UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Santa Barbara

Teachers, mandates, and site mediation: Influences on satisfaction and

dissatisfaction in two elementary schools

A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy

in Education

by

Pamela Yeagley

Committee in charge:

Professor Mary Betsy Brenner, Chair

Professor Sharon Conley

Professor Carol Dixon

March 2008

UMI Number: 3297633

32976332008

Copyright 2008 byYeagley, Pamela

UMI MicroformCopyright

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

All rights reserved.

by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

The dissertation of Pamela Yeagley is approved.

____________________________________________ Carol Dixon

____________________________________________ Sharon Conley

____________________________________________ Mary Betsy Brenner, Committee Chair

January 2008

iii

Teachers, mandates, and site mediation: Influences on satisfaction and

dissatisfaction in two elementary schools

Copyright © 2008

by Pamela Yeagley

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank my advisor, Betsy Brenner, for her guidance and

unflagging patience during my time at UCSB. Betsy, you are a true pleasure to

work with and an admirable role model for me. I hope one day to touch the lives

of as many people as you do. Thanks are also due to the other members of my

committee Carol Dixon and Sharon Conley. Thanks Carol for your groundedness

and insights which have done so much to improve my skills and my work.

Thanks Sharon for the research that you have allowed me to build upon and for

your engaging and open interactions. I could not have asked for a better

committee.

None of this would be possible without my family. Thanks for all of your

love, support, and compassion: I only wish that Thurman could share this joy with

us. I especially want to recognize my father. You are always there for me Dad,

and especially so during the trying times while I pursued my advanced degrees.

You always know just what to say and how to make me smile.

I cannot say enough to recognize all of the caring and competent

professionals who work in schools. I am especially appreciative of the teachers

who allowed me to interview them for this dissertation. I owe you much respect

for the job you do so well and gratitude for your time and invaluable insights.

v

Vita of Pamela Yeagley

January 2008 EDUCATION Doctor of Philosophy in Education, Specialty in Qualitative Research Methods,

University of California, Santa Barbara, 2008 Master of Arts in Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2004 Cross-cultural, Language and Academic Development (CLAD) Certificate,

California State University, Northridge, 1998 Multiple Subject Credential Program, California State University, Sacramento,

1993 Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies, California State University, Sacramento,

1991

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT 2007-present, Research and Evaluation Program Advisor, Northwest Regional

Education Laboratory 2005-2007, Program Evaluator, Instructional Tools in Educational Measurement

and Statistics (ITEMS) 2003-2006, Instructional Associate, University of California, Santa Barbara 2002-2004, Graduate Student Researcher, Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers in

using Technology 1996-2006, Elementary Educator, Oxnard School District

vi

Abstract

Teachers, mandates, and site mediation: Influences on satisfaction and

dissatisfaction in two elementary schools

by

Pamela Yeagley

This dissertation describes a study of how educational mandates affect

what happens in schools and classrooms and the impact on teacher job

satisfaction. An interview guide was designed incorporating items to include

information on Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the Profession, Teacher Control in

Decision Making and Implementation, and Changes in Teaching Life. A specific

focus is placed in the study on teacher control, the teacher work environment, and

job satisfaction. Interview questions were included to capture differences and

similarities in these areas at the classroom, site, and larger domains, including

state and federal levels. Participants were 12 teachers from 2 Title I elementary

schools, 1 regular and 1 dual immersion charter school, with high minority and

high English language learner populations. The study indicates that teachers find

satisfaction through several aspects concerning students, such as teaching, student

learning, and influencing students (Lortie, 1975). Dissatisfiers were wide ranging

and included lack of professional autonomy, external demands, and pastoral care

(looking after the personal and social wellbeing of children under their care). The

two groups of teachers in different schools related a difference in their influence

vii

as decision makers concerning content taught. The regular school teachers

reported having a much smaller proportion of control when considering the

influence from the larger domain. Teachers reported few areas where they desire

more control but many instances of participation in areas where they had desired

control, suggesting a more action-based schema rather than a theoretical schema.

Analysis of changes in teaching life showed differences between the two groups.

Regular public school teachers talked more about content and assessments while

charter public school teachers talked more about support and development of

profession. This study underlined how the larger societal context influences

teachers’ control and job satisfaction.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1

Project Description .....................................................................................7

REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE..........................................................10

Significance of Job Satisfaction ...............................................................13

Work Environment Components..............................................................16

Work Environment Dimensions ...............................................................19

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Work Features..........................................20

Occupational Rewards of the Profession..........................21

Role Ambiguity and Routinization...............................................22

Centralization of Authority...........................................................27

Involvement in Decision Making .................................................29

Charter Schools ............................................................................34

Charter School Job Satisfaction........................................36

Charter School Work Environment Components.............37

Charter School Work Environment Dimensions..............38

Intrinsic and extrinsic work features ....................38

Role ambiguity and routinization .........................39

Centralization of authority....................................39

Involvement in decision making ..........................40

Rationale of Study ....................................................................................41

ix

Research Questions ..................................................................................42

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY......................................................................44

Research Design .......................................................................................44

Context .........................................................................................44

Sample ..........................................................................................46

Instrument.....................................................................................48

Procedures ....................................................................................51

Researcher ....................................................................................52

Analysis ....................................................................................................52

RESULTS.............................................................................................................54

Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the Profession............................................57

Teacher Control in Decision Making and Implementation ......................59

Who Decides What is Taught? .....................................................60

Who Decides How Content is Taught? ........................................61

Who Decides Which Materials Are Used?...................................62

Who Makes Budgeting Decisions? ..............................................66

Do Teachers Desire More Control?..............................................68

How Can the Decision Making Process Be Improved? ...............69

Teachers as Street Level Bureaucrats...............................71

Role Ambiguity and Routinization...................................73

Changes in Teaching Life.........................................................................78

x

Summary of Results .................................................................................80

DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................82

Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the Profession............................................82

Teacher Control in Decision Making and Implementation ......................83

Do Teachers Desire More Control?..............................................86

Changes in Teaching Life.........................................................................88

