must question whether existing organizational patterns permit teachers to make best use of the specialists' talents (28:238-239).
The pressures to involve teachers in decision making, to produce a relevant curriculum, to individualize instruction, and to create more appropriate roles for professionals and paraprofessionals have been listed as the major reasons for developing models of differentiated staffing. Advocates of differentiated staffing have stressed that the various models that have been conceived are designed to permit teachers to make instructional decisions, rei,,,ard teachers on the basis of differential assignments, and enable them to develop their own curricula to individualize instruction (3 4:29).
Although it has been suggested that differentiated staffing has many advantages over traditional organizational patterns, and several models have "en developed, only a fea school systems have implemented such a program Thus, anticipated educational improvements from differentiated staffing are reported more often than documented results that have been derived from actual operation of differentiated staffing programs.
A model, recently conceptualized by Pillot (32), was implemented in a school in Sarasota County, Florida, during the 1970-71 school year. Designed as a school system model, this plan was unique in its application to various schools within the system in terms of what was labeled in the model as "autonomy," "fluidity," "extensibility," and "minimum consistency with school personnel standards" (32:56).
3
No complete evaluation of ani, model of differentiated staffing had
been reported in the literature through 1970. Interim reports on projects suggested the need for more systematic and planned programs of evaluation. This study was designed to investigate the unique features of the school system model developed by Pillot (32) and to determine if the model produced the results anticipated when it was put into practice. Opinions of the staff and students tcard the program were also determined as they participated in the initial year of operation of the differentiated staffing project. In evaluating the initial year of operation of the program, the writer was able to provide information to persons in the
school system that might be useful when the next phase of the program was planned.
The Problem
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to conduct an empirical evaluation of a school system model of differentiated staffing as implemented in Venice Junior High School in Sarasota County, Florida. The study was designed to determine the kinds of activities that occurred during the initial year of operation of the program. The study was also designed to determine the opinions held by the participants tcward certain aspects of the program. More specifically, the study was an evaluation of the follc ing ccnponents of the program.
1. A determination was made of the existence of two qualities of the model. autonrany and fluidity.
2. Professional and paraprofessional job specifications established
in the model were compared to descriptions of actual job performance for each levelof the hierarchy to determine the adequacy of the job specification.
3. The different items of business considered by the faculty board were examined to determine the extent to which matters were decided that affected the operation of the school.
4. The morale of the professional staff and their opinions of the differentiated staffing program were determined.
5. A determination was made of the opinions of students toward
the organizational and instructional program of the school as compared to the program of the previous year. Delimitations and Limitations
Del imitations
I. The.study was confined to one junior high school.
2. Only those staff roles that were established within the selected school were included in the study.
3. Data included only those collected by personal interviews, opinionaires, questionnaires, and logs.
4. The evaluation was based on one year of operation, 1970-71. Limitat ions
I. Conclusions were restricted to the selected school system.
2. Scome of the instruments used in the study had not been validated.
Justification for the Study
The very small number of differentiated staffing projects in operation during the 1970-71 school year and the small amount of evaluative information in the lI terature were suggestive of one major
5
need for the study. Edelfelt stressed the highly experimental nature of differentiated staffing and the need for more ini:or.mat.on to be made available on various projects before dissemination of the concept was begun (15:25). Lown concurred in this opinion (29:24).
A second reason for the study was to provide evaluation of the qualities of the model implemented in the selected junior high school. Pillot stated that an empirical evaluation of the school system model should be conducted (32:111). English stated, "No matter how rational models are in the developmental stages, once the transition is made to the ongoing organization, they may be totally changed to become congruent with the old organization and structure" (19:212). Even though the model was conceptually validated, further study might have shown that results other than those anticipated were achieved, or that the model produced few of the expected results.
A third reason for the study was that it would provide a form of feedback to the organization for further development. Guba and Horvat classified the.procedures used in this study as "process evaluation," a necess-ary component in the development of any new program (22:21-45). Few newly developed programs are automatically successful in their entirety. Further alteration of activities is often needed so that accomplishments match the objectives stated by the developers of the program. This study was designed to provide data on the actual operation of differentiated staffing.
Assumotions
1. The assumption was made that instructional tasks could be
identified and classified according to the typology developed in the model.
6
2. Those items that comprised the Purdue Teacher 0_inionaire were assumed to be a measure of mc:-'ale.
Definition of Terms
Autonomy. The capability of a school to select its an staffing pattern from the school .system model. Evidence of autonomy was determined by the variation of staffing patterns that existed among departments of Venice Junior High School, and by professional opinion as to the appropriateness of the staffing pattern.
Career Ladder. A provision of differentiated staffing which permits the professional advancement and salary advancement of a classroom teacher to levels traditionally available only in administrative positions. Differentiated Staffing. An organization of instructional and parainstructional staff in a vertical and horizontal pattern to maximize the
efficient and flexible use of all resources in the process of education. The term staff differentiation is used synonomously with differentiated staffing.
Fluidity, The capacity of a school model of differentiated staffing to change as instructional goals and needs change. Evidence of fluidity was determined by changes in the employment, or assignment, of personnel which were based on charges in the instructional program of the school, or a department within the school.
Function Area. One of the four arbitrary classificationss into which the activities of the instructional program were divided. The function areas
were instruction, staff development, research-evaluation-reporting, and administration. Tasks performed were classified into one of the function
a ireas.
7
Horizontal Differentiation. The assignment of tasks to be performed within an instructional program to the positions in the staff hierarchy, according to a given set of criteria. Job Classification. The list of positions in the vertical hierarchy. Job Performance Description. The primary, major and assisting activities performed by each level of the vertical hierarchy that have been classified into the function areas. Job Specification. The tasks that are the primary, major, or assisting responsibilities of a particular position in the vertical hierarchy. Merit Pay. A system of paying certain teachers higher wages, based on subjective judgments of worth, while they assume the same or similar
responsibilities and work loads.
Minimum Consistency. The selection of any school staffing pattern from the job classifications of the model and the adherence by that staff to the procedures specified by the model to be followed when developing any given pattern.
Model. A semantic and schematic representation of the structure of personnel interrelations and operational procedures; a prototype for
implementation.
Model ComE2nents. Job descriptions, selection and evaluation procedures, job specifications, staff allocation formulas, and salary schedules. Morale. The professional interest and enthusiasm that a person displays toward the achievement of individual and group goals in a given job situation.
School Center. An individual school.
School Sstan Mod.el The name giver to the model implemented in the selected school system and evaluated in this study. Shared Decision Making. A provision of differentiated staffing which utilizes the combined knacledge and experience of all professional personnel directly involved in a specific educational experience to deterinine the policies and activities of that experience. Staffina Pattern. The actual staff organization of any school center. It includes the total instructional staff of the school as its members are assigned to the various positions provided in the vertical hierarchy. Vertical Differentiation. The organization of staff in an order of rank. Vertical hierarchy is used synonomously with vertical differentiation.
Procedures
Study Des ign
The nature of this design was an exploratory field study. Field
studies have three main purposes: (1) to discover significant variables in the field situation; (2) to discover relationships among variables; and (3) to lay a groundwork for later testing of hypotheses (26:388). Kerlinger stated, "Field studies are strong in realism, significance, strength of variables, theory orientation, heuristic quality.... The realism of field studies is obvious. Of all types of studies they are closest to real life. There can be no claim of artificiality here" (26:389).
Best used the general term "descriptive research" to characterize
studies of this nature. He reported that the sub-classification, activity
9
analysis, was useful in: (1) establishing thZ r-equirements for a particular job or position; (2) setting up a program for the preparation or training of individuals for various jobs or positions; (3) setting up an inservice program for improvement in job competence, or for the upgrading of individuals already employed; and (4) establishing an equitable wage
and salary schedule for various jobs or positions (9:132).
Guba and Horvat stated that good evaluation practices would involve what they termed "process evaluation." They further stated,
Once a designed course of action has been approved, and implementation of the design has been initiated, process evaluation is needed to provide periodic feedback to the
decision raker responsible for continuous control and refinement of plans and procedures. The objective of
process evaluation is to detect, or predict, during the
implementation stages, defects in procedural design or in
its implementation (22:29).
I nstrumentat ion
The follow ing instruments were utilized in this study.
1. A structured interview quide was used in determining the opinions of professional personnel toward differentiated staffing. A copy of this guide is shcwin in Appendix A.
2. A questionnaire was administered to a stratified randon sample of students to determine their opinions toward certain factors of the school program such as scheduling, large group instruction, small group instruction, and resource centers. A copy of this questionnaire is shorn in Appendix B.
3. The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire, 1967 edition, was administered to staff members. The 100-iteim opinionaire gave a total :score signifying the level of morale of the staff. A score was also provided for the foll going ten factors: (1) teacher rapport with the principal;
10
(2) satisfaction with teaching; (3) rapport among teachers; (4) teacher salary; (5) teacher load; (6) curriculum issues; (7) teacher status;
(8) community support of education; (9) school facilities and services;
(10) community pressures. -he original validation of the instrument was conducted in sixty schools in Indiana and sixteen schools in Oregon. This opinionaire was used in studies conducted by the Department of Classrooms Teachers of the National Education Association (38) and by Brinkman (10). A copy of this opinionaire is shown in Appendix C. Collection of Data
Data were collected fran the following sources:
1. Logs kept by teachers on a monthly basis from September, 1970, through March, 1971, relating to the performance of assigned tasks.
2. Personel records listing changes in the employment of
personnel and/or their reassignment during the school year and the reasons for the changes.
3. Scores of the staff on the Purdue Teacher Op-inionaire which was administered during the third week of September, 1970, and during the second week of April, 1971.
4. Structured interviews conducted with teachers to determine their opinions on the initial year of operation of the differentiated staffing
program.
5. An opinion survey of a stratified random sample of 25 eighth
grade and 25 ninth grade students was conducted during the fourth week of March, 1971.
6. Three observations of three persons in each functioning level of the staff hierarchy. The primary purpose of the observations was to
I I
supplement the logs of task performance kept by staff members. These observations were recorded during the period, October, 1970, through April, 1971.
Analysis of the Data
1. An analysis of the staffing patterns of the various departments was conducted,- together with the professional staff opinion as to the appropriateness of the staffing pattern, in order to determine if the model possessed autonomy.
2. Personnel replacements, reassignments, and reorganizations of
the staff for instruction that occurred during the year were examined to determine if they were made in response to changes in the instructional program.
3. From an analysis of the logs and records of observations, a
description of job performance for each functioning level of the hierarchy was developed and compared to job specifications given in the model. The comparison was made to determine which activities l isted in the function were performed and which were not performed. The comparison was also made to determine any activities performed by the staff that were not included in the job specification.
4. Minutes of the faculty board were analyzed to determine what items of business wore discussed. A distinction was made between advisory opinions and final decisions rendered by the board on matters brought before it.
5. The morale of members of the professional staff was determined in September, 1970, and in April, 1971, by two administrations of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire. Scores were also attained for the group on the ten
12
factors measured by the Purdue test. No statistcal treatment of the data to determine any significant change was attempted. The opinions of the professional staff toward s-veral aspects of the initial year of operation of the programwer determined through an analysis of responses given during structured interviews,
6. An analysis of the responses of a stratified random sample of 25 eighth grade and 25 ninth grade students to a 15-item questionnaire determined their opinions on selected aspects of the differentiated staffing program when those parts were compared to the program of the previous year.
,.an ization of the Study byCha ers This study is composed of six chapters. In Chapter I, an
introduction to the concept of differentiatcd staffing is presented, followed by statements of the purpose and focal points of the study. The assumptions.of the study are stated, as are the definition of
terms, delimitations, limitations, reasons for the study, and the instruments used. The procedures followed in collecting and analyzing the data are described. The chapter provides an overall statement of the scope and direction of the study.
A review of related literature is presented in Chapter II. The review includes information relating to the ways different organizational structures affect the behavior of persons who wVork in them. This statement is followed by a brief reviewj of some studies of university staff diiferentlation and the decision making process in institutions of
13
higher education. The revieJ also presents reasons for adopting patterns of staff differentiation and expected benefits of such a program. Statements concerning research studies of staff utilization are given that illustrate the need for planned evaluation programs of staff utilization.
A brief description of the activities undertaken by personnel of the Sarasota County schools in preparation for implementing differential staffing is presented in Chapter 111. The activities were varied, and they occurred over a two-year period. The staffs of several schools were involved in the study that led to the pilot program at Venice Junior High School. The model of differentiated staffing was developed by Pillot (32) during the time of the system-wide study. While not all the activities were precisely planned, the leadership of the school system felt adequate planning had occurred to begin a pilot program.
In Chapter !V, a brief description of the model developed by
Pillot (32) is presented. The description of the components of the model, especially those that contained procedures to be follaed when implementing a school model, are stated in theoretical terms. The reason for evaluating the model was to determine if the ccnponents
operated in the proposed manner.
The evaluation of the model is presented in Chapter V. The evaluation shoas that most of the components of the model that were evaluated operated as expected. The opinions of the staff were indicative of the fact that even more planning activities were needed before the program began.
14
In Chapter VI, the entire study Is summarized and the significant findings are discussed in terms of what additional studies might be undertaken to further develop the program. Additional studies of some portions of the model are also suggested.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The purpose of the review of the literature is to demonstrate
significant areas of knowledge that relate to the subject under study. The concept of differentiated staffing is new to public school organizations, but corporations and institutions of higher education have had differentiated staffs for several years. Studies of the structures of those organizations provided some background for the present study and made information available about the behaviors of persons who worked in differentiated staffing patterns.
This review is organized into six areas. First, studies
relating to the effects of organizational structure on individuals are reported. The studies were ccriducted, in some cases, in large corporate structures. Second, the existence of a differentiated
staff in institutions of higher education is acknavledged, and studies of the method of differentiation and the effects on those institutions are reported. Third, the minimum criteria necessary for the development of public school models of differentiated staffingare stated. Fourth, the reasons given in the literature for the development of differentiated staffing programs are reported. Fifth, sa me models of differentiating the staffs of public schools are presented. In some cases the models
15
16
reported have not been i:plemented. Sixth, the review studies of flexible staff utilization and differentiated staffing that have been reported in the literature are presented.
Effects of Organizational Structure on Persons
Kimball and McClellan compared the organization of most school systems to the structure of corporations. They diagnosed the corporate structure as being bureaucratic and enco passing two relationships. The first of these relationships was with society and concerned the social needs the corporation was attempting to satisfy. In this respect corporations exhibited some degree of flexibility in their ability to change their
purposes and goals to meet whatever was desired by the social structure. The second relationship was internal, existing between the "manager" and the "managed." Kimball and McClellan stated that the corporate structure in the second instance w,,as not pliable, since few changes were made in internal relationships that would prcrote more effective operation (27: 206-209).
The schools adopted the corporate pattern, but they utilized only the rigid, internal structure, resulting in the subversion of the educational purpose. Kimball and McClellan stated
In American schools the educative process is being
increasingly subordinated to the necessities of
administration and coordination. Particularly
flagrant in the large cities, but ncdhere absent,
the growth of educational bureaucracy is justified under the rationale of providing the auxiliary services necessary for the classroom teacher to do his job. It is
seriously questionable, however, whether the intended
effort is being realized. It seems more likely that
teachers are under increasing pressures from above,
17
which in turn they transmit to students. A good
deal of indirect evidence and at least scxe research
support the conclusion that the teacher-student
relationship has been transformed into one resembling
that of the forenan-worker in industry (27:213).
After noting that modern industrial research indicated many workers
were apathetic toward their jobs, Kimball and McClellan predicted that if
the educative purposes of the schools were to be realized, changes would
have to be made in the organizational structures of school systems. They
wrote,
The possibilities for freedom and initiative which
the corporate form permits have never been realized,
much less adequately understood. Neither the supervisory relationship, bureaucracy, nor the custodial function are essential ingredients of
corporate organization. But the principle of freedom
of action to adjust and to modify the environment
for corporate purposes is. The utilization of this
principle in groups requires the exercise of coordination and leadership. These qualities are needed to assure a situation in which each individual and subgroup knas its relation to the others in pursuit of
a common objective. Such a system does not assure
any necessary reduction in tension, but it does
provide the channels and procedures by which these
can be resolved. Ultimately it extends to each unit
a measure of freedom equivalent to that which is
enjoyed by the corporate whole (27:215).
Argyris studied the effects of pyramidal, bureaucratic organizations
cn employees. He found that the splintering of responsibility that occurred
through a very high degree of specialization and the chain of command
concept inherent in bureaucracies tended to inhibit the mental growth of
the worker. Following Maslow, Argyris stated that the need for selfactualization, expressed by the drive for achievement, recognition, and
responsibility, was significant in determining job satisfaction. Selfresponsibility and self-control, internal commitment to work that was
meaningful, andwork that utilized the important abilities of the employee
18
were three conditions that had to be present if one were to experience psychological success in an organization (6:27).
Argyris also analyzed various jobs performed in organizations. He found that the tasks performed by individuals could be categorized into motoric (doing), cognitive (knowing), and conative (feeling) areas. While he suggested that different jobs would contain varying numbers of opportunities to engage in each of the kinds of activities, he also stressed that any job description outlined should include all three kinds of tasks if the person were to experience psychological success (6:229).
Thompson studied bureaucratic organizations and determined that they inhibited changes needed to satisfy the clients of the organization. He proposed that increasing channels of communication and purposely creating overlapping of functions among individuals and departments would loosen the structure of organizations. He suggested that the structure of an organization might be changed, depending on the task to be performed.
If formal structures could be sufficiently loosened,
it might be possible for organizations and units to restructure themselves continually in the light of
the problem at hand. Thus, for generating ideas, for
planning and problem solving, the organization of
unit would "unstructure" itself into a freely
communicating body of equals. When it came time for implementation, requiring a higher degree of coordination of action (as opposed to stimulation of novel or correct ideas), the organization would
then restructure itself into a more usual hierarchical
form tightening up its lines somewhat (37:16).
This kind of fluidity in the internal structure of the organization would enable schools to realign forces as needed to attack those problems inhibiting the accomplishment of purposes given then by society, and persons working within the structure could more easily
19
find self-fulfillment and satisfaction in their an work. Some generalizations concerning the effects of organizational structures on individuals have been reviewed. The ways in which university staffs are differentiated and the effects of a staff hierarchy on the organization and administration of institutions of higher education are presented next.
University Faculty Structure
Rudolph placed the beginning of the development of a faculty
hierarchy in the system of higher education during the period, 1880-1900. He listed three reasons for the development of a hierarchy among professors. (1) The growth of knowledge to the point where no one person could develop expertise in any one area of study; (2) the increasing size of the university as reflected in larger undergraduate
enrollments required the employment of many more instructors than had previously been necessary; (3) the industrial model of organization seemed to be an efficient and effective way to deal with the problems facing universities (36:398).
The method of differentiation among the various levels of professors was by determining the amount of published research they had produced.
FolloWing the German model of university structure, administrators of American universities came to place supreme emphasis on the number of pages of material professors had in print as the means of determining if they were to be promoted. Rudolph pointed out that this led to the deemphasis of the teaching role, but it also encouraged the development
of the profession and caused professors of whatever rank to become loyal
20
to their fellow professionals rather than to the particular institution where they worked (36:409).
Writing of a later time, Barzun noted that the method of differentiating among ranks of prcfes:.ors was by peer committees that were appointed to evaluate the research of a person who was seeking a promotion in rank. Barzun concluded, however, that other factors such as one's age and the relative amount of prestige one brought to a position had become as important in getting promoted as was the quality of research that one had conducted (8:40-4l).
Eble wrote that, while university faculty meTbers had neglected teaching in pursuing research, the importance of research activity to professors was manifest in that they could assert the "specialness",of their profession. Eble contrasted that situation with the role of public school teachers who also did not teach because they were involved in so many mundane noninstructional activities. That public school teachers did not have a means of attaining the status of professionals was due to the fact that they neither understood the uniqueness of the teaching function, nor did they possess any special ability outside teaching such as the university professors had. Eble argued that both groups could find more professional status by bec.,ing involved in the varied functions of the teaching role (14:37).
The freedom to make decisions affecting their owin areas of expertise is perceived as a very important prerogative by members of the university hierarchy. Often referred to as academic freedom in university organizations. and as the right to participate in the decision making process in
21
public school systems, the concept of self-deterrmiiation of the program of a given department is jealously guarded by university professors.
Gross and Grambsch studied a number of factors involving university faculties and administrators, including the relative distribution of
power between the two groups, and what each of the groups perceived the goals of a university to be. They concluded that the administration
division possessed the most power, but they pointed out that the exercise of paqer occurred with the consent of the faculty. They found large areas of agreement between the two groups as to what the goals of the universities were (21:115). Both faculty and administration felt that protecting the academic freedom of the faculty was the most important goal for the university (21:30).
Platt and Parsons conducted research into the decision making
process of universities. They found that university faculties tended to be collegial and associational in nature rather than bureaucratic. Comparing influence and value commitment to the bureaucratic properties of power and money, Platt and Parsons stated that influence was used in the faculty structure to gain commitment to the goals of the institution. Thus the prestige and intellectual capabilities of persons within a university
were more important in decision making than were persons who held positions of authority. The bureaucracy and concomitant power of the university were vested in the administrative structure, but that group was mainly concerned with financial management and did not participate in policy decisions of individual departments (33:165).
22
Platt anrd Parsons summarized their study by stating,
We have pointed out that the institutionalization of
faculty members' principal functions, i.e., research and teaching, has tended to be highly decentralized.
The pcwer aspect of these functions has rested largely with the individual faculty member or with small teams
of them. Decisions made by individuals or teams in
this regard, then, become binding on the institutional collectivity.... The most important collective bodies
here have been departments, and more recently with increasing frequency, committees, e.g. with degreeprogram powers. The faculty as a whole, and the
administration in complex coordination with it, has stood mainly in a permissive facilitating, and protective role. The fundamental normative institutions of academic freedom and tenure constitute the frameworks within which individual faculty members can
assume their own responsibility in making their
"contributions" to research and teaching with minimal
supervision even by corporate colleagues (33:167).
The bases of differentiation, then, among the levels of the
hierarchy in universities were primarily functions other than teaching.
The specialized areas of knowledge were useful in developing a rationale
for academic freedom. One reason stated for the development of a differentiated staff in the public schools was to enable teachers to participate more fully in the decision making process. The basis of differentiation, as stated by most writers, would be the teaching function itself.
This differentiation would be on a somewhat different basis than that
usually found in public schools. As pointed out by Kimball and McClellan
(27:213), the differentiation of roles in the traditional public school
organization was through administrative assignments. The successful
teacher was pronoted in rank to that of an administrator with little
attempt being given to a differentiation of the teaching function
itself.
23
Minimum Criteria for Differentiated Staff Tinq
Edelfelt gave a definition of differentiated staffing for the public schools that illuminated the antecedents of the term and suggested what the concept might mean when it was more fully developed.
Differentiated staffing is an outgrowth and refinement of team teaching and "the teacher and his staff" idea,
both of which propose the use of auxiliary personnel
in the schools to relieve teachers of their nonteaching tasks. Differentiated staffing goes a step further to
suggest that teaching be differentiated into various
roles and responsibilities (more than a vertical
hierarchy) to allow for the different interests, abilities, and ambitions of teachers. It calls for differentiating salary in terms of the responsibilities
assumed and allos for both a training And a career
ladder (15:22).
Allen suggested three criteia of differentiated staffing that would be useful in determining if a pattern was truly differentiated.
(1) A minimum of three differentiated teaching levels, each having a
different salary range; (2) a maximum salary at the top teaching category that was at least double the maximum at the lcwest; (3) substantial direct teaching responsiblity for all teachers at all salary levels, including those in the top brackets (0.176).
Rationale for the Develojment of Differentiated Staffing
One major reason given in the literature for the development of differentiated staffing patterns was the increasing caoplexity of the role of the teacher with the classroom and in the school. Another was
the desire of teachers to enhance their amn professional status in society and to fulfull what they felt was their professional obligation to educate the children of society.
24
Allen pointed out that ithe prese nt ways in which teachers were used was based on the nineteenth century Normal School model. At that time teachers had little formal training and needed almost constant oversight by supervisors who were better trained as teaches. He further stated that there had been an increase in the number of clerical chores demanded of teachers during the twentieth century so that the teacher was hampered by an increase in nonteaching tasks as well as the archaic pattern of
supervision (2:16-17).
Check reported research conducted with experienced classroom teachers who were pursuing graduate degrees. He found that one of the greatest concerns expressed by this group was the large number of clerical and
other tasks they were expected to do that were unrelated to their preparation as professional teachers (13:174). Buffie and Smith reported that the development of team teaching arran e ments emphasized the professional tasks of the teacher, while the employment and assignment of
teacher aides caused educators to enumerate the non-professional tasks (11 :277).
Other factors that caused a change in teaching functions included the move to individualize instruction and to produce curricula that were
relevant to the learner's needs. Baker and Goldberg established a system model of individualized instruction which included a differentiated staff.
In an individualized learning system, there must be trained personnel at more than one level of teaching. Included are
regular teachers, teacher aides, master teachers, and possibly
some specialized staff members.... Each staff member must be
given sufficient time to accomplish the tasks required to
organize learning, as contrasted with total class management
of learning (7:778).
25
Allen wrote that differentiaLted staffing was necessary in an individualized instruction program because students' activities would become so varied that a nu lber of different kinds of teachers would be necessary to oversee their work (3:44). Goldman stated that no one could plan a relevant curriculum without differentiated staffing
because the high level of competency needed to solve instructional problems demanded the pooling of talents of many different kinds of teachers. (20:495).
The interest that was shoan in plans to individualize instruction
and the increase in the number of clerical duties demanded of the teacher,
largely because of the increase in size and complexity of school systems, created an untenable job description of the teaching task. One consequence of this was the couhtermoves of teachers to organize and to demand better working conditions. Thus a second major reason for the development of differentiated staffing was to increase the professionalism of teaching.
The need to improve the teacher's position in school systems was demonstrated by Rand, who stated that sixty percent of those who enter teaching leave it after five years. He concluded that this number could be reduced by providing a career ladder for teachers and by giving them more authority to make decisions affecting their work. He wrote that
because of the increased training received by teachers they were demanding consideration in such matters as "professional autonomy, independence in licensing, control of teaching standards, entrance into the profession,
direction over educational goals and the concomitant methods-means selected to reach them" (35:29).
26
English wrote of the failure of the traditional school principal
to satisfy adequately the needs of teachers and pupils. He stated that both autocratic and "paternalistic father figure type" principals tended to keep bureaucracies of most urban school districts from making structural changes that would obviate the problems of the urban areas. He
suggested two ways in which differentiated staffing could change bureaucracies for the better. The diffusion of the decision making process to include the teaching staff and the concomitant change in the role of the principal from dictator to facilitator could both be accanplished through patterns of differentiated staffir (16:13-14).
Kimball and McClellan pointed out that the task of education could best be accomplished where the teacher functioned in an environment that he controlled. They felt that the structure of the bureaucracy of school districts prohibited the teacher from having any decision making authority, thus killing individual initiative (27:213-215).
Edelfelt noted that differentiated staffing provided teachers a
career ladder, based upon responsibility and commensurate rewards He further suggested that differentiated levels of teaching would ease the
transition between the preservice and inservice phases of the teacher's career since allowance could be made for the lack of training and experience of the neophyte. Edelfelt proposed that the differentiation of the teaching staff could be done by establishing a recruitment or auxiliary level, a preprofessional or intern level, an induction or beginning teacher level, and a continuing or experienced teacher level. This would pro-ote responsibility on the part of experienced teachers for a
porticn of the training of their less experienced colleagues (15:25).
27
Personnel of the Catalyst in Education Program issued a booklet detailing ways in which part-time teachers had been used in selected school districts to complement a teaching staff. The policy permitted the profitable use of the talent of fully qualified teachers who, because of other responsibilities, could not accept a full-time position (12:2). Utilization of. persons in this manner was also recommended by Hair
(23:9), Allen (2:19), and Edelfelt (15:23).
Description of Some Selected Models
Models are the expression of theory in concrete situations. In terms of differentiated staffing, they represent halfway measures between theory and the application of differentiated staffing to a given school district.
English categorized all public school models of differentiated
staffing into four basic types: (1) curriculum models with emphasis on subject matter organization; (2) teaching models based upon a variety of teaching methods; (3) organizational models based upon theories of learning. He stated that any model that was actually implemented would encompass all four patterns (19:214).
Temple City,_California Model.
This model was implemented in Temple City, California, in September, 1968, follaoing a two-yeair planning phase. The staff of the one selected school, Oak Intermediate, included a principal, a school manager, 2 counselors, I nurse, I master teacher, I senior teacher, 27 staff teachers,
3 associate teachers, and 14 paraprofessional personnel. During the 1969-70 school year 650 pupils were enrolled.
28
There were six levels of the teaching hierarchy: teaching research associate, teaching curriculum associate, master teacher, staff teacher, academic assistant, and educational technician. The principal and all senior teachers made up an academic senate that determined school policies. The school had flexible scheduling, varying class sizes, curriculum resource centers, and a continuous progresss plan of curriculum organization (17:12-26).
Kansas City Missouri Model.
This plan was implemented in the Mary Harmon Weeks Elementary and the Martin Luther King Junior High Schools in September, 1968. Each school had an approximate enrollment of 1,000 pupils. Each school structured its program to its unique needs and plans. At Mary Harmon Weeks Elementary the staff included 2 coordinating teachers, 7 senior instructors, 11 instructors, 4 associate instructors, and 4 interns. The staff of Martin Luther King Junior High included 2 coordinating instructors, 7 senior instructors, 30 instructors, 8 associate instructors, 3 interns, 4 student teachers, and 6 paraprofessicnals.
The model used in this system included five professional steps in a vertical hierarchy: coordinating instructor, senior instructor, instructor, associate instructor, and intern. The principal, support services personnel, and paraprofessionals completed the remainder of the staff (23:8-14).
Beaverton, Oregon Model.
Applegarth reported this model as being in the planning phase only. Roles of teachers were differentiated on the basis of teaching tasks necessary to accanplish the objectives as identified by teachers in the
29
school district. Salary schedules would be based on various skills required for individualized instruction (5). State of Utah Model.
Personnel in the Department of Education in Utah proposed a state plan to provide for differentiated staffing. The goals of the plan included individualized study, flexible facilities and a continuous progress plan of curriculum organization.
The sample staff plan, included in the proposal, differentiated five roles for teachers: head teacher, experienced teacher, tutorial assistant
or intern, volunteer aide, and clerk-pupil progress accountant (41). Trusty and Sergiovanni Model.
Trusty and Sergiovanni conducted research into need deficiencies of educators and found that the greatest needs were for esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization. Based on this research, they proposed a fivelevel teaching hierarchy that included the positions of colleague, scholar, associate, fellow, and intern. Each level had salary increments based on differentiated responsibilities (39:167-180). System Model.
This model was developed by Pillot as a model that could be established on a system-wide basis. From the general model, the staff of a particular school could develop its own pattern of differentiation based on the needs of the school identified by personnel of the school center. Pillot proposed a five level professional hierarchy consisting of consulting teacher, directing teacher, staff teacher, instructor, and intern. Five levels of paraprofessionals--instructional assistant, aide, adjunct teacher, volunteer assistant, and student assistant--were created in the
model also.
30
The proposed unique features of the design included more precision
in defining the function of various roles, the ability of the model to be changed as it was implemented in different schools, and the extensibility of the model to other school systems.
A staffing sub-model and an implementation sub-model were two parts
of the school system model. The staffing sub-model consisted of a vertical differentiation of roles and tasks into the different professional and paraprofessional hierarchies and a horizontal differentiation of tasks into five major task areas. Each task was further designated by assigning "primary," "major," or "assisting" responsibility for performing the task to each vertical level involved in the task. The implementation sub-model consisted of the minimum standards to be adhered to by the school center and a set of procedures to be follaved when establishing differentiated staff pattern. Policies for the operation of the school were developed by the faculty board. This body was also considered as a major vehicle for establishing a formal process of shared decision making (32).
Evaluation of Models of Differentiated Staffinq
Fe studies of differentiated staffing had been conducted through 1970. One reason for this fact was the newness of the concept. Studies of other kinds of flexible staff arrangements had been conducted for several years.
In 1964, Anderson reported that most studies of staff utilization and deployment were'8escriptive and testimonial." Studies of research on cooperative teaching were reported, but differentiated teaching assignments were scarcely mentioned (4:455).
31
In 1967, Nystrand and Bertolnet reported that the paucity of research on staff utilization necessitated the combination of that topic with those of "grouping pupils," and "housing pupils and programs." They further stated that the interrelationships that existed among the concepts of staff utilization, student grouping, and school facilities suggested that the developmen't.of systems models involving the flexible use of staff, students and facilities would be forthcoming (31:488).
In 1968, English conducted a study of the Temple City project during
the first three months of its operation. He administered a questionnaire to teachers to determine what they felt were the successes and the problems of the program. The successes reported were: (1) more individualized instruction; (2) a more open climate and collegial atmosphere; (3) an enriched school environment; (4) teacher participation in decision making;
(5) pupil and teacher enthusiasm for school; (6) teacher satisfaction
with the program. On the other hand, the following problems were listed:
(1) teacher fatigue due to increased clerical responsibilities; (2) a trend tav4ard faculty separatism caused by fewer opportunities for personal interaction; (3) a trend tcorard decision making by a new elite;
(4) conflict due to ambiguity of the senior teacher role; (5) students who did not take responsibility inherent in the new program; (6) incomplete materials and resources to support the instructional program (18:2-5).
in 1970, Harris reported his experiences following one year of operation of a differentiated staffing project at Martin Luther King Junior High School in Kansas City. He stated that teachers were able to work together and with paraprofessionals in planning the instructional program.
The negative aspects of the program were: (1) more work was required of
32
teachers, (2) teachers did not charge their mode of teaching even though the organization of the school and class size were changed, (3) lines of authority were either poorly defined or disregarded, (4) some duties assigned senior instructors did not encourage their working on the instructional program (24:32-33).