Future Research ........................................................................................88

References ................................................................................................91

xi

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Summary of Sample ................................................................................49

Table 2: Major Categories for Interview Questions ..............................................51

Table 3: Comments Per Category Concerning “Least Favorite” Part of Profession

.......................................................................................................................59

Table 4: Comments Per Category Concerning “Who Decides What is Taught” ..61

Table 5: Comments Per Category Concerning “Who Decides How Content is

Taught” ..........................................................................................................62

Table 6: Comments Per Category Concerning “Who Decides Which Materials

Are Used” ......................................................................................................64

Table 7: Sunshine School – Number of Times Teachers Mentioned Themes

Related to Domain of Decision Makers ........................................................65

Table 8: Heritage Charter School – Number of Times Teachers Mentioned

Themes Related to Domain of Decision Makers...........................................65

Table 9: Number of Comments Per Category on How Decision Making Can Be

Improved........................................................................................................70

Figure 1: Sunshine School Teachers – The Proportion of Influence by Domain in

Classroom Decisions .....................................................................................85

Figure 2: Heritage Charter School Teachers – The Proportion of Influence by

Domain in Classroom Decisions ...................................................................85

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

One of the main foci in the current educational reform movement is

teacher accountability. This strand of the reform movement is based on the idea

that enhanced attention to accountability will improve teaching, and as a result,

student performance. A mandate that is often referenced in school reform is the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB,

2002) which recently came up for reauthorization. The White House released a

report stating that NCLB would increase accountability for student performance,

focus on what works, reduce bureaucracy and increase flexibility, and empower

parents (White House, n.d.). Among the priorities for NCLB are: improving the

academic performance of disadvantaged students, boosting teacher quality,

moving limited English proficient students to English fluency, promoting

informed parental choice and innovative programs, and encouraging freedom and

accountability. One of the intended methods of boosting teacher quality is by

ensuring “that federal funds promote the use of scientific, research based and

effective practice in the classroom” which effectively dictates to teachers how

they are to teach (White House, pp 12-13, n.d.). In addition, sanctions are enacted

if students fail to meet performance objectives, essentially making teachers

directly responsible for student achievement (even when someone else tells them

how to teach.) The state level implementations of NCLB have been in place for

2

some time and are considered standard practice. What impact has NCLB had on

the education system? How has it changed what happens in schools and in

classrooms?

The responses to the implementation of NCLB are mixed. Scholars point

to the positive impact of NCLB in placing greater emphasis on the success of at-

risk students, such as English language learners and students living in poverty

(Hoff, 2007; Piché, 2007). Many have praised the high academic standards that

states enacted to ensure student proficiency levels (Houston, 2007; Piché, 2007).

Researchers have also focused on the impact that NCLB has had on raising

teacher standards, creating greater accountability, and increasing school choice

(Butzin, 2007; Houston, 2007; Hunter & Bartee, 2003; Wood, Lawrenz, Huffman,

& Schultz, 2006).

Others critique the more restrictive aspects of the mandate and the

confounding effect it has had on schools and teachers (Abedi, 2004; Apple, 2007;

Brooks, Libresco, & Plonczak, 2007; Butzin, 2007; Wood et al., 2006). Critics of

NCLB assert that because of the rigidity of the mandate, teachers are less able to

meet the individual needs of their students and the achievement gap is widening

(Apple, 2007; Brooks et al., 2007; Johnson, 2007). There is also concern in the

education community that the parental choice promised by NCLB is not being

exercised and programs like charter schools are not functioning as expected

(Apple, 2007; Butzin, 2007; Likis, 2006).

3

Charter schools are a valuable context in which to examine the impact of

NCLB on the work lives of teachers. The authors of NCLB noted that they could

provide an arena for more parental choice. As schools and districts adapt to the

imperatives of NCLB, charter schools potentially have more flexibility to meet

accountability demands. The basic idea of charter schools is to remove some of

the bureaucracy that restricts schools and teachers and free them to innovate,

implement new models, and better facilitate student success. The tradeoff for this

freedom includes at-will employment of teachers (they can be fired at any time

without a reason), and regular charter renewals (if this renewal is denied, the

school closes down).

The charter school movement has continued to flourish since NCLB was

implemented. In 1992, California enacted charter school legislation and was the

second state to do so, after Minnesota. According to the California Charter

Schools Association, there are now over 600 charter public schools in the state

serving close to 220,000 students (2007). Charter schools can be started by

parents, teachers, or private organizations. They might be a “conversion school,”

meaning transforming an existing school into a charter school or a “start up

school,” meaning creating a new school that is a charter school from conception.

There are charter schools at the elementary, junior high, and high school level.

Most charter schools are small (200 – 300 students) and serve a variety of

students, including low-income students and minorities.

4

At their inception, charter schools were thought to both give more

accountability to teachers and free them of some of the bureaucracy of regular

public schools. With this freedom, teachers would innovate and provide new

models for teaching. Charter schools would essentially function as laboratories for

school change. The efficient and responsive programs that were developed at

charter schools would act to influence the education system at large. There is

however, debate as to whether the classroom- and site-level changes in charter

schools are having the predicted effect on student achievement or the larger

education system (Bomotti, Ginsberg, & Cobb, 1999). Since there is little

research on these changes within charter schools, they are important sites to study

for increasing understanding the impact of NCLB on school functioning.

Certainly, NCLB has resulted in other changes in public schools

throughout the country. At the classroom level, more and more tasks and activities

are being required of teachers (Valli & Buese, 2007). For example, teachers are

expected to prepare students for and administer tests and process paperwork.

Although teachers are expected to implement these classroom changes, they may

have little say in deciding how instruction-related changes will be implemented

(Bivona, 2002; Dinham & Scott, 2000; Ingersoll, 1994; Scott, Stone, & Dinham,

2001). To the degree that teachers have less input into making decisions about

implementing these instruction-related changes, it would appear that there is a

5

shift in control away from teachers (Corwin & Borman, 1988; Ingersoll, 2003;

Valli & Buese, 2007).

In any organization, there needs to exist a balance between control and

consent, and schools are no different (Corwin & Borman, 1988; Ingersoll, 2003).

A level of control must be exerted in order to ensure acceptable levels of student

achievement, efficient use of resources and coordination of work. This control

must be balanced with employee consent in order to secure teacher commitment

and motivation. Put simply, in order for schools to function well parameters in

which to operate are needed as well as teacher agreement with those parameters.

If there is an imbalance of control and consent, difficulties arise in meeting

program goals, with employee satisfaction, and employee turnover.

With the assertion of control through accountability-based requirements

for documentation and reporting, and the standardization of many facets of

teaching, observers suggest that overall teacher workload has increased and the

pleasures of the job have decreased (Lumsden, 1998; Woods, 1994). The added

paperwork and testing requirements appear to have enhanced routinization (a rule-

pervasive atmosphere) and teacher role overload, leading to decreased teacher job

satisfaction (Bivona, 2002; Conley, Bacharach, & Bauer, 1989). For example, the

International Teacher 2000 Project, which surveyed over 3000 teachers and

school administrators in Australia, England, New Zealand, and the USA, revealed

that teachers “rated their overall occupational satisfaction as low” (Scott et al.

6

2001, p. 4). In a series of papers, the researchers explained how control is linked

to aspects of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. They found that over time, the

source and strength of satisfiers (areas in which teachers were satisfied) remained

the same while the strength of dissatisfiers (areas in which teachers were

dissatisfied) increased because of educational and social change and that “control

was a key issue” (Dinham & Scott, 1996, p. 3)

Control and consent in the forms of faculty decision making and

autonomy are also connected with lower teacher turnover rates (Ingersoll, 2001).

Many researchers have discussed the teacher shortage in this country (Ingersoll,

2001; Madsen & Hancock, 2002; Stevenson, Dantley, & Holcolmb, 1999). One

misconception is that teachers already in the profession retire faster than new

teachers enter the profession. However teacher recruitment is not the main reason

for the teacher shortage (Ingersoll, 2001). Using data from the School and

Staffing Survey (SASS), Ingersoll determined that dissatisfaction with the job and

pursuance of another job are both listed as the reason for leaving the profession

nearly as often as retirement (2001). This inability to retain teachers already in the

profession and its impact on the teacher shortage highlight the need to consider

control, satisfaction, and dissatisfaction of teachers active in the profession as

significant features in teacher retention.

California has been affected by the trends of reform and accountability in

a unique way because of the great number of minority students, and English

7

language learners in its public schools. California’s Public Schools Accountability

Act (PSAA) of 1999 and the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001

target both minority students and English language learners as “at risk”

populations and cite specific improvement goals for them. Changes in policy,

specifically PSAA and NCLB, are often looked to as a way of giving equal

treatment. This however is not the reality of PSAA and NCLB. “Students of color,

living in poverty, and for whom English is a second language are facing more not

fewer education barriers, the exams are exacerbating, not lessening, inequality.”

(Hursh & Martina, 2003, p. 3).

In addition to the testing demands, what else has NCLB changed in public

schools, especially those serving “at risk” students? Research has explored how

instruction has changed and that teachers feel pressed to teach to the test (Valli &

Buese, 2007). However, other aspects of teachers’ work lives remain largely

unexplored. Specifically, how have NCLB and other mandates affected teachers’

perceived and desired control and their job satisfaction?

Project Description

The increase in accountability and shift in control has undoubtedly

changed the work setting for many teachers (Ingersoll, 1994; Scott et al. 2001). It

is vital to understand how teachers feel after major mandates such as NCLB and

PSAA, sentiments that may not be visible in research conducted prior to these

8

mandates. To what degree do teachers feel a sense of control or are performing

their jobs as they perceive them? How does this affect their ability to meet the

goals that have been set for them?

A survey of teachers in elementary schools in California indicated that

teachers want more control at each level of classroom, site, and state (Yeagley,

2005). Lower levels of perceived control and especially the discrepancy between

amounts of perceived control and desired control were linked to lower levels of

satisfaction (Yeagley, 2005). Some of the written comments pointed to

implementation of recent mandates as a source of dissatisfaction (Yeagley, 2005).

No interviews were employed in this study, but they might give a fuller picture of

how teachers view these mandates and how implementation affects their work

life.

A body of work on policy implementation exists that used interviews to

give greater insight into teacher mediation of policy (Alamillo & Viramontes,

2000; Garcia, 2000; Garcia & Curry-Rodriguez, 2000; Maxwell-Jolly, 2000;

Paredes, 2000; Schirling, Contreras, & Ayala, 2000; Stritikus & Garcia, 2000).

These are specific to Proposition 227 (i.e. a proposition concerning the use of

languages other that English while teaching). Broadening the focus to include

teacher identified policies or mandates may provide an information base that

indicates which policies or mandates teachers determine most affect their job

control.

9

Yeagley’s study suggested that policy implementation and the resulting

shifts in control influenced the participants’ experience of satisfiers and

dissatisfiers (2005). However, specific aspects of policy implementation were not

explored in detail. For example, in collecting information for and keeping records

on their students, do teachers feel that they are experiencing the elements of the

profession that satisfy them? Also, are the differences in the policy makers’ stated

aim and the potential disconnect from teachers’ final implementation in the

classroom related to this change in experience of satisfiers and dissatisfiers? It

may be that what policy makers see as beneficial to students, such as standardized

testing, teachers see as detrimental.

This study seeks to better understand how laws and other mandates change

what happens in schools and classrooms. How do teachers view these external

goals? Are the mandates helping teachers to meet the needs of their students or

merely complicating their job? Do teachers feel that these mandates and goals are

unnecessarily shifting control away from teachers or are they glad that someone

else is making these decisions so that they can concentrate on teaching? Does the

school environment change how teachers perceive these mandates and the affect

on their classrooms? Do these mandates change how satisfied teachers feel about

their job?