Summary
The review of the literature revealed that the structure of an
organization affected the behavior of persons. Through manipulation of organizational patterns the personal goals of workers could better be fulfilled and at the same time the objectives of the organization could be achieved. Studies of the faculty hierarchy of universities showed that the teaching function was used very little as a basis on which to differentiate among levels of the staff. Instead, other kinds of
activities associated with the work of the institution were much more important in determining who would be assigned to each rank. The literature advocating differentiated staffing for the public schools was concerned primarily with bringing a greater degree of professionalization to teaching through a careful analysis and differentiation of teaching tasks. Another reason for developing differentiated staffing was to produce a more individualized instructional program. Differentiated staffing also would effectively provide for the appropriate involvement of the staff in policy decisions affecting all areas of the school program.
Some writers stressed that the schools operated on the bureaucratic model of organization. This caused an overemphasis on control, chain of
33
command, and centralized decision making, resulting in teachers being hampered in their efforts to educated the youth of society. What was needed, they wrote, was a breakdown of the bureaucracy into a more decentralized structure that would encourage diffused decision making through collegial, professional relationships. This new structure would permit teachers to focus on the education rather than the control of the young.
The evaluative studies of flexible staff utilization that have been conducted indicated that concentrated preservice and inservice programs were needed if teachers were to begin to fulfill the broad goals established by advocates of differentiated staffing. One of the major efforts needed was to discover the distinctly professional character of the teaching role itself so that differentiation could be made that would produce a truly better instructional program. Finally, the review of research studies indicated that more systematic and long-term studies of differentiated staffing projects needed to be conducted in order to determine what benefits might be derived from such a program.
The plan of this study was to conduct an evaluation of the differentiated staffing program as implemented in the pilot school. Before
presenting the data of the evaluation, a description of the many activities that were conducted to inaugurate the program is presented in order to provide some background illustrative of the scope of the differentiated staffing study. The activities undertaken by persons in the selected school system are reported in the next chapter.
CHAPTER III
THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING
AT VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
The successful development of any large-scale innovative program
does not occur overnight. Instead, it is the result of careful planning, large 6utputs of energy, and a willingness on the part of those affected to became fully involved in the change. In this chapter a brief description of the Sarasota County School System is presented. The multi-faceted program developed by personnel of the school system to familiarize the staff with the concept of differentiated staffing is described, with particular emphasis given to the program at Venice Junior High School.
The Sarasota County School System
During the period, 1957-70, almost all components of the school system increased greatly. During the 1957-58 school year, there were approximately 10,000 pupils enrolled in the schools. By the 1970-71 school year the number was in excess of 21,000. The professional staff numbered 434 in 1958. By 1970 the number had increased to 1,089. The financial growth of the system occurred at an even faster rate. During the 1957-58 school year, per pupil expenditures were 275 dollars. By 1970 this figure had increased to 806 dollars per pupil.
34
35
The school system was governed by a five-member board of education, elected by popular vote on a nonpartisan basis. The superintendent of schools was appointed at the discretion of the school board.
Many innovative educational programs had been developed within the school system. The Englewood Elementary School was the location of one of the early team teaching experiments in the United States. Personnel in several schools pilot-tested and later adopted certain innovative science curriculum materials. Many schools were involved in cooperative teaching programs prior to the study of differentiated staffing. Special programs in vocational education, education of the mentally retarded and physically handicapped, and education of the gifted were operated in the county schools.
Venice Junior High School
Constructed in 1958, Venice Junior High School was located on part of a 105-acre campus.area that was originally the Venice Municipal Airport. An elementary and a senior high school were also located on the campus. Thirty-five classrooms, including three double classrooms and eight temporary classrooms, an administrative area, library and guidance area made up the facilities of the school. Access to a cafeteria, gymnasium, and auditorium was gained at the senior high school building. The junior high school was modern in design, with classrooms that opened onto wide, uncovered passageways through which students could easily and freely move. The casual, unhurried movement of students among classrooms helped to create an atmosphere of informality and flexibility. During the 1970-71 school year there were 835 students enrolled in grades 7, 8, and 9.
36
The administrative and instructional staff of the school had tended to remain rather stable. From 1958 to 1960 the administration of the school was closely aligned to that of the senior high since the chief administrator of the junior high school was an assistant principal under the direct supervision of the senior high principal. There had been two principals appointed to the school by 1970. The principal during the 1970-71 school year was first appointed in 1963. The annual instructional staff replacement rate was less than ten percent.
The school was organized into subject area departments. Chairmen were appointed for all departments except the one-member departments. Prior to the experiment with differentiated staffing the school staff allocation was approximately forty-nine teacher units. This number
included two administrators and two guidance counselors.
The curriculum of the school was made up of the following courses:
Art, Band, Chorus, English, French, German, Home Economics, Industrial Arts, Mathematics, Orchestra, Physical Education, Science, Social Studies, Typing, and a Work Experience Program. Students participated
in almost all chosen subject areas for the entire year, which meant that minimal changes in the organization for instruction occurred after the beginning of the school year. The instructional program was primarily textbook-centered, with the library area serving chiefly as a repository for printed materials.
The students of the school compared favorably to the students of
many junior high schools in the United States. The scores of the students on standardized achievement texts indicated they were at, or above,national norms.
37
Activities That Led to the Implementation of Differertiated Staffing
The program of activities conducted by personnel of the Sarasota County Schools prior to the implementation of differentiated staffing in Venice Junior High School transpired over a two-year period. The various activities were best understood when they were classified into four program components: school system studies of differentiated staffing, school system model design, individual school model design, and training programs for participants. Some of the components
occurred simultaneously while others occurred in successive stages.
The original interest in conducting an investigation into the concept of differentiated staffing was due to an informal expression of interest.by certain members of the Sarasota County School Board.
Members of the board were primarily interested in developing more effective ways of utilizing the varied skills of teachers and of paying them according to the professional tasks they performed. The administrative staff of the school system had expressed an equal interest in such an investigation. A third group that expressed a desire to explore such a concept was the Sarasota County Teachers Association. The three groups agreed that cooperative efforts were needed if the
study was to have the dimensions they desired. A memorandum to the school board was mutually written, by the assistant superintendent for instruction and the executive secretary of the Sarasota County Teachers Association in May, 19638. The purpose of the memorandum was to request permission to conduct a study of differentiated staffing to determine if serious consideration should be given to implementing the concept in the
38
Sarasota County schools. The imemorandJum was accepted by the school board, permission for the study was granted, and the study of differentiated staffing was begun.
The School System Studies of Differentiated Staffin.
Initial studies of staff differentiation began during the summer of 1968 with the creation of the office of staff development within the structure of the county school system and the appointment of an ad hoc committee of the Sarasota County Teachers Association. The office of staff development was given responsibility for initiating and conducting the study of differentiated staffing. More specifically, the director of staff development was charged with the responsibility for: (1) encouraging the entire school system to be voluntarily interested in the study of differentiated staffing, and (2) to provide study opportunities and mechanics to those interested school faculties so that they might move from interest to implementation of pilot programs and beyond. Mr. Gene Pillot, Principal of Sarasota County High School, was appointed director of the staff developement office, and largely through his leadership the responsibilities of the office were carried out. He was also instrumental in organizing the several activities that occurred.
The ad hoc committee of the Sarasota County Teachers Association: began to study the concept in August, 1968. Members of the committee read available professional materials, invited consultants to speak to the group, and considered possible ramifications of the adoption of differentiated staffing to Lhe school system. During the study,consideraticn was also given to the appropriate ways to differentiate the
39
staff and to use paraprofessionals. One interim report made by the group stated that the concept showed great promise for improving instruction and should be given careful attention in Sarasota County.
The Citizens Advisory Committee, appointed by the school board, was structured into a number of special subcommittees, one of which was the Citizens Subcommittee on Staff Development. The chairman of that subcommittee also became interested in the study of differentiated staffing and encouraged the staff of the school system to further the investigation begun by the Sarasota County Teachers Association.
An ad hoc committee was appointed by the division of instruction, through the office of staff development, to conduct an investigation of differentiated staffing parallel to the study by the ad hoc committee of
the Sarasota County Teachers Association. Members of the committee were the chairman of the Citizens Subcommittee on Staff Development, assistart superientendent for instruction, director of staff development, director of elementary education, director of secondary education, and the chairman
of the ad hoc committee on differentiated staffing of the Sarasota County Teachers AssociatJon.
Among the activities of the committee was a trip in November, 1968, and in February, 1969, to Temple City, California, and Kansas City, Missouri, to view on the site existing differentiated staffing projects.
The ad hoc committee of the Sarasota County Teachers Association and the ad hoc committee of the division of instruction deliberated separately, but materials and human resources were shared cooperatively.
During the time the two committees were conducting the investigation
of the concept, an effort was made to begin a pilot program in staff differentiation that proved to be premature and was aborted.
40
A law, Chapter 68-13, had been passed by the Legislature of the State of Florida which stated, "The state superintendent in cooperation with selected county boards of public instruction shall develop and operate
model projects of flexible staff organization in selected elementary and secondary schools based on differentiated levels of responsibility and compensation for services performed" (42:9). The state superintendent sought funds of the Education Professions Development Act, an act passed
by the United States Congress. Funds were subsequently received by the state superintendent who, in turn, invited superintendents of all the counties in the state to submit proposals for the study and implementation of differentiated staffing in schools. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the principals of Sarasota County, held in October, 1968, the director of staff development announced to the group that funds were available to begin a pilot program of differentiated staffing if anyone was interested. The principal of Venice Junior High School notified the director of staff development of his interest in studying the possibility of implementing a pilot program. However, he stated that any commitment to begin differentiated staffing was premature at that time. Others who were also interested in the development of a pilot program concurred in that opinion. Consequently, the superintendent of schools wrote a letter to the state superintendent in November, 1968, explaining that the staff of Sarasota County Schools would not participate in that particular program.
Following several months of deliberation, a joint resolution was issued by the Sarasota County Teachers Association and the division of
instruction which stated that a steering committee on differentiated
41
staffing should be established. A recommendation was made in March, 1969, to the Sarasota County School Board that such a committee be formed. The recommendation was accepted and the director of staff development was requested to initiate the organization of the committee. The reason for establishing the committee was to provide system-wide involvement of personnel from all instructional levels of the system and to establish the study within the legal framework of the Sarasota County schools.
The functions and responsibilities of the committee were as follows:
(1) establish criteria by which all proposals for the study or implementation of differentiated staffing would be judged; (2) establish procedures to be follav-ed in making proposals for the study or implementation of differentiated staffing; (3) encourage school staffs to secure information on, and study the concept of, differentiated staffing and to inform all school staffs of the procedures to be followed in requesting approval of any proposed plan to study or implement differentiated staffing; (4) serve as a source of information and advice to interested school staffs; (5) coordinate the study and implementation of differentiated staffing in all the Sarasota County schools;
(6) communicate clearly and continuously with the staff and the community at large all important aspects of the study and implementation of differentiated staffing in the Sarasota County Schools. The resolution further outlined certain procedures that the committee should follow: (I) work cooperatively and jointly with any other committee or office concerned with the study of possible implementation of differentiated staffing;
(2) all meetings should be open to all interested persons; (3) each member would have one vote; (4) the committee could make recommendations
42
to the school board through the superintendent; (5) all recommendations of the committee could contain a minority report at the request of one
member of the committee.
The committee was organized in April, 1969, and the first meeting was held in May, 1969. The membership of the committee was determined by election or appointment of individuals who represented an important area of the program of the school system, or who represented an organization external to the structure of the system. The following were represented on the committee: classroom teachers, counselors, elementary grade-level chairmen, secondary department chairmen, teacher aides, supervisors, elementary principals, secondary principals, directors, assistant superintendents, and representatives from educational media,
pupil personnel services, Sarasota County Teachers Association, Citizens Advisory Committee, School Board, and the office of staff development.
The Steering Committee became the decision making committee in all differentiated staffing proposals for study and pilot implementation.
Procedures to be followed in developing a pilot program were written and distributed to personnel in all schools. The statement made clear that any school, or department within a school, could develop a program of differentiating the staff. The statement also was clear that while the director of staff development would offer any assistance he could to a school staff, the initiative for developing a proposal must come from members of the local school faculty. Proposals from six different schools were considered and approved by the committee during the period, May through July, 1969, including a proposal from members of the science
department of Venice Junior High School.
43
The review of activities carried cut by members of the Sarasota County Schools to familiarize themselves with differentiated staffing and to consider possible ways of implementing the concept pointed out that much study occurred at all staff levels and that persons were chosen as official participants in the study from a wide range of interests. Efforts to procure wide areas of staff involvement did not occur without design. Persons in the school system structure who provided leadership to the study stressed that involvement of the staff was a usual procedure for the school system. They further stressed that there were two major reasons for wide staff involvement. First, the acceptance of any extensive change depended on accurate and adequate information, opportunities for those affected to participate in formulating the parameters of the change, and opportunities for those affected by the change to become conmitted to completing the proposed change. Secondly, the information and judgment provided by persons from the various areas of the school system, and organizations external to the school structure, proved to be one of the most significant components of the study.
Development of the School System Model
The development of the school system model was a major project of a committee of the Sarasota County Schools formed for that particular purpose. The Florida Department of Education had received an additional grant funded from the Education Professions Development Act to study differentiated staffing. A consortium of three county school systems had been Formed, including Sarasota County, to implement pilot programs of differentiated staffing. One of the tasks given to personnel of the
44
Sarasota County Schools was the development of a model that could be implemented in other school systems. The director of staff development, with the approval of the Steering Committee on Differentiated Staffing, invited a representative from each of six schools--four elementary and two junior high--that had submitted proposals for implementing a differentiated staffing program. Five members of the committee were classroom teachers. They were either appointed by their principal or elected by the total school faculty. The principal of Venice Junior High School, who represented that school, and the director of staff development completed the membership of the committee. The committee was named the Committee for More Effective School Personnel Utilization, the same title given to the state program. A grant in excess of 8,000 dollars was accepted by the Sarasota County School Board to fund the work of
the committee.
Members of the committee were active during the 1969-70 school year
studying models of other schools, gathering data, and considering ho the school system model might most appropriately be developed. One of the facts that guided the members of the committee in their work was that interim reports of the study of differentiated staffing being conducted by the Steering Committee on Differentiated Staffing had indicated that some means of implementing differentiated staffing in the Sarasota County Schools should be devised. The school system model seeed to be the most appropriate structure for staff differentiation.
The director of staff development was primarily responsible for the development of the school system model. Other members of the committee provided consultative and evaluative assistance to the director as the
45
model was being developed. Concepts inherent in the design of other models of differentiated staffing were also utilized. The basic design of the school system model was approved by the Sarasota County School Board in February, 1970. The model was made available to the personnel of the school system during April, 1970. School Model Developement
The development of the school model of differentiated staffing at Venice Junior High School did not begin with the school system model since the first model implemented in the school was one developed by members of the science department for use in the 1969-70 school year. Prior to the establishment of the Steering Committee on Differentiated Staffing a group of county staff personnel visited informally with some department chairmen of Venice Junior High School. The purpose of their visit was to suggest to the department chairmen that they consider implementing a pilot program of differentiated staffing within their departments during the 1969-70 school year. The science and mathematics departments had been identified by the principal as being best prepared to begin staff differentiation. Members of the science department had adopted an individualized science curriculum and they believed instruction could be further individualized by differentiating the staff. Members of the mathematics department had expressed an interest in developing an individualized curriculum that would also enable them to differentiate responsibilities. The eventual response of the staffs of the two departments, while not the same, was to begin activities that would eventially result in staff differentiation. Members of the science department developed their cwn model of differentiated staffing and
46
the accompanying job descriptions for each level of the hierarchy. Differentiation was based on a different model than the school system model because the school system model had riot been developed at that time. Components of the science department model were: coordinator of curriculum and instruction, senior instructor, instructor, associate instructor and aide. 4hile the differentiation of that department represented only a beginning in the study of how best to identify appropriate levels of responsibility, members of the staff considered it a necessary component of the differentiation process.
Members of the mathematics department decided to proceed with curriculum development during the 1969-70 school year and to differentiate the tasks of the department during the 1970-71 school year. This plan was accepted by the Steering Committee on Differentiated Staffing.
During the 1969-70 school year the science department of Venice Junior High School was differentiated and other departments continued to study ways in which the total school might become differentiated. Leadership for the study was provided by the principal, dean of students, and the chairmen of the various departments of the school.
For some time the principal of Venice Junior High School had
appointed a school steering committee which acted in an advisory capacity to the principal on matters of school operation. The members hip of the committee included the chairmen of all departments, plus one person chosen to represent all departments that did not have a chairman. On the initiative of the principal, the steering committee began to deliberate topics of more general professional interest such as organizational
47
structure, shared decision making, administrative theory, and differentiated staffing. The study of those topics provided sce theoretical background that was useful to the members of the committee when they were considering how to differentiate the staff.
At a meeting in May, 1970, the steering committee was asked by the
principal: Hcw should Venice Junior High School be organized for instruction during the 1970-71 school year? Following several days of discussion
the members of the group made the decision to differentiate the staff and thereby to involve the entire school staff in a new organizational pattern. Members of the steering committee were then asked by the principal to hold meetings of their respective departments to discuss the ramifications of the decision. On returning to their departments, the chairmen asked staff
members the question: Ho, do we want to organize the staff of this department for the 1970-71 school year? In order for members of the staff to make a decision, certain limitations and guidelines imposed by the school board and by the structure of the model had to be explained.
Each member of the staff was apprized of the kinds of positions
identified in the model and the teacher unit cost, or fraction thereof, of each level. The school staffing model could not contain more teacher units than the number allocated by the superintendent of schools. Another requirement was that no one who had served on the staff during the 1969-70 school year would be asked to leave as a result of differentiating the staff. Beyond those guidelines the particular competencies needed in each department had to be corn.sidered, and the appropriate staffing pattern had to be selected. No strict procedures were established for organizing the departmental staff because administrators felt the teachers should select
48
the model without administrative interference. Secondly, due to the nature of the decisions, no ad iistrator felt adequate procedures could be developed that would be appropriate to all departments.
Two problems had to be solved at the same time the school center model was being designed. The first was a requirement by the school board that the allocation of 48.7 teacher units during the 1969-70 school year be reduced to 44.7 teacher units for the 1970-71 school year. This action was the result of a reduction in teacher unit allocations that affected every school in the system. The total reduction of four teacher units had to be made on a school-wide basis after considering the program and needs of every department.
A second problem was to determine how the school should be scheduled. One complicating factor was the freedom that had existed in the one differentially organized department during the 1969-70 school year. The opportunity to schedule the science department in almost any manner had
to give way to the consideration that since all departments were differentiated curing the 1970-71 school year, a school-wide scheduling was a necess i ty.
Members of the school steering committee, in consultation with the
remainder of the staff, solved both problems. The decisions reached were:
(I) the school would be departmentalized; (2) the school would maintain a graded structure; (3) students would be scheduled in large groups and assigned to the departments for a given period of time, but the schedule of the students within that time period would be t'ete:.mined by the members
of the department.
49
To design the school center mcel within the restriction of reducing the number of teacher units required committee members to exert some effort. When the principal totaled the initial requests for staff from all departments, he found they had developed a model that required 52.7 teacher units instead of the allocated 44.7. Members of each department were forced to reconsider their on programs in light of the overall school program priorities and the imposed econoanies. Eventual requests totaled 42.25 teacher units. The school model was approved by the school
board in August, 1970.
Training Programs
hile the efforts of both system-wide and school committees were a part of the training program to acquaint a staff with differentiated staffing, the component described in this section was concerned with those activities that occurred on a local school and system-wide basis after the commitment had been made to begin staff differentiation.
The first part of the training program began in June, 1969, and
included as participants members of the two departments from Venice Junior High School that had been selected to begin the pilot program in September. An eight-day workshop was held during which time the following activities were undertaken: (1) an overall plan for implementing differentiated staffing was developed; (2) a tentative job description for each level
of the staff hierarchy was drawn up; (3) additional curriculum materials were developed, based on anticipated needs. The same staff returned to another workshop in Aigust, 1969, and worked for approximately ten days. During that workshop the following activities occurred: (1) tentative job descriptions for each level of the staff hierarchy were revised and
50
finalized; (2) teacher class assingments were completed; (3) major departmental duties were assigned; (4) further development of curriculum and the organization for instruction was accomplished.
In June, 1970, a system-wide workshop was held, consisting of representatives of the four elementary and two junior high schools designated to conduct pilot projects by the Steering Committee on Differentiated Staffing. The department chairmen, principal, and dean of students from Venice Junior High School attended those sessions. The major purposes
of the workshop were to estabi ish a plan of action for the summer and to determine what parts of the program of a school would be affected by a different staff personnel organization. The members of the workshop also began to consider more effective ways to communicate with their fellow
staff members because they considered interpersonal relations to be very important to the success of any differentiated staffing program.
In August, 1970, a ten-day workshop was held, again involving
reporesentatives from the six selected schools. The following activities occurred during the workshop: (1) final plans for individual school models were developed; (2) individualized curriculum materials were prepared;
(3) the importance of effective interpersonal relationships among staff members was stressed; and (4) the importance of peer evaluation in a differentiated staffing. program was discussed.
Sumary
The purpose of this chapter was to describe the school system in which the differentiated staffing project was conducted. The several activities undertaken by the central staff of the school system and the
staff of Venice Junior High School prior to implementation of the school system model were outlined. A review of the activities indicated that not all elements of the program were precisely planned or revealed in advance of the adoption of the flexible staffing program. The reasons
for this phenomenon were that the staff was not aware in every case of what activities were needed since the initial emphasis of the program was to conduct a feasibility study of differentiated staffing. Secondly, those providing leadership to the study believed that some ambiguity in stating what changes were planned would prove beneficial in facilitating
the change process and would lead to a program that would be successful.
One of the most significant results of the studies described in this chapter was the development of the school system model. The workab.i I ity of the model, its unique qualities, and the flexibility permitted in its application to a school or school system were advantages believed to be inherent in the structure of the model. In the next chapter, attention is given to a brief description of the basic parts of the model and how they were applied to the pilot school.
CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM MODEL
The school system model was designed by Pillot (32) to describe
professional and paraprofessional staff positions that could be created within a given school system. The model was designed to establish directions and a plan of action for the personnel of a school to follow in developing a differentiated staffing pattern. In this chapter, the components of the model, including the theoretical mechanics of operation are briefly presented. For a fuller description of the model the reader is referred to Pillot's study (32). The brief description of the basic parts of the model presented in this chapter is designed to faciliatate understanding of the evaluation presented in Chapter V.
In this chapter, the staffing pattern of Venice Junior High School is also presented and compared to the staffing pattern that would have been utilized in a traditional program.
Qualities of the Model
The school system model was designed to permit personnel of a school and/or department within a school, to select a differentiated staffing model appropriate to the unique needs and instructional program of that school. No two schools within a school system were expected to have the
52
53
same staffing pattern. Within the structure of the model, that quality
was named autonomy.
The staff of the school also had the freedom to change the chosen staffing pattern any time the needs of the pupils changed and as the instructional program of the school was restructured. Any changes in personnel had to be consistent with legal and contractural requirements for personnel employment. That quality of the model was called fluidity.
The school district leadership was responsible for the allocation of instructional units on an equal basis to equal sized schools, for establishing certain minimum job requirements, and for establishing salary schedules within the district. The establishment of certain system-wide criteria that were to be adhered to by a given school provided minimum consistency between the policies of the school and the district. Minimum consistency was another quality defined within the model.
Although the school system model as implemented in Sarasota County contained specific values for such items as salary, instructional units, and the levels of the hierarchy, those values were not essential to the basic structure of the model. They could be changed by personnel of any school system that desired to utilize the model. The quality of the model that enabled it to be implemented in more than one school system was labeled extensibility.
The qualities of autonomy, fluidity, minimum consistency, and
extensibility were provided in the model and were held tc be some of
the unique characteristics of the school system model. They were to be actualized through the process provided in the model whereby a school
54
staff could implement the pattern of differentiated staffing based on its unique instructional needs (32:55).
Basic Components of the Model
The school system model was comprised of two major components--a staffing sub-model and an implementation sub-model. The parts of the staffing sub-model included a description of the various professional and paraprofessional staff positions; a description of the special roles of adjunct teacher, volunteer assistant, and principal; and a description of the organization and function of the faculty board. A list of the major categories of tasks performed in schools was provided, and these tasks were assigned to the various professional and paraprofesional staff positions.
The implementation sub-model included a scheme for classifying all schcols in a school system according to size; a cost factor expressed in terms of teacher units for each level in the staff hierarchy; the procedures to be follavied in establising a staffing pattern for a given school; and the job specification charts from which a job description of each professional and paraprofessional position could be developed. The job specification charts provided criteria on which to base judgment concerning the effectiveness of a given staff member. A comparison of actual job performance with the criteria stated in the charts provided an objective basis on which to evaluate all staff members.
55
The Staffing Sub-Model
The vertical hierarchy of staff positions
Five professional teaching positions, three special positions, and three paraprofessional positions were defined in the model. The five professional teaching positions were consulting teacher, directing teacher, staff teacher, instructor, and resident intern. The three special positions were adjunct teacher, volunteer assistant and principal.
The three paraprofessional positions were instructional assistant, aide, and student assistant.
The various levels of staff positions were provided through a
differentiation of assignment, experience as a teacher, and thile influence of the position. Specific responsibilities of each level varied according to the size of the school. For example, the directing teacher of a department in an 1800 student high school would have more responsibility than one in a 300 pupil elementary. The relationships among the various levels of the staff hierarchy were illustrated in the study by Pillot by a series of concentric circles as seen in Figure 1 (32:57).
The consulting teacher. The consulting teacher was responsible for the overall instructional program, or at least a large part of the instructional program, in one or more schools. Pillot stated, "He may be responsible and accountable for supervising several grade levels, a particular discipline in several grade levels; coordinated disciplines
in a school or grade level; or one or more of the function areas of instruction, staff development, research-evaluation-reporting, or
administration" (32:59). The consulting teacher was not to function in a line relationship to other staff members, but he was to provide
56
Principal
Consul t inq Teacher
Instructor
Assistant Ad unct V unte r
Teac er Ass* tant
Figure 1. -- The Total Vertical Hierarchy and Concomitant
Positions in the System Model (32).
57
consultative and advisory services, He was to spend a major portion of
his time in activities other than direct instruction of students.
The directing teacher. The directing teacher was in a line position and was responsible for exercising leadership in a specific area of the instructional program. According to Pillot, "He may be the leader of a tearm a grade level, or a department. He may be responsible for a single discipline in one school, or may be assigned leadership responsibility in one of the function areas" (32:60). The directing teacher was considered as the master teacher in a particular area of responsibility. In that capacity he was responsible for planning, organizing, and conducting the instructional program in his area of assignment, in consultation with other staff mcnbers. He was to spend less than full-time in direct instruction of students.
The staff teacher. The staff teacher was comparable to the regular, tenured classroom teacher. As described by Pillot, "He is assigned to a team, a single or unified discipline, or to duties in one of the function areas. In general he will be assigned to full-time direct
instruction" (32:60).
The instructor. The instructor was a beginning teacher who was
serving a probationary period, usually three years, and who was assigned to full-time teaching responsibilities. His work was to be closely supervised, however, by a person in a higher position in the hierarchy, usually the directing teacher (32:61).
The resident intern. The resident intern was a person who was in
his last year of preservice education, but who was assigned to full-time activities within the school. The intern was permitted to participate
in all college activities required of him during his final year of study. He was to be closely supervised by a staff teacher, directing teacher, or a team of teachers to which he had been assigned (32:61).
The adjunct teacher. The adjunct teacher was a noncertified
person who possessed a certain skill, or who held a special expertise in a given subject area. The adjunct was to be employed on a part-time basis, at a daily rate for a specified number of days, or for an honorarium. All services of the adjunct teacher were to be preplanned and incorporated into the structure of the curriculum of the school (32:63-64).
The volunteer assistant. The volunteer assistant was to serve in much the same manner as the adjunct teacher, except that he would not receive compensation for his services. The provision for that kind of position was made in order to utilize the talents of persons who did not desire to be paid for their services (32:64).
The principal. In a differentiated staffing program the principal's role was to change from that of the final authority figure in the school to that of being one voting member of a faculty board. Pillot wrote, "In a differentiated staffing model with shared decision making, the principal will have the primary responsibility of causing the decisions of the faculty board to be carried out. He is responsible for seeing that the environment of the school is maximal for the instructional program" (32:66). The role of thile principal could be expanded to include some teaching responsibility, depending on the number and complexity of tilhe administrative tasks assigned in a given school. The principal was the one person in the school directly accountable to the superintendent of schools in all matters of school operation. The relationship of the
59
principal to the other levels of the staff hierarchy is sho.n in Figure 1.
The instructional assistant. The instructional assistant was assigned to instructional duties that did not require professional training. He was to perform duties assigned to him by a professional
teacher (32:62).
The aide. The aide was assigned duties that were primarily clerical, technical or material. He was to perform nonprofessional tasks for the members of the professional staff (32:63).
The student assistant. The student assistant was to be a high
school or college student who served on a part-time basis. The duties assigned the student assistant would be similar to those assigned the
aide, except that the student assistant might also be assigned duties of a nonprofessional, instructional nature (32:63). The horizontal differentiation into function areas
One mode of differentiating a teaching staff was the vertical
differentiation of assignments into a staff hierarchy as discussed in the previous section. A second mode was the classification of teaching
tasks into categories and the assignment of certain tasks to each level of the staff hierarchy. This second mode was known as horizontal differentiation.
The categories into which the teaching tasks were assigned were identified in the model as: administration, instruction, researchevaluation-reporting, arid staff development. The function areas are
shown digrammatically in Figure 2. All levels of the vertical staff hierarchy were assigned duties in each of these function areas. A person
60
Instruction Administration
ResearchEvaluationReporting
.....Staff
Development
Figure 2. -- Major Horizontally Differentiated Function Areas in
the System Model (32).
61
occupying any position in the staff hierarchy could be assigned duties in one function area exclusively, if the program of the school center was organized in that manner. For example, a directing teacher for staff development could be appointed as appropriately as a directing teacher who had responsibility for all function areas,
Further differentiation within a given fucntion area was anticipated in the structure of the model. For example, the area of instruction could have been further divided to permit the utilization of the strengths of teachers to direct large group instruction, individually directed study, or to produce media materials. (32:69-73).
The faculty board
The faculty board was the policy-making body of the school in a differentiated staffing program. The membership of the board was composed of the principal, consulting teachers, and directing teachers of the school. Provision was also made in the model for other staff
members of the school to serve on the board for a specified time when such assignment would facilitate improvement in the instructional program. The faculty board was also expected to delegate authority necessary to carry out policy decisions. The scope of the decision making powers of the faculty board was bound only by legal restrictions, school board policies, or central administrative regulations. Ultimate responsibility for the operation of a school remained with the board of education
(32:66).
The Implementation Sub-Model
The purpose of the implementation sub.-model was to establish certain procedures by which a school would be guided in the selection of a staffing
pattern appropriate to the program of instruction. Contained in this sub-model were the procedures tiiat assured minimum consistency between the school staffing pattern aend the overall procedures for the entire school system.
Unit allocation formula
The unit allocation formula was devised by the central administration as a means of allocating teacher units to a school center, based upon the pupil-teacher ratio. Pillot wrote, "This ratio will be determined by central office administration according to the total funds available for instructional personnel salaries, the average salary expected to be paid during the school year, and the resulting total number of instructional units availble to the school system" (32:74). The ratio varied among elementary, junior high, and senior high schools according to state laws and local school board regulations. If a school center was responsible for conducting a special type of instructional program, a different pupil-teacher ratio could be set than the one for a regular program. If a school staff was completely differentiated, certain functions traditionally performed by the central staff could be performed by persons assigned to work as members of the school staff (32:75). Classification of schools
The scope of instructional programs and the number of tasks to be performed increased with the size of schools and the age level of the students. This affected the task assignments of the various positions in the staff hierarchy. For example, the task assignments for a staff teacher in a small elementary school would be different from those of a staff teacher in a large senior high school. For this reason, schools
63
were classified into seven categor-ies: (1) elementary schools up to 300 pupils, (2)elementary schools with more than 300 pupils, (3) junior high schools up to 750 students, (4) junior high schools with more than 750 students, (5) senior high schools up to 1,000 students, (6) senior high schools with more than 1,000 students, and (7) school centers with grades kindergarten through nine or higher. The classification was determined by the usual size of the schools in Sarasota County, but the numbers chosen to determine the division of schools could be changed at any time (32:76).
Unit values of the vertical hierarchy
Each position within the vertical staff hierarchy was assigned a value based on an index point of 1.0 for the staff teacher position. The unit index system was the method by which salary increments were determined for each positior, in the hierarchy. The total unit index was used to calculate the cost of any school staffing pattern. The teacher unit values are
shown in Table I.
TABLE 1
COST IN STAFF ALLOCATION UNITS FOR EACH POSITION IN THE SYSTEM MODEL (32)
Number of Days
Position Unit Value of Service Principal 1.50 222 Consulting Teacher 1.50 211 Directing Teacher 1.25 211 Staff Teacher 1200 196 Instructor 1.00 !96 Resident Intern .50 190 Instructional Assistant .50 190 Aide .35 190 Student Assistant .03 Per Hour, 180 days
Adjunct N/A Separate Budget Volunteer Assistant N/A As Volunteered
64
Job specification charts
Job specification charts were developed that matched each level of the hierarchy to the function areas of the staffing sub-model. Responsibility for each task listed in the function areas was assigned to one or several positions in the hierarchy. Responsibility for the performance of all the tasks listed within the function areas was partitioned into primary, major, and assisting categories. Primary responsibility was
defined as asking another staff member to perform the task. Major responsibility was performing the task oneself. Assisting responsibility was helping another staff member to perform the task. One could shift the responsibility from one category to another category, but the shift could not be for two categories. For example, a person assigned primary responsibility for performing a task could assume major responsibility, but he could not assume assisting responsibility. A person assigned major responsibility for performing a task could assume either primary or assisting responsibility and remain within the acceptable criteria of
the model (32:79).