10

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE

The importance to the education system of teacher job satisfaction has

been established by many researchers. This chapter begins with an overview of a

few large scale projects that have drawn attention to specific aspects of interest in

job satisfaction and its connection to the work environment. These aspects include

rewards and motivations of the profession, teacher decision making, and teacher

control. A more detailed discussion of the contributions to job satisfaction of both

work environment components and work environment dimensions follows. The

impact of external mandates and goals on teachers’ core work in the classroom is

also explored.

One group of researchers whose literature is influential in the area of

teacher satisfaction is Dinham, Scott, and Stone (1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003)

whose International Teacher 2000 Project was mentioned previously. They set out

in their project to benchmark and better understand teachers’ occupational

satisfaction levels (2000). A machine readable survey of mostly pre-coded items

and some open-ended question was used. Dinham & Scott (1996) discussed an

eight factor model of teacher satisfaction. Their model included: School

Leadership, Climate, Decision-Making; Merit Promotion and Local Hiring;

School Infrastructure; School Reputation; Status and Image of Teachers; Student

Achievement; Workload and the Impact of Change; and Professional Self-growth.

11

Findings from 529 teachers and school administrators from 47 public primary,

secondary, and specific purposes schools in Australia were reported in their 1996

paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Association.

They found the matters that most interfered with effective teaching and caused the

greatest dissatisfaction were mainly outside the control of the teacher and school.

Some of the examples listed were the support given to implement changed

policies, increased expectations on schools, and the nature of educational change.

In their 1997 paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Association, a similar sample of 892 Australian teachers and school

executive was surveyed and the work from the first phase of the Teacher 2000

project was extended (Dinham & Scott, 1997). In this data set, teachers reported

being most satisfied with aspects most closely related to the core of teaching

(student achievement; professional self-growth) and least satisfied with system

and societal factors (workload and impact of change; status and image of

teachers). These findings were consistent with the first phase results. A third band

of factors revealed themselves in this phase of the study. Researchers noted the

school level factors (school leadership, climate, decision-making; school

infrastructure; school reputation) elicited reactions that are more mixed. This third

band of factors had not been identified by their previous research

One of the papers about the International Teacher 2000 Project included a

US data set and the stated results were different from the results of the other

12

countries (Scott & Dinham, 2003). The US data were collected in New Jersey in

elementary, junior and high schools prior to NCLB. Teachers from the USA

recorded higher satisfaction with the aspects of teaching when compared to the

participants in other countries. However, the model was changed from 10 to 16

factors because the original model did not produce a fit. This was attributed to the

differences in how teachers conceptualize their work, especially the range and

scope of responsibilities. The authors put forth a hypothesis that pressures from

changes in the education system and societal criticism of teachers grew in

importance while the more core aspects of teaching receded concerning the

amount of job satisfaction generated. The US data was collected before NCLB

and so does not reflect how this mandate and the resulting shifts in control

affected teacher job satisfaction. Research is still needed to understand how the

changes from NCLB affect US teachers’ work life and job satisfaction as well as

the difference that site level factors have on implementing external mandates and

the core work of teachers.

Richard Ingersoll is a researcher whose work is influential in the area of

teachers’ work life and organizational factors affecting them. His research looks

at how decisions made by others impact teachers’ work. In his work on control in

schools, he draws from the School and Staffing Survey (SASS), which uses

questionnaires to survey principals, administrators, and faculty. It is one of the

largest and most comprehensive sources of data on schools. In his 2003 book,

13

Ingersoll used the data on secondary schools from the first three rounds of the

SASS (as the fourth cycle had not yet been officially released), interviews with

teachers and administrators in secondary schools, the School Assessment Survey,

the International Survey of the Locus of Decision-Making in Educational

Systems, and a field study of four schools in the Philadelphia area. In his book he

discussed: the organization of school; the distribution of decision making

influence in schools; teacher accountability; factors that control the work of

teachers; and organizational centralization and decentralization. Ingersoll found

that even at its highest, teacher power and control are low. However, Ingersoll did

not examine the question of whether teachers want more control and how this

influences their job satisfaction, an issue that will be discussed further in this

chapter.

Significance of Job Satisfaction

Teachers’ job satisfaction is important to the education system because it

is related to school effectiveness, student learning and teacher retention (Woods &

Weasmer, 2004) and a quality school environment (Verdugo, Greenberg,

Henderson, Uribe, & Schneider, 1997). The level of teachers’ job satisfaction

understandably affects the quality of their work and raising teacher morale not

only raises job satisfaction but also creates a positive atmosphere for students

(Bivona, 2002; Woods & Weasmer, 2004; Young 1998). Young reports that

schools with high Teacher Morale were effective and schools with low Teacher

14

Morale were ineffective in a longitudinal study of school effectiveness in 28 West

Australia high schools (1998). Michaelowa (2002) finds that teacher job

satisfaction exerts both a positive and significant influence on student learning in

her discussion of Program on the Analysis of Education Systems (PASEC) data

on five African countries. She states that “teacher job satisfaction is a means to

promote good teaching and thus high education quality” (p. 19) which in turn may

lead to higher student learning.

However, it is difficult to maintain high quality education if teachers leave

the field because of their dissatisfaction. Presently, there is a problem in staffing

schools, not because of a lack of teachers entering the profession but because of

the high numbers of teachers who leave the profession (Ingersoll, 2001). This

migration out of the field is not mainly due to retirement, but other reasons,

including dissatisfaction (Ingersoll, 2001). If workers lack autonomy (or the

ability to do their job as they choose) in rule implementing, they “have little sense

of control over their work and thus feel dissatisfied with and alienated from their

work” (Conley & Muncey, 1999, p. 108). The feeling of powerlessness from

lacking participation, and by participation I mean taking part in decision making,

leads to dissatisfaction and may lead to teachers’ uncertainty about their

involvement in the profession (Conley et al. 1989). Conley et al. (1989) and

others (Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1990) suggested that in order to improve schools,

a work environment that enhances teacher job satisfaction and increases their

15

professional commitment should be provided (Verdugo et al., 1997). Before

striving for enhancement of job satisfaction though, an understanding of job

satisfaction theory is necessary.