Procedure for seiectinqj a staffinao pattern
The central staff was responsible for informing a school center of all the components of the staffing sub-model and the implementation submodel, including the total staff unit allocation for a given school year. They were also to act in an advisory capacity to the school staff in all phases of the differentiation program.
The major responsibility for the development of a school staffing
pattern was given to the local school personnel. Prior to the establishment of the faculty board, a steering committee was to be appointed within
65
the school to help determine the appropriate nur:mber of staff positions needed for each instructional area or grade level. Given the total staff unit allocation, the job specification charts, and the desired instructional program, the steering committee was to outline a differentiated staffing pattern. Since almost any instructional organization could be devised within the criteria of the school system model, few departments or grade levels within a school were expected to have precisely the same staffing pattern.
Criteria of accountability
The objectives of the job specification charts were stated in behavioral terms. A comparison of the performance of persons in all levels of the staff heirarchy with the job specifications established in the model could be used as a measure of evaluation. Staff personnel were to expect observation and evaluation from superiors, peers, and
subordinates (32:83).
Venice Junior High School Staffing Model
rhe staffing pattern chosen by the staff of Venice Junior High
School for the 1970-71 school year is shown in Table 2. The staffing pattern for the school as it would have operated under a traditional organization is shown in Table 3. Table 2 shows that a total of 69
persons were employed on the staff through the differentiated staffing pattern. Of the total of 69 persons, there were 39 full-time professional, 3 part-time professional, 15 full-time paraprofessional, and 12 part-time paraprofessional staff members. Table 3 shows that
66
TABLE 2
DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING PATTERN FOR
VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 1970-71
Department Staff
English I Directing Teacher
3 Staff Teachers I Instructor
3 Aides
1 Instructional Assistant
Mathematics I Directing Teacher
2 Staff Teachers I Instructor
1 Instructional Assistant
2.5 Aides
8 Student Assistants (one hour/day)
Science 1 Directing Teacher
4 Staff Teachers
2 Aides
1 Student Assistant
Social Studliec.s 1 Directing Teacher
2 Staff Teachers
2 Instructors
2 Aides
Physical Education 1 Directing Teacher
4 Staff Teachers
1.5 Aides
Foreign Language I Directing Teacher I Staff Teacher
2 Part-Time Staff Teachers
1.5 Aides
Electives 1 Directing Teacher
2 Staff Teachers
2 Part-Time Staff Teachers
3 Instructors
3 Aides
2 Part-Time Aides
Instructional Media 1 Part-Time Directing Teacher I Staff Teacher
3 Aides
1 Student Assistant
Counseling and 1 Staff Teaciher Administration 1 Principal
1 Directing Teacher (Research-EvaluationStaff Develonment)
67
TALE 3
TRADIT ONAL ORGANIZATION
VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL (32) Department Staff English 7 Teachers Mathematics 6 Teachers Science 6 Teachers Social Studies 6 Teachers Physical Education 5 Teachers Foreign Language 3 Teachers plus 2 Part-Time Electives 6 Teachers plus 2 Part-Time Instructional Media 1 Teacher Part-Time Counseling 2 Teachers Administration I Principal
1 Assistant Principal
68
n a traditioal organizational pattern, a total of 46 staff members w'ouljd have been mpioyed. There would have been 41 full-time professional and 5 part-time professional staff members. A comparison of Tables 2
and 3 shcV s that 28 more persons were employed, either on a full-time or part-time basis, in the differentiated staffing program than would hive been employed in the traditional staff organization. The new organization also permitted the employment of paraprofessionals to perform nonprofessional tasks.
Summ ary
The school system model was composed of two major divisions, a staffing sub-.model and an implementation sub-model. The staffing sub-:o:del contained a de.;cription of the several staff positions, the broad categories of tasks that were to be performed !r a school, ;and an outl ine of the structure of the faculty board, The implement-ation sub-model contained the minimum regulations that were to be folla,;ed by a staff in developing a school model. The school syste- rodel was designed to permit the creation of a staffing pattern that ,nt the pers-onnel requirements of an instructional program. The ultimate purpose of such procedures was to provide better instruction of students and to priiote a sense of profess ion-lism among the mm'e_'r-s of the staff.
The procedures to be followed by a school when implementing a model, described above, are necessarily stated in theoretical terms. The anticipated chances in behaviors of the participants were stated
69
in hypothetical terms. An evaluation of the program during the initial year of operation was needed to determine what changes in the school program would occur, if any.
CHAPTER V
THE EVALUATION OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM MODEL
In the preceding chapter the components of the model developed by Pillot (32) were presented. Procedures to be followed in the development and operation of a school center model and the staff roles that could be filled by personnel within the school were briefly described. In this chapter certain qualities of the model are evaluated. The tasks performed by persons in the staff positions at Venice Junior High School are described and compared to the theoretical descriptions of those positions that are in the model.
The evaluation included a determination of the opinions of the
professional staff toxiard the new program. Also, the opinions of students toward the organization and instructional program of the school were determined.
The present chapter is composed of three major sections. The first is the presentation of the data evaluating the differentiated staffing model. The second is composed of the data on staff morale and professional staff opinion toward the differentiated staffing program. The third section is comprised of the data pertaining to student opinions on certain
parts of the program.
70
71
Evaluation or the Copnponents of the 4oel
Autonomy of the Model
Autonomy was defined as that quality of the model that permitted the staff of a school, or a department within a school, to select a staffing pattern consistent with the needs of the instructional program. Autonomy was determined in the following ways: professional staff members were asked if, in their opinion, the staffing pattern selected matched the needs of the instructional program; and the staffing patterns of the
several departments were examined to determine the extent of variability that existed.
The staffing pattern for all departments is presented in Table 4. Analysis of the table shows that no two departments were staffed in the same manner. Each department had a directing teacher, staff teachers, instructors, and aides. The differences in the staffing patterns were
due to the varying numbers of persons filling each position and to the addition of certain special positions such as the volunteer assistant and adjunct teacher. The structure of the staff was also varied by the
employment of pari-time aides.
Each professional staff member was asked, "Do you feel your department chose the staffing pattern best suited to your instructional program?" Twenty-seven persons answered in the affirmative, 11 answered in the negative, and I was uncertain. More than half the professional staff felt the department chose the staffing pattern best suited to the instructional program.
A factor that affected autonomy was the requirement imposed on the school center leadership that no presently employed staff member be
72
TABLE 4
DIFFERENTIATED STAFFINIG PATTERN FOR VENICE
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL., 1970-71
Department Staff
English I Directing Teacher
3 Staff Teachers
1 Iths t ructor
3 Aides I Instructional Assistant
Mathematics I Directing Teacher
2 Staff Teachers I Instructor I Instructional Assistant
2.5 Aides
8 Student Assistants (one hour/day)
Science 1 Directing Teacher
4 Staff Teachers
2 Aides
I Student Assistant
Social Studies 1 Directing Teacher
2 Staff Teachers
2 Instructors
2 Aides
Physical Education 1 Directing Teacher
4 Staff Teachers
1.5 Aides
Foreign Language 1 Directing Teacher
1 Staff Teacher
1.5 Aides
2 Part-time Staff Teachers
Electives 1 Directing Teacher
2 Staff Teachers
2 Part-time Staff Teachers
3 Instructors
1.3 Aides
2 Part-time Aides 1 Adjunct Teacher
73
TABLE 4 (continued)
Department Staff
Instructional Media 1 Part-time Directing Teacher I Staff Teacher
3 Aides
I Student Assistant
Counseling and Administration 1 Staff Teacher
1 Principal
I Directing Teacher (ResearchEvaluation-Staff Development)
dismissed as a result of differentiating the staff. This meant in fact
that some departments, physical education as an example, simply renamed teachers as instructors and staff teachers. In those cases little attempt was made to match the staff to the instructional program. Where
freedom existed to make alterations in the staffing pattern those departments did attempt to satisfy the needs of the program.
The variation among departments and the large number of
professional staff members who felt the staffing pattern matched the requirements of the instructional program indicated that the model
contained the quality, autonomy. Fluidity of the Model
The fluidity of the model was that quality that permitted the staffing pattern of an individual department to change at any time such action would better facilitate the achievement of instructional objectives. Any changes in the staffing pattern had to be made within the.
limitations of legal and contractual obligations. This meant that persons could be reassigned to different duties within a department,
74
but staff replacements during the school year could only be made if persons
voluntarily resigned.
Fluidity was determined through an examination of changes in personnel that occurred during the year and through the changes in the organization for instruction that occurred in the several departments. No members of the professional staff resigned during the school year. Four teacher aides resigned during the year. In each case personal reasons were given for resigning the position.
The total allocation for the school was 44,7 teacher units. The initial model by which the school began operation in September totaled only 42.175 teacher units. Shortly after the beginning of the school year, additional aides were employed in the mathematics and electives departments. An instructional assistant was added to the English department, one adjunct teacher was added to the electives department, and one volunteer assistant was added to the physical education department. The employed staff then totaled 44.7 teacher units. The extra units were not used prior to the opening of school because members of the faculty board anticipated that
some departments might be understaffed. However, this fact could not be knan until the school began operation and the duties of the departments had been identified and assigned to staff members.
The organization for instruction of three departments was changed during the school year. The initial involvement of the members of the mathematics department in differentiated staffing was described in Chapter III. The curriculum revision begun by that department during the 1969-70 school year was continued during the 1970-71 school year. The basic curriculum design was one of developing worksheets and other material to teach specific concepts of mathematics. Soon
75
after the school year began, members of the department realized that a shortage of teaching plans existed. The teaching assignments of the staff were such that no one had an opportunity to produce additional
materials. Follaving several days of discussion by members of the department, students were regrouped into larger classes. Each professional staff member was relieved of instructional duties for one-half day each week so that he could prepare curriculum materials.
Members of the English department were assigned classes of 35 students each. They met with each class each day, including those periods when students were assigned to the special reading room and the resource center. The resource center for the English department was located in the library. Recorded tapes, filmstrips, and films were cataloged there for individual
student utilization.
Two professional members of the department were assigned responsibility for planning the instructional program of the seventh grade, two others for the eighth grade, and all the staff of the department shared responsibility for the ninth grade. Aides were assigned to clerical duties.
Soon after the school year began, members of the department realized that the schedule did not provide sufficient planning time for them to prepare the instructional program. A new schedule was developed that reduced the time spent by the professional staff teacher in supervising students, although each was responsible for the same number of students. Two aides were reassigned to the resource center and reading rocm for that duty. An instructional assistant, under the supervision of a staff teacher, was empioyed to teach remedial reading. By reducing the number
76
of hours the professional staff spent supervising students, more planning
time was arranged, and there were mere opportunities for the staff to work together.
The electives department was commonly referred to as the "conglomerate" department by members of the school staff since several distinct disciplines had been brough together to create the department. Music, chorus, typing, haone economics, shop, and the work experience program were combined into the electives department. One of the major items discussed by members of the department was how they might work cooperatively even though there were many divergent subject areas involved.
Two changes in the staff assignments of the electives department were accomplished during the year. Aides had been rotated daily at the beginning of the year so that a professional staff member had the services of one aide for a portion of a day only. The schedule was revised to permit an aide
to work exclusively with an individual staff member for an entire week. After this change the professional staff was better able to plan the work of the aides. A second change was the employment of an adjunct teacher in the area of music. He instructed individual students who were learning to play certain orchestral instruments. This provided more individual and small group instruction for music students.
The changes in the employment and assignment of personnel that occurred in the three departments were made to satisfy the needs of the instructional program. These changes indicated that the model possessed fluidity. Job Specifications for the School Staff
As described in Chapter IV, a job specification for each level in the professional and paraprofessional hierarchy was developed in the model.
77
The specifications were divided into the four categories of administration, instruction, staff development, a,d research-evaluation-reporting. Assignments to be completed in each area were further specified by designating primary, major, or assisting responsibility to each staff position. Primary
responsibility meant the person asked someone else to perform the task. Major responsibility meant the person performed:the task himself. Assisting responsibility meant the person assisted someone else in performing the task. Based upon logs of performance kept by the staff and observations of staff activities by the writer, charts of job performance were developed and compared to the job specifications in the model.
The directing teacher
The job specification of the directing teacher position is shown in Table 5. The chart of job performance is shown in Table 6. A comparison of the two tables shows that directing teachers performed more administrative duties than specified in the model. Directing teachers performed the major tasks outlined in the area of research-evaluation-reporting except that they exercised different levels of responsibilities in that area. This resulted from the fact that in most departments the directing teachers had a distinct group of students for which they alone were responsible. At that same time, they were responsible for the assignment of duties to ether members of the staff. In this way they were asking others to perform a task quite similar to the one they were doing themselves. The activities listed in the area of staff development compared favorably to those specified in the model.
Activities performed in the area of instruction indicated that the
directing teachers were involved in activities such as developing instructional
TABLE 5
JOB SPECIFICATION OF DIRECTING TEACHER
Task Level of Responsibility
ADMIN ISTRAT ION
1. Providing budget data a
Team or department-wide P Class-wide A 2. Providing scheduling data-- team-wide A
RESEARCH-EVALUAT I ON-RE PORTI NG
1. Preparing and/or selecting and administering assessment tools
for all areas (except staff)
School-wide M
Team or department-wide P Cl ass-w ide P
2. Analyzing and interpreting assessment results
School-wide M Team or department-wide P Class-wide P
3. Applying results to improve the appropriate area(s)
School-wide M Team or department-wide P Class-wide P
4. Reporting results to
The staff P The profession M The parents A The community A
The students P 5. Designing and supervising research in appropriate areas A
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
1. Evaluating staff for the improvement of performance
School -wide M Team or department-wide P 2. Developing systems to enable staff to improve performance A
INSTRUCT I ON
1. Recommending staff for appointment M 2. Recommending staff for dismissal M
3. Organization for instruction--staff
School -wide M Team or department-wide P
4. Organization for instruction--students
School -wide M Team or department-wide P
5. Organization for instruction--facilities, materials, and
equipment
School-wide M Team or department-wide P Class-wide P 6. Instructing P
P = Primary responsibility
M = Major responsibility
A = Assisting responsIbility
TABLE 6
0
JOB PERFORMANCE OF DIRECTING TEACHER
Task Level of Responsibility
ADMINISTRATI ON
1. Advisi.na students on curriculum choices A 2. Providing schcduie information--department-wide M 3. Ordering materials and equipment M 4. Scheduling students P Participating in faculty board meetings M 6. Conducting department meetings M 7. Supervising student extra-curricular activities M 8. Preparing budget for department M
9. Supervising aides M 10. Adjudicating student discipline cases M 11. Reporting breaches of student discipline to parents M 12. Re-schedulinq of students M 13. Completing accreditation reports M
RESEARCH-EVALUAT I ON-REPORTING
1. Administering tests--department-wide P and A 2. ?reparing tests-- department-wide P and M
3. Scoring tests-- department-wide M
4. Recording test scores P, M, and A
5. Investigating student backgrounds to plan program of instruction M
6. Reporting test scores to
The staff P
The parents P and M
The students M
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
1. Advising instructors on use of aides M
2. Conducting experiments to determine the effectiveness of
certain teaching metnods M 3. Evaluating non-tenured staff members M 4. Planning summer programs for staff improvement M 5. Developing training programs for aides A 6. Developing job specifications for aides M 7. Observing professional work of other staff members M
8. Participating in formal training programs such as college classes
and workshops M
INSTRUCTION
I. Organizing students for instruction M 2. Organizing staff for instruction--department-wide M 3. Organizing work of student volunteer assistants M 4. Writing instructional objectives M
5. Preparing instructional materials P and M
6. Instructing
Large groups P and M Small groups P and M
Individual P and M
P = Primary responsibility
M = Major responsibility
A = Assisting responsibility.
82
objectives which were not specified in the model. The development of instructional objectives occupied a m jor portion of th!.e time of the directing teacher. This was especially true in those departments where new curriculum structures had been adopted. In one department the directing teacher developed daily objectives for the entire department. In the electives department, only the directing teacher was qualified to teach typing, so the entire instructional program was planned and executied by this person.
The responsibilities of the directing teacher for participating in the faculty board and for directing the functions of the department were not outlined in the job specification. Most departments held meetings almost daily. The faculty board met weekly, and there were
assignments that were given to the directing teachers during the course of those meetings. Sub-committees of the faculty board were appointed during the school year to draft proposals of policies to be deliberated by that body. No inappropriate levels of responsibility were assigned in any of the function areas by the job specification.
The staff teacher
The job specification for the position of staff teacher is shown
in Table 7. The job performance description for the staff teacher position is shown in Table 8. A comparison of the two tables shows that, with fev exceptions, the job specification and the job performance of the staff teacher were very similar. The specification was written so that the staff teacher position had several administrative duties to perform.
The job performance description indicated that the staff teacher position was actually involved in these duties.
TABLE 7
JOB SPECIFICATION OF STAFF TEACHER
Task Level of Responsibility
ADMINISTRATION
1. Providing budget data
School -wide A Team or department-wide M Class-wide P
2. Compi] ing data and preparing budget A
3. Ordering and distributing supplies, equipment
and materials A 4. Keeping student attendance A 5. Preparing accreditation reports M 6. Establishing forms and systems for data processing A 7. Estabishing systems for data storage and dissemination A
8. Providing schedule data
School-wide A
Team-wide M Class-wide P 9. Scheduling A 10. Inventorying materials and equipment A
RESEARCH-EVALUATI ON-REPORTING
1. Preparing and/or selecting and administering assessment
tools for all areas (except staff)
School-wide M Team or department-wide M Class-wide P
2. Analyzing and interpreting assessment results
School -wide M Team or department-wide M Class-wide P
3. Applying results to improve the appropriate area(s)
School-wide M Team or department-wide M Class-wide P
4. Reporting results to
The staff A The profession M The community A The parents M The students P
5. Designing and supervising research in appropriate
areas of the program A
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
1. Evaluating staff for the improvement of performance
School-wide M Team or department-wide M 2. Developing systems to enable staff to improve performance A
INSTRUCT I ON
. Recommending staff for appointment A 2. Recommending staff for dismissal A
3. Organization for instruction--staff
School-wide A Team or department-wide M
TABLE 7 continued
Task Level of Responsibility
INSTRUCT ON
4. Organization for instruction--students
School-wide A Team or department-wide M
5. Organization for instruction--facilities, materials,
and equipment
School-wide A Team or department-wide M Class-wide P 6. Instructing P
a :- Primary responsibility
M = Major responsibility
A = Assisting responsibility
0o
TABLE 8
JOB PERFORMANCE OF STAFF TEACHER
Task Level of Responsibility
ADMINISTRATION
l. Providing scheduling data--school-wide M 2. Ccnpleting accredita-ion reports M 3. Re-assigning students to classes A 4. Organizing data systems A 5. Recording student attendance M 6. Scheduling students A 7. Distributing supplies M 8. Advising students on curriculum choices A 9. Maintaining budget for department M 10. Approving invoices for purchased materials M 11. Initiating requests for supplies and equipment M 12. inventorying materials and equipment A
RESEARCH-EVALUAT iON-REPORTING
1. Preparing tests M and A
2. Administering tests M
3. Scoring tests M and P 4. Analyzing tests M and A
5. Scoring students workbooks M
6. Reporting test results to
The staff P and A
The parents M 7. Developing student case histories M
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
1. Attending department meetings M
2. Participation in formal training programs such
as college classes and workshops M 3. Training aides for specific assignments M
!NSTRUCTION
1. Preparing instructional materials P and M
2. Instructing
Large groups M Small groups M Individuals M
3. Organizing students for instruction
Department-w ide A Class-wide M 4. Supervising resource centers A 5. Supervising adjunct teachers M 6. Conducting field trips M 7. Supervising volunteer assistants M 8. Preparing materials for resource center M 9. Writing instructional objectives M
aP = Primary responsibility
M = Major responsibility
A.= Assisting responsibility
co
88
In the area of research-evaluation-reporting, there were also large areas of agreement between the job specification and the job performance descriptions. Because of the particular assignments given to the aides, staff teachers in some departments often prepared, administered, and analyzed tests themselves. In other departments, the task was assigned to an aide. For this reason the staff teacher had multiple responsibilities in the area of research-evaluation-reporting.
There was no evidence in the job performance description to indicate that test results were applied to improve the instructional program.
There was also no evidence of reporting test results to the profession or to the community. In the area of staff development, tasks performed by the staff teacher were in agreement with those outlined in the job specification.
In the area of instruction, staff teachers were not involved in
recommending persons for employment nor for dismissal. The staff teacher was involved in the supervision of aides and special teaching positions, a task not listed in the job specification table. The staff teacher
performance expanded the category of instructing to account for different tasks performed when teaching varying sized groups. No inappropriate levels of responsibility were assigned in any of the function areas by the job specification.
There was I ittle evidence that staff teachers performed tasks other than those of a traditional classroom teacher, except for the supervision of paraprofessionals. In the electives department, where a staff teacher was sometimes the only professional assigned to a given
subject area, his behavior remained practically the same as in the previous
39
year. The use of paraprofessionalz cid remove clerical tasks from the work of the staff teacher. In the physical education department, no change in the performance of the staff teacher occurred. The reason for this fact was that no personnel changes were made when the program was begun.
In the English department, a staff teacher possessed special expertise in the area of remedial reading. This person supervised the work of an instructional assistant who was assigned to teach a small group of students. The staff teacher also served as a resource person to the entire department in the area of remedial reading. The instructor
The job specification of the instructor position is shc wn in Table 9. The job performance of the position of instructor is shown in Table 10. A caonparison of the two tables shows that in the area of administration the instructor did not perform as many duties as was specified in the model. No activities pertaining to the providing of budget data, ordering supplies, preparing accreditation reports, establishing forms for data processing, or for inventorying materials and equipment was performed. No tasks were performed by the instructor that were not listed in the job specification. In two instances, inappropriate levels of responsibility were assigned to positions in the job specification. Primary responsibility was assumed for scheduling students and for distributing supplies in the job performance description, whereas in the job specification the assisting level of responsibility was assigned.
In the area of research-evaluation-reporting, no activities were
l isted in the job performance description that were not specified in the
|
PAGE 1
An Empirical Evaluation of a School System Model of Differentiated Staffing By Max Stephen Skid more A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UN IVERS I TY OF FLOR l DA IN PMHiAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCA.TI ON t.:N IVERS I TY OF FLOR I DA 1971
PAGE 2
DEDICATION To Stephen and David --two good reasons for having a differentiated staff
PAGE 3
AC KN 01./L EOG EME NTS The wrJter wish~s to express his appreciation to Dr. Ralph Kimbrough, chairman of the supervisory conmittee, for his help and direction throughout the study. Appreciation is also expressed to the other members of the committee, Dr. Mi cha el Y. Nunnery and Dr. G. Alexander Moore, Jr., for their wise counsel and many helpful suggestions. Many persons in the Sarasota County Schools provided assistance during the study. Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Rick Nations, Supervisor 6f Research and Evaluation, who administered and scored the Purdue test; to Mr. Guy Rose, Princlpal of Venice Junior High School, v.;hose friendship was an additional dividend during the study and beyond; and to Dr. Gene Pillot, Acting Superintendent, who encouraged the writer to conduct the study and who maintained a steady faith in the value of its outcone. Great appreciation is expressed to the staff of Venice Junior High School, without whose help the study could not have been done. Finally, the writer \ .!shes to acknowledge the great debt o.1ed to his wife, Barbara, who v 1as a constant source of inspiration and who, throughout the study, remained calm. i i i
PAGE 4
;ABLE OF CONTENTS Page /:.-. C :<.N OW! .. E DG EME NTS i i i L iST OF TABLES .. ..,................................ vi L I s T OF F I Gu RE s V i i i / ~ 8Sl-RACT ............ ix CHI\PTER I 1 NT ROD UC r I ON l 3 4 6 8 The Pr<)b 1 en Justification for the Study Definition of Terms Procedures O.-ganlzation of the Study by Chapters ........ .. 1 2 I I. REV I E\J OF HE LATED LI TEPJ, TURE...... .. 15 Effect~ of Organizntional Structure on Persons. 16 University Faculty Structure................... 19 Minimum Criteria for Differentiated Staffing... 23 Rationale for the Development of Differentiated Staffing..................................... 23 De5cription of Some Selected Models............ 27 Evaluation of Mode?s of Differentiated Staffing....................................... 30 Su1~,rnary ,..................... 32 111. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING AT VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL........................ 34 The Sarasota County Schoo1 System ,....... 34 Venice Junior High School...................... 35 Activities That Led to the Implementation of Differentiated Staffing................... 37 Sun1nary ................................. ,....... 50 IV. A B RIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM M ODEL..... 52 Qualities of the Model......................... 52 B2s k Components of the M-:}(1 e i 54 Venice .Junior High School St.:.ffing i 1odeL.. 65 S umrna ry 4 .a ............... I> ., .... ., 68 iv
PAGE 5
C HAPTER V. THE EVALUATION OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM MODEL ...... Evaluation of the Co.~ po~e nts of the Model Teacher Opinions Student Opinions Summary . . . . . ... . VI. SUMMARY AND DIS CUSS I CN, .. Summary o ......................... ,. D is cuss i on ............. .................... Conclusions and Raco m mendat i ans for Further Study BI BL I OGRAFHY APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B, APPENDIX C ...... V Page 70 71 117 1 27 1 29 131 131 13 lf 143 14-7 150
PAGE 6
LI ST OF TABLES TAB!.E PAGE l. COST I N STAFf ALLOC/l.TION UNITS FOR EACH POSITION IN THE SYSTEM MODEL................................... 63 2. DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING PATTERN FOR VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 1970-71.................................. 66 3. TRADITIONAL ORGANIZATION VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL...... 67 I-J.. DiFFERENTIATED STAFFING PATTERN FOR VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 1970-71.................................. 72 c:: JOB ., SPECIFICATION OF DIRECTING TEACHER.................. 78 6. JOB PERFORMANCE OF D!RE.CTING TEACHER.................... 80 7. JOB SPECIFICATION OF STAFF lEACHER 83 8. JOB PERFORMANCE OF STAFF TEACHER,....................... 86 9. JOB SPECIFICATION OF INSTRUCTOR......................... 90 1 o. JOB PERFORMP,NCE OF INSTRUCTOR........................... 93 11 J05 SPECIFICATION OF I NSTRUCTI OM..0.L ASS I STANT............ 96 1 2. JOB PERFORMMJCE OF INSTRUCT I Ot-L1\L ASS ISTi\NT.............. 98 1 3. JOB SPEC I F I CAT I ON OF A I DE 101 14. JOB PE.RF0?-J1ANCE OF AIDE ... 103 15. JOB SPEClFIU\TION OF STUDENT ASSISTANT.................. 106 16. JOB PERFORMANCE OF STUDENT ASS I STANT ,.............. 108 17. JOB SPEC!FICATIOM OF D!RECTING TEACHER OF RESE'\RCH-E\JALUAT I ON-RE PORTING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT............ 110 18. JOB PERFORMANCE OF DIRECTING TEACHER OF RESEARCH-EV/1.LUATl Oi~-REPORTING AND ST!\FF DEVELOPMENT "..... 112 vi
PAGE 7
TABLE PAGE 19. .JOB PERFORMANCE OF STAFF TEAC HER OF GU I DANCE i \ND COUNSELING........................................... 114 20. ITEMS OF BUS I NESS CONS I DERD BY THE FA CUL TY BO'\RD, SEPTEMBER THROUGH MARCH.............................. 118 21. PURDUE TEACHER OPltilON1-,iRE RESULTS..................... 121 22. PERCEIVED IMPROVEMENTS JF THE PROGRAM.................. 124 23. PERCEIVED 'v/EAKNESSES JF THC PROGRAM ,................. 121+ 24. IMMED IJHE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROGRAM................... 1 21+ 25. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DIF FERENTIATED STAFFING PROGRAM..................................... 126 26. TEACHER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW................................. 126 27. STUDENT OPINION SURVEY................................. 128 V j i
PAGE 8
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. The Total Vertical Hierarchy and Concomitant Posit ions in the System Model...................... 56 2. Major Horizontally Differentiated Function Areas in th~ Sys ten, Model.......................... 60 V j j j
PAGE 9
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the Univ crslty of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the DeJrea of Joctor of Education AN EMPIRICAL EVALUAT ON OF A SCHOOL SYSTEM MODEL OF DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING By Max Stephen Skidmore August, 1971 Chairman: Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough Major Department: Education~l Ad~inistration The purpose of this study was to conduct an empirical evaluation of a schocl system model of differentiated staffing during the initial year of operation. The study focused on a determination of the opinions of the staff and students ta,,,ard the program as wel 1 as an evaluation of sone co~ponents bf the model. The existence of two quc1litics of the model, autoncrny and fluidity, was determined through an analysis of the staffing p3 tterns of the varia1s departments and the changes that occurred in the organization of the instructional program during the year. Evaluation of the job specification charts .-1as acca .. pl ished by can p,1ring them to charts of job perforrr.ance for e.::,:h staff posit ion. The job perfonr:ance charts v,ere constructed from data obtained fran logs kept by members of the staff and from records of obsecvatic n kept by th-s 1t1riter. The minutes of the faculty board were analyzed to determine what it1'oms of businc:;s were considere d by that group. l\ distif"lction was made betv- een those items onwhici1 a final decision1;-;as rn.;de and thc.6e on which an adv1s0ry opinio~ was rendered. The op in i ens of the profess i on.:;1 staff to;-Jard the program ll'Jere 2scertain,:d ::hrot.:9h ~,tructur8d lntervie,,,s. Staff moraie vi;-:::-determined ix
PAGE 10
by a standardized opinionair~ 2<.irniniscered in S0ptem!::ier, 1970, and in April, 1971. A questionnaire was administered ~o a sample cf students to determine their perception of the program. Studer ts 1t.1er~ asked to compare different i ated staffing to the organization of the previous year. The study sho.-Jed that the model possessed tho qualities of autonomy and fllJidity. Autonomy was that quality of the model that enabled the departments of a school to select a staffing pdttern consistent with the needs of the instructional program. Fluidity was that quality that enabled a staff to change the design of the model any time tile tasks of the instructional program were changed. ThB conparison of the charts of job performance to the job specification charts shO,t.Jed that activities I isted in the function area of research evaluation-reporting were not performed by members of the staff. Duties in the function areas of instruction and administration thai were not 1 isted in the job specification v1ere performed by staff members. The analysis of the minute$ of the faculty board shewed that few items of pol icy and pl.:inning were considered by that gro;_ip. On those items receiving consideration, final decisions were rendered somev,hat more often than advisory opinions. Teach~r morale rose slightly during the year, although scores attained by the staff during both ..,drninistrations of the instrument were belON the norm. Teachers approved of th,~ concept of differentiated staffing. but they felt more p?anning shouid h,JVe been done before tne program was begun They felt they were better able to peiforrn as professional te,ichers and to participate in the decision making process than in a traditional program. X
PAGE 11
Student opinions indicated that sme ch 2nses in the instructional program had occurred since beginning differentiated staffing. They re~orted that their teachers did not talk to groups of students as much and that they used more ln~tructional materials than in ~he previous year. The study was lllustrative of the fact that differentiated staffing was in the inttJal year ~f operation and that additional program planning was needed before further implementation could be ~ccanpl ished. xi
PAGE 12
CHAPTER I it HR OOU Ci I ON The lncreas ing awareness of the importance of education to American society, especially during the period, 1955-70, has resulted in greater amounts of funds Fron both federal and state levels of gover:.mE:nt. The Congress, state legislatures, and citizens have expected that these increased expenditures wou?d result in n:ore individualized instruction for the learner and a more relev,rnt curriculum to meet his needs (30:2l1-37). These groups have also expected that educators would make the necessary changes to reach these goals. As teachers attempted to respcnd to these de~ands the tasks of the teaching role increased and b:~c2me more complex. Unruh and Alexander pointed out that the teacher's role was canpcsed of subroles ~uch as diagncstician, decision-maker, cooperator, strategist, manager, facilitator, guide, and evaluator (lio:124). To remove nonprofessional duties fran the teacher's work day, aides, or paraprofe3sionals, were 2dded to the staff. The Addition of nonprofessionals failed to al!evi2te the frustration of teachers because they stil1 felt rncapable cf performing the varied professional tasks involved in planning a relevan~ cLrri:ul~m that would also promote individualized instructicn (2.5:75 ). Engl lsh pointed out that teacher mll itar:cy, expressed through demands for collective negotiations and strikes, could be explained b)' the paternal ism
PAGE 13
2 cf :=,cirninistrators, especial iy school principals, cird the recongition by teachers that they were not recelvl~g the necessary support to fulfill their rol8s in the education cf chlldi-en (16:13). Specialists of many descriptions have been employed to aid teachers, but, as Kimbrough stated, on.e must question \.'1hether existing organizational patterns permit teachers to riak<:: best use of the special ists1 talents (28:238-239). The pressures to involve teachers in decision making, to produce a relevant curriculum, to individualize instruction, and to create more appropriate roles for professionals an d paraprofessionals have been listed a s the major reasons for devclo?lng models of differentiated staffing. i\<:1'tocate s of differentiated staffing have stressed that the various models that have been conceived are designed to permit teachers to make instructional decisions, r a~ard teachers on the basis of differential assignments, and en3bl e them to develop their u.,m curricula to individualize instruction Although it has been suggested tha t differentiated staffing has m3ny 2dvantages over traditional organizational patterns, and several models have b,:en developed, only a fe.-., scho o l syste11s have implemented such a progra-,;. Th..:s, anticipated educa"..:ional improvements from differentiated staffing are reported more often than documented results that have been detlved from actual operation of differentiated staffing programs. A rr:odel, recently conceptualized by Pillot (32), ,-.,as implerr.ented in a school in Sarasota County, Florida: during the 1970 -7 1 school year. Designed as 2 schooi system :i1odel, this plan was unique i., its ~pp 1 ication t o various schools vdthi11 the system in term s of 11'-ihat vrns labeled ln the model as 11, ~utoncmy,1 11fluidity,11 1!ext;';;nsibil ity,1! and ;'minimum consistency with school personnel standards11 (32:56).
PAGE 14
3 No co~plete evaluation of any model of differentiated staffing had been repone,1 ln the literature through 1970. Interim reports en projects suggested th,.' need for more systematic and planned programs of evaluation. Th is study v1as des i9ned to invest ig9te the unique features of the school systrn modei developed by Pillot (32) ,:1nd to determine if the modei produced th": r.esu\ts anticipated ~"hen it was put into practice. Opinions of the staff and students totJard the program were also determined as they participated in the initial year of operation of the differentiated staffing project. In evaluating the initial year of operation of the pro~1rarn, the writer was able to provide information to persons in the school sy5te,"TJ that might be useful t1hen the next phase of the program The Problem Statement of the Probiem The ~urpose of this study was to conduct an empiric&l evnluation of a school syst211 1 nicdei of differentic:ted staffing as implemented in Venice Junlor High School ln Si1rasota Co:...inty, Florida. The study was de::.igr~ed to detennin::: th~ kinds of activities that occui-red during the i1:itial year of operation of the program. The study ,..,as also desigr.ed to ceterrnine the opinions held by the participGnts tcv1ard certain aspects of the program. More speciflcal?y, the study was an evQluation of the fol I O.tJ i ng i:cllr,ponents of the program. I. ,'l.. dr.::termination v:a$ rnade1 of the existt=>r,ce of two qua! ities of i:he model, c:utonomy 2nd fluidity.
PAGE 15
, .. 2. Professional and paraprofessional job specific.;tions established in the model .v,ere comp:3red to descriptions of actual job performance for each J evdof the hierarchy to determine the adequacy of the job specification. 3. The different i terns of business considered by the facu 1 ty board ~,,ere eJ,,-1mineJ to determine the extent to which matters ,,,ere dee ided that affected the operation of the schcol. 4. The morale of the professional staff and the!r opinions of the differentiated staffing program ware determined. 5. ,t'\ determination was mz.de of the opinions of students t0rrnrd the org.J ,,izational and. instructional program of the school as cor.1pared to the pr 09 ram of the pr ev i ou s year. Del imitations and Limitations ------Del imitation:::; ---------1. The stuJf was confined to one junior high school. 2. Only those staff roles th21t \ Jere 1:;st ... 1b1 ished ... Jithin the selected school were included in the study. 3. Oai;a included only those col 1ected by personal intervievs, orln1onaires, questionr~aires, and logs. 4. The evaluation was based on one year of operation, 1970-71. Limitations l. Coriclusions 11Jere restricted to the selected s:hcol system. 2. Scrne of the instnments used in the study had not been validated. The very small number of differentiated staffing projects in Of)(:.i;:it ion during the 1970-71 school year and the sma 1 i c:mount of evalunive information in the literature 1;ere suggestive of one m2jor
PAGE 16
5 need for the study. Edel felt s t ress e d the highl y experimental nature of differentiated staffing and the nead for more lnformat:on to be made avi:iilable on various projects before dissemination of the concept was begun {15:25). LOA1n concurred in this opinion (29:24). A second reason for the study was to provide evaluation of the qualities of t:1e model imp1emented in the selected junior high school. Pillot stated that an empirical evaluation of the school system model should be conducted (32:111). English stated, "No matter ho." rational models are in the developmental stages, once the transition is made to the ongoing organization, they may be totally changed to become congruent with the old organization and sti-ucture" (19:212). Even though the model \-Jas concaptual ly validated, further study might have sha'ln that results other than those anticipated \Vere achieved, or that the model produced fE:W of the expected results. A third reason for the study was that it would provide a fonn of feedb ack to the organization for further development. Guba and Horvat classifiec! the.pnxedures used in this study as "process evaluation," a necess:iry canponent in the development of any new-program ( 22:21-45). Fe" ne,Jly developed programs zre automatically successful l:, their entirety. Further alteration of activities is often needed so that acccmpl ishm ents nntch the obj0ctives stated by the developers of the prograrn. This study was designed to provide data on the actual operation of diff~rentiated staffing. /,ssumot ions ---.i.---1. The assum?tion was made that instructional tasks could ~e idcntifi~d and cl~ssified according to the typology davelops d in the mocel.
PAGE 17
2. Those items that conpdsed U,e furdue Tea~her:_ QQ_inionaire were assum ed to be a measure of mcrale. Definition of Terms 6 .l\utonCY.r1y. The capability of a school to select its a..;n staffing pattern from the school ,system mcdel. E.;idence of autoncrny v1as determined by the variation of staffing patterns that existed among departments of Venice Junior High School, and by professional opinion as to the appropriateness of the staffing pattern ~a..r~.!:.~ci_~er. A provision of differentiated staffing which permits the professional adv~ncement and salary advancement of a classroom teacher to lF-vels traditionally available cnly in administrativ e positions. Qifferentiated Staffing~ An organization of instructional and para-instructional staff in a vertical and horizontal pattern to maximize the efficient and flexible use of all resources in the process of education. The term staff differentiation is used synonomously with differentiated staffing. Fluid}ty_. The capacity of a school :node ] of differentiated staffing to change as inst~ucti0n2l goals a nd needs change. Evidence of fluidity \..;as determined by changes in the employment, or assignment, of personn0l v!hich were b,,sed o n ch a:~gP.s in th~ instructiona l program of the school, or a department within the school. Fun1.::U:?..!.:_Are~. One of the four a:-f:>itr,1ry ;;l ,3ssificatlons Into VJhich the activitie s cf the instructionai progra.; were divided. The function areas were instruction, staff d evelopment, res8arch-evaluation-reporting, and administration. Tasks performe d wer e classified into one of the function ai'eas.
PAGE 18
7 Horizontal Differentiation. The assignment of tasks to be performed v.dthin an instructional progr2m to the positions in the staff hierarchy, according to a given set of criteria. Job Classification. The list of positions in the vertical hierarchy. Job Performance D escription. The primary, major and assisting activities performe d by each level of the vertical hierarchy that have been classifie d into the function areas .::!_o b Spe~ification. The tasks that are the primary, major, or assisting responsib1lities of a particular position in the vertical hierarchy. t1erit Pay. A system of payiiig certain teachers higher wages, based on subjective judgments of worth, while they assume the same or similar responsibilitie s and work loads. Minimum Consistency. The selection of any school staffing pattern fran the job classifications cf the model and the adherence by that staff to the procedures spec if i cd by the mode l to be foll Q,,Jed w hen J ,:,ve l oping any given pattern. Mo~-~!_. A sem antic and schematic representation of the structure of personnel i nterre.1 at ions and operat i ona 1 proced11res; a prototype for hp 1 o:;rnentat ion. M odel Car11;21.1ents. Job descriptions, selection and evaluation procedures, job specifications, staff allocation formulas, and s a l ary schedules. Mt2J::.:Jle. The professionai interest and enthusiasm that a person displays totJard the cJchi evement of individual and group goals in a given job s i tu ;J t i on
PAGE 19
School S vste:n Model. The name giver, to thl'! model irnp1 e:nented in the ___ _-1-.-.,,;., _____ .. selected school system and evo 1 uated in th is study. Sh~redy~clsion Making. A provision of differentiated staffing v,hich utilizes the combined kno.,iledge and e:,qerience of all professional personnel directly involved in a specific educational experience to (fotennine the policies and activities of that experience. ~!~f.fJ.2.!.9~~0.!~~c The actual staff organization of any school center. It includes the total instructicnal staff of the school as its members 8 are assigned to the various positions provided in the vertical hierarchy. Vertie<,] Differei]_tiatio~. The organization of staff in an order of rank. Vertical hierarchy is used synonomously with vertical differentiation. Proc~dures The nature of this design \vas an exploratory field study. Field studies have three main purposes: (1) to discover significant variables i:1 the f:eld situation; (2) to disco,er relationships among v2ri-:ibles; and (3) tc lay a ground',vork for later testing of hypotheses (26:388). Kerl inger stated, "Field studies are strong in real ism, significance, strength of vari3bles, theory orientation, heuristic qua! ity The real ism of field studies is obvious. Of all types of studies they are dosest to real I ife. There can be no claim of artificiality here11 (26:389). Best used the general term "descriptive research'' to characterize studies of this nature. He reported that the sub-classification, activity
PAGE 20
9 an3lysis, vias useful in: (1) est2.b}ishir.9 t.hz, 1equirements for a particu-lur jc;.b or position; (2) setting up a program for the prepar.:ition or traini:,g of individuals for varicus jobs or positions; (3) setting up an inservice prngram for inprcverr:ent in job cQTlpetence, or for the upgrading of individuals already employed; and (~ establishing an equitable wage and salary schequle for v?rious jobs or positions (9:132). Gub-3 and Horvat stated that good evaluation practices would involve what they termed "process evalu-:ition.11 They further stated, Once a designed cours c of action has been approved, and imp1<;!f11entation of the deslgn has been initiated, process e v aluation is needed to provide periodic -feedback to the decision r .. c:1ker respo:1sib1e for continuous control and refinerner.t of plans and procedures. The objective of process evaluation is to detect, or predict, during the implementation stages, defects in procedural design or in its_ implementtion (22:29). Instrumentation The follo.'.'ing instruments ~ere utilized in this study. 1. A strui::tured inte:-vie.-1J guide WdS used in det~rmining the opinions of pro(essional personnel to.tard differ8'1tiateJ stdfing. A copy of this guide is ~.ho. m in /\p.Pendix A. 2. P, questionnaire 1 1as 2d;ninistered to a stratified random sample of students to determine their opinions to.-1Jard certain factors of the school program such c:.s scheduling, large group instruction, srna, 1 grcup instruction, and resource centers. A copy of this questionnaire is sha-1Jn 1n Appendix B. 3. The Purdue Teache~.Q.eJ.nionaire, 1967 edition, 1-;as 2dministered to staff mer.1bers. The 100-it0,m opinionaire gave a tot<'3l :,core signifying the l evei of morcile of the staff. A score was also provided for the fo!lt-;.,.,ing ten foctors: (1) teacher nipport vdth the principal;
PAGE 21
10 (2) satisfaction \/Jith teaching; (3) raport among teachers; (4) teacher ssJlary; (.5) teacher load; (6) curriculum issues; (7) teacher status; {8) community support of educatior; (9) schboi facilities. and services; (10) ccmmunity pressures. ,-he original val idatic:i of th;; instrument was conducted in sixty schools in Indiana and sixteen schools in Oregon. This opinionaire was used in studies conducted by the Department of Classroan Teachers of the National Educ,:1tion Association (38) and by Brinkm a n (10). A copy of this opinionaire is sho...m in Appendix c. Collection of Data Data 1vcre col lccted fran the fol Jo,,.;ing sourcf:ls: l. Legs kep t by teachers on a monthly basis frcrn September, 1970, through March, 197!, relating to the performance of assigned tasks. 2. Perso,,nel records listing changes in the employment of personnel and/or their reass ignrtl(.mt during t!.e school year and the reasons for the changes. 3. Scores of the staff en the Purdue Tca~her Oolnionaire which -------l. _______ 1,,1as administered during the tbird vJeek of September 1970, =rnd during the second week of April, 1971. 4. Structured intervla;s conducted w i t h teachers ~o determine their opinions on the initial year of operation of the differentiated staffing program. 5# An opinion survey of a stratified randcm sample of 25 eighth grade ond 25 ninth grade studznts was conducted during the fourth week of March, l 971. 6, Three observations of three persons in each functioning level of the staff hierarchy. The primary purpose of the observations was to
PAGE 22
supplement the logs of task pedo;r;, ,3nce kept by staff members These obs e.-v-H ions ,..;ere recorded during the per l od, O,;toter, 1970, through April, 1971. f-naJ_ys is_.f..J:he Data 11 1. An ailalysis of the staffing patterns of the various c!epart,~1ents was conducted, together with the professional staff opinion as to the appropriateness of the staffing pattern, in order to determine if the model posses!:ed autonany. 2. Personnel replacements, reassignments, and (eorganizations of the staff for instruction that occurred during the ye,cr ',vere examined to determine if they were made in response to changes in the instructicmal program. 3. From an analysis of the logs and records of observations, a description of job performance for each function:ng level of the hierarc:iy was developed and con1p2red to job specificatbr.s given in the model. The canparison was made to deter~ine which activities 1 lsted in the f~nction were performed and 1:1hich were not performed. Thi?comparison was also made to determine any activities performed by the staff that were not includr: d in the job specification. 4. r-1inutes of the faculty board were analyzed to determine v,hat items of business v;cre discussed. A distinction was made bet\.-1cen ad.;isory opinions and final decisions rendered by the board en matters brC;u'.]ht before it. 5. The rnora le of members of the profess i ona 1 s tAff 1vc:JS detcrm ined in September, 1970, and in April, 19/1, by ~ .Jo admini::;trations of the _Purjue Teacher Or~iniona,.i re. Scores ~vere al so attained for the group en the ten
PAGE 23
factors nrn2sured by the Purdue test. No statistica l treatn 10nt of the data to determine eny sigilificant change ,
PAGE 24
13 higher education. Th, ~ revie J als,) presP.nts r '!~sons for adopting patterns of staff differentiation and c:.:.xpected benefits of such a program. Statements concerning research studies of stc:iff utilization are given that illustrate the need f0r planned evaluation programs of staff utilization. A brief description of the activities undertaken by personnel of the Sarasota County schools in prep3ration for implementing differential staffing ls presented in Chapter II I. The activities were varied, and they occurred over a tl'vo-ye~,r period. The staffs of several schools wen: involved in the study that Jed to the pilot program at V enice Junior High Schoolo The r.iodel of differentiated staffing vJas developed by Pillot (32) during the tfore of the system-w:de study. \-Jhile not all the activities were precisely planned, the leadership of the school system felt ade,:;uate planning had occurred to begin a pilot program. In Chapter !V, a brief description of the model developed by Pillot (32) is presented. The description of the ca;;ponents of the ,710...iel, especially those that contained procedures to be fol lex,ed when implanenting a school model, are stated in theoretical terms The reason for evc:i l uat i ng the model was to determine if the ccrnponents operated In the proposed manner. The evalu..ition of the mode l is presented in Chc1pter V. The cvalua t ion sho.,Js that most of the con~ponents of the model that were evaluated operated a s e>:pected. The opinions of the staff were lr.dicative of the fact that even more planning actfvitles were neede d before the progra m began.
PAGE 25
14 In Chapter VI, the entire s~udy :s summarized cnJ the significant findings are discussed in teriiis of '.'ihat additional studies rn#ight be undertaken to further develop the program. Additional studies of some portions of the model are a1so suggested.
PAGE 26
CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The purpose of the revie.,.; of the 1 iterature is to demonstrate significant areas of kncwledge that relate to the subject under study. The concept of differentiated staffing is ne,, to public school organizations, but corporations and institutions of higher education have had differentiated staffs for several years. Studies of the structures of those organizations provided some background for the present study and made information c:ivailable about the behaviors of persons who \"lorked in differentiated staffing patterns. This revie.v is organized into s:x areas. First, studies relating to the effects of organizational structure on individuals are reported. The studies were ccr,d1.:ct,3d > in some cc-tses in large corporate structures. SeconJ, the existence of a ciifferentiated staff in institutions of higher education is acknaJ1edged, and studies of the method cf differentiation and the effects on those instttutions are n:;ported. Third, the minimum criteria nec.:essary for the development of pub! ic school models of differentiated staffing are seated. Fourth, the reasons given in the 1 icerature for the development uf differentiated steiffing programs are reported. Fifth, sa,1e models of differentiating the staffs of public schools are presented. ln S<..'me cases the models 15
PAGE 27
16 reported have not been i1T,p1em2nted. Sixth, th.c: revie.:, studies of flexible staff util izatlon and different lated staffing that have been reported in the 1 iterature are presented. Effects of O_r_~~~atl.!.~?.1 Structure on Persons Kimball and McClellan compared the organization of most school systems to the structure of corporations. They diagnosed the corporate structure as being bureaucratic and enca;1passing two relationships. The first of these relationships was with society and concerned the social needs the corporation was attempting to satisfy. In this respect corporations exhibited some degree of flexibility in their ability to change their purposes and goals to meet whatever was desired by the social struciure. The second relationship was internal, existing between the 11manager11 and the 11mc:inaged.11 Kimbal 1 and McClellan stated that the corporate structure in the second instance \'!as not pliable, since fe".\I changes were made in internal relationships that would prcmote more effective operation (2.7: 206 209) The schools adopted the corporate pattern, but they utilized only the rigid, internal structure, resulting in the subversion of the educational purpose. Kimball and McClellan stated In American schools the educative process is 0eing Increasingly subordinated to the necessities of admlhistration and coordination. Particularly flagrant in the large cities, but nci.,Jhere .Jbsent, the grO'i'/th of educational bureaucr3cy is justified under the rationale of pr0vlding the auxiliary service$ neces-sary for the classroom teacher to do his job. It is seriously questionable, ho .. .'ever, whether the intended .effort is being rea1 ized. It seems more likely that teachers are under increasing pressures frcm above,
PAGE 28
which in turn they tnmsrnit to students. /\ goo d d r=al of indirect evidence and at lecst scc ie research support the conclusion that the teacher-student relationship has been transformed into one resembling that of the forenan-worker in industry (27:213). 17 After noting that modern industrial research indicat~d many workers were apathetic to..vard their jobs, Kimball and McClellan predicted that if the educative pur poses of the schools were to be real !zed, changes would have to be made in the organizational structures of school systems. They wrote, The possibilities for freedon and initiative ,,.1hich th~ corporate form permits have never been realized, much less adequately understood. Neither the supervisory relationship, bureaucracy, nor the custodial function are essential ingredients of corporate organization. But the principle of freedon of action to adjust and to modify the environment for corporate purposes is. The utilization of this principle in grcups requires the exercise of coordination and leadership. These qualities are needed to assure ,1 situation in which .each individual and subgroup knavs its relation to the others in pursuit of a corrmon objective. Such a system does not assure any necessary reduction in tension, but it does provide the channels and proc~du~es by whi~h these can be resolved. Ultimately it extends tc each unit a measure of freedom equivalent to that which is enjoyed by the corporate whole (27:215). Argyris studied the effects of pyramidal, bureaucratic organizations en employees. He found that the splintering of responsibility that occurred through 3 very high degree of specialization and the chain of cc.mmand concept inherent in bureaucracies tended to inhibit t he T1ental grcwth of the i.,rorker. FollONing MaslOt.J, Argyris stated thc::t the need for self actualization, expressed by the ddve for achievement, recognition, and responslbll ity, was significant in determining job satisfaction. Self responsibl1 ity anc.! self-control, internal commitment to v;ork that was meaningful, a:1d work that util lzed the important abii ities of the employee
PAGE 29
18 ~ ,1ere three co;,ditions that had to be present lf one ~~ere to experience psychological success in an organization (6:27). Argyris also analyzed various jobs performed in organizations. He found that the ta~ks performed by individuals could be categorized into rnoforic (doing), cognitive (kno.,.iing), and conative (feeling) areas. While he suggested that different jo!Js 1 vo.lld contaln varying numbers of opportunities to engage in each of the kinds of activities, he also stressed that any job description cutl in e d should include all three kinds of tasks if the person were to experience psychological success (6:229). Thon pson studied bureaucratic organizations and de te1mined that they inhibited ch 3nges needed to satisfy the clients of the organization. He proposed that increasing chan ne 1 s cf communication i.'lnd purpose] y cr~at ing overlapping of functions among individuals and departments would loosen the structute of organizations. He s u ggested that the structure of an organlzation might be changed, depending on the task to be performed. If formal structures could be sufficiently loosened, it might be possible for crganizations and units to restructure thenselves con tinually in the 1 igh t of the problem at h a nd. Thus, for generating i deas, for planning and problem solving, the organ ization or unit would 11unstructure11 itself into a freely co11municating body of equals. When it came time for implementation, requiring a higher cieg ree of coordination of action (<3s opposed to stimulation of nov e l or correct ideas), the organization would then restructure itself into a more usual hi erarchical form tightening up its 1 ines sonevhat (37:16). This k1nd of fluidity in the internal structure of the organization would enable schools to realign forces as needed to attack those prob] ems i nhibiting the accanpl i~hrnent of purposes given them by society, an d person s working within the structure could more easily
PAGE 30
19 find self-fulfillment and satisfDr .::ti.:m in their o. m v-JOrk. Sa-ne general izations concerning the effects of organizational structures on individuals have been revie.1ed. The ways in \ ,:hich university staffs are differentiated and the effects of a stJff hierarchy on the organization and administration of institutions of higher education are presented next. University Faculty Structure Rudolph placed the beginning of the development of a faculty hierarchy in the syste11 of higher education during the period, 1880-1900. He 1 isted three redsons for the development of a hierarchy among professors. (1) The grcwth of kno.,.Jledge to the point where no on e person cou11 d evelop expertise in a ny one area of study; (2) the increasing size of the ~niversity as reflected in larger undergraduate enrollments required the employment of many more instructors than had previously been necessary; (3) the industrial model of organization seemed to be an efficient and effective way to deal with the problems facing universities (36:398). The method of differentiation among the various levels of professors via~ by determining the amount of published research they had produced. Follcwing the G erma n model of university strncture, administrators of American un!versities came to place supreme empha:5is on the number of pages of material professors had in print as the means of determining if they were to be i:-rom')tedo Rudolph pointed out tha,: th is 1 ed to the deemphasis of the teaching role, but it also enccuraged the development of the profession and caused professors of whatever rank to beccxne loyal
PAGE 31
20 to their fcllcw professionals r2:ther thun to the p3rtic:ular institution where they worked (36:4o9). ;fr l ting of a 1 ater time, Barzun noted that the method of different i at ing among ranks of prcfes:ors was by peer committees t~3t were appointed to evaluate the research of_!} person vJho was seeking a prcrnotion in rank. 3arzun concluded, h0tJever, that other factors such as one's age and the relative amour.t of prestige one brought to a position had beccme as important in getting pranoted as was the quality of research that one h~d ~onducted (8:4o-4J). Eble wrote that, while university faculty members had neglected teaching in pursuing research, the importance of research activity to professors \Jas manifest in that they could assert the 11specialness11 of their profession. Eble contrasted that situation with the role of public school teachers who a1~o did not teach because they were involved in so rr:any mundane non instructional activities. That pub] ic school teachers did not have a means of attaining the status of professionals was due to the fact that they neither :.mderstood the uniqueness of the teaching function, nor did they possess an.,, speci,3J ability outside teaching such as the university professors had. Eble argued that both groups could find more professional status by bac.~iing involved in the varied functions of the teaching role (14:37). The freedom to make decisicns 2ffecting thefr o, m areas of expertise is perceived as a very important prerogative by members of the university hierarchy. Often referred to dS acade.,mic freedom in university organizations, and as the right to participate in the decision making process in
PAGE 32
21 pi..!b 1 ic school systems, the cor.c.:.pt of se1f-deterrr:i112.tion of the program of a given department is jealously 9uarded by univers lty professors. Gross and Grambsch studied a nu mb~r of f~ctors involving university faculties and administrators, including the relative distribution of po.-rnr bet1-Jeen the t'tJO groups, and \vhat each of the sroups perceived the goals of a university to be. T~ey concluded that the administration div is ion possessed the most paver, but they pointed out that the exercise of po.,Jer occurred with the ccnsent of the facuHy. They found large areas of agreement between the tvrn groups as to what the goals of the universities were (21:115). Both faculty and administration felt that protecting the academic freed cm of the facu I ty 1 1as the most i mportant goal for the university (21 :30). Platt and Parsons cond ucted research into the decision making process of universities. They found that university f aculties tended to be collegia l and associational in nature rather than bureaucrati,c. Canparing influence an d value commitment to the bureaucratic properties of poHer and money, Platt and Parsons stated tha t influence was used ln the faculty structure to gain commitment to the goals of the institution. Thus the prestige &nd intellectual capabilities of persons within a university were more important in decision raaking than were persons who held posi tions of authority. The bureaucracy and concomitant p"'er of the university were vested in the administrative structure, but that group v1as mainly concerned vd t h financial management and did not participate in policy d ecisions of individual departments (33:165).
PAGE 33
Platt c:nd P arsons summarized their study by stating, We have pointed out that the .lnstitutTonal ization of faculty members' principal fr.inctions, i.e., research and teaching, has t ended to be highly decentralized. The paver aspect of these functions has rested largely with the individual f2culty member or with smc::11 teams of them. Decisions ~ade by individuals or teams in this regard, then, become binding on the institutional collectivity The mast import ant collective bodies here have been departm~nts, and more recently with i ncreasin g frequency, committees, e.g. with degreepro8ram po.,,iers. The faculty as a whole, and the administration in con1plex r.oordination with it, has stood mainly in a permissive f acilitating, and protective role. The funda mental nor mative in stitutions of iJcademic freedom and tenure constitute the frame works within which individ ual faculty members can assu;T'e their o.,-..,n res pons ibil ity in making their 11contributions11 to research and teaching vdth minimal supervision even by corporate colleagues (33:167). 22 The bases of differentiation, then, among the levels of the hiera rchy in universities 0ere primarily functions other than teaching. The specialized areas of kn0t,ledge :rnre useful in developing a rationale for ac;.idern l c freedom. One re,3son stated for the development of a differ entiated staff in the public schools was to enable teachers to p artici?ate more fully in the decision making process. The basis of differentiation, as stated by most writers, would be the teaciiing function itself. This diffE:rentiation wouid be on a sai1e;-.ihat different basis tlv,n that usually found in public schools. As pointed out by Kimball and McClellan (27:213), the differentiation of roles in the traditional public school organ!zation was through administrative assignments. The successful teacher was pranotcd in rank to that of an administrator with 1 ittle attempt being given to a differentiation of the teaching function itseif.
PAGE 34
23 Minimum Crlteria for_, r;l .fferentiated Staffin.9 EJelfelt gave a definition of differentiated staffing for the ~ubl ic schools that illuminated the antecedents of the term and suggested ,,.,h3t the concept might mean when it \vas more fully developed. Differentiated staffing is an outgro.,,;th and refinement of team teaching and "the teacher and his staff11 idea. both of which propose the use of auxll iary personnel in the schools to relieve teacners of their nor.teaching tasks. Differentiated staffing goes a step further to suggest that teaching be differentiated into v arious roles and responsibilitie s (more than a vertical hierarchy) to allo.v for the different interests, abilities, a nd ambitions of teachers. It calls for differ-entiating s alary in terms of the responsibilities assumed ,:ind allo.1s for both a training .=.nd a career ladder (15:22). Alle n suggested three criteria of differentiated staffing that. vwuld be useful in determining if a pattern was truly differentiated. (1) A minim~m of three differ~nti ated teaching levels, each having a different salary range; (~ a ~aximu~ s a l ary at the top teaching category tha t was at l e.:ist d ouble the maximum at the lo.1est; (3) sub st,::intlal direct teaching r esponsibl ity for all teachers a t all salary levels) including those in the top brackets (1:176). One uajo.r reason given in the 1 iterature for the development of differentiated staffing patterns \,:as the increasing canplexity of the role of the tec:cher with the classrcc.m a nd in the s chool. Another was the des ire of te,3chers to e nhonce their o,m professional status in society and to fulfull what they felt was their professional obligation to educate the children of society.
PAGE 35
24 Allen pointed out that i:he pt' esent ways in ,,hici, teachers were used ~ "as based on the nineteenth c,;nbry NonnF! 1 School r.J'.)del. At that time teachers had 1 ittle formal training and needed almost constant oversight by supervisors who were better trained as teachers. He further stated that there had been an increase in the number of clerical chores demanded cf teachers during the t1,1ent i eth century so that the teacher was hampered by an increase in nonteaching tasks as well as the archaic pattern of supervision (2:16-17). Check reported research conducted ,vith experienced classrocm teachers w ho were pursuing graduate degrees. He found that one of the greatest concerns expressed by this group \\1a s the large number of clerical and other tasks they were expected to do that were unrelated to their preparation as professional teachers (13:17'~. Buffie and Smith reported th;:,t the d evelopment of team teaching arran:Jements emphasized the professional tasks of the teacher, v1hile the ernplcyrnent and assignment of teacher aide s cause d educators to enumerate the non-professional tasks ( 11 : 277) Other factors that caused a change in teaching functions included the move to individualize instruction and to produce curricula that were relevant to the learner's needs. Baker and Goldberg established a system mode l of individualized instruction which included a differentiated staff. In an individualized learning system, there must be trained personnel at more than one 1 eve 1 of teaching. Included are regular teachers, teacher ~Ides, master teachers, and possibly some specialized staff memb8rs Each staff member must be given sufficient tim e to accomplish the t asks required to organize learning, as contrasted with total class mandgement of learning (7:778).
PAGE 36
25 Allen wrote that differcnti a t8cl staffing was necessary in an individualized instruction prcgrEm because stude~ts1 activities would beccme so varied that a number of different ki11ds of teachers would be necessary to oversee their work (3 :4L}). Goldman stated that no one could plan a relev,3nt curriculum without differentiated staffing because the hi.gh level of co.-nretency needed to solve instructional problems demanded the pooling of talents of many different kinds of teachers. (20:495). The interest that v;as sho1 m in plans to individualize instruction and the increase in the numbe r of clerical duties de:11anded of the teacher, largely because of the increase in size and complexity of school systems, created an untenable job desi:riptior. of the teaching task. One conse quence of this \ vas the countenr,oves of teachers to organize and to demand better working conditions. Thus a second major reoson for the development of differentiated staffing was to increase the professional ism of teaching. The need to imprcve the teacher's position in school systems was demonstrated by Rand, who stated that sixty percent of those \vho enter tedching leave it after five years. He concluded that this number could be reduced by providing a c areer ladder for tea~~ers and by giving them more authority to make decisions affecting their work. He wrote that because of the increased training received by teachers they were demanding consideration in such matters as "professional autono.11y, independence in 1 icensing, control of teaching standards, entrance into the profession, direction over educational goals and the concomitant methods;.means S?lected to reach them" (35 :29).
PAGE 37
26 English wrote of the failure of the traditional school principal to satisfy adequately the needs of te2chers and pupils. He stated that both autocratic and "paternalistic father figure type" principals tended to keep bureaucracies of most urban school districts frOfl'I making structural changes that would obviate the problems of the urban areas. He suggested two ways in which differentiated staffing could chaDge bureaucracies for the better. The diffusion of the decision making precess to include the teaching staff and the conconitant change in the ro1e of the principal from dictator to facil itat0r could both be accornpl ished through patterns of differentiated staffirg (16:13-14). Kimball and McClellan pointed out that the task of education could best be accaT1p I is hed \s1here the teacher functioned in an env i ronrnent that he controlled. They felt that the structure of the bureaucracy of school districts prohibited the teacher frcm having any decision making authority, thus killing individual initiative (27:213-215). Edelfelt noted that differentiated staffing provided teachers a career ladder, based upon res pens ibil ity and commensurate re-.s1ards~ He further suggested that differentiated ievels of teaching would ease the transition between the preservice and inservice phases of the teacher's career since aJJa,1ance could be made for the lack of training and experience of the neophyte. Edelfelt pr6posed that the differentiation of the teaching staff could be done by establishing a recruitment or auxiliary level, a preprofessionat or intern level, an induction or be2Jnnin9 te<3cher level, and a continuing or experienced teacher level. This vJOu l d pre.mote res pens i bi 1 i ty on the part of experienced teachers for a porticn of the training of th,::ir less experienced colleagues (15:25).
PAGE 38
27 Personnel of the Catalyst in E d uc,ltion Prosram i s s u ed a booklet detailing ways in which part-ti~ e teachers had been used in selected s~hool districts to complement a teaching staff. The pol icy permitted the profitable use of the talent of fully qualified teachers who, because of other responsibilities, could not accept a full-time position (12:2). Utilization of. persons in this manner was also recanmended by Hair (23:9), Allen (2:19), and Edel felt (15:23). Description of Sane Selected Models Models are the expression of theory in concrete situations. In terms of differentiated staffing, they represent halfv,ay measures beb1een theory and the application of differentiated staffing to a given school dittrict. English categorized all public school models of differentiated staffing into four basic types: (1) curriculum models with emphasis on subject matter organization; (2) teaching models based upon a variety of teaching methods; (3) organizational models b.Jsed upon theories of learning. He stated that any model that vJas actually implem ented would encanpass c:ill f~r patterns (19:214). Tem2le_f_!_!.y..1.... California Mode!. This model was implemented i:, Temple City, C,:d ifornia, in September, 1968, folla-.Jing a two-year planning phase. The staff of the one selected school, Oak Intermediate, included a principal, a school manager, 2 counse'Jors, 1 nurse, 1 master teacher, 1 senior teacher, 27 staff teachers, 3 associate teachers, and 14 pBraprofessional personnel. During the 1969-70 school year 650 pupils were enrolled.