One theoretical framework widely used to conceptualize job satisfaction is

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, 2003). His work in the 1950s and

1960s centered on employee motivation and is still considered influential. In this

article, originally published in 1968, he draws on 12 different investigations and a

sample of over 1600 employees, including teachers (Herzberg, 2003). Basically,

his theory states that job satisfaction is gained from factors separate from those

that generate dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 2003). Herzberg’s model aligns job

satisfaction with job content and factors that promote growth, while he aligns job

dissatisfaction with job environment and factors that promote dissatisfaction

avoidance (Herzberg, 2003). When applying this framework to teacher job

satisfaction, student achievement is an example of a satisfier and increased

paperwork is an example of a dissatisfier. Student achievement can be seen as part

of the job content and increased paperwork can be seen as something that keeps

one from the more satisfying elements of the profession. The factors that promote

satisfaction and dissatisfaction are present in different arenas in a teacher’s

professional work life. These different arenas can be termed the work

environment.

16

Work Environment Components

The work environment is directly connected to teacher job satisfaction and

quality of education. Conley et al. (1989) discussed the teacher preparation and

compensation reform movement within the framework of the work environment

and teacher career dissatisfaction and asserted that work environment directly

impacts the satisfaction of teachers with their profession in a paper that analyzes

both elementary and secondary schools in New York State. Michaelowa (2002)

also connected improved classroom environment with higher teacher job

satisfaction and quality of education. A 1997 report by the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) found that the better the workplace conditions, the

higher teacher satisfaction is. But what exactly is included in the work

environment?

The work environment can be categorized into two more specific areas of

classroom environment and site environment with class size and nature of

students included in the classroom environment and type of school and school

setting included in site environment (Conley et al. 1989; Michaelowa, 2002).

Ingersoll (1994) included administrative structure, which encompasses

management, coordination, planning and resource allocation, in the site

environment. This previous research has most often focused on only the two

levels of classroom and administration (most often on site administration, mainly

principals) and may therefore miss the vital effect of the society and organization

17

to which these sites and classrooms belong (Ingersoll, 2003). There is growing

evidence that influences beyond the school site also impact teacher control and

job satisfaction.

In addition to examining the work that teachers do (or what happens in the

classroom) and their local environment (or what happens at the school site)

researchers have begun to examine a wider sphere. Including this in their

investigations enables a better understanding of the larger educational system and

how its influence is exerted at the site and classroom levels. One such study that

examined how this wider sphere influenced what happens in the classroom was

conducted by Dinham and Scott.

Dinham and Scott expanded the Two-Factor Theory in the Teacher 2000

project and found that while many education changes did not impact the satisfiers

or the satisfaction strength they did have a dynamic impact on the form and

strength of dissatisfiers (1998a). The researchers concluded that these changes in

the dissatisfiers were a response to changes in the education system and society in

general (Dinham & Scott, 1998b). They also asserted that there was a Third

Domain which needed to be taken into account in order to properly situate teacher

satisfaction (Dinham & Scott, 1998b). The three domains are 1) matters intrinsic

to teaching, 2) school based factors and 3) society and the education system.

The Third Domain includes both system and social forces and is a

framework that I will use to categorize other authors’ findings on the topic. The

18

Third Domain can be said to be “…an array of extrinsic contextual factors which

are beyond the school and in the wider domain of society and government which

are increasingly impinging upon schools…" (Dinham & Scott, 2000, p. 13). An

example of system forces is the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

(NCLB), which issued mandates influencing education including “improving the

academic achievement of the disadvantaged.” (Title I, section 101). In 1996, SB

1777 created incentives to reduce K-3 class sizes in California, which is another

example of system forces. An increase in the disruption of the larger social

system and a decrease in respect for teachers, social workers and family

counselors are further examples of social forces (Bourdieu, 1998). Poppleton,

Gershunsky, & Pullin (1994) cited demographic movements, declining birthrates

and structural economic changes as reasons for educational change in their cross-

national study of teacher satisfaction stating that the reasons for educational

change are “complex” (p. 327). In Creemers’ 1994 Model of Educational

Effectiveness, the “Context Level” included quality of polices, national testing,

time schedules and national guidelines for curriculum as factors that contribute to

educational effectiveness. In his investigation of influence and control in schools,

Ingersoll (2003) examined the governmental and nongovernmental groups that

hold control over teachers’ work.

This wider sphere tends to include influences from society at large and the

education system in its function as a bureaucracy. Of the above citations, only

19

one, Ingersoll, looks exclusively at the responses of teachers from the United

States. This may be because of the nature of this country and its education system

in that states usually control the legal and fiscal policies of public schools, and

states show marked variation in policies. Ingersoll’s research suggests that

researchers need to examine the three domains of classroom, site, and larger.

Work Environment Dimensions

It is not only work environment components or domains that need to be

taken into account when control and teacher job satisfaction are explored, but

other work factors as well. In his seminal composition on teachers’ work entitled

Schoolteacher, Lortie (1975) investigated the work life of teachers. He identified

how different work environment dimensions, such as tasks, time use, and

interpersonal relationships interplay with the realization of rewards and job

satisfaction. His work has been expanded by many scholars and updated to

include more modern trends in education.