PAGE 39
28 There ':Jere six levels of the teaching hierarchy: t eaching research assoclate, teaching curriculum associate, master teacher, staff teacher, academic assistant, and educational technician. The principal and all senior teachers made up an academic senate that d etermined school policies. The scho0l had flexible scheJul ing, varying class sizes, curriculum resource centers, and a continuous progresss plan of curriculum organization ( 17: l 226). Kans a s C i_!_y..,__J! i s s ou r i Mod e I This plan was implem ented in the Mary Harmon Weeks Elementary and the Martin Luther King Junior High Schools in September, 1968. Each school had an approximate enrol Jment of 1,000 pupils. Each school structured its program to its unique needs and plans. At Mary Harmon Weeks Elementary the staff included 2 coordinating teacher?, 7 senior instructors, 11 instructors, I+ associate instructors, a nd 4 interns. The staff of Martin Luther King ,Junior High included 2 coordinating Instructors, 7 senior instructors, 30 instructors, 8 associate i nstructors, 3 interns, 4 student teachers, and 6 paraprofessicnals. The model used in this system included five professional steps in a vertic, JJ hierarchy: coordinating instructor, senior instructor, instructor~ associate instructor, and interP. The principal, support services personnel~ and paraprofessionals completed the remainder of the staff ( 23: 8 JI+). Bea~Q.,, Oregon J1od~. Applegarth reported this model as being in the planning phase only. Boles of teachers were differentiated en the basis of teaching tasks necessary to accanpl ish the objectives as identified by ~eachers in the
PAGE 40
school district. Salary schedules vrn:.ild be based on various skills required for individualized instn:cticn ( ,5). State of Utah Model. 29 Personnel in the Department cf Education in Utah proposed a state plan to provide for differentiated staffing. The goals of the plan included indiv.idual lzed study, flexible facilities und a continuous progress plan of curriculum organizati0n. The sample staff plan, included in the proposal, differentiated five roles for teachers: head teacher, experienced teacher, tutorial assistant or intern, volunteer aide, and clerk-pupil progress accountant (41). Trusty and Sergiovanni Mode!. Trusty and S crgiovanni conducted research into need deficiencies of educators and found that the greatest needs \vere for esteem, autoncmy, and self-actualization. Based on this research, they proposed a fivelevel teaching hierarchy that Included the positions of colleague, scholar, associate, fello.1, and intern. Each level had '.:alary increm ents b ased on differentiated responsibilities (39:167-180). S y_s t e!]l_J1 ode 1 This model was developed by Pillot as a model that could be established on a system-wide basis. Fran the general model, the staff of a particular school could develop its a-in patte1;n of differentiation base d on the needs of the school identified by personnel of the school center. Pillot proposed a five level professional hierarchy consisting of consulting teacher, directing teacher, staff teacher, instructor, and intern. Five 1eve1s of paraprofessionals--instructio~al assistant, aide, adjunct teacher, volunteer assistant, and student assistant--were created in the model a 1 so.
PAGE 41
30 The proposed unique features of the design included more precision in defining the function of various rojes, the ebil ity of the model to be changed as it was implemented in different schools, and the extensibility of the model to other school systems. A staffing sub-model and an implementation sub-mode 1 were two parts of the school system model. The staffing 5ub-model consisted of a vertical differentiation of roles and tasks into the different professional and paraprofessional hierarchies and a horizontal differentiation of tasks into five major task areas. Each task was further designated by assigning "primary," 11major,'1 or "assisting" responsibility for performing the task to each vertical level involved in the task. The implementation sub-model consisted of the minimum standards to be adhered to by the school center and a set of procedures to be fol Ja..,,ed when establishing a differentiated staff pattern. Policies for the operation of the school were developed by the faculty board. This body was also considered as a major vehicle fer establishing a formal process of shared decision making (3~. Evaluation of Models of Differentiated StaffJJ2..9. fe.1 studies of differentiated staffing had been conducted through 1970. One reason for this fact was the ne,-,ness of the concept. Studies of other kinds of flexible staff arrangements had been conducted for severai years~ In 1964, Anderson reported that most studie~ of staff utilization and deployment were'l:lescriptive and testimonial." Studies cf research on cooperative teaching were reported, but different{ated teaching assignments were scarcely ~entioned (4:455).
PAGE 42
31 In 1967, Nystrand and Bertolaet reported that the paucity of research on staff utilization necessitated the cornbinati,m of that topic with those of "grouping pupils,11 and 11housi:lg pupils and prog,ams.11 They further stated that the int~rrelat!onships that existed among the concepts of staff utilization, student grouping, and school facilities suggested that the develcprncnt.of system_ s models involving the flexible use of staff, students and facilities would be forthcaning (31 :483). In 1968, English conducted a study of the Temple City project during the first three months of its operation. He administered a questionnaire to teachers to determine what they felt were the successes and the problems of the program. The successes reported were: (1) mere individualized instruction; (2) a more open climate and collegial atr:1osphere; (3) an enriched scnool environment; (4) tea~her particip~tion in decision making; (5) pupil and teacher enthusiasm for school; (6) teocher satisfaction with the program. On the other hand, the fol 1 a,.J i ng prob 1 ems were 1 is ted: (1) teacher fatigue due to lncreased clerical responsibilities; (2) a trend to-,ard faculty separatism caused by fever opportunities for personal interaction; (3) a trend ta,ard decision making by d nev elite; (4) confl let due to ambiguity of the senior teacher role; (5) students who did not take responsibility __ inherent in the nEW program; (6) incanplete materials and resources to support the instructional program (18:2-5). In 1970, Harris reported his experiences follo,.Jing one year of operation of a differentiated staffing project at Martin LrJther King Junior High School in Kansas City. He stated that teachers were able to work together and with paraprofessionals in planning the instructional program. The ne9ative aspects of the p1ograr:1 1,1ere: (1) more work \ 1as required of
PAGE 43
32 te2chers, (2) te0chers did net i:h;;r., 3e their mode of teaching even though the organization of the school nd clJss size v,ere changed, (3) 1 ines of authority Here either poorly dE::fi1-,ed or disregarded, (4) sane duties assigned ~enior instructors did not encourage their working on the instructional program (24:32-33). _Summary The reviEW of the 1 iterature revealed that the structure of an organization affected the behavior of persons. Through manipulation of organizational patterns the perscna1 goals of workers could better be fulfilled an d at the same time the objectives of the organization could be achieved. Studies of the faculty hierarchy of universities sho.,1ed that the teaching function was used very 1 ittle a s a basis on which to differentiate among levels of the staff. Instead, othe, kinds of activities associated with the work of the institution were much more Important in determining who would be assigned to each rank. The 1 iterature advocating differentiated staffing for the pub] ic schools was concerned primarily with bringing a greater degree of professional ization to teaching through a careful analysis and differentiation of teaching tasks. Another reason for developing differentiated staffing was to produce a more individualized instructional program. Differentiated staffing also would effectively provide for the appropriate invo1vement of the staff in policy decisions affecting all areas of the school program. Some \-1riters stressed that the schools operated on the bureaucratic modei of organizi3tion. This caused an overemphasis on co ntrol, chain of
PAGE 44
command, and centralized decision n,ai<.lng resuiting in teachers being hampered in their efforts to educate the youth of society. i /hat was needed, they v1rote, was a breakdar;n of the bureaucracy into a more decentralized structure th~t would encourage diffused der.lsion making through collegial, professional relationships. This new structure 33 \'-IOt.il d perm it t"e~chers to focus on the education rather than the control of the young. The evaluative studies of flexible staff utilization that have been conducted indicated that concentrated preservice and inservice programs were needed if teachers were to begin to fulfill the broad goals established by advocates of differentiated staffing. One of the major efforts needed was to discover the distinctly professional character of the teachin~ role itself so that differentiation could be made that v!Ould produce a truly better instructional program. Finally, the revi~ of research studies indicated that more systematic and long-term studies of differentiated staffing projects needed to be conducted in order to determine what benefits ,night be derived from such a program. The plan of this study was to conduct an evaluation of the differ entiated staffing program as implemented in the pilot school. Before presenting the data of the evaluation, a description cf the many activities that were conducted to inaugurate the progr~m is presented in order to provide some background ii lust rat ive of the scope of the differentiated staffing study. The activities undertaken by perscns in the selected school system are reported in the next chapter.
PAGE 45
CHAPTER 111 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING AT VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL The successful development of any large-scale innovative program does not occur overnight. Instead, it is the result of careful planning, large outputs of energy, and a wil I ingness on the part of those affected to become fully involved in the change. In this chi:.ipter a brief description of the Sarasota County School System is presented. The multi-faceted program developed by personnel of the school system to familiarize the staff with the concept of differentiated staffing is described, with particular emphasis given to the program at Venice Junior High School. The Sarc1sot<1 County School S..Y.?tem During the period, i957-70, .Jlmost all c.on ponents of the school system increased greatly. During the 1957-58 school year, there were approximately 10,000 pupils enrolled in the schools. By the 1970-71 school year the number was in excess of 21,000. The professional staff numbered 434 in 1958. By 1970 the number had increased to 1,089. The financial gravth of the system occur!"ed at an eve'l fc1ster rate. During the 1957-58 school year, per pupil expenditures were 275 dollars. By 1970 this figure had increased to 806 dollars per pupil. 34
PAGE 46
35 The school system .-1as governed by a fivemember beard of education, elected by popular vote on a nonpartisan basis. The superintendent of schools Has appointed at the discretion of the school board. Many innovative educational programs had been developed within the school system. The Engl e1ood Elementary School was the I ocat ion of one of the early team teaching experiments in the United States. Personnel in several schools pilottested and later adopted certain innovative science curriculum materials. Many schools ~"er e involved in cooperative teaching programs prior to the.study of differentiated staffing. Special programs in vocational education, education of the mentally retarded and physically handicapped, and education of the gifted were operated in the county schools. Venice Junior High School Constructed in 1958, Venice Junior High School was located on part of a 105-acre campus.area that was originally the Venice Municipal Airport. ft.n elementary and a senior high school were also located on the campus. Thirty-five cl_assroans, including three double classrooms and eight temporary classrooms, an administr~tive area, 1 ibrary and guidance area made up the facilities of the school. Access to a cafeteria, gymnasium, and auditorium was gained at the senior high school building. The junior high school was modern in design, with classrooms that opened onto wide, uncovered passageways through whkh students could ,~asily and freely move. The casual, unhurried movement of students among clzssroorns helped to create an atmosphere of informality and flexibility. During the 1970-71 school year there were 835 students enrolled in grades 7, 8s and 9.
PAGE 47
36 The administrative an d lnnructlonal staff of the s ch co l had tended to remain rather stable. Froc:1 1958 to 1960 the administration of the school was closely aligned to that of the senior blgh since the chief administrator of the junior high school was an assistant principal under the direct supervision of the senior high principal. There had been two principals appointed to the school by 1970. The principal during the 1970-71 school year was first appointed in 1963. The annual instructional staff replacement rate was less than ten percent. The school was organized into subject area d e partmen ts. Chairmen were appointed for all department s except the one-member departments. Prior to t:,e experiment with differentiated staffing the school staff allocation was approximately forty-nine teache, units. This number included two administrators and two guidance counselors. The curriculum of the schoo l \tJas made up of the follcwing courses: Art, Band, Chorus, English, French, German, Home Econo.1'.ics, Industrial Arts, Mathematics, Orchestra, Physic:31 Education, Science, Social Studies, Typing, and a Work Exp~rience Program. Students participated in almost al I chosen subject areas for the entire year, which meant that minimal changes in the organization for instruction occurred after the beginning of the school year. The instructional program was pri marily textbook-centered, with the 1 ibrary area serving chiefly as a repository for printed materials. The students of the school c~ipared favorably to the students of many junior high schools in the United States. The scores of the students on standardized achievement texts indicated they were at, or above, national no;ms.
PAGE 48
Activities That Led to the J.121.p~em8ntatJon Oi.._Diffcr ent!atec! Staffin::i 37 The program of activities conducted by p ersonnel of the Sarasota County Schools prior to the implementation of differentiated staffing in Venice Junior H igh School transpired over a 1:1,vo-year period. The various activi~ies were best understood when they were classified into four program components: school system studies of differentiated staffing, school system model desig11, individual school model design, and training programs for participants. SC111e of the components occurred simultaneously 11Jhile others occurred in successive stages. The original interest in conducting an investigation into the concept of differentiate d staffing was due to an informal expression of interest.by certain members of the Sarasota County School Board Members of the board were primarily interested in developing more effective ways of utilizing the varied skills of teachers and of p aying them according to the professional tasks they performed. The administrative staff of the school system had expresse d an equa l interest in such an investigation. A third group that expressed a desire to explore such a concept was the Sarasota County Teachers Association. The three groups agreed that cooperative efforts were needed if the study was to have the dir.1ens i ons they des ired. A memorandum to the school board 11;as mutually ',<1ritten by the assistant supc1intendent for instruction and the executive secretary 0f the Sarasota County Teachers Association in May 1963. The purpose of the mem.:>ranJum was to request permission t o conduct a st~dy of differentiated staff!ng to determine if serious consideration should be given to implementing the concept in the
PAGE 49
38 S arasota County schoo1s. The i'i!emoran : :h.;m \...ias acc,::p:ed by the school board, permission for the study was gr~nt~d, and the study of differentiated staffing was begun. The Sch?ol System Studies of Differentiated Staffin9 Initial studies of staff differentiation began during the summer of 1968 with the creation of the office of staff development within the structure of the county schoci system and the appointment of an ad hoc co mmittee of the Sarasota County Teachers Association. The office of staff development was given responsibility for initiating and conducting t he study of differentiated staffing. More specifically, the director of staff d.?velopment was charged with the responsibility for: (1) encouraging the entire school system to be voluntarily interested in the study of differentiated staffing, and (~ to provide study opportunities and mechanics to those interested school faculties so that they might move from interest to implementation of pilot programs and beyond. Mr. Gene Pillot, Principal of Sarasota County High School, w a s a ppointed director of the staff developement office, and largely through his leadership the res pons ibil ities of the office \-.Jere carried out. He was also instrumental in organizing the several activities that occurred. The ~d hoc committee of the Sarasota County Teachers Association: began to study the concept in August, 1968. Members of the committee read available professional materials, invited consuitants to speak to the g~oup, and considered possible ramifications of the adoption of differentiated staffing -.;o ihe school system. During the; study, con sideraticn was also given to the appropriate ways to differentiate the
PAGE 50
39 staff and to use p3raprofess ionals. O n e interi m r2-port made by the groL!p stated that the concept sho.ved great pranise for impt oving instruction and should be given careful attention in Sarasota County. T h e Citizens Advisory Committee, appointed by the school board, was structured into a number of special subcommittees, one of which was the Citizens Subcq,-nmittee on St3ff Development. The chairman of that sub canrnittee also became interested in the study of differentiated staffing and encouraged the staff of the school system to further the investigation begun by the Sarasota County Teachers Associatiori. An a
PAGE 51
40 A lG\'i, Chapter 68-13, hcJd b e(, n passed by the Legislature of the State of Florida v,hich stated, "The state superintendent in cooperation with selected county boards of public instruction shall develop a nd operate model projects of flexible staff o,-ganization in selected elementary and secondary schools based on differentiated levels of responsibility and canpensation for services performed" (42:9). The state superintendent sought funds of the Education Professions Development Act, an act passed by the United States C'.)ngress. Funds vJere subsequently received by the state superintendent who, in turn, invited superintendents of all the .counties in the state to submit proposals for the study and implementation of differentiated staffing in schools. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the principals of Sarasota CoLlnty, held in October, 1968, the director of staff development announced to the gr01.1p that funds were ava i 1 ab] e to begin a pilot program of differentiated staffing if a n yone was interested. The principal of Venice Junior High School notified the director of staff development of his interest in studying the possibility of impl ementing a pilot progrom. Hcwever, he stated that any c:om.nitment to begin differentiated staffing \tJas premature at that time. Others who were also interested in the development of a pilot program concurred in that opinion. Consequently, the superintendent of schools wrote a letter to the state superintendent in November, 1968, exp1aining that the staff of Sarasota County Schools would not participate in that particular program. Follo,,iing several months of deliberation, a joint resolution was issued by the Sarasota County Te achers Association and the division of instruction which stated that a steering committee on differentiated
PAGE 52
41 staffing should be established. l-. recw.mendaticn 1t1as made in March, 1969, to the Sarasota County School Board tr.at such a coi1mittee be formed. The recommendation was accepted ar.d the di rector of staff development was ,equested to initiate the organization of the committee. The reason for establishing the committee \'1as to provide system-wide involvement of personnel from al 1 instructional levels of the sysi::em and to establish the study within the 1 eg31 frame;rnrk of the Sarasota County schools. The functions and responsibilities of the committee were as foll"s: (1) establish criteria by which all proposals for the study or implementation of differentiated staffing would be judged; (2) establish procedures to be follo,1ed in making proposals for the study or implementation of differentiated staffing; (3) encourage school staffs to secure information on, and study the concept of, differentiated staffing and to inform al 1 school staffs of the procedures to be fo11 o.,1ed in requesting approval of any proposed plan to study or implement differentiated staffing; (4) serve as 2 source of informcition and advice to interest1;;d school staffs; (5) c:oord inate the study and implementation of differentiated staffing in all the Sarasota County schoois; (6) cor:omunicate clearly and continuously vdth the staff -:1nd the community at large all important aspects of the study and implementation of differentiated staffing in the Sarasota County Schools. The resolution further out! ined certain procedures that the committee should fol lcw: (1) work cooperatively and jointly with any other committee or office concerned with the study of possible implementation of differentiated staffing; (2) all meetings should b3 open to all interested persons; (3) each member would have one vote; (l+) the committee could make reccxnmendations
PAGE 53
lf2 to the school bo2rd through the superintendent; (5) al 1 r econ~mendations o-f the ca-nmittee could contain a rninority repor t at the request of one mernbEr of the ca.nmittee. The committee was organized in April, 1969, and the first meeting w,)s held in May, 1969. The membership of the committee was determined by election or appointment of individuals who represented an important area of the program of the school system, or who represented an organization external to the structure of the system. Tr.e follONing were represented on the committee: classroom teachers, counselors, elementary grade-level chairmen, secondary department chairmen, teacher aides, supervisors, elementary principals, secondary princlpals, directors, assistant sup,-::rintendents, and representativ~s from educational media, pupil personnel services, Sar3sota County Teachers Association, Citizens Advisory Conmittee, School Board, and the office of staff development. The Steering Committee b e came the decision making committee in all differenti3ted staffing proposals for study and pilot implem entation. Procedures to be foll01-Jed in developing a pilot program were \:ritten and distributed to personnel in all schools. The stater.H'nt made clear that any school, or department \-lithin a school, could develop a program of d:fferentiating the stnff. The statement aJso w<1s clea r that while the director of staff development would offer any assistance he could to a school staff, the initiative for developing a proposal must come from mernb.ers of the local school faculty. Proposals from six d ifferent schools were considered and approvec'. by the ccmmittee dur\ng Lhe period, May i:hrough July, 1969, inclu.Jing a proposal from members of the science department of Venice Junior High School.
PAGE 54
43 The revie.1 of activities carried cut by rncrnbers of the Sarasota County Schools to farnil iarize thr:rnselves with differentiated staffing and to consider possible ways of ir;,ple:nenting the concept pointed out that much study occurred at al 1 staff 1 evels and that persons were chosen as offic1al participants in the study from a ,....,ide range of interests. Efforts to procure wide areas of staff involvement did not occur 11ithout design. Persons in the school system structure who provided leadership to the study stressed that involvement of the staff was a usual procedure for the school system. They further stressed that there 11ere two major reasons for wide staff involvement. First, the acceptance of any extensive change dcp8nded on accurate and adequate information, opportunities for those affected to participate in formulating the parameters of the change, and opportunities for those affected by the change to becorne ca11mitted to completing the proposed change. Secondly, the information and judgment provided by persons from the various areas of the school system, and organizations external to the school structure, proved to be one cf the most signific2nt corn ponents of the study. Development o_f the School System Model The development of the school system rncdel was a major project of a canmittee of the Sarasota County Schools formed for that particular purpose. The Florida Department of Education had r e c e ivBd an additional grant funded from the Education Profess ions Devel oprnent P.,ct to study di f fcrent i ated staffing. A r.onscrt ium of threa count1 s cl,ool sys terns had been formed, including Sarasota County, to i mplemen t pilot programs of differcmtiated staffing, One of the tasks given to personnel of the
PAGE 55
44 Sarasota County Schools was the ~evelopment of a mbdel that could be implemented in other school systems. The direc-ccr of staff development, with the approval of the Steering Committee on Differentiated Staffing, invited a representative f:-':)TJ each of six schools--four elementary and two junior high--that had submitted proposals for implementing a differ entiated staffing program. Five members of the cor.,rnittee \vere classroan teachers. They were either appointed by their principal or elected by the total school faculty. The principal of Venice Junior High School, v,ho represented that school, and the director of staff development completed the membership of the canrnittee. The ccmmittee vJas named the Committee for More Effective School Personnel Utilization, the same title given to the state program. A grant in excess of 8,000 dollars was accepted by the Sarasota County School Board to fund the work of the ccm mittee. Members of the canmittee were active during the 1969-70 school year studying models of other schools, gathering data, and considering h()I/ the school system model might most appropriately be developed. One of the facts that guided the members of the ccmm i ttee l n their \vork was that interim reports of the study of differentiated staffing being conducted by the Steering Ccmmittee on Differentiated St3ffing had indicated that scrne means of implementing differentiated staffing in the Sarasota County Schools should be devised. The school system model seeined to be the most appropriate structure for staff differentiation. T~e difector of staff development was primarily responsible for the devel oprnent of the school system model. Other members of the committee provided consultative and evaluative assistance to the director as the
PAGE 56
45 model was being developed. Concept::; inherent in the d esign of other models of differentiated staffirig were also utilized. The basic design of the school system model was approved by the Sc'.lrnsota County School Board in February, 1970. The model was made available to the personnel of the school system during April, 1970. School M odel Develope ment The development of the school model cf differentiated staffing at Venice Junior High School did not b egin with the school system model since the first model i mplemented in the school 11as one developed by members of the science d epartment for use in the 1969-70 school year. Prior to the establishment of the Steering Conn,ittee on Differentiated Staffing a group of county staff personnel visited informally with sane department chairmen of Venice Junior High School. The purpose ~f their visit was to ~uggest to the department chairmen that they consider impl ement ing a pilot progran, of differentiated staffing within their departments during the 1 969-70 school year. The science an d mat hematics d epartments had been identified by the principal as be in g best prepared to begin staff differentiation. Members of the scie nce depart ment h a d adopted an individuali zed science curriculum an d they believ ed instruction could be further individualized 0y differentiating the staff. Members of the (T1athenatic s department had e xpressed z n interest in developing an individualized curriculum that would also enable them t o differentiate r esponsibilities. The event~al r e s ponse of the staffs of the two dep artments, while not the sa me, was to beg in activities that would eventially result in staff differentiation. Members of the science department deve 1 oped their 01m model o f d lf f erent i ated staffing an d
PAGE 57
46 the accomp,rnying job descriptions for each level 0f the hierarchy. Differentiation was based on a different 1!lo
PAGE 58
47 structure, shared decision m<1kin9, administrr1tive theory, and differentiated staffing. The study of those topics provided some theoretical background that was useful to the members of the committee when they were considering hOtJ to differentiate the staff. At a meeting in May, 1970, the steering committee was asked by the principal: Ho:.J should Venic:e Junior High School be organized for instruction during the 1970-71 school y~ar? Follcwing several days of discussion the members of the group made the dee is ion to differentiate the staff and thereby to involve the entire school staff in a ne1 organizational pattern. Members of the steering committee were then asked by the principal to hold meetings of their respective departments to discuss the ramifications of the decision. On returning to their departments, the chairmen asked staff members the _question: Ha,: do we v1ant to organize the staff of this department for the 1970-71 school year? In order for members of the staff to make a decision, certain 1 imitations and guide] ines imposed by the school board and by the structure of the model had to be explained. Each member of the staff was apprized of the kinds of positions identified in the model and the teacher unit cost, or fraction thereof, of each level. The school staffing model could not cont'3in more teacher units than the number allocated by the superintendent of schools. A11other requirement was that no one who had served en the staff during the 1969-70 school year would be asked to leave as a result of differentiating the staff. Beyond those guidelines the particular competencies needed in each department had to be con3id~red, and the appropriate staffing pattern had to be selected. No strict procedures were established for organizJng the departmental staff because administrators felt the ~eachers should select
PAGE 59
the model without administrative interference. Secondly, due to the nature of the decisions, no ad ~ i nistrator felt adequate procedures could be developed that would be appropriate to al I departments. Two problems had to be solved at the same time the school center model 1/Jas being designed. The first was a requirernent by the school board that the allocation of 48.7 teacher units during the 1969-70 48 school year be reduced to 44.7 teacher units for the 1970-71 school year. This action was the result of a reduction in teacher unit allocations that affected every school in the systen. The total reduction of four teacher units had to be made on a school-wide basis after considering the program and needs of every department. A second problem was to determine ho.-.J the school should be scheduled. One co. 11pl icating factor was the freedon that had existed in the one differentially organized department during the 1969-70 school year. The opportunity to schedule the science department in almost any manner had to give way to the consideration that since all departments were differentiated ~r1ng the 1970-71 school year, a school-wide schedul Ing was a necessity. Members of the school steering cc nmittee, in consultatkin with the rer,1ainder of the staff, solved both problems. The decisions reached I/Jere: (l) the school would be depi:!ttmental ized; (2) the sch00J vmuld maintain a graded structure; (3) students would be scheduled in large grcups and assigned to the departments for a given period of ti111e, but the schedule of the students within that time period would be ,_'ete:mined by the members of the department.
PAGE 60
49 To design the school center mcde l within the restriction of reducing the number of teacher units required committee rne,nbers to exert some effort. 1,Jhen the principal totaled the initial requests for staff from all departments, he found they had developed a model that required 52.7 teacher uni ts instead of the a 11 ocated 44, 7. Members of each department were forced to reconsider their ONn programs in 1 ight of the overal 1 school program priorities and the imposed econanies. Eventual requests totaled 42,25 teacher units. The school model was approved by the school board in August, 1970. _Train i 129...l'rog~~ ".ihile the efforts of both system-wide and school car.mittees were a part of the training program to acquaint a staff with differentiated staffing, the component described in this section was concc.rned with those activities that occurred on a local school and system-vJide basis after the cor.mitment had been made to begin staff differentiation. The first part of the training program began in June, 1969, and included 2s participants members of the two departments from Venice Junior High School that had been selected to begin the pilot program in September. An eight-day workshop was held during which time the follo1.Jing activities v1f:re und~rtaken: (1) an overal 1 pl an for imp! eme,,t ing differentiated staffing was developed; (~ a tentative job description for each level of the staff hierarchy was dra~Ji1 u?; (3) additional curriculum materials were developed, based on anticipated needs. The same staff returned to another \"lorkshop in A1.1gust, i969, and worked for approxirr,ately ten days. During that workshop the follcv,ing 2ctivities occurred: (1) tentative job descriptions for each ?evel of the staff hierarchy were revised and
PAGE 61
50 fin.3lized; (2) teacher class asstr.grn,:;nts were completed; (3) major departmental duties vJere assigried ; (L}) further development of curriculum and the organizatio n for instruction was acc~1pl ished. In ,June, 1970, a systern-l'lide vwrkshop was held, consisting of representatives of the four elernentary and tv-10 junio r high schoe;ls designated to conduct pilot projects by the Steering Can mittee en Differentiated Staffing, n,e d epartmer1t chairmen, principal, and dean of students frcxn Venice Junior High School attended those sessions, The major purposes of the workshop were to establish a plan of action for the summer and to determine what parts of the program of a school would be affected by a different staff personnel organization. The members of the workshop also beg,1;1 to consider more eff,~ctive \>Jays to cam1unicate with their fe11CM staff members because they considered interpersonal relations to be very important to the success of any differentiated staffing program, In August, 1970, a ten-day workshop was held, again i nvolving reporesent atives Fran the six selected schools. The follo.-iing activities o c~..;L1rred during the workshop: (1) final plans for indhidual school models v 1ere developed; (2) individualized curriculum materials \>Jere prepared; (3) the importance of effective Interpersonal relati o n ships amcng staff members was stressed; and (4) the importance of peer evaluation in a differentiate d staffing program was discussed, Summa r_y The purpose of this chapter w a s to describe the school system in which the differentiated staffing project was conducted. The several activities t.;ndertaken by the central staff of the school system and the
PAGE 62
51 staff of Venice Junior High School prier to imple~entation of the school syste.11 modal were out) ined. A revis,~ of the activities indicated that not all eicments of the program 1 rnre precisely planned or revealed in advance of the adoption of the flexible staffing program. The reasons for this phenomenon were that the staff was not aware in every case of ~-,hat activities were needed since the Initial e.mphasis of the progrq/11 was to conduct a feasibility study of differentiated staffing. Secondly, those providing leadership to the study believed that some ambiguity in stating wha t changes were planned \vould prove beneficial in facilitating the change process and would lea d to a program that would be successful. One of ~E most sig~ificant results of the studies described in this chapter 1,1as the development of the school system model. The workabi 1 ity of the model. its unique qualities, and the flexibility permitted in its 2ppl ic,H ion tc a school or school system were advantages be! ieved to be inherent in the structure of the ,node). In the next chapter, attention is given to a brief description of the b asic p arts of the modei and hOti they were applied to the pilot school.
PAGE 63
CHAPTER IV A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM MODEL The school system model .,..Jas designed by Pillot (32) to describe professional and paraprofessional staff positions that could be created within a given school system. The model was designed to establish directions and a plan of action for the personnel of a school to follON in developing a differentiated staffing pattern. In this chapter, the ccmponents of the mode], including the theoretical mechanics of operation are briefly presented. For a fuller description of the m odel the reader is ~eferred to Pil lot's study (3~. The brief description of the basic parts of the model presented in this chapter is designed to facil iatate understa nding of the evaluation presented in Chapter V. In this chapter, the staffing p ~ttern of Venice Junior High School is also presented and ccrnpared to the staffing pattern that v1ould have been utilized in a traditional program. Qual ities_,of the Model The school sys tern mode] \vas designed to permit personnel of a school and/or department within a school, to select a differentiated staffing model appropriate to the unique needs and instructional program of that school. No two schools within a school system were expected to have the 52
PAGE 64
53 same staffing pattern. Within the structure of the model, that quality was named autonany. The staff of the school also had the freedom to change the chosen staffing pattern any time the needs of the pupils changed and as the instructional program of the school was restructured. Any changes in personnel had to be consistent with legal and contractural requirements for personnel employment. That quality of the model was called fluidity. The school district leadership was responsible for the allocation of instructional units on an equal basis to equal sized schools, for establ !shing certain minimum job requirements, and for establishing salary schedules within the district. The estabJ ishment of certain system-wide criteria that v,ere to be adhered to by a given school provided mi11imum consistency between the policies of the school and the district. Minimum consistency was another qua] ity defined within the model. Although the school system model as implemented in Sarasota County contained specific values for such item s as salary, instructional units, and the 'levels of the hierarchy, those values vrnre not essential to the basic structure of the model. They could be changed by personnel of any school system that de5 ired to utilize the model. The quality of the model that enabled it to be implemented. in more than one school system 1 1as labeled extensibility. The qualities of autonomy, fluidity, minimum cons:stency, and extensibility were prov;cied ir. the model and were held tc be some of the unique characterisUcs of the school system model. They tiere to be actualized through the process provided in th~ model whereby a school
PAGE 65
staff could i mplemen t the pattern of differentiated staffing based on its unique instructional needs (32:55). Basic Co.'T;poncnts of the Model The school system rnode l was cor,prised of two major components--a staffing sub-model and an implementation sub-model. The parts of the staffing sub-model included a description of the various professional and paraprofessional staff positions; a description of the special roles of LJdjunct teacher, volunteer assistant, and principal; and a description of the organization and function of the faculty board. A I ist of the major categories of tasks performed in schools was provided, and these tasks were assigned to the various professional and paraprofesional staff positions. The implementation sub-model included a scheme for classifying all schcols in a school system according to size; a cost factor expressed in terms of teacher units fo, each level in the staff hierarchy; the procedures to be folla~ed ln establ lsing a staffing pattern for a given school; and the job specification charts from which a job description of each professional and paraprofessional position could be developed. The job specification charts provided criteria on which to base judgm~nt concerning the effectiveness of a given staff member. A comparison of ac~ual job performance with the criteria stated in the charts provided an objective basis on which to evaluate a11 staff msmbcrs.
PAGE 66
55 The Staff i f'lSLSub-Model The~tical hierarchy of staff_2~1siJl~ Five professional teaching position~, three special positions, and three paraprofessional positions were defined in the model. The five professional teaching positions were consulting teacher, directing teacher, staff teacher, instructor, a nd resident intern, The three special positions were adjunct teacher, volunteer assistant and principal. The three paraprofessional positions were instructional assistant, aide, and student assistant. The various 1 evel s of staff positions were provided through a differentiation of assignment, experience as a teacher, and the influence of the position. Specific responsibilities of each level varied according to the size of the school. For example, the directing teacher of a department in an 1800 student high school would have more respon slbil ity than one in a 300 pupil elementary. The relationships among the various levels of the staff ~ierarchy were illustrated in the study by Pillot by a .series of concr~ntric circles as seen in Figure 1 (32:57). The consulting teach~.. The consulting teacher was responsible for the overal 1 instructional program, or at least a large part of the instructional program, in one or more schools. Pillot $tated, "He may be responsible and accountable for supervising several grade levels, a particular discipline in several grade levels; coordinated disciplines in a school or grade 1 evel; or one or more of the function areas of instruction, staff d~velopm,:;nt, research-evaluation-reporting, or administration" (32:59). The consuiting teacher wos not to function in a line relationship to ether staff inembers, but he vvas to provide
PAGE 67
P r i ncipal _____ ____ ,,,,,,.,.~ .. ... Figure 1. --The Total Vertical Hierarchy and Conco mitdnt Positions in the System Model (32). 56
PAGE 68
57 consultative and advisory services. He was to spend a major port ion of his time in activities other than direct instruction of students. The_j_~recting teacher. The direct Ing teacher was in a 1 ine position and was responsible for exercising leadership in a specific area of the instructional program. According to Pillot, "He may be the leader of a team, a grade level, or a department. He may be responsible for a single dlscipl ine in one school, or may be assigned leadership responsibility in one of the function areas~ (32:60). The directing teacher was considered as the master teacher in a particular area of responsibility. In that capacity he was responsible for planning, organizing, and conducting the instructional program in his area of assignment, in consultation with other staff mc-rnbers. He \ ,1as to spend less than full.;..time in direct instruction of students. The staff teacher. The staff teacher was comparable to the regular, tenured classroan teacher. As described by Pillot, '!He is assigned to a team, a single or unified discipline, or to duties in one of the function areas. In general he will be assigned to full-time direct instruct ion" (32:60). The instructor. The instructor was a beginning teacher who was serving a probationary period, usually three years, and who was assigned to full-time teaching responsibil itJes. His work was to be closely supervised, ha,ever, by a person in a higher position in the hierarchy, usually the directing teacher (3?.;61). The resident intern. T'ie res ider.t intern was a person who was in his last year of preservice education, but who was assigned to full-time activiti~s within the school. The intern was permitted to participate
PAGE 69
58 In all college activities required of him during his final year of study. He was to be closely supervised by a staff teacher, directing teacher, or a team of teachers to which he had been assigned (32:61). T~;:.__~~J.l:1_'2,Ct teache:-. The adjunct teacher was a non certified person who possessed a certain skill, or who held a special expertise in a given subJ~ct area.~ The adjunct was to be employed on a part-time basis, at a daily rate for a specified number of days, or for an honorarium. All services of the adjunct teacher were to be preplanned and incorporated into the stru.;ture of the curriculum of the school (32:63-61+)~ The volunteer assistant. Th~ volunteer assistant was to serve in much the same manner as the adjunct teacher, except that he vJOuld not receive canpcns2tion for his se1vices. The provision for that kind .of position wai made in order to utilize the talents of perscns who did not desire to be paid for their services (32:64). Th~__e_c_!_!:!~. In a differentiated staffing program the principal 's role v,as to change fron that of the final authority figure in the school to that of being one voting member of a facu I ty board. Pillot wrote, "In a differentiated staffing model 1vith shared decis,on making, the principal will have the primary responsibility of causing the decisions of the f.:iculty board to be carried out. He is responsible for seeing that the environment of the school is maximal for the instructional program" (32:66). The role of the principal could be expanded to include some teaching responsibility, depending on the number and ccmplexity of the administrative tasks assigned in a g1ven school. The principal was the one person in the school directly accountable to the superintendent of schools in all matters of school operation. The relationship of the
PAGE 70
principal to the other levels of the st2ff hi eraJ"ch y is sha,m in Figure l. The instructional assistant. The instructional assistant was assigned to instructional duties that did not require professional training. He was to perform duties assigned to hlm by a professional tedcher (32:62). 59 _Th~aide. The aide was assigned duties that were primarily clerical, technical or material. He was to perfor~ nonprofessional tasks for the members of the professional staff (32:63). Th. e stud~~ss istj~. The student assistant was to be a high school or college student w ho served on a part-time basis. The duties assigned the student assistant would be similar to those assigned the aide, except that the student assistant might also be assigned duties cf a nonprofessional, instructional n ature (32:63). The horizonta l diffe r entiation into function areas O ne mode of differentiating a t eaching staff was the vertical differentiation of assignments into a staff hierarchy as discussed in the previous s ection. A second mode was the classification of teaching tasks into c a tegories and the assignment of certain tasks to e a ch level of the staff hierarchy. This second mode was kn"'n as horizontal differentiation. The categories into which the teaching tasks were assigned were identified in the model as: administration, instruction, researcheva]uationreporting, ar,d staff development. The function areas are sho,m digrarnmatically in Figure 2. All level5 of thPvertical staff hierarchy w ere assigned duties In each of these function areas. A person
PAGE 71
Instruction ResearchEvaluat ionReporting / / ')L-I I Deve 1 opmen t Figure 2. --Major Horizontally Differentiated Function Areas in the Sys tern Model (3 2). 60
PAGE 72
61 occupying any position in the staff hierarchy could ce assigned duties in one function area exclusively, i f t he program of the school center was organized in that manner. For example, a directing teacher for staff development could be appointed as appropriately as a directing teac her who had respcnsibil ity for all function areas. Furthe r differentiat. ion within a given fucntion area was anticipated in the structure of the model. For example, the are a of instruction could have been further divided to permit the utilization of the strengths of teachers to direct large group instructio9 individually directed study, or to produce media materials. (32:69-73). Jh~taculty board The faculty board was the pol icy-making body of the school in a differentiate d staffing program. The membership of the board was composed of the principal, co:isultin g teachers, and directing teachers of the schooi. Provision w<1s also made in the mode l for other staff members of the school to serve on the board for a specified time v.Jhen such assignment would facilitate improvem ent in the lnstructional program. The fac!..llty board vJas also expected to deleg':lte authority necessary to ca rry out pol icy decisions. The scope of the dee is ion making pOtJers of the faculty board was bound only by legal restrictions, school board pol icics, or c entral administrative regulations. Ultimate responsibility for the operation of a school remained with the board of education (32 :66). The I rno 1 ementat ion Sub-Modd The purpose of the implementation sub model \tJas to establish certain p;ocedures by which a school would be guided in the selection of a staffing
PAGE 73
62 pattern appropriate to the program of instruction. Contained in this sub-model vJete the procedures U1a t dSsured minimum consistency between the school staffing pattern 2nd the overall procedures for the entire school system. Q!}J_!_ ~ ocat Jon formu 1 a The unit allocation formula was devised by the central administration as a means of allocating teacher units to a school center, based upon the pupil-teacher ratio. Pillot \rote, "This rat?o will be determined by central office administration according to the total funds available for instructional personnel salaries, the average salary expected to be paid during the school year, and the resulting total number of instructional units availble to the school system" (3?.:74). The ratio varied among ele-mentary, junior high, and senior high schools according to state laws and local school board regulations. If a school center was responsible for conducting a special type of instructional program, a different pupil-teacher ratio could be sot than the one for a regular program. If a school staff was completely differentiated, certain functions traditionally perfo:rmed by the central staff could be performed by persons assigned to work as me~abers of the school staff (32:75). Classification of schools The scope of instructional programs and the number of tasks to be performed increased with the size of schools and the age level of the students. This .affected the task assignments of the various positions in the staff hierarchy. For exam::,le, the task assignments for a staff teacher in a small elementary school would be different from those of a staff teacher in a large senior high school. For this reason, schools
PAGE 74
63 were classified into seven cate;o:-i\-2:s: (1) eie:11cntary schools up to 300 pupils, (2)ele:nentary schools ~ .'lt!1 more than 300 pupils, (3) junior high schools up to 750 students, (4) junior high schools with more than 750 students, (5) senior high schools u p to 1,000 students, (6) senior high schools with more than 1,000 students, and (7) school centers with grades kindergarten through nine or higher. The classification was determined by the usual size of the school$ in Sarasota County, but the numbers chosen to determine the division of schools could be changed at any t!me (32:76). Unit values of the ve~tical hierarchx Each position within the vertical staff h;erarch y v1as assigned a value based on an index point of 1.0 for the staff teacher position. The unit index system was the method by v,hich salary increments \"Jere determined for each positior. in the hierarchy. The total unit index was used to calculate the cost of any school staffing pattern. The teacher unit v alues are sho."'n in Table 1. TABLE 1 COST IN ST1-\FF ALLOC/l.TION UNITS FOR -------E_A_C_H_P_O_S_I Tl ON IN THE SYSTEM MODEL (3 ~) Posltion Principal Consulting Te~cher Directing Teacher Staff Te2.cher Instructor Res l dent Intern l~structional Assistant /\ i de Student Assistant Adjuilct Volunteer Assistant Unit Value 1. 50 1. 50 1. 25 1; 00 1. 00 .so 50 .35 .03 N/A N/A Number of Days of Service 222 211 211 196 !96 190 190 190 Per Hour, 180 days S epa raf:e B1.:dget As Volunteered
PAGE 75
64 Job sr..~cifkation charts Job specification charts were developed that matched each level of the hierarchy to the function areas of the staffing sub-model. Responsibility for each task 1 isted in the function areas was assigned to one or several positions in the hierarchy. Responsibility for the performance of a 11 the t3S ks 1 is ted within the function areas VJ as pa rt it i oned into primary, major, and assisting categories. Primary responsibility was defined as asking another staff member to perform the task. Major responsibility was performing the task oneself. Assisting responsibility was helping another staff member to perform the task. One could shift the responsibility frcm one category to another category, but the shift could not be for two categories. For example, a person assigned primary r~spons ibil ity for performing a task could assume major res pons ibil ity, but he could not assume assisting responsib:1 ity. A person assigned major responsibility for performing a task could assume either primary or assisting responsibility and remain within the acceptable criteria of the model (32:79). Proc:edure for e i ect i n-9.....9_.:3 taf .f.!.!29__pat tern The central staff was responsible for infonning a school center of all the ccmponents of the staffing sub-model and the implementation submodel, including the total staff unit allocation for a given school year. They were also to act in an advisory capacity to the school staff in all phases of the differentiation program. The major responsibility for the development of a school staffing pattern was given to the local school personn~l. Prior to the establish ment of the faculty board, a steering committee \-Jas to be appointed within
PAGE 76
65 the school to help determine the appropriate numb~r of staff positions needed for each instruct icnal ar ca )r grade l eve1. G ivcn the total staff unit allocation, the job specification charts, and the desired instructional program, the steering committee was to outline a differentiated staffing pattern. Since almost any instructional organization could be devised within the criteria of the school system model, fe.1 departments or grade levels within a school were expected to have precisely the same staffing pattern. Criteria of accoun~'2_i1 it:t, The objectives of the job specification charts were stated in behavioral terms. A comparison of the performance of persons ln a11 levels of the staff heirarchy with the job specifications established in the mode) could be used as a measure of evaluation. Staff personnel were to expect observation and evaluation from superiors, peers, and suboi"dinates (32:83). Venice Jun i or_J:U.91!.2_chool Staffing Model The staffing pattern chosen by the staff of Venice Junfor High School for the 1970-71 school year is sho ... :n in Table 2. The staffing pattern for the school as it would have operated under a traditional organization is shOtJn in Table 3. Table 2 shOtJs that a total of 69 persons \vere employed on the staff through the differentiated staffing pattern. Of the total of 69 persons, there were 39 ful !-time professional, 3 part-time professional, 15 full-time paraprofessional, and 12 part-time paraprofessional staff members. Table 3 sho.vs that
PAGE 77
66 Tl~ BLE 2 DIFFERENT iATED STAFF! NG PATTERN FOR VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 1970~~-~Department ---------English Mathematics Science Social Studie.3 Physical Education Foreign Language Electives Instructional Media Coun~el ing and !\ rlrr. in is tr at ion 1 3 1 3 1 ----------Staff Directing Teacher Staff Teachers Instructor A ides Instructional Assistant 1 Directing Teacher 2 Staff Teachers 1 Instructor 1 Instructional Assistant 2. 5 A ides 8 Student Assistants (one hour/day) 1 Directing Teacher 4 Staff Teachers 2 A ides 1 Student Assistant 1 Directing Teacher 2 Staff Teachers 2 Instructors 2 A ides 1 Directing TeLJcher 4 Staff Teachers l.5Aides 1 Directing Teacher 1 Staff Teacher 2 Part-Time Staff Teachers 1. 5 Ai des 1 Directing Teacher 2 Staff Teachers 2 Part-Time Staff Teachers 3 Instructors 3 A ides 2 Part-Time Ai des 1 1 3 1 Part-Time Directing Teacher Staff Teacher A ides Studen t Assistant Staff Teacher Principal Directing Teacher (Research-Evaluation________________ St.aff Devel ooment) -----
PAGE 78
6 7-TABLE 3 TRAD I Tl o ; J\ L OR C A N I ZA T I ON ____ _________ VE_N_ICE JUIH OR H_IGH SCHOOL_LllL _____ .. --------------------Department Staff -----------------------English 7 Teachers Mathematics 6 Teachers Si:ience 6 Teachers S cc i a 1 S tu d i es 6 Teachers 5 Teachers 3 Teachers plus 2 Part-Time 6 Teachers plus 2 Part-Time Physical Education Foreign Language Electives Instructional Media Counseling A dministration Teacher Part-Time 2 Teachers 1 Principal 1 Assistant Principal
PAGE 79
68 iP a t,2,jit i o::a l organizatio;.;;l pattern, a total 'Jf li6 staff members ernp 1 oyed. There would have been 41 full-time professional 2::d 5 part-tirr, c prcfessional staff members A ccr.1parison of T.:ibles 2 ui' d 3 ~hc~-;s th,,t 28 more persons v!ere e mployed, either on a full-time o r part tl:ne b2sis, in the differentiated staffing program than v,1ould kwe b,;ei1 rrnp::-iyd in the traditional staff organization. The new or9;:inizat!0n als o permitted the e mployment of paraprofessionals to perform nonprofessional tasks. -i"he school system mode l \ .Ja s composed of two major divisions, a staffins sub-:nodel and an implementation sub-model. The st.Jffing s1.!b:-.-;xiel c(1ntained a dc;~;cription of the severa l staff positions, the broad Cotegories of task5 that v1ere to be performed ln a school, .::,nd an cutl l n e of the structure of the faculty board, The irnple-:ra:taticn ."s:ubrriodel contained the minimum regulations -i:h: H h'ere to be folla~ed by a staff in developing a schcol model. The sthool ~ysU;;,? r ,,odel ,12:5 designed to p c r nit the creation of a staffing pattern t h a t ,:,,,t the p er:,rn,nel requirements of an instructiona l program. The ~I timatc purpose of such procedures was to provide better instruction of stL;:lc:;1,ts ,:.-113 to pre.mote a Seils~~ of profess ic,n:-;J ism ,.:;rnong the rh'3 p roc.e::Jures to be fol 1 o...ied by a schooi when irnpl ement ing a model, d~scribe J above, are necessarily stated in theoretical terms. --h d h .Je antt<:ipate C:.an~jes in behavrors 0f the participants were stated
PAGE 80
69 in hypothetical terms. An evaluation of the p!ogrsm durin g the initial year of operation was needed to determine what ch 2 nges in the school program would occur, if any.
PAGE 81
CHl\PTER V THE EVALU/1.T I ON OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM MODEL In the preceding chapter the ca~ponents of the model developed by Pillot (32) v1erc presented. Procedures to be follo.1ed in the development and operation of a school center model and the staff roles that could be filled by personnel within the school were briefly described. In this chapter c ertain qualities of the model are evaluated. The tasks performed by persons in the staff positions at Venice Junior High School a r[.:: described and compared to the theoretical descriptions of those positions that are in the model. The evaluation included a determination of the opinions of the professioi1cil st.aff to.Jard then~...., program. Also, the opinions of stude:its ta-drd the organization and instructional program of the school v1ere determined. The present chapter is composed of three major sections. The first : s the presentation of the data evaJuat!ng the differentiated staffing model. The second is composed of the data on staff rnor;;l e and professional staff opinion to.1drd the differentiated staffing program. The third section is comprised of the data pertaining to student: opinions on certain parts of the program. 70
PAGE 82
71 Eva 1 uat ion of, th(; Conponents of _the Model Autonomy of the Model Autonomy was def incd as that quality of the model that permitted the staff of a school, or a department within a school, to select a staffing pattern consistent with the needs of the instructional program. Autonany was determined in the folloNing ways: professional staff members were asked if, in their opinion, the staffing pattern selected matched the needs of the instructional program; and the staffing patterns of the several departments were examined to determine the extent of variability t ha t ex i s t ed. The staffing pattern for all departments is presented in Table 4. Analysis of the table sho.,Js that no tv10 departments were staffed in the sam e manner. Each department h a d a directing teacher, staff teachers, instructors, and aides. The differe nces in the staffing patterns were due to the varying numbers of persons filling each position and to the addition of certain specJ~l positions such as the volunteer assistant and adjunct teacher. T h e structure of the staff was also varied by the employment of pan-time aides. Each professional staff member \'las asked, 1100 you feel your department chose the staffing pattern best suited to your instructional program?" Twenty-seven persons ar.swered in the affirmative, 11 answered in the negative, and 1 was uncertain. More than half the professional staff felt the department chose the staffing pattern best suited to the instructional program. A factor that affected autonomy ~-.as the requirement imposed on the school center leadership that no presently employed staff member be
PAGE 83
T1-\SLE 4 DIFFERENTIATED ST/,,FFtN G PATTERN FCR VENICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOi., 1970-71 -------------D epartment Staff English 1 Directing Teacher 3 Staff Teachers l lhstructor 3 A ides l Instructional Assistant Mathematics l Directing Teacher 2 Staff Teachers 1 Instructor I Instructional Assistant 2.5 A ides 8 Student Assistants (one Science I Directing Teacher 4 Staff Teachers 2 A ides I Student Assistant Social St:udies Direr.ting Teacher 2 Staff Teachers ?. Instructors 2 A ides Physical Education 1 Directing Teacher 4 Staff Teachers I. 5 Ai des Foreign Language I Directing Teacher l Staff Teacher I. 5 Ai des 2 Part-time Staff Teachers Electives I Directing Teacher 2 Staff Teachers Z Part-time Staff Teachers 3 Instructors l. 3 Ai des 2 Part-time A ides l Adjunct Teacher 72 hour /day)
PAGE 84
73 T,D, BLE IJ, (cont i nu ed) ------------------------------------------------------Department Staff ---------------------------------Instructional Media Counseling and Administration I Part-time Directlng Teacher I Staff Teacher 3 Ai des 1 Student Assistant Staff Teacher Principal Directing Teacher (ResearchEvaluation-Staff Development) dismissed as a result of differentiating the staff. T~is meant in fact that sa11e departments, physical education as an example, simply renamed teachers as instructors and staff teachers. In those cases I ittle attempt was made to match the staff to the instructional program. Where fr.3edc.m existed to make alterations in the staffing pattern those departments did attenpt to satisfy the needs of the program. The variation among departments and the large number of professional staff members who felt the staffing p attern matched the requirements of the instructional program indicated that the model contained the quality, autonany. Fluidit-z: .9f the Model The fluidity of the m odel was that quality that permitted the staffing pattern of an individual department to ch 2nga at any time such action would better facilitate the achieve.-nent of instructional objectives. Any changes in the staffing pattern had t o be made within the. 1 imitations of legal and contractual obligations. This meant that persons could be reassign-=.d to differen t duties within a departrnent,
PAGE 85
but staff replacements during the school year could only be m2de if persons voluntarily resigned. Fluidity was determined through an examination of changes in personnel that occurred during the year and through the changes in the organization for instruct ion that occurred in the several departments. No members of the professiona1 staff resigned during the school year. Four teacher aides resign ed during the year. In each case personal reasons v>lere given for resigning the position. The tota1 allocation for the school \Jas 44.7 teacher units. The initial model by which the school began operation in Sept~1be r totaled only 42.175 teacher units. Shortly after the beginning of the school year, additional aides were employed in the mathematics and electives departments. An instructional assistant was added to the English department, one adjunct teacher was added to the electives department, and one volunteer assistant was added to the physical edu~ation department. The employed staff then totaled J.+l~.7 teacher units. The extra units were not used prior to the opening of school because members of the faculty board anticipated that some departments might be understaffed. HOt,Jever, this fact could not be knam until the school began operation and the duties of the departments had been identified and assigned to staff members. The organization for instruction of three departments was changed dur:ng the school year. The initial involver11ent of the members of the :nathematics department in differ8ntiated staffing was described in Chapter I I I. The curriculum revision begun by that department during the 1969-70 school year was continued during the 1970-71 school year. The basfc curriculum design was one of developing worksheets and other material to teach specific concepts of mathematics. Soon
PAGE 86
75 after the school year began, 1r, e mi.,e1 s of the dep21"tmcnt realized that a shortage of teaching plans existed. The teaching assignments of the staff were such that no one had an opportunity to produce additional materials. Folla'ling several days of discussion by members of the department, students were regrouped into larger classes. Each profes sional staff membe r was relieved of in3tructional duties for one-half day each week so that he could prepare curriculum materials. Members of the English department 'Nere assigned classes of 35 students each. They met with each tlass each day, including those periods when students were assigned to the special reading ro011 and the resource center. The resource center for the English department was located in the 1 ibrary. Recorded tapes, filmstrips, an d films were catologed there for individual student uti}ization. Tv,o professional members of the department were ass i9ned res pons ib i 1 i ty for planning the instructiona l program of the seven th grade, t\\lO others fer the eighth grade, and all the staff of the department shared responsibility for the ninth grade. Aides were assigned to clerical duties. Soon after the school year bEgan, mernbers of the department realized that the schedule did not provide sufficient planiiing time for them to prepare the instructional program. A new schedule was developed that reduced the time spent by the professional staff teacher in supervising students, al though each was responsible for the same number of students. Tvrn aides were rcass igned to the resource center anc reac.iing roan for that duty. An instructional ass 1stant, under the supervision of a staff teacher, vvas empioyP.d to ter1ch remedial reading. By reducing the number
PAGE 87
76 of hours the professional staff S;)en t supervising students, more planning time was arranged, and there were mere opportunities for the staff to woik together. The electives department 1vas common] y referred to as the "congl omerate11 d epartment by members of the school staff since several distinct disciplines had ~;een brough together to create the department. Music, chorus, typing, heme econa11ics shop, and the work experience program were combined into the electives department. One of the major items discussed by member s of the department \tJas h
PAGE 88
77 Th8 specifications were divide d Into the four categorie s of ad~inistrat1on, instruction, staff development, er:c.l r ::search-t!valuation-reporting. Assignments to be cornpleted in each area 1,1ere further specified by designating primary, rnajor, or assisting responsibility to each staff position. Primary responsibi1ity meant the person asked someone else to perform the task. Major responsi~il ity meant the person perform~dcthe task himself. Assisting responsibility meant the person assisted someone else in performing the task. Based upon logs of performance kept by the staff and observations of staff activities by the writer, charts of job performance were developed and com ~,ared to the job specifications in the model. The directing teacher The job specification of the directing teacher position is sha,,m in Tab! e 5. Th? chart of job .performance is sho, m in Table 6. A comparison of the two tables sha-;s that directing teachers performed more administrative duties than specified in the model. Directing te~chers performed the major t asks outlined in the area of research-evaluation-reporting except that they exercised different levels of responsibilities in that area. This resulted from the fact that in most departments the directing teachers had a distinct group of students for which they alone were responsible. At that same time, they ware responsible for the assignment of duties to ether members of the staff. In this way they were asking others to perform a task quite similar to the one they were doing thernsclv8s. The activities listed in the area of staff development compared favorably to those specified in the model. Activities performed in the area of instruction indicated that the directing teachers were involved in activities such as d eveloping instructional
PAGE 89
TABLE 5 JOB SPECIFICATION OP DlkECTiNG TEACHER Task Level of Responsibility A GM I N I S TRA T I ON 1. Providing budget data Team or department-wide C J.::, s s .-w i d e 2. Providing scheduling data--team-wide RESEARCH-EVALUATiON-REPORTING 1. Preparing and/or selecting and administering assessment tools for al) arcns (except staff) School-wide M Team or department-wide C 1 .::is s -v1 i d e 2. Ana1yzing and interpreting assessment results Sr:hco1-wide Team or department-wide C 1 ass-wide 3. Applying results to improve the appropriate area(s) School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 4. Reporting results to The staff The 1)rofess ion The parents The community The students 5. Designing and supervising research in appropriate areas p ? M p p M p p p M A A p A
PAGE 90
STAFF DE1JEL0PMENT 1. Evaluating staff for the improvement of performance Schoo,-w ide Team or dep~rtment-widc 2. Developlng systems to enc::ble st.;ff to improve performance INSTRUCT I ON l. Recommending staff for appointment 2. Recommending staff for dismissal 3. Organization for instruction--staff School-wide Team or department-wide 4. Organi7atlon for instruction--students School-wide Team or dcpartm6nt-wide 5. Organization for instruction--facil ities, materials, and equ i pm~nt 6. Instructing Schoo 1-w i de Tec::m or department-wide Cl ass-w lde ap = Primary responsibll ity M = Major responsibility A= Assistir.g respons1bi1 ity M p A M M M p M p M p p ?
PAGE 91
TABLE 6 JOB PERFORMANCE OF DIRECTING TEACHER Tusk Level o f Responsibility 1\ DM l N I S TR.i\ T I ON l. Advisln9 s".tudents cncurriculum choices 2. Providing schedule information--dcpartment-wide 3 Order! ng n1atcr i a 1 s and equipment 4. Scheduling students S. Part1cipati;,g in faculty boa.-d meetings 6. Conducting department meetings 7. Supervising student extra-curricular activities 8. Preparing budget for department 9. Supervising aides JO. Adjudicating student discipline cases 11. Reporting breaches of student discip1 ine to parents 12. P.e-scl1cdul ing of students 13. Ca.nplet:ng accreditation re?orts 1. ? .... ). L~. 5 6 RESEARCH-EV/\LUJ-\ TI ON-REPORT I NG Administering tests--department-wide ?reparing tests--department-wide Scoring tests--department-wide Recording test scores Investigating student backgrounds to plan pro gram o f instr u ctio n Reporting test scores to The staff The parents The students A a M M p M M M M M M M i'\ M p p M P, M p p M and A and M M and A and M 00 0
PAGE 92
STAFF DEVELOPMENT 1. Advising instructors on use of aides M 2. Conducting experiments to determine the_ effectiveness of certain teaching metnods M 3. Evaluating non-tenured staff members M Ll. Planning summer programs for staff improvement M 5. Developing training programs for aides A 5. Developing job specifications for aides M 7. Observing professional work of other staff manbers M 8. Participating In formal training programs such as co11ega classes and workshops M !NSTRUCT!ON l. Organizing students for instruction 2. Organizing staff for instruction--department-wide 3w Organizing work of student volunteer assistants 4. writing instructional objectives 5. Preparing instructional materials 6. Instructing Large sroups Smal 1 groups Individual ap = Primary res pons lbil ity M = Major responsibii ity A ==Assisting responsibility. M M M M p p p p and M and M and M and M co
PAGE 93
82 objectives tthich \'\1Cre not s pecified i n the model. Tl-:t~ development of instructiona l obj~ctives occupied~ maj o r portion of t~e time of the directing teacher. This was especially true in those departments where ne, J curriculum structures had been adopted. In one department the directing teacher developed daily objectives for the entire department. In the electiv es department, only the directing teacher w as qualified to teach typing, so the entire instructional program was planned and cxecutied by this person. The responsibilities of the directing teacher for participating in the faculty b oa rd and for directing the functions of the department were not outlined in the job specification. Most departments held ~eetings a l most daily. The faculty board met weekly, and there were assignments that 1t1ere given to the directing teach8rs during the course of those m e etings. Sub-canmittees of the faculty board were appointed during the school year to draft proposals of policie s to be deliberated by that body. No inappropriate levels of responsibil lty 1t1ere assigned in any of the function areas by the jo~ specification. The staff teacher The job specification for the position of staff teacher is sh0..vn in Table?. The job performance d escrirtion for the stoff tea ch e r position is sho,..,m in Table 8. A ccrnparison of the two tables sho.-Js that, with fetJ exceptions, the job specification and the job performc3nce of the staff teacher HGre very similar. The specificatio, 1 vrns written so that the staff teacher position hAd several administrative duties to perform. The j6b performance description indicated that the staff teacher position was actuilly involved in these duties.