In one such study examining teacher professionalism, Conley and Muncey

(1999) identified several work environment dimensions where conflict between

teachers and the organization may potentially occur. They found a statistically

significant association of work environment dimensions and job satisfaction in

their study of five elementary schools in an urban district in the Southwest. Four

of these work environment dimensions are: intrinsic and extrinsic work features;

20

role ambiguity and routinization; centralization of authority; and involvement in

decision making (Conley & Muncey, 1999) and are outlined in the following

sections.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Work Features

As Lortie (1975) stated, the very structure of the teaching occupation

favors distribution of psychic or intrinsic rewards. He asserts that these intrinsic

rewards mainly rotate around classroom events and student relationships, however

they are subjective in nature so they vary from teacher to teacher and can fluctuate

as well (Lortie, 1975). Extrinsic rewards exist independently of any specific

individual occupying a role and are more objective in nature, such as income and

level of prestige (Lortie, 1975). In the context of his study, Lortie found that effort

has little effect on realizing extrinsic rewards but might increase intrinsic rewards

(Lortie, 1975). Lortie asserts that the very organization of schools is loose

enough to give teachers at least some say in the distribution of psychic or intrinsic

rewards. Therefore, it would be expected for teachers to concentrate on intrinsic

rewards (Lortie, 1975).

In their work, Conley and Muncey (1999) conceptualized intrinsic work

features as the characteristics that professional workers expect to be present in

their job. They list elements such as using “complex or high-level skills in

carrying out their work… and performing whole tasks that allow them to see the

results of their work” (Conley & Muncey, 1999, p. 109). Because of the essential

21

nature of the profession, it possesses its own set of rewards and motivations,

which are often connected with teachers’ decisions to enter the profession. In

looking at why people entered the profession, one has a greater insight into the

features that these people expected to be present in their work. In the following

paragraphs, I will discuss these rewards and motivations.

Occupational Rewards of the Profession

Much has changed in our society and schools since the founders of the

common school and progressive reformers put forth the idea of democracy

through education. Although the role of teachers has changed, their motivations

have remained somewhat stable since that time. Dewey (1903) proposed three

motives in education; affection (giving love to children), social growth (the

welfare of society and its progress) and scientific inquiry (the interest in

knowledge and in scholarship). These three motivations are similar to ideas

articulated by Lortie (1975). In Schoolteacher, he examined the reasons people

enter the teaching profession. He listed: the interpersonal theme (the desire to

work with people/children); the service theme (the opportunity to render an

important service); the continuation theme (wanting to continue in the school

setting or school-linked pursuits); material benefits (such as money, prestige and

job security); and the theme of time compatibility (the work schedule is attractive)

(Lortie, 1975). Parallels between the two scholar’s categories can be seen.

22

Dewey’s affection, social growth, and scientific inquiry fit with Lortie’s

interpersonal theme, service theme, and continuation theme. Although Lortie does

not cite Dewey, it appears some similarity in categories exist.

In more recent studies of teacher satisfaction and dissatisfaction, a number

of these themes emerge including the interpersonal theme (Brunetti, 2001;

Cruickshank & Callahan, 1983; Dinham & Scott, 2000; Priyadharshini &

Robinson-Pant, 2003; Scott et al., 2001) and the service theme (Brunetti, 2001;

Cruickshank & Callahan, 1983; Dinham & Scott, 2000; Priyadharshini &

Robinson-Pant, 2003; Scott et al., 2001). While not all of these studies examined

the respondents’ motivation for entering teaching, or rewards they derive from

their work, it can be assumed that these themes are important to teachers now as

determinants of satisfaction or dissatisfaction and could have been present from

the genesis of their career. It is clear that teachers as a whole expect to have an

impact on students and society. Since none of the above studies employed

interviews with a US sample, the fuller picture, expressed in teachers’ own words,

of attaining these expectations in a post-NCLB climate was not articulated.

Role Ambiguity and Routinization

Pursuance of the above satisfiers may be tempered by the amount of

ambiguity and regulatory control present in teachers’ work life. Role ambiguity

and routinization encompasses the balance between providing enough clarity to

23

progress toward work goals and too many rules or too much structure in dictates

(Conley & Muncey, 1999). Determining role ambiguity includes certainty in

knowing how much authority one has. This may be especially difficult to

operationalize for teachers considering the different spheres in which they may

have authority or control, such as classroom, site, and larger.

Another uncertainty may arise in this dimension when workers’ own

perception of their role differs from policy makers’ perception of their role. For

example, the motivators for entering the profession have remained somewhat

stable. However, what these professionals are asked to do has changed

dramatically. The PSAA asserts the need to create an “…accountability system to

hold each of the state's public schools accountable for the academic progress and

achievement of its pupils…” (p. 1) while teachers may not see academic progress

as the only, or even the main function of their role (California State Legislature

1999).

What are the responses of teachers to these changes in policy? In the

above section, motivations for entering the profession and satisfiers of teaching

are discussed. Students figure highly in the categories. I have found no studies

that list being part of a bureaucracy as a satisfier or a motivator for entrance to the

profession. However, that is the reality of working in the public school system –

teachers are bureaucrats.

24

Scholars have written about teachers’ role as street level bureaucrats

(Bourdieu, 1998; Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985; Fuller, Noel, & Malouf,

1985; Kelly, 1994; Maupin, 1993; Meier, 1993; Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977).

From this perspective, teachers as street level bureaucrats are accountable to their

students and the public agency they represent. Teachers are the final implementers

of policy that has often been dictated without their input, as well as being

responsible for the education of their students. In this role of implementer,

teachers mediate policies and mandates (Osborn & Broadfoot, 1992, 1993;

Stritikus & Garcia, 2000; Vulliamy, Kimonen, Nevalainen, & Webb, 1997;

Woods, 1994). Their beliefs and values might align with the policy being

implemented and might not. Therefore, they may adjust their beliefs and values to

align with the policy, or retain their values, which are at odds with the policy

(Woods, 1994). In this final implementation of policy, they can truly comply or

tactically comply with mandated policy. This often results in a rift between policy

and implementation.

As working with students and seeing their success is a great motivator of

the profession, taking away from that focus can be seen as detracting from

satisfaction and may cause conflict. Since those making the policies and those

implementing them may have very different views and interests (Maupin, 1993;

Walker, 2002), regulatory or bureaucratic control and external dictates can

conflict teachers by mandating that they behave in ways that they see as unjust or

25

reducing their ability to do what they view as best for students (Darling-

Hammond & Wise, 1985; Fuller et al., 1985; Kelly, 1994; Maupin, 1993; Osborn

& Broadfoot, 1993; Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977). This can happen in several

ways when external dictates are mandated to teachers and teachers’ responses

may eventually “frustrate the rational achievement of formal program goals”

(Maupin, 1993, p. 337).

This can occur when teachers are faced with conflicting demands and

develop “coping behaviors,” as they often do (Kelly, 1994, p. 120). In essence,

they structure their activities to meet the external demands and carry out the tasks

they see as core to their work (Kelly, 1994). In some cases, regulatory control

may simply be subverted by teachers in order to meet the needs of their students

(Conley, 1988; Fuller et al., 1985; Poppleton, Gershunsky, & Pullin, 1994;

Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977). For example, a teacher may behave in compliance

with an external demand while they are being observed by an outside reporter but

continue with an entrenched behavior when they are not being observed. Since

this kind of control can rarely be monitored beyond compliance on paper, there

may be little actual change in behavior (Fuller et al., 1985).

Sometimes, street level bureaucrats’ mediating or coping behavior may

result in an outcome in opposition to the intent of the policy. One such situation is

with calls for increased accountability. With increased accountability comes

increased paperwork (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985). This increased

26

paperwork is frustrating for teachers as it is seen as taking teachers away from

teaching and students, making it harder to achieve the intrinsic reward from so

doing (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985; Rosenholtz, 1985). Increased

accountability has been associated with decreased efficiency (Maupin, 1993). It

could be that this decreased efficiency is not only an effect of the time involved in

doing the paperwork, but also because of the frustration felt by teachers. In this

regard, complying with externally mandated policies produces the opposite of the

desired effect.

The nature of the work itself may also inhibit enacting external mandates.

Because teaching is a complex, non-routine profession, it calls for flexibility and

discretion (Conley, 1991; Conley, Schmidle, & Shedd, 1988; Ingersoll, 2003;

Kelly, 1994; Smylie, 1996). Bureaucratic or regulatory control essentially takes

away flexibility of approach and replaces it with a uniform approach (Darling-

Hammond & Wise, 1985; Ingersoll, 2003; Smylie, 1996). Teachers encounter

difficulty applying uniform educational mandates with standard performance

measures to the perceived needs of their students (Darling-Hammond & Wise,

1985). In an effort to comply with uniform educational mandates with standard

performance measures, more time and effort are being spent on the tested material

or teaching to the test (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985; Smylie, 1996).

Teaching to the test reduces service quality and lowers the chances of meeting the

individual needs of students (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985). In effect,

27

complying with these mandates confounds teaching efficiency. Asking teachers

about whether mandates help them meet the needs of students and what they do if

they determine the mandates are not appropriate for their students could provide

greater understanding when examining the outcomes of these mandates.

Centralization of Authority

Another a work environment dimension is centralization of authority or

the ability to make decisions and act on them (Conley & Muncey, 1999). Scholars

suggest that a “traditional influence pattern” is present in schools where the

administrators make the managerial decisions outside of the classroom and

teachers make the more operational decisions inside the classroom (Conley, 1991,

pp 237-238; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Ingersoll, 1994; Lortie, 1975). However,

Poppleton (2000) noted that the US teachers most often (36%) chose

“Implementer” to describe their role. Ingersoll (1994) asserted that although

teachers are responsible for implementing and carrying out classroom decisions

they often have little or no control concerning the larger policies that they are

putting into place. These include testing programs, evaluation procedures,

tracking criteria, attendance requirements, and standardized curricula (Ingersoll,

1994).

Accordingly, as Ingersoll pointed out, these two levels of decision making

(classroom and site) cannot be viewed as being on the same level of importance

28

because teachers’ in-class decisions “… are far more circumscribed than has been

acknowledged in much research on school organization” (Ingersoll, 1994, p. 160).

This runs contrary to what Ingersoll terms the mistaken conclusion (that some

assume is the case because of teacher independence in the classroom) that schools

are decentralized and that teachers have quite a lot of autonomy (Ingersoll, 1994).

In addition, teachers may perceive the external dictates as being in conflict with

their own beliefs about themselves, their students, or the profession (Ablemann

and Elmore, 1999; Bivona, 2002). This conflict may lead teachers to feel

dissatisfied because they perceive their main level of control (the classroom) as

being adversely affected by these external dictates. Bivona (2002) writes that

work satisfaction, motivation, and performance decreases when teachers object to

district’s initiatives or do not find them meaningful. Without making the

connection between different levels or domains of decision making and the

satisfaction in these areas, studies may miss the impact of external policies on

teachers’ classroom behaviors and the effect on their satisfaction level.

How external mandates are put into place and how change is presented to

teachers may also affect their level of job satisfaction. Poppleton et al. (1994)

positioned their study of teacher satisfaction in the context of great national

change in both the USSR and England and the resulting influence on the

administrative control of education. Put simply, there was decentralization of

administrative control in the Soviet system and centralization in the English

29

system. The researchers found that secondary teachers in both the USSR and

England expressed similar levels of job satisfaction even though the Soviet

teachers expressed a higher level of autonomy in individual teaching despite the

more hierarchical structure of their education system. The authors attributed this

unexpected result to the idea that Soviet teachers had been told they possessed

more freedoms regardless of how they were actually implemented. This

discrepancy in perception suggests that looking at the changes alone does not

fully explain teacher satisfaction and that changes need to be positioned in the

larger frame of societal and system forces. It may be of interest then, to ask how

the larger system not only influenced educational change in California, but

teachers’ perception of the results.