PAGE 94
l 2. < _,. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. TABLE 7 JOB SPECIF I CAT I ON OF STAFF TEACHER Task Level of Responsibility ADM I N I S TR/\ Tl ON Providing budget data School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide Ccxnpi1 ing ddt.s and preparing budge:t Ordering and distributing supplies, equipme~t and materials Keeping student attendance Preparing accreditation reports Estabi :shir:g forms and sys~ems for data processing E5tabi ishin9 systems for data storage and dissemination Providing schedule data Schedu 1 i ng School-'l1ldc Team-wide Class-wide Inventorying materials and equipment RESEARCH-EW\LUA TI ON-RE PORT I NG A A M A A A M p A A 1. Preparing and/or selecting and administering assessment tools for all areas (except staff) School-wide Team or department-wide C l as s -\/ i d e M M p
PAGE 95
2 Analyzing and interpreting assessment results School-wide Team or department-w idc Class-wide 3. Applying results to improve the appropriate a;-ea (s) $Ch 00 l -W i d C Team or department-wide Class-wide 4. Reporting resu 1 ts to The staff The profession The community The parents The students 5. Designing and superv Ising research in appropriate areas of "!:he program STAFF DtVELOPMENT i. Evaluating staff for the improvement of performance School-wide Team or department-wide 2. Developing systems to enable staff to improve performance I NS TRUCT I ON ;. Re~cmmending staff for appointment 2. Recommending staff for dismissal 3. Organization for instructior.--staff School-wide Team or department-wide M M p M M p A M A M p A M M A A A A M
PAGE 96
1ABLE 7 continued Task INSTRUCT! ON 4. Organization for instructlon--students School-wide Team or department-wide 5. Organization for instruction--facil ities, materials, and 1equ i pment School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 6. Instructing at', 0-= Prirr:ary res pons ibil ity M = Major iesponslbil ity A= Assisting responsibility Level of Res pons ib!l ity A M A M p p co V,
PAGE 97
l .. .., L~ < ., 4. 5. 6. 7 8 9. 10. 11. 1 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. TABLE 8 JOB PERFORMP.NCE OF STAFF TEACHER Task ADM ~! I S TR/\ T l ON Providing scheduling ciata--school-widl;! Completing accr"'ditutlon reports Re-assigning students to classes Organizing data systems Recording student attendance Scheduling students Dlstr1buting suppl it:s Advislng~students on curriculum choices M&intalning budget for departraant Approving invokes for p:.irchased materials lnitL~ting requests for suppi ics c1nd equipment Inventorying materiais d()d equipment RESEARCH-EVALUATiON-REPORTING Preparing tests Administering tests Scoring tests Analyzing tests Scoring students workbooks Reporting test re:;u l ts to The staff The parents Developing student case histories Level of Responsibility Ma M A P. M A M A ,"i M M A M M M M M p M M and A and p and A and A co o,
PAGE 98
STAFF DEVELOPMENT 1. Attending department meetings 2. Participation in formal training programs such as college classes and workshops 3. Training aides for specific assignments !NSTRUCTION l. Preparing instructional materials 2. Instructing Lc;lrge groups Sma 11 groups Individuals 3. Organizing students for instruction Department-~..; ide Class-wide 4. Supervising resource centers 5. Supervising adjunct teachers 6. Conducting field trips 7. S~pervisfng volunteer assistants 8. Preparing materials for resource center 9. Writing instructional objectiv~s .a? P. = r1mary respons101 1ty M = Major responsibil lty A.= Assisting responsibility M M M P and M M M M A M A M M M M M 00 -....J
PAGE 99
68 In the area of research-ev .:ilu,;;tion-reporting, then-J were also la1ge areas of ;;igree ment between the job specification a:-:d the job performance descriptions. Because of the particular assignments given to the aides, staff tt~achers in sane departments often prepared, administered, and analyzed tests themselves. In other departments, the task v1as assigned to an aide. For this reason the staff teacher had multiple responsibilities in the area of research-evaluation-reporting. There was no evidence in the job performance descript!on to indicate that test results were applied to improve the instructional program. There was also no evid~nce of reporting test results to the profession or to the canmunity. In the area of staff development, tasks performed by the staff teacher were in agreement with those outlined in the job s pee if i cat ion. In the ~rca of instruction, staff teachers were not involved in recommending persons for employment nor for dismissal. The staff teacher was involved in the supervision of aides and special teaching positions, a task not 1 isted in t~e job specification table. The staff teacher performance expanded the category of instruct. ing to account fur different tasks p=rformed 1t,hen teaching varying sized groups. No inappropriate levels of responsibility were assigned in any of the funr:tion areas by the job specification. There was I lttle evidence that staff teachers performed tasks other than those of a traditional classroan teacher, except for the supervision of paraprofessionals. In the electives department, where a staff teacher was sometimes the only professional assigned to a given subject area, his behavior remained practically the sam e as in the previous
PAGE 100
39 year. fhe use of paraprofesslc:-,als cti d remov~ clerica l tasks fran the w ork of the staff teacher. In the physical education department, no change in the performance of the staff teacher occurred. The reason for this fact was that no p?rsonnel changes were made w hen the program ','./as begun. In the t:ng!Jsh depart_ r.ient, a staff t eacher possessed special exper tise in the area of remedial reading. This person supervised the work of an i nstructional assistant who was assigned to teach a small group of students. The staff teacher also served as a resource person to the entire department in the area of remedial reading. The instructor The job specification of the instructor position is sho:rn in Table 9. The job pe rform ance of t he position of instructor is sho.,rn in Table 10. A ca11parison of the t w o tables sho,'./s that in the area of administration the instructor did not perform a s many duties a s was specified in the model. No a c tivitie s pertaining to the providing of budget data, ordering supplies, preparing accreditation reports, establishing forms for d ata processing, or for inventor y ing materials and equipment was p erformed. N o t asks were performed by the instructor that were not I isted i n the job specification. In two instances, in api)ropriate levels of r esponsibi1 ity were assigned to positio ns in the job specification. Primary r es pons ibil ity was assumed fo1 scheduling students and for distributing supplies in the job performance d escription, wherea~ in the job specifi cation the assisting leve l of re.spon3ibilitywas assigned. In the area of research-evaluation-reporting, no activities were 1 isi:ed h the job performance descripti11n that were not specified in the
PAGE 101
TABLE 9 JOB SPECIFICATION OF INSTRUCTOR Task Level of Responsibility ADM l N l STPJ>. T ON I. Providing budget data S ctwo l -\Ji de A a T,3am o r department-wide A C 1 ass w id e M 2. Compiling data and preparing budget A 3. Ordering and distributing supplies, equipment and materials A 4. Keeping student attendance A 5. Preparing accreditation reportt A 6. i:stabl ishing forms and systems for data processing A 7. Establishing systen-1s for data storage and dissemination A 3. Providing scnedu1 ing data School-wide A Team or department-wide A C 1 ass -w i de M 9. Scheduling A 10. Inventorying materials and equipment A RESE,l1RCH-EVALU/\ T ON-P.EPORT I NG 1. Preparing and/or Sdlectin9 and administering assessment tools for all areas (except staff) School-wide Te3m or department-wide Class-wide A M p \..0 0
PAGE 102
2. Analyzing and interpreting assessment res~?ts School-wide Team or department-wide C 1 ass-wide 3. Apply:ing resu1ts to improve the appropriate ar.ea(s) School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 4. Reporting results to The staff The profession : The canmun ity The parents The students 5. Designing and superv:s1r.g research in appropriate areas of the program STJ\FF DEVELOPMENT l. Evaluating staff for the improvement of performance School-wide Team or department-VJ ide 2. Developing systems to enable staff to improve performance IMSTRUCTiON 1 Recommending for appointment 2. Recommending for dismissal 3. Organization for instruction--staff School-wide Team or department-wide A M p A M A M p A M M A A A A M \.0
PAGE 103
TABLE 9 continued Task INSTRUCTION 4. Organizstion for instruction--students School-wide Team or department-wide 5. Organization for instruction--facil ities, materials and equipment School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 6. Instructing ap = Primary respcnsibil ity M = Major responsibility ;.A= Assisting responsibility Level of Responsibility A M A M M p \.0 N
PAGE 104
TABLE 10 JOB PERFORMANCE OF i NSTRUCTOR Task ADM I N : S TR/-\ T I ON 1. Schedul lng students 2. Distributing supplies 3. Assignment of students to classes 4. Keeping attendance 5. Stori r.g data RESEARCH-EVALUATION-REPORTING 1. Prepari~g tests Department-wide CJ nss-w ide 2. Scoring tests 3. Analyzins tests 4. Recording test: results 5. Scoring student notebooks 6. Scoring individuals students projects 7. Reporting test:results to students 1 .... STAFF DEVELOPMENT Evaluating intern Partifipating in formal training programs such as college classes and workshops Attending department meetings Level of Responsibility M p M M M M M M A M M
PAGE 105
l 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I NSTR.UCT I ON Determining staff assignments Serving as u resource person to small groups Supervising work of small groups Preparing instructional objectives Developing instruct;onal materials Instructing Large groups .a Sma 11 groups Individuals P = Primary responsibi1 ity M = Major responsibii ity A= Assisting responsibility A M M A A M M M
PAGE 106
95 model The activities of applying i;est results to i rnp,ove instruction, and reporting test results to the profession, co;nmunity, and parents were not performed. In the area of staff d0velopment, aJl activities listed in the job performance description were also 1 isted in the job specification. No activities I isfe9 in the j_ob specification were emitted by the instruct0c; In the area of instruction, as was true in the case of the staff teacher, the job performance of the instructor sho.\led a supervisory function not 1 isted in the job specification. The j ob performance of the instructor expanded the instructing activit~1 to account for tasks performed with varying sized groups. No inappropriate levels of responsibility vJere assigned in the fLnction areas of research-evaluationreporting, staff development, or instruction within the job specification. There \ 'ids I ittle difference betv1cen the activities performed by the iGstructor and a teacher in a traditional program. Instructors were appoirited to the English, mathematics, social studies, and electives departments. In those departments, the instructor t\las treated as one among equals by other members of the professional staff. In the electives department, two persons were 1 isted as instructors even though during the previous year they had acted as chair,nen of onemember ciepartmr;nts. ln each case they were the only persons who taught their particular subjects. The instructional assistant The job specification of the instructional assistant is sha1n in T able 11. The description of job performance is slv.:.vrn in T<'lble 12. A c6mparison of the uvo tables sho.rvs that, in the ar3a of ad :ninistration, the fol 1orling activities 1 iste d in the job specification v rere not performed
PAGE 107
TABLE 1) JOB SPECIFICATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANT Task Level of Responsibility ADMINISTRATION 1. Providing budget dc::ta Schoo~ -w i ae Team or department-wide Cl ass-\Jide 2. Compiling data and preparing budget 3. Ordering and distributing supplies, equipment and materials 4. Keeping student attendance 5. Preparing a~creditation reports 6. Providing scheai..d ing data--class-vJide 7. Inventorying m.3teriais and equipment RESEARCH-EVALUATION-REPORTING l. Preparing and/or selecting and administering assessment too~ for all areas (except staff) School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 2. Analyzi~g and interpreting assessment results School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 3. Applying results to improve the appropriate areas School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide A A A A M A A ? A A A A A A
PAGE 108
4. Reporting results to The staff The profession The ccmmun ity The parents The students 5. Designing and supervising research in appropriate areas of the program STAFF DEVELOPMENT l. Evaluating staff for the improvement of performance School-wide Team or depar~ment-wlde 2. Devloping systems to enable staff to improve performance INSTRUCT I ON 1. Recommending for appointment 2. Reccmmer.ding for dismissal 3. Organization for instruction--staff School-wide Team er department-wide 4. Organization for instruction--students School-wide Team or department-wide 5. Organization for lnstruction--facil ities, materials, an.:! equ i pment Schoo 1-w id e Team or department-wide Class-wide 6. Instructing ap = Primary responsibility M = Major responsibility A= Assisting responsibility A M A ~ A p A M M A A A A A A A A A M p
PAGE 109
Ti'l.BLE i 2 JOB PERFO~MANCE OF I NS TRUCT ONAL ASS I STANT Task Level of Responsibility ADM I N I S TR.I', T I ON l. Keeping student attendance 2. Assigning students to classes 3. Monitoring studants during tests R.C:SEARCH-EVALUAT l ON-REPORT I NG 1 issuing test materia1s to s tudcnts M t.. Receirding .,_ -.)C" .... """"-~ t.. scores M 3. Repo.-ting test resu1 ts to staff M 4. Assigning grades to students A 5. Reporting test results to students A STAFF DEVELOPMENT I. Training student assistants for specific area of assignment M 2. Odent ing a :des A 3. Attending depar~~ont meetings M INSTRUCT,ON l. Su~ervising small study groups 2. Instructing students in specific concepts 3. lnstruct;ng students with specific learning problems 4. Organizing instructional materials ap = Primary responsibility M ::.; Major res pons ibi1 ity A= Assisting respons&6iliJy M A A M
PAGE 110
99 by the instructional assistc:nt: orJering and distributing supplies, materi-.,ls, and equipment, prepc ~ring a-:c.reditaticn r e p orts, and inventorying materials and equipm8nt. The activity 0f monitoring students during tests, perform~d by the instructional assistant, was not listed in the job specification. In the area of research-cvaluatior.-reporting, the folloAling activities were not performed by the instructional assistant: analyzing and interpreting test results, applying test result~ to improve instruction, and reporting test results to the staff, community and parents. No activities were performed that were not 1 isted in the job specification, In the area of staff development, all activities 1 isted in th~ job specification were performed by the instructional assistant. In the area of instruction, the activities of recanmending staff for appointment and d;smissal, and organizing staff for instruction I isted in the job specification were not performed by the instructional assistant. An inappropriate level of responsibility was assigned in the activity of instructing in the job specification. The instructional assistant instructed students in an assisting responsibility .~hen the primary level of responsibility had been assigned in the job specification. No inappropriate levels of responsibility were 2ssi9ned in any of the other function areas by the job specification. Instructional assistants were assigned to the English and mathE:matics departments. In the Engl is:1 d~partment, the assistant instructed a group of students in remedial reading by follCJt.Jing the dlrect:ions of a staff teacher. In the mathematics department, the instructic.nal assistant served as a resource person to students who asked for help. A large number of
PAGE 111
100 st~dents were assigned to a latge rocr1. Each stu<.h, ; ,t had his orm materials with which to work The instruct!cnal assistant supervised students while they v-iere in the room by 1valking amo;19 them and answering questions they had concerning theif assignment. A professional teacher was usually present in the roan also. The aide The job specification of the aide position is shONn in T able 13. Tl11~ job performance of the aide position is shewn in Table 14. A comparison of the two tables sho.\ls that, in the area of administration, the follo,1i119 activities were performed by the aide that ,Jere not 1 isted in the job specification: monitoring students taking tests and monitoring students in after-school assignments. The follOtJing activities were listed in the job specification, but they were not performed by the aide: providing budget data, ca~pil ing data and preparing budget, keeping student attendance, preparing acc1editai:ioi1 reports, providing schedule data, and inventorying materials and equip~er.t. In the area of research-evaluation-reporting, all activities per formed by the aide \\/ere listed in the job specification. The folJo....,ing activities were 1 isted in the job specification but were not performed by the aide: analyzing and interpreting test results, applying results to improve the appropriate areas, and r~porting test results to the profession, community, parents, and students. In the area of staff develcpment, aJl activities that were performed by the aide were listed in the job specification. The activity of evaluatt ing staff for the imp rovement of performance 1 isted in the job specification was not performed by the aide.
PAGE 112
1 '> .... 3. 4. s. 6. 7. TABLE 13 JOB SPECIFICATION OF Jl.lDE Task ADM I N I S TR/.\ T ON Providing budget data School-wide Team or department-wide C 1 ass-\"i i de Comp i 1 i ng datu and preparing budget Ordering and distributing supplies, equipment, and materials Keeping studern: attendance Preparing accreditation reports Providing schedul Ing data--class-wlde Inventorying r.1aterials and equipment RESEARCH-EVALUATION-REPORTING 1. Preparing and/or selecting and administering assessment tools for all areas (except staff) School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 2. Analyzing and i~terpreting assessment results School-wide Team or depan:ment-w ide C1ass-widc 3. Applying results to improve the appropriate area(s) School-wide Team or depdrtment-wide Class-wide Level of Responsibil lty a A A A A A /J.. A A A A A p A A A A A A 0
PAGE 113
4. Reporting results to The Staff The profession The community The p;:1rents The students 5. Designlng and superv1s1ng research in appropriate areas of the program I 2. STAFF DEVELOPMENT Evaluating staff for the improvement of performance School-wide Team or department-wide Developing systems to enable staff to improve performance lNSTRUCTION 1. Recommending for appo l ntment 2. Recommending for dismissal 3. Organizatio~ for instruction--staff School-wide Team-or department-wide 4. Organization for instr~ction--students Schoul-w ide Tear.~ or department-1:Jide 5. Organization for instruction--faci1 ities, materials, and equipment Schoo ,1-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 6. Instructing ap ::: Primary res pons ibil ity M::: MaJPr responsibility A::: Assisting responsibility A M A A,. p A M M A A A A A A A A A A p 0 N
PAGE 114
TABLE 14 JOB PERFORMANCE OF AIDE Task ADM I~ I S TR.AT I ON L M onitoring .~audents in afterschoo"i assignments 2 Monitoring students taking tests 3. Reproducing material s RESE/\RCHEVALUAT I ON-RE PORT I N G l. Preparir.g tes-::s--department-w ide 2. Scoring tests Depa itment-w i de Class-wide 3. Recording test scores 1 i 2. STAFF DEVE:..OPMENT Attending department meetings Attending training sessions for aides INSTRUCT I ON I. insLr ucting classes i n absence o f professional staff members 2. Duplicating instructional materi als 3. Distri b uting instructional materials 4. lnst:-ucting small groups 5 0 r g a n i z i n g r ~s ou r c e c e n t e r s ap = Primary respons ibi] ity M = Major responsibility A= Assisting responsibilit y Le v e l of Responsibil lty a M M M A A M M M M M M M A M 0 w
PAGE 115
104 In the area of instruction, all activities of instructing classes in the absence of professional staff me1nbers and instructing small groups performed by the aide were not 1 isted in the job specification. The activities of recanmending staff for appointment and dismissal and organizing staff for instruction listed in the job specification were not performed by the aide. No inappropriate levels of responsibility were assigned in any of the function areas of the job specification. Aides were assigned to all depar~ments. While they performed many clerical and routine tasks, they also were involved in the instructional process to a greater extent than was anticipated in the job specification. One reason for this occurrence was the pol icy adopted by the faculty board of not employing substitute teachers. The funds usually spent for that purpose were used to purchase additional instructiona l supplies and equ i pment \/hen a staff member was absent, the regular duties of that person were temporarily reassigned to other members of the department. Sane a ides were assigned duties in the resource centers of the departments. In this capacity they were responsible for organizing the equipment and materials of the center. Students who were assigned to the resource centers v1ere supplied with the appropriate materi als and equipment by the aide, The aide was also responsible for supervising the students while they were in the resource centers. An aide In the science department was assigned duties similar to those of a stockroom clerk. She prepared chemica l solutions, checked out equipment to students to use during experiments, and cleaned equipment.
PAGE 116
105 The student assistant ______________ ., The job specification of th,o, stude:1t assist2nt is sh0.vn in Table 15. The job performance of the s~udent assistant is shavn in Table 16. A coTaparison of the two tables shews that, in the area of administration, all activities performed by the student assistant were 1 isted in the job specification. The follONing activities listed in the job specification were not performed by the student assistant: providing budget data, compiling data and preparing budget, keeping student attendance, and providing schedule data. I In the area of research-evaluation-reporting, ail activities per-formed by the student assistant were listed in the job specification. The folla, Jing activities 1 isted in the job specification ~vere not performed by the student assistant: analyzing ar.d interrrcting test results, applying results to improve the appropriate areas, and reporting results to the ca11munity and the parents. In the area of staff development, no activities were performed by the student assistant. l "his situation occurred bec~use student assistants were employed for only a short period of time e-'lch day. Consequently, minimal interaction occurred betv1een the studei1t assistants and other staff members. In the area of instruction, all activites performed by the Stlldent assistant were I isted in the job specification. The fol laving activities that were 1 isted in the job specification were not per formed by the student assistant: recommending staff for a!Jpointment and dismissal, organizing staff for instruction, and instructing. No inappropriate ]e,1els of rP.sponsibility were assigned in any of
PAGE 117
TABLE 15 JOB SPECIFICATION OF STUDENT ASSISTANT Task A OM I N l S TAA T I ON 1. Providing budge~ data S Ch 00] -W l de Team or department-wide Cl ass-w icie 2. Compil in9 data and preparing budget J. Ordering and distrlbuting suppl les, equipment and materials 4. Keeping student attendance 5. Providing schedu1 ir.g data--cla5s-wide 6. inventorying materials and equipment RE SEARCH-EVALUAT ON-RE PORT I NG 1. Preparlng and/or selecting and administering assessment tools for all areas (except staff) School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 2. Analyzing and interpreting assessment results School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide Level of Responsibility A A A A A A p A A A 0 ()'\
PAGE 118
4. Reporting results to The staff The ccrnmunity The parents The studer.ts 5. Designing and supervising research in appropriate areas of the program STAFF DEVELOPMENT 1. Evaluating staff for the improvement of performance School-wide T~am or department-wide 2. Developi~g systems to enable staff to improye performance INSTRUCT I ON 1. Reco :rnnend i ng for appointment 2. Recanmending for dismissal 3. Organizing for instruction--staff School-wide Team or 9epartment-wide 4. Organization for instruction--students Schoo1-wide Team or department-wide 5. Organization for instructior.--facil ities, materials, ar.d equipment--class-wide 6. Instructing ap == Primary res pons ib1l ity M = Major responsibil icy A= Assisting responsibility A A A A A M M A A A A A A A A p 0 ""'-I
PAGE 119
TABLE 16 JOB PERFORMANCE OF STUDENT ASSISTANT Task ADM i NI STRATI ON 1. Distributing materials 2. Inventorying supplies 3. Duplicating materials RE SEARCH-EVALUATION-RE PORT I NG 1. Admin!stering tests 2. Recording test results ~. Reporting test results to The staff The students STAFF DEVELOPMENT None INSTRUCT I ON 1. OrganizJng students for instruction 2. Supervising students in resource centers 3. Preparing mateiials for instruction 8p = PrJmary res pons ibll ity M = Major responsibility A= Assisting responsibility Level of Responsibility A A A A A A A 0 00
PAGE 120
109 the function areas of the job specification. Student assista11ts were assigned to the mathematics, media, and science dep artments. In the mathematics department, student assistants administe red tests, helped organize and duplicate worksheets as they were needed, and monitored students while they were taking tests. In the media department, a student assistant operated a portable television ca mera The camera unit was used to videotape programs in the school and to record selected community events. In the science department, the student assistant assisted the aide assigned to the resource center in maintaining media materials and equipment. He also checked out materials and equipment to the students. Directing teacher of research-e_yaluation .. reportin9 and staff development Provision v1as made i dthin the structure of the model for a position to be createc,:1 that would contain only one or two of the function areas in the job specification. The position, dean of students, was renamed the directing teacher for r esearch-evaluation-reporting and staff development when the staff i v as differentiated. The job specification of the directing teacher for research-evaluationreporting and staff development is shewn in Table 17. The job perforrnance of this posit ion is sho,,m in Table 18. A comparison of the two tables sho.vs that activities in the areas of administration a11d instruction also occurred, even though these areas were not specified for that position. In the area of research-evaluation-reporting, all activities performed by the directing teacher were I iste d in the job sptcif!cation. The fol h.-,,.dr g activities 1 isted in the job specification were not performed by the directing teacher: preparing and/or selecting and administerihg
PAGE 121
TABLE 17 JOB SPECIFICATION OF DIRECTING TEACHER OF RESEARCH-EVALUATION-REPORTING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT Task Level of Re~ponsibil ity RESEARCH-EVALUATION-REPORT!NG 1. Preparing and/or selecting and administering assessment tools for all areas (except staff) School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 2. Analyzing and interpreting assessment results School-wide Team or department-wide C 1 assW i de 3. Applying results to improve the appropriate area(s) School-wide Team or department-wide Class-wide 4. Reporting results to The staff The profess ion The community The parents The students 5. Designing and superv1s1ng research in appropriate areas of the program M p p M p p p M A A p A 0
PAGE 122
ST/\FF DEVELOPMENT 1. Evaluating staff for the improvement of performance School-wide Team or department-wide 2. Developing systems to enable staff to improve performance P Primary responsibility M = Major responsibility A= Assisting responsibility M p A
PAGE 123
TABLE 18 JOB PERFORMANCE OF DIRECTING TEACHER OF RESEARCH-EVALUATION-RE PORT I NG AND STA.FF DEVELOPMENT Task Level of Responsibility ADMIN ISTRAT !ON 1. Developing schedule--school-wide 2. Planning program for ensuing year 3. Sharing responsibil Ity for administration of school program--school-wide 4. Adjudicating student discipline cases--school-wide RESEARCH-EVALUATION-REPORTING 1. Interpreting school program to The parents The staff The public The profession STAFF DEVELOPMENT 1. Evaluating staff performance--school-wide INSTRUCT: or,.; 1. Developing instructional objectives--school-wide ap = Primary responsibll ity M = Major responsibility A= Assisting responsibility Ma P and M A M M A A A A P and A N
PAGE 124
113 te~ts, analyzing and interpreting test results, applying results to improve the appropriate areas, and designing and supervising research in the appropriate areas of the program In the area of staff development, the activity performed by the directing teacher was 1 isted in the job specification. The activity of developing systems to enable staff to improve performance was not performed by the directing teacher. No inappropriate levels of responsibility in either of the function areas were assigned in the job s p ec i f i cat i on. One person was assigned as directing teacher of rasearch-evaluation reporting and staff development. Much of his time was spent in developihg a school-wide schedule, in co nsulting vlith the principal on administ_rative matters, in consulting 1t1ith staff members, and in overall supervision of data processing operations for the school. ,1though he continued to counsel sane students, the major change in his assignment 1t1as that 1 ittle time was spent adjudicating cases of student misconduct. Staff teache~ of guidance and counseling The job performance of the staff teacher of guidance and counseling is sham in Table 19. No job specification for this position was developed. in the model. An examination of the table shews that cictivities were performed in :ill the function areas by this position. Hol'lever, the special title given to this staff teacher might indicate the need for another function area to be added to the job specification in the model. The pr inc i.P.._~ The posit ion of principal was created within the structure of the model, but no job specification was dev~loped for that position. An
PAGE 125
TABLE l 9 JOS PERFORMANCE OF STAFF TEACHER OF GU!DANCE AND COUNSELING Task ADM I N I S TR.l\ TI ON l. Schedu1 ing stud~~ts 2. Establishing school attendance procedures 3. Withdrawing stude:1ts 4. Supervising data processing procedures 5 Maintaining student health records 6. Acting as 1 iaison w!th juvenile court 7. Distributing grade sheets 8. Distributing report carcis 9. Establ ishlng data storage and dissemination procedures iO. Coordinating registration for ensuing year RESEARCH-EVALUATION-REPORTING I Administering school-wide tests 2. Analyzing school-wide tests 3. Reporting test results to The parents The staff The students 4 Counseling with students Level of Responsibility Ma M M M M M M M M M p M A M A M
PAGE 126
STAFF DEVELOPMENT I. Participation in formal training programs such as college classes and workshops 2. Tralning staff in report card preparation procedures 3. Training staff in mechanics of school-wide schedule INSTRUCTION 1. Organizing orientation procedures for students 2. Supervising classes on field trips 3. Instructing Large groups Small groups ap = Primary responsibility M Major responsibility A= Assisting responsibility M M A M A A A V,
PAGE 127
116 intervle, v \\las held with the principal to determine i n 1 vhat ways he felt the role had ch anged since the bcg1ruing of the differentiated staffing program. During the interviev he made the fol l01dng points: l. The responsibilities of the position were at a more general level than had existed previously. 2. The principal spent more time in advising with the staff than in directing them. 3. Teachers had less direct contact with the principal'than they did in a traditional organization. 4. The duties of the position led more to development of the directing t eacher role than to development of other staff positions. 5. The relationships between the principal and those persons w ho were members of the faculty board were closer than in a traditional organization. 6. The duties of the position did not include curriculum or instr uctional supervision. The principal supervised the staff of his office an d served as chairman of the faculty board. He also continued to exercise overall supervision of all phases of the program and the operation of the school. Buslness ConJ u~~ed by the F aculty Soa rd The f aculty board was designated in the model as the pol icy making body of the school. The principal and al 1 directing teachers made up the membership of the board. Each member had 011e vote. The principal did not have veto po.var. The faculty board met once each week for a one-hour period. Extra meetings we r e h eld on an emerge ncy basis. The agendawere printed an d
PAGE 128
117 distributed the day before the meeting so that each mE::mber had time to acquaint himself with each it~n t o be discussed. Minutes of the faculty board maetings were analyzed to determine the kinds of items discussed during the meetings and the extent to which pol icy decisions were made by the board. A distinction was made in the analysis between those item s on ~hich a final decision was made and those on which an advisory opinion was rendered. The summary of the items considered and the kind of action taken in each case is sha, m in Table 20. A total of 18 items were considered. A final decision v,as reached on 10 items. Advisory opinions were expressed on 8 items. Analysis of the items indicated tha t matters of day-to-day concern were considered more often than items of pol icy. Long-rc1nge planning of the operation of the school was scarcely considered. Analysis of the minutes sh0t1ed that there was increasing ability on the part of board members to reach decisions with a minimum of discussion. This seemed to indicate that members of the board d eveloped greater facll ity in working together during the year. Teacher Opinions Te acher opinion v Jas determined by the use of tv,o instruments. One of these was ::he Purdue ieacher O_p_inio11aire. The second 1,,1as a structured i:-i-i:erview conducted vJith all professional staff me.mbers. _Put:,_t,1ue Teacher 9einionaire Data The Pur
PAGE 129
I terns TABLE 20 ITEMS OF BUS !NESS CONSIDERED BY THE FACULTY BOL\RD SEPTEMBER THROUGH MARCH l. Established the framervork through \r{h ich the board v-,ou l d ope:,:-ate. 2. E~tab1 ished the need to write policies for the schooi in administration, curricu1u;;i, instruction, and staff development 3. Rec~nmended to the school board the number of days that aides wouid be employed prior to the opening of school. 4. Advised the principal that he should appoint staff mt':!mbcrs to lunch room supervision. 5. Discussed th e Importance of accurate assessment and projection 6fthe needs for cons umable supplies for t h e year. 6. Discussed the importance of beginning and ending cl ass es on "i: i me. 7. Determined that the library should not be used as a c1 ass room. 8. Establ ishcd procedures for working with students whose behavior was repearedly unacceptable to the schoo1 staff. 9. Decid~d that additional teacher aides would be employed only when the need could b3 clearly established and when the tot a 1 teacher unit a 11 ocat ion had not been previously exhausted. Decision made Final Final Advisory Advisory Advisory Advisory Final Final Final 00
PAGE 130
10. Discussed the fact that some staff members were appearing late to class and were dismissing classes ear 1 y. 11. Recommended criteria for selection of a directing teacher for that school. 12. Decided that thetcost of a school n6'Jspaper and yearbook should be pa id by all staff me. rnbers and students 13. Approved a plan submitted by the members of the mathematics department to negotiate with members of other departments on their use of temporarily empty classrooms. 14. Approved, with modifications, a student dress code drawn up by members of the student council. 15. Discussed attendance record regulations 16. Requested the superintendent of schools to rescind an earlier request and thereby permit the employment of substitute teachers for the school. 17. Approved a re-arrangement of the student center to permit students to work in other areas of the campus. 18. Decided on ways in which the campus could be kept cleaner. Advisory Advisory Fina 1 Final Advisory Advisory Final Final
PAGE 131
1 20 in April, 1971. The Purdue test m0asured opinion on ten factors plus a total score that indicated morale. The results of the administration of the test in September, 1970, and in ,t\pril, 1971, ~re sho..vn in Table 21. In the table categories \ Jere establ !shed for "belo.v average," i'average," and "above average" scores. The expected percentage of persons who would score in each category was derived from the norm group. A canparison shavs that in September, the percentage of the professional staff thct exceeded the expected percentage in the 11belo..v average" category occurred on the follcv..Jing factors: s;,tisfaction with teaching, teacher rapport with principal, rapport among teachers, teacher salary, teacher load, curriculum issues, teacher status, and community support of education. In September, 1970, the perct::!ntage of 1he professional staff v1ho exceeded the expected percentage in the "above average" category occurred 0:1 th-== tv10 factors of school facilities and services, and community pressures. In April, 1971, the percentages exceeded the anticipated percentages on those two factors in that category. In Septanbcr, 1970, the percentage of the professional staff who exceeded the expected percentage in the "average" category occurred on the follo.,Jing factors: satisfaction with teaching, curriculum issues, and school facilities and services. In /l,pril, 1971, the percentage of the profess !onal staff who exceeded the expected percentage in the "average category'' occurred on the fol laving factors: tezcher rapport with principal, satisfaction with teaching, rapport among teachers, teacher load, and curriculum issues.
PAGE 132
1 I 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. TABLE 21 PURDUE TEACHER OPINIONAIRE RESULTS Factors Teacher rapport with principal Sat i sf act i on w i th : teaching Rappo r t among teachers Teacher salary Teacher load Curriculum issues Teacher status Community support of education September, 1970 Bel ON 31 33 56 31 26 41 43 59 5 4 36 51 61 46 49 Above 1 O 13 8 18 13 13 8 April, 1971 Bel"' Above averaoe Average avera ge 23%a... 54%a 23% a 25 23 4o 20 15 42 45 60 72 48 65 70 43 45 15 5 l 2 15 15 15 lO N
PAGE 133
9. School faciiities and services 10 1 O. Ccmmunity pressures 26 TOTAL 38 a based Expected percentages on b Number of teachers equals 40. 56 34 10 49 25 20 51 11 30 the norm group. 52 40 58 38 40 12 N N
PAGE 134
123 The percentage of the professional staff w ho scored belo.-v average on morale d ecreased fron September to April, while the percentage of the professional staff who scored average increased. The percentage of the professional staff who scored above average in mor~le a1so increased from September to April. In general, the change in percentages between the scores in September and April indicated a movement fron belOtJ average to average, and a movement fron average to above average. The increase in the percentages was observable on several of the factors and on the tota 1 score. Teacher lntervia-v Data During the first week of May, 1971, structure d interviews were held with every professional teach.fog staff merr.ber. Each person v1as asked nine questions about his perceptions of the differentiated staffing program. Four questions were designed to permit the person to identify significant aspects of the program. Five questions required a "yes" or "no'1 response. An opportunity v1as also given during the intervie,1s for persons to explain the reasons for their responses. The major improvements and weakness es of the differentiated staffing program reported by the profess iona1 staff are sha, m in Tables 22 and 23. The immediate concerns of the professional staff about t!-ie program are shewn in Table 24. The h!gh number of the professional staff v,ho suggested strengths of the program as conpared to the lOtJ num~er who made sug9estions of weaknesses and concerns points out the largely positive attitude of the staff ta.'lard their work. Six persons stated they did not fo2.el any weaknesses exlsted in the program.
PAGE 135
T.I\BLE 22 PER Ct I VED IMPR O V F / ff.NTS OF THE PROGRAM --------Improvements Flexibility in the utilization of staff More opportu~ity.fof indi~idual ized insiruction Common planning time for the department Use of paraprofessionals Teachers encouraged to examine profess i ona I performance Teacher involvement in decision making Resource center usage TABLE 23 Number of teachers 17 IS 1_4 13 8 6 5 PERCEIVED \JEAKNESSES OF THE PROGRAM Weaknesses Isolation of the departments Increased teaching load Lack of adequate financial support Anticipated lo. 1cr student achievement Administration not as efficient Faculty board becan es a nE..'\'J elite Salary differential insufficient --------------TABLE 24 NtirPber of teachers 1 I s s 4 3 2 2 IMMEDIATE CONCERNS JIBOUT THE PROGRAM -----------Concerns Program will not succeed Need additional plannlng time Ineffective staff utilization Increased teacher load Inadequate flnancing of the program I n sufficient fl ex i b i I it y Number of teachers l 2 6 6 4 4 2 124
PAGE 136
1 25 !terns mentioned by the profcssicnal staff as being improvements suggested that the program had affected both the areas of instruction and staff relationships. Listed w eaknesses of the program pointed out that an extra vJork load had been assumed by the staff. This had resulted in a lack of time for inter-departmental ccxnrnunication. The immediate concerns of the professional staff were illustrative of the facts that areas of the program needed additional study, and that the staff had a des ire to make more comprehensive plans for the second year. The ideas the professional staff perceived would help them if they were to b egin again are presented in Table 25. Their suggestions stressed heavily their concerns for adequate planning and ccmmunication before a program was begun. They also suggested that paraprofessionals should receive adequate training before e mployment. The responses of the professional staff to the forced-choice questions in the interview are 1 isted in Table 26. The responses sha-; th,3t some of the purported b enefits of differentiated staffing w ere beginning to find fulfillment a t Venice Junior High School, pnrticularly the involvement of teachers in decision m aking and the opportunity for the teacher to perform professional tasks. The responses also pointed out the fact that relationships among staff me:11bers had changed since the beginning of the program. Almost all teachers reported that they had closer relationships vJith members of their a,m department, but they had few relation::;hips with members of other departments. Opinion was almost evenly divided on whether a change in relationships with students had occurred. Of those who
PAGE 137
Suggestions TA.BLE 25 SUGGESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING PROGRAM Spend much time in planning the program All professional staff should be involved in planning Aides should be adequately trained for specific duties Have teaching materials prepared before beginning the program Communication channels among staff members should be abundant Hold workshops on specific areas of concern Positions in the hierarchy should be well-defined Extra effort required to begin the program Num!;,er of teac.hers 22 11 IO 7 6 3 2 2. 126 -----------------------------------Quest ions TABLE 26 TEACHER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW Responses Yes No Uncertain Does differentiated staffing require a greater initial effort? Is the greater effort justified? Have your relationships with students changed? Have your relationships with staff members changed? Do you feel you have mere opportunity to influence d~cisions that are made? Are you better able to perform as a professicnal teacher in this program? 34 30 20 37 25 25 5 3 19 2 7 7 11 3
PAGE 138
127 felt relationships had changed between the students and the staff, eight felt they were closer to students and eight felt they were not as close. Three persons stated they were close to those students they met in small groups only. S tudenL.Qe in ions Students were asked to compare their perceptions of the differentiated staffing program to that of the program of the previous year. A 15-item questionnaire was administered to a stratified random sample of 25 eighth grade and 25 ninth grade students. The seventh grade v:as not included because the previous year's experience of that group would have been based on an elementary program. The responses are shavn in Table 28. An examination of the responses sho.vs that students pcrce iv ed sever a 1 changes to have occurred in the organization of the school and the instructional program as a result of differentiated staffing. They approved of resource centers, individucal projects, and small group instruction. They did not approve of large classes where the teacher lectured to them. They reported that they had more teachers to knav this year. They did not see their friends as much this year, although they had the same opportunity to meet their fe110N students. They used more instructional materials. They did not get to talk to the teacher as much, but they reccsived more inform-'3tion frorn the teacher than fron teacher aides. l~ey also felt that teacher~ did not talk to groups of students as much in the differentiated staffing program. They reported that their schedules hsd not changed more than five times during the year and that they had no trouble remembering their schedule.
PAGE 139
TABL E 27 STJDENT O P I N!ON SURVEY Statements ------I have as much time to see my friends at school this year as I did last year I have not had the opportunity this year to meet as many of my fella,.: students as I did last year. I have more free time at school this year than I d i d I a s t yea r I have more teachers to get to kno:1 this year than I did last year. I do not get to talk to my teachers as much this year as I did last year. My teachers do not talk to my cl ass as a group as much as they did last year. I use more materials in school 1 ike filmstrips and tapes this year than I did last year. I spend more tim e working on individual projects this year than I did last year. I have a hard time rem embering my class schedule from day to day I 1 ike the large classes w~ have where the teachers present some inform ation to us. I 1 ike the classes where there are only a few students and the teacher. do not 1 ike to go to the resource centers. I ike working on individual projects better than working on group projects. I spend more time getting information from the teacher aides than I do my tea~her. My sched ule at school has changed more than five (5) tifTles this year. I 28 Responses Yes No 19 31 24 26 16 34 29 21 28 22 34 16 1 9 39 11 l 2 38 21 29 37 13 21 29 30 20 I 2 38 6 44
PAGE 140
1 29 Summary The differentiated staffing rr:odel vias evaluated on the follOtJing factors: autonomy, fluidity, job specification charts, and the faculty board. The data \vere indicative of the fact that the model possessed autonomy, the quality that enabled members of a department to select a staffing pattern consistent with the instructional program. The fluidity of the model was determined through changes in the organization for instruction that occurred in three departments. Fluidity was that quality of the model that enabled the horizontal differentiation of the staff to be changed when necessary to satisfy the instructional objectives. Based on changes in the organization for instruction that occurred in three departments, the conclusion was reached that the model possessed fluidity. The job specification charts that were developed in the model were can pared to charts of actua 1 performance of the staff. The job performance charts \vere developed fran logs kept by staff members and fran observations of staff activities by the writer. The comparisons indicated that many tasks that were performed by the staff were 1 isted in the job specification charts. Exceptions occurred in the directing teacher position where more administrative duties than specified in :the model were performed, and in the instructor and staff teacher positions where more tasks than specified were performed in the functicn area of instruction. The comparisons also indicated that some tasks 1 isted in the function areas of administration-evaluationreporting were not performed by the various staff members. Activities relating to budget preparation and the application of test results to improve instruction were cmnitted by most staff members.
PAGE 141
130 Other major areas of the study were the determ ir;at ion of staff and student opinion ta-Jard the program. A standardized instrument vJas administered to the professional staff in September, 1970, and in April, 1971, to determine morale. The measurement of morale t.5ken at the beginning of the school year was belOtJ that expected for the group. The scores attained on the second measurement indicated that morale had inEreased slightly during the year, altnough they were still bela\l the norm. During structured interviEWs conducted by the writer, the pro fessiona1 staff indi~ated they supported the program. They mentioned several areas of concern about the initial year's operation, h01ever, and indicated additional plans vJere needed for the second year. Student opinion of the program indicated that they approved of some aspects of the program. Their responses indicated that chonges in the instructional program and the organization of the school had affected the \-Jay they were taught. No attempt was made to determine if these changes resulted in improved learning by the students. The evaluative data are illustrative of the ways the model oper-ated and the opinions of differentiated staffing held by participants. Additional elaboration of some aspects of the data is ht.:lpful, ho:1ever, in making the description of the program more complete. Jn the next chapter, a summary of the entire study is presented and some ramifications of the evaluation are discussed. Personal relationships and reactions to the program that were not previously discusse d are presented.
PAGE 142
CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND DISCUSS I ON Summar}:'. This study was an evaluation of the initial year of operation of a differentiated staffing program in Sarasota County, Florida. An evaluation of the major components of the model vJas conducted as we11 as a determination of the opinions of the staff and students to.-,ard the program. The study was conducted during the 1970-71 school year. All staff members kept logs of performance through March, 1971. The 2?ur_due Teacher Oeinionair<:: was administered to the professional staff 1n September, 1970, and in l\pri1, 1971. Observations of the operation of th,J school were conducted period i ca 11 y by the writer frcrn October, 1970, through April, 1971. A questionnaire was administered to a stratified random sample of 25 eighth grade and 25 ninth grade students during March, 1971. A detern1 inat ion was made of the extent to which the model possessed two qualities, autonomy and fluidity. Autonomy was that quality that enabled a school center ahd/ur a department of a school canter to choose a staffing pattarn consistent with the requirments of the instructional pro9ra:n, An exc >nination of the staffing patterns of the various 131
PAGE 143
13 2 departments of the school center 2nd a determination of profess i ona 1 staff opinion as to the appropriateness of the staffing p2ttern demonstrated that the model possessed autonomy. Fluidity \ ,:as that quality of the model that enabled a school center staff, or a department of a school center, to change staff assignments any time the needs of the instructional program changed. All personnel changes and reassignments were examined to determine if they were made as a result of changing the instructional program. Assign~ents in three departments were altered during the year as a result of the needs of the instructional program. These changes were evidence that the model poss es s ed f 1 u id i t y. A job specification for each level of the staff hierarchy was developed in the model, except for the posit ion of principal. The job specificatioh was divided into four function areas--administration, research-evaluation-reporting, staff development, and instruction. Based on the logs of performance kept by staff members and observations of the operation of the school by the writer, a job performance descrip tion was developed for every position in the staff hierarchy. The job performance description :.vas compared to the job specification for each staff position. The job specifications did not contain descriptions of some of the activities performed in the area of administration. The function area of instruction did not account for varying teacher behaviors required v1hen instructing different sized groups. In the job specifications were 1 isted sane activities in the function area of research-evaluation-reporting that were not 1 isted in the descriptions of job performance of the several staff positions. A general observation
PAGE 144
133 was that there was 1 ittle differentiation in the roles of instructor and staff teacher. A difference did exist between those t v 10 positions and the position of directing teacher. The minutes of the faculty board meetings were analyzed to determine the extent of involvement of that group in decision making. While final decisions were rendered more often than advisory opinions, the board, most of the time, dealt with regulations and matters of day-to-day concern. There was less evidence that matters of overall planning or pol icy develop m ent were considered by the board. The minutes indicated an increasing facility on the p art of board members to reach decisions. The morale of members of the staff was determined in September, 1970, 2nd in April, 1971. The results sha'1ed a slight increase in morale over th2t time period. In general, the increase was from belo:-1 average to av erage and frcm zverage to above average. scores. During structured intervie,,s, staff members indicated that the strengths of the program included flexibility in the utilization of staff, more opportunity for individualized instruction, a c011rnon planning time for the department, and the use of par~professionals. They felt the w eaknesses of the program in~luded the isolation of departments, increased teaching load, and a lack of adequate financial support. The immediate concerns of the staff were that the program might not succeed, a need for additional time to plan the program, and a question of whether the staff w~s being utilized effectively. Members of the staff felt that a program sh~uld be well planned and that all persons sho:!ld be trained for their duties before beginning. They also felt they were ~ore involved in the decision making process and that they
PAGE 145
134 could better perform as professional teachers in a differential staff arrangement. The opinions of students were determined through a questionnaire administered to a stratified random sample of 25 eighth grade and 25 ninth grade persons. The questions asked the respondent to canpare parts of the differentiated staffing program to those of the program of the previous year. The responses indicated that several changes had occurred in the instructional program during the year. Students approved of small group and individual instruct ion and the resource centers. They disapproved of large lecture classes. They also indicated that their teachers organized their classes in a different manner tharl in the previous year, and that they \'lere required to use more instructional materials. Discussion When an educational innovation is begun in a school system, results are often expected from the change almost immediately. Little recognition is given to the fact that changes in human behaviors and program plans require continual efforts over long periods of time. Rather than quickly labeling a program a success or failure, developers might more properly give thou_sht to. areas of the program where changes are needed in order to accompl :sh the desired objectives. This study was designed to provide information about the activities that occurred dJJring the initial year of the differentiated staffing progtam. The next steps to be taken to bring about further impl ementation must be identified by the leadership of Sarasota County. Sane observations about the activities that occurred in the school can be made, hew ever.
PAGE 146
135 The ir.volve,,ent of persoi1nel of the Sarasota County Schools in the study of differentiated staffing began in 1968 ~n d included represen tatives frcxr : al 1 segments of the school system. puring the multi-year investigation, information was gathered about ongoing differentiated staffing models in the United States and plans for the development of the local program were formulated. Many of those plans were developed by persons in stat us positions in the school sys tern. The effort to involve all intereste d persons was genuine. Shared decision making was a major reason often stated for developing differentiated staffing. As one person remarked, 1'We wanted to avoid the idea that shared decision making meant, 11111 make a decision and share it with you.111 As Septer;iber, 1970, approached and the program had to begin operation, the time schedule 1 irnited the involvement in program planning of those teachers who became the staff teachers and instructors. No preservice training program was held for paraprofessionals. The effect of this action vtas evident during the early days of school. Instructors and staff t_e;:ichers rernarked that they \-Jould be happy to perform different kinds of assignments if they on I y knew what was expected of them. They were largely una,.-.,are of the components of the school system model. Also expressed in that statement was the idea that someone outside the school should tel i them what to do, r ather than their working out their o,m behavior patterns. As the year progressed, informal conversations held vdth staff members revealed that they were gaining a sense of control over the direction of the program and they were beginnir;3 tc express opinions as to the direction it should take. An example of this change was seen in their opinions about the schedule.
PAGE 147
A d escriptio n of the operation of the sche d ule 1as given in Chapter 111. During October, many members of the staff \1-H~re c ritical of the schedule because they felt it prohibited any flexibility in the department program. During the intervie.vs conducted in May, ho.,,1ever, the flexibility of the schedule was one of the points mentioned frequently as a strength of the program. The teacher unit allocation for the 1971-72 school year was reduced by five units. Staff members ca11mented on this fact quite often during the May intervie-vs. Their major complaint \-vcJs that the reduction would force them to aba ndon the greatly flexible schedule they had used during the 1970-71 school year. On their a:11: initiative they had learned to use the freedom provided by the schedule and they were willing to argue for its continuation. Another point of discussion concerning results of the study is the fact that differentiating the staff was only one of three major changes In the organization of the school and instructional program. The other t~vo v,ere the schedule change and curriculum revision. These changes were made ostensibly to facilitate the differentiated staffing program. The initial impact of the schedule change, as describe d above, v,as con foundi!1g ri.1ther than facilitating. Two results of the curriculum revision activities were to load the staff more heavily and to bring canplaints that differentiated staffing was too difficult. The work of producing daily instructional materials in sane departments prohibited the development of any long-i-3nge plans. In one department, where the curriculum had been developed prior to the beginning of school, m cmbe:s of the staff 'li8!"e able to assign themselves to their individual areas of exp~rtise. The assignrn8nts 1 ,1ere for general, overall supervision of the curri culum area rather than specific task performances, however.
PAGE 148
137 rhe relationships among men1b,3rs of the foculty board, and bet~veen members of the staff and the faculty board underwent changes during the year. The directing teachers were the former department chairmen who had been involved in plans for differentiating the staff to a greater extent than other members, as v1as pointed out in Chapter 111. Some of the members per.ceived the work of the faculty board to be that of providing overall direction to the operation of the school. They sensed that the principal had relinquished scme of his authority and that they had been made participants in the decision making process. Other members perceived that they were representatives of their departments to a conference \'ihere human and econc:rnic resources were distributed. This meant that the needs of the individual departments were considered first when decisions were made D .uring the year; the discussions by the board sho.'led an increasing tendency to11ard making decisions for the good of the entire school program. The telationship between the faculty board and the remainder of the staff 1 ,1as not as close in the early part of the program as it became later. So.-ne members of the staff perceived the faculty board to be a nEW elite that ruled the school. As one staff member stated, "The zdministration cf the school has changed frcm a monarchy to ai1 oligarchy." Certainly not a1 l staff members felt this way. The presence or absence of the feeling of isolation from the decision making process seemed to have been partly a function of th~ relationship that existed between the directing teacher and the remainder of :;he 3taff of a department. In some d,~partments the directing teacher reported fully the del iberaticns of the boa1d and invited the opinions of the other members of the department on given issues. In
PAGE 149
138 other departments the directing teacher d id not f eel an obligation to discuss the faculty board meetin gs or t o soli.::it the O j ) inions of other staff members. As time passed, respect for the faculty board gr0v-J a m ong members of the staff. The directing teachers becam e better able to report significant discussions of the board. During the interviews, the staff reported tha t there were opportunities to influence the decision making process. When asked to elaborate on this point, many persons stated tha t they existed through contact with the directing teacher. One p erson stated, "The directing teacher has becom e v ery g ood about asking our advice and t elling us ~ ,hat's going on.1 The feel ings expressed by some staff members to:iard the rr:embers of the f aculty board demonstrated that the existence of the bo ard could possibly h ave the opposite effect from that intended. The bo ard was created in the m od e l to e n able teach;;rs to s h are in the d ecision making process. Ho.1ever, a feeling g e n e r u l ly existe d among memb ers of the staff that they were all t eachers, and therefore equal, which l e d to r e s entment of the special position occupied by t h e directing teachers. The distinction made between t h e staff t eacher a nd the Instructor positions in the model offered 1 ittle b asis on ,,..,hich to differentiate the t w o roles. One cannot uttain t,,mure <;ls a n instructor, yet one had to achieve tenure to become a staff teacher. At Venice Junior High School b oth levels 111ere involved ins imilar functions b ecaus e persons in those positions could p erceive no differences between the roles. The centrul position oc, :upied in the hierarchy by the t w o levels, because of
PAGE 150
139 d heavy emphasis on teaching, requires a differentiation based on task an ~lyses rather than the one of tenure. The mode of differentiating betv-1een the directing teacher and the other professional staff positions was found to be based, in large measure, uron administrative tasks. The design of the model was such that the differentiation was to be made on the basis of the other three function areas. In Chapter 11 reference vrns made to the study by Kimball and McClellan (27) in vJhich they pointed out that differentiation among professionals in traditional public school organizations was based upbn pranotion to administrative ranks. This seems not to have changed during the first year of operation of differentiated staffing at Venice Junior High School. The directing teacher role was made different fron the others through assig~ments to the faculty board and to the status position as head of a given department. Finally, no provision was made in the model for the guidance and counseling function. During the 1969-JO school year, two guidance persons had been assigned to the staff of Vencie Junior High School. During the 1970-71 school year, a staff teacher of guidance and counseling was assigned to the staff. Maiy of the duties formerly performed by the t\;"O guidance counselors were reassigned to the directing teachers. A more thorough consideration of the tasks of this function and their approprJate assignment vJOuld make the job specification more complete. The changes in relationships among members of the staff, the many organizational and instructional changes in the school. and the desire expressed by the staff to improve the program before beginning a second year of operation are evidence that the differentiated staffing program
PAGE 151
140 at Venice Junior High School Hent through a 11shakedo. m cruise" during the 1970-71 school year. By giving attention to those aspects of the program that have not produced the results anticipated or desired, and by planning thoroughly and carefully the operation of the program for the second year more objectives of differentiated staffing can be attained. Conclusions and Recanmendations for Further Study Conclusions Based upon exar,,ination and analysis of the data presented above, the follcwing conclusions to the study are presented. The data indicat~Jd that the qua I ities, autonomy and fluidity, existed in the structure of the model. \-/hen charts of job performance of the staff were compared to job specification charts for each level in the hierarchy, the determination was made that the ~taff performed more duties in the function areas of ad ministration and instruction than were indic::cited in the job specificntions. Some tasks that 11ere 1 isted in the function areas of research-evaluation-reporting and administration were not perfonned by persons in the various levels of the staff hierarchy. Little differentiation v1as found to exist between the roles of staff teacher and instructor, The differentiation that existed between the directing teacher and other staff p')sitions ~;as based primarily on administrative duties rather thaniinstructional tasks. The analysis was also indicative
PAGE 152
141 of the fact that the guidance and counseling function was not 2ss igned to any of the function areas nor to Any level of the staff hierarchy. The data indicated that the faculty board considered routine items more often than matters of pol icy ahd planning. Final de~isions were rendered on slightly more items than advisory opinions. Teacher morale rose slightly during the school year. Hhile the increases vJer.e smal 1, a general movement fran belo..,r average to average, and from average to above averag~was noted. Teacher opinions to...,rard the program indicated that they favored the concept of differentiated staffing, but there were some prob .lem areas that needed additional consideration. Examples of tvJO areas of concern were the isolation among departments that had arJsen, and the need for additional time to p 1 an the next phases of the program. Student opinion t"'ard the program indicated that some changes had been made in the instructional program and the organization of the school since beginning differentiated staffing. Students reported that they preferred small group or individual instruction, and they 1 iked the resource centers. They also reported that their teachers did not talk to large groups of students as much as they did in the program of the previous year. An overall observation, based on al 1 the data collected, was that several changes in the instructional program had occurred because of differentiat1ng the staff. The initial year of operation of the program had revealed several prcbler-1s that required additional ::tudy before further implementation of differentiated staffing could occur. Most of the problems were expressions of the difficulties involved in
PAGE 153
142 implementing the concept of differentiated staffing, b u t some impediments were found in the structure of tf1c model itself. _0ecanrnend.'!lJ.l ons f <2.!:...u rthe_r-2._tud .'.l Realizing that changes in sorne parts of the model and alterations in the procedures of the program need to be made, the writer makes the fol 1 cw ing recommendations for further study. The recanmendation is made that a study be conducted of the roles of the instructor and the staff teacher. Consideration might be given to the idea that the presently existing distinction betvJeen the two positions should be changed to one more appropriate to the needs of an instructional program. A study of the job specification charts in the model might be undertaken for the purpose of broadening the scope of the function areas and of making a clearer definition of the staff hierarchy. Attention might also be given to the development of mechanics to impl ement the criteria of accountability described in the model. This vwuld provide sane bas is on \vhich to evaluate staff performnnce ar.d would further remove the concept of differentiated staffing frcm that of merit pay. Finally, an empirical evaluation of the second year of operation of the program shou 1 d be conducted to determine what changes in the per ceptions of persons ta.-.Jard differentiated staffing occurred during that time. The study might also determine what changes occurred in the tot~l school program during the second year.
PAGE 154
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. ,t-\]len, Dwight. 11A Differentiated Staff.11 Educr1tional Manpaver. Edrted by James L. 01 ivero and Edv1ard G. Buffie. Bloomington: -Indiana University Press, 1970. 2. 1'A Differentiated Teaching Staff.11 N&J York State Education, LVI I (December, 1969), 16-19. 3. 1 1lndlvidual ized lnstruction.11 California Teachers Association ----}..?urnal, LXI (October, 1965), 43-50. 4. And ersen, Robert H. 110rganizatio11r1l Character of Education: Staff Utilization and Deployment.11 Revie--J of Educationd i Research, XXXIV (October, 1964), 455-469. 5. Applegarth, Boyd. "lni.tial Proposal, Request for Grant Under E.P.D.A.,11 Beaverton, Oregon, 1968 (Mimeographed). 6. Argyris, Chris. !ntegrati!\9_!:he _Individual and the O..r.9:311ization. New York: ,John v/iley and Sons, 1964. 7. Baker, Gail, and Goldberg, Isadore. 11The Individualized Learning System.11 Educational L eadersJJ..!. XXVII (February, 1970), 775-780. 8. Barz12n, .J:icques. The American University. Ned York: Harper and Rc,, 1, 1968. 9. Be~t, John \.J. ~~~'2_earch in Education. Second edition. En9Je,. 1ood Cliffs, Nev, Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970, 10. Brinkman Marie Jean. 11Factors Related to Teache r Morale in Three Junior High Schools.11 Doctoral Dissertation, '.,.Jayne State University, 1966. 11. Buffie, Ed~vard G. and Smith, Gerald. "Educationa l Manpo.,;er in Perspective. 11 Edu cat i ona l Manpo,-rni:_. Edited by James L.. 01 ivero and l:dv-1ard G. Buffie. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970. 12. Catalyst in Education. Part-Time Teachers and Ho,; 1.:!:1..<:.Y.Jlork. NEW York: Cataly':st in Education, 1968. 143
PAGE 155
13. 14. Check, John F. 11D issatcisfaction in Teachino.11 Forum, XXXV (January, 1971), 175-178. The Educational Eble, Kenneth E. Education ch rcago: 11The College Teacher--Anguishe d Middleman.11 Higher and Af:!er _l_can_Democracx. Edited by Robert A. Golm-.rin. Rand McNa 11 y and Company, 1965. 15. Edelfelt, Ray A. 11Diffe:entiated Staffing: Is It Worth the Risk?11 Ne.-.r York State Education, LVI I (March, 1970), 22-25. 16. English, Fert 1dck. 11Paternal ism vs. Progress.11 Florida Education, XLVI (September, 1968), 12-14. 17. 11Temple City: From Theory to Practice.11 Florida Education, 18. 19. XLVI (February, 1969), 12-15, 26. '~n Interim Evaluation 1968-69.11 Educational and Edward G. Buff i e. Pr es s 19 70. of Oak Avenue Intermediate School, Manpo..-ver. Edited by J ames L. 01 ivero Bloomington: Indiana University 11Teacher May I? Take Three Giant Steps! The Differentiated Staff.11 Phi Delta Kappa':)., LI (December, 1969), 211-214. 20. Goldman, Harvey. 11The Nature of Curricular Relevance.11 Educational Leadership, XXVII (February, 1970), 489-497. 21. Gross, Ed1l'lard and Grambsch, Paul V. Univer~ Goals and Academic Po.-.rer. 1,,/ashington, D,C,: American Council on Education, 1968. 22. Guba, Egon G. and Horvat, John J. 1 1Evaluation During Development.11 Indiana Universin_School of Education Bulletin, XLVI (March, 1970), 21-45. 2.3. Hair, Donald. 11Differentiated Staffing and Salary Pattern Underway In Kansas City.11 School and Communitt, LV (April, 1969), 8-1 lf. 2!-f. Harris, Jasper W. "Modular Scheduling and Differentiated Staffing in a Ghetto School." School and Ccmmunitt, LVI I (Nov ember, 1 1970), 32-33. 25 Jackson, Philip w. 11The Teacher and Individual Differences. ~,~ividual ized_ Instruction. Sixty-First Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chi ca 90: Un iv.ers i ty of Chicago Press, 1962. 26. Kerl inger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. Ned York: Ho.lt, Rinehart and \{inst"on, 1964.
PAGE 156
145 27. Kimball, Solon T. and McClellan, James E., Jr. Education and the Ne" America. Ne,,., York: R andcrn House, 1962. 28. Kimbrough, Ralph B. Administeri ng_J: l ementa.!:Y_Schools. Ne.-., York: 29. 30. 31. 3 2. 33. 34. 35. M a crni 11 a n Ca11pany, 1968. Larn, Donald E. 11Proceed with Deliberation on Differentiated Staffing.11 Ne," York State Education, LVI I (March, 1970), 2426. Nikol.ai, Irvin. 11Differentiated Staffing: A Rationale.11 Educational Manec,.-.,er. Edited by J ames L. 01 ivero and Edward G. Buffie. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970. Nystrand, Raphael O. and Bertolaet, Frederick. 11Strategies for Allocating Human and Material Resources.11 Revie-., of Educational Research, XXXVI I (October, 1967), 449-468. Pillot, Gene M. 1'A Conceptual Design of a System Model of Differentiated Staffing.11 Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, 1970. Platt, Gerald M. and Pi3rsons, Talcott. "Decision-Making in the Ac aderr.ic Systffil: Influence and Po.,rnr E xchange.11 }_tie State of the_Universi~y~ Edited by Carlos E. Krutbosch and Sheldon L. Messinger. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1968. R and, M. John. l A Case for Differentiated Staffir:ig.l! California Teachers A.ss?ciation Journal, LXiV (March, 1969), 29-3f."""" Rand, M. John and English, Ferr,-.iick. 11To."ards n Differentiated Teaching Staff.11 Phi D elta Kapean, XLIX (January, 1968), 26Li.: 268. 36. Rudolph, Frederick. Th~America n College and University. NevJ York: R andan House, 1962. 37. Thc mpson, 'iictor. 11Bureaucracy and lnnovation.11 Administrative Scie~Quart~, X (June, 1965), 1-20. 38. Tim e to Teach Project. 11Time to Teach Act ion Report.11 Washington, D.C.: Department of Classroom Teachers. 39. Trusty, Francis.Ma nd Scrgio.,anni, Thanas J. 11Perceived Need Deficiencies of Teoch'e.rs and Administrator~.11 Educational i-'\drninistration Quarte rl):'., 11 (Autumn, 1966), 16)-180:-__ li-O. Unruh, Glenys G. and Alexander, William M. Innovations in Secondary Education. New York: Holt, Rinehartand \-Jinston, 1970.
PAGE 157
41. Utah State Department of Education. 11A Proposed FramEWork for Developing a Ne,v Instructional System.11 Utah (Mi meographed), 42. Weissman, Rozanne. ~taff Differentiation: Answer to the Merit Pay Debate.11 Florida Education, XLV (Dc:cember, 1968), 8J 2. ---------
PAGE 158
APPENDIX A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE 1. \,Jhat aspects of the differentiated staffing program are, in your opinion, considerable improvements over a traditional program? 20 What major aspects of the differentiated staffing program are, in your opinion, weaknesses of the program ca-npared to a traditional program? 3. What is your most immediate concern regarding the differentiated staffing program? lt. What ideas have you learned during the implanentation period that would help if you were to begin again? 5. In your opinion, is differentiated staffing \vorth the effort required during the implementation period? 6. Have your relationships with students changed? Ha1? 7. H
PAGE 159
APPEND lX B PUPIL OPINION SURVEY Bela,, are sone statements that may describe hew you think about several p:nts of your school program this year. If a statement expresses what you think, check the line in the 11Yes11 column. If a statE:ment does NOT express what you think check the I ine in the 11No" column. Check al I statements. AnsvJer as truthfully as you can. No one in the school w il 1 see your answers to the statements. Do not sign your name. Yes No 1. have as much time to see my friends at school this year as I did last year. 2. have not had the opportunity this year to meet as many of my fel lcw students as I did last year. 3. have more free time at school this year than I did last year. 4. have more teachers to get to kn
PAGE 160
Yes No 149 11. 1 ike the classes l'lhere there a;,3 only a f&1 students and the teacher. 12. do not like to go to the resource centers. 13. 1 ike working on Individual projects better than working 011 g_roup projects. 14 spend more time getting information frc:m the teacher aides than I do my teachers. 15. My schedule at school has changed more than five (5) times this year.
PAGE 161
APPENDIX C PURDUE TEACHER OPINIONAIRE 1. Deta i 1 s, "red tape," and required reports absorb too much of my time. 2. The work of individual faculty members is appreciated and commended by our principal. 3. Teachers feel f1ee to criticize administrative pol icy at faculty meetings cailed by our principal. 4. The faculty feels that their suggestions pertaining to salaries are adequat.ely transmitted by the administ~ation to the board of education. 5. Ou r pr i n c i pa 1 s h s favor i t i s m i n h i s r e 1 a t i on s w i t h the teachers in our school. 6. Teachers in this school are expected to do an unreasonable amount of record-keeping and clerical work. 7. My principal makes a real effort to maintain close contact with the faculty. 8. Community demands upon the tear;her's time are unreasonable. 9. I am satisfied with the policies under vJhich pay raises are granted. 10. My teaching load is greater than that of mbst of the other teachers in our school. 11. The extra-curricular load of the teachers in our school is unreasonable. 12. Our principal's leadership in faculty meetings challenges and stimulates our professional gr"'th. 150 A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D
PAGE 162
13. My teaching position gives me the social status in the canmunity that I desire. 14. The number of hours a teacher must work is unreasonable. 15. Teaching enables me to enjoy many of the material and cultural things I I ike. 1 6. My s ch oo 1 prov id es me w i th ad eq u a t e cl ass room supplies and equipment. 17. Our school has a well-bala nced curriculum. 18. There is a great deal of griping, arguing, taking sides, and feuding among our t eachers. 19. Teaching gives me a great deal of personal satisfaction. 20. The curriculum of our school makes reasonable provision for student individua l differences. 21. The procedures for obtaining materials and services are well defined and efficient. 22. G enerally, teachers in our school do not take advantage of one another. 23. The teachers in our school cooperate with each other to achieve common, personal, and p rofessional objectives. 24. Teaching enables me to make my greatest contribution to society. 25. The curriculum of our school is in need of major r evisions. 26. I 1 ove to teach. 27. If I could pla n niy career again, I would choose teaching. 28. Experienced facu 1 ty members accept ne'I and younger members as co 11 eagu es. 29. I ,'lould reccmmend teaching as an occupation to student s of high scholastic ability. 151 A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PO D A PA PD D A PA PD D
PAGE 163
30. If I cou 1 d earn as rnu ch money in another occupati on I would stop teaching. 31. The school schedule places m y class~s at a disadvanta9e. 32. \.Jithin the 1 imits of financial resources, the school tries to fol la.., a genercus policy r egarding fringe benefits, professional travel, professional study, etc. 33. My principa l.makes m y ~ork easi e r and more pleasant. 34. Keeping up professionally is too much of a burden. 35. Our conmunity makes its teachers feel as though they are a real part of the c o~munity. 36. Salary policies are administered with fairness and justice. 37. Teaching affords m~ the security I want in an occupation. 38. My school principal understands and recognizes good 152 A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D teaching.procedures. A PA PD D 39. Teachers clearly understand the policies governing salary increases. A PA PD D 4o. My cl asses are used as a "dumping ground" for prob] em students. A PA PD D 41. The 1 ines and methods of communication betvJ e e n teachers and the principal in our school are lell de;veloped and maintained. A PA PD D li-2. My teaching load i n this school in unreasonable. A PA PD D 43. My principal shews a rea l interest in my department. A PA PD D 44. Our principal promotes a sense of belonging among the teachers in our school. A PA PD D 45. My heavy teaching load unduly restricts my nonprofessional activities. A PA PD D 46. I find my contacts with students, for the most part, highly satisfying and re.,.J'3rding. A PA PD D 47. I feel that I am a n important part of this school system. A PA PD D
PAGE 164
48. The ca~petency of the teachers in our school canpares favorably with that of teachers in other schools w1th which I am familiar. 49. My school provides the teachers with adequate audio-visual aids and projection equipment. 50. I feel successful and ca11petent in my present posit ion. Si. I enjoy working with student organization~, clubs, and societies. 52. Our teaching staff is con gen i a 1 to work with. 53. My teaching associates are well prepared for their jobs. 54. Our school f aculty has a tendency to form into cliques. 55. The t eachers in our school work wel 1 together. 56. I am at a disadvantage professionally because other teachers arc better pr~pared to teach than I am. 57. Our school provides adequate clerical services for the teachers. 58. As far as I kn ON, the other teachers think I am a good teacher. 59. Library facilities and resources are adequate for the grade or subject area which I teach. 60. The "stress and strain" resulting fra11 teaching makes teaching undesirable for me. 61. My principal is concerned with the problems of the faculty an d handles these proble11s sympathetically. 62. I do not hesitate to discuss any school problem with my principal. 63. Teaching gives me the prestige I desire. 64. My teaching job ~nables me to provide a satisf~ctory standard of 1 iving for my family. 65. The s alary schedule in our school adequately recognizes teache r competency. 153 A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D /1.. PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D
PAGE 165
66. Most of the people in this ccmmunity understand and appreciate good education. 67. In my judgment, this community is a good place to raise a family. 68. This community respects its teachers and treats them 1 i ke profess i ona 1 persons. 69. My principal acts as though he is interested in me and my problems. 70. My school principal sui:e rvises rather than "snooperv i s es t h e t each er s i n ou r s ch oo 1 71. It is difficult for teachers to gain acceptance by the people in this community. 72. Teachers' meetings as nOI-J conducted by our principal waste the time and energy of the staff. 73. My principal has a reasonable understanding of the problems connected with my teaching assignment. 74. I feel that my work is judged fairly by my principal. 75. SalariespJid in this school syste-n compare favorably \'dth s alaries in other syste-ns with which I am fam i 1 iar. 76. Most of the actions of students irritate me. 77. The coop erativeness of teachers in our school helps make my work more enjoyable. 78. My studer1ts regard me with respect and seem to have confid~nce in my professional ability. 79. The purposes and objectives of the school cannot be achieved by the present curriculum. 80. The teachers in our school have a desirable influence on the values and attitudes of thei~ students. 81. This canmunity expects its teachers to meet unreasonable personal standards. 82. My students appreciate the help I give them with their school \-.Jork. 83. To me there is no more challenging work than teaching. 154 A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PO D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D
PAGE 166
84. Other teachers in our school are appreciative of my work. 85. As a teacher in this canmunity, my nonprofessional activities outside of school are unci.ily restricted. 86. As a teacher, I think I am as c011petent as most other teachers. 87. The teachers with V.Jhom I work have high professional ethics. 88. Our school curriculum does a good job of preparing students to become enlightened and competent citizens. 89. I really enjoy working with my students. 90. The: teachers in our school sha,.; a great deal of initiative and creativity in their teaching assignments. 91. Teachers in our community feel free to discuss controversial issues in their classes. 92. My principal tries to m~ke me feel canfortable when he visits my classes. 93. My principal makes effective use of the individual teacher's capacity and talent. 9L~. The people in this canmunity, generally, have a sincere and wholehearted interest in the school sys tern. 95. Teachers feel free to go to the principal about prob ] ems of personal and group v,el fare. 96. This caTtmunity supports ethical procedures regcHding the appointment and reappointment of members of the teaching staff. 97. This canmunity is \dl 1 ing to support a good program of education. 98. Our corrmunity expects the teachers to part icppte in too many social activities. 99. Community p:-essures prevent me frcm doing my best as a teacher. 100. I am well satisfied with my present teaching position. 155 A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D A PA PD D
PAGE 167
BIOGAAPHICAL SKETCH Max Stephen Skidmore was born June 30, 1938, at Decatur, Alabama. He was graduated from Priceville High School in May,, 1956. In Ju_ne, 1961, he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with a major in English from Birmingham-Southern College. From September, 1960, until June, 1963, he did graduate work at Duke Divinity School. He taught science from 1963 until 1966 in Decatur, Alabama. During 1966-67 he was associate director of a study of local school organization. Fro~ Septanber, 1967, until July, 1969, he was principal of West Decatur Elementary School in Decatur, Alabama. He reeeived the Master of Arts degree with a major in Edt.icat.ional Administration from the University of Alabama in June, 1968. He entered the University of Florida in September, 1969, to work ta,..,ard the degree of Doctor of Education. Max Stephen Skidmore is married to the former Barbara Jane Napps and is the father of two sons, Stephen and David.
PAGE 168
I certify that I have read this study and that in my op1n1on it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and qua] ity, as a dissertatio n for the degree of Doctor of Education. certify that I have read this study and that in m y op1n1on it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and qua I ity, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. I certify that I have read this study and that in m y op1n1on it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertatio:i for the degree of Doctor of Education. This dissertation was submitted to the Dean of the College of Education and to the Gradu ate Council, and was a cc epted as partia l fulfillment of the r equirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. /\usust, 1971 __ ________ Dean, Graduate Sch00J
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EUFL5CBIP_27USRR INGEST_TIME 2017-05-22T19:57:16Z PACKAGE AA00054897_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
|