Involvement in Decision Making

In the traditional bureaucratic orientation of schools, the principal makes

the majority of managerial decisions herself. In an attempt to change this top-

down pattern, schools across the nation are restructuring. One trend in school

restructuring is participatory or shared decision making which extends the view of

leadership by giving teachers input into decisions affecting the school (Harris,

2000). This is thought to empower teachers and raise their morale (Lumsden,

1998). With this shift in control from the principal to teachers, an interesting

question on reporting arises. Who reports in which areas and how much input

30

teachers have? Studies may rely on principals’ perceptions of teacher involvement

as in Winfield and Hawkins’ (1993) report on the effect of Chapter 1 Schoolwide

Projects. In this study, principals reported that teachers have only a moderate level

of input into various decisions that affect the school. Studies may also rely on

both principal and teacher perceptions such as the SASS that Ingersoll (2003,

1994) used for his analysis and a study by Davis and Wilson (2000) where

principals and teachers were asked to rate the principals’ empowering behaviors

(PEB). In both cases the researchers found substantial differences between the

responses from the two groups. In comparing the two sets of responses, Ingersoll

found that “principals more frequently report teachers to be empowered than

teachers themselves do” (2003, p. 86). This suggests, but is not conclusive, that

data collected from principals about teachers’ level of control might be inaccurate.

It may be that this difference in perception can be explained by the current

areas of control held by principals and teachers. Since principals tend to have the

most control in administrative decisions, they could view any relinquishing of

control to the teachers in this area as larger since it diminishes their own power in

that area. Since teachers tend to have most control in the classroom, they could

perceive their allowance to make decisions at the site level as smaller in

comparison to their greater control in the classroom. Ingersoll (2003) asserted that

the key point here is relative power and that principals are the “influential actors”

(1994, p. 168) and do not find teachers to be as influential as themselves (2003).

31

There is a need for deeper more exclusive focus on teachers in order to obtain a

more authentic representation of their perceptions and opinions.

The degree to which teachers participate in shared decision making

depends first upon the relationship between principal and staff and the level of

involvement that the relationship allows (Bivona, 2002). By virtue of the

hierarchical structure, those in control have to be willing to relinquish control

before teachers can become involved in school management and administration

and then only in the areas allowed. If a move toward shared decision making is

made, it is usually by principals or above, not by teachers (Lashway, 1996). A

comparative case study of a site with participatory decision making and a site

with the traditional decision making structure would highlight teachers’ views and

perceptions on these two arrangements.

The body of research indicates that where teachers want control in

decision making is also of importance. Participation is a key component of job

satisfaction; however it is not just gaining access to decision making, but rather a

desire to make certain decisions (Conley, 1991). That is, knowing where teachers

want influence is as important as knowing where teachers have influence (Alutto

& Belasco, 1972). A teacher may report having little participation or control in

one area but may also have no desire to possess control in that area thus not

impacting her level of job satisfaction negatively. Ingersoll (1994) pointed out

that the administrational or “rule making” decisions, the managerial or “rule

32

enforcing” decisions and the technical or “rule implementing” decisions have

traditionally been assumed by the state, the principal, and the teacher respectively.

It may be that teachers want to participate in rule making, rule enforcing, and rule

implementing but do not want the same level of control over all three levels. That

is, they may want influence over technical decisions but desire participation in

managerial decisions, too (Conley, & Muncey, 1999).

In a qualitative study of change at three schools, Kirtman (2002) found

that teachers wanted to be part of the main decision making body of the school

and wanted to work together on administration work because of the feelings of

ownership and control that this produced. Further, teachers may want more

control in the rule implementing level than the rule enforcing and rule making

level (Conley, 1991; Conley, & Muncey, 1999) but “want to be in charge of their

own destiny” (Kirtman, 2002, p. 20).

Taking into account the amount of desired participation may help to better

understand satisfaction in these different domains of decision making. In a

seminal study, Alutto and Belasco (1972) described different states of measured

participation as: deprived, saturated, and in equilibrium. They found that teachers

were more likely to report that they were decisionally deprived (having less

participation than they desire) than being in equilibrium (having the amount of

participation they desire) or saturated (having more participation than they

desire.) The decisions included in their study covered the classroom, site and

33

larger domains but were not grouped as such; rather they were grouped as a

whole. More recent research has supported Alutto and Belasco’s findings about

teachers’ desire for decision making participation. For instance, researchers have

reported that the majority of teachers are decisionally deprived (Conley, 1991). In

order to ascertain in which areas teachers want to be more actively involved,

studies need to include questions on desired level of control at the classroom, site,

and larger domain.

Researchers have reported that job responsibility has a significant impact

on job satisfaction and that teachers who had higher levels of responsibility (and

presumably higher levels of control) had significantly higher levels of satisfaction

(Bishay, 1996; Dinham & Scott, 1996). In a study of 529 teachers and school

executives at 47 schools in Australia, Dinham and Scott (1996) found that the

major sources of dissatisfaction with their subjects were “matters more extrinsic

to the task of teaching children” such as teacher status, public image of teachers

and educational change (1997) and are chiefly out of the control of teachers and

schools. It appears from this research that having at least some level of control in

different domains leads to satisfaction and having little or no control in an area

leads to dissatisfaction.

34

Charter Schools

One sector in the current education system where teachers’ amount and

areas of control are nontraditional is in charter schools. By looking at teachers in

charter schools, a picture emerges of shifts from the traditional influence pattern

and the adjustments that teachers make to have access to them. The research

relates a number of factors as reasons to seek employment in a charter school.

Malloy and Wohlstetter (2003) compared previous research findings on

charter schools with their own case studies of 40 charter school teachers from six

urban elementary charter schools in the Los Angeles area and found that teachers

were drawn to the freedom afforded by working at these schools. The study cites

education-related reasons and colleague-related reasons as motivators to teach at a

charter school. Educational philosophy, control over curriculum and instruction,

enhanced decision making, authority to allocate resources and smaller schools and

classes are cited as education-related reasons while collaboration and cooperation,

like-minded colleagues, and a competent and supportive administrator were listed

as colleague-related resources (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003).

In the study of charter school reforms in six different states conducted at

Western Michigan University, over 6,000 surveys were collected. Miron and

Applegate (2007) used these data to distinguish differences between “stayers” and

“leavers” in the charter schools studied. The two dominant reasons listed for

seeking employment at a charter school are working with like-minded educators

35

and educational reform (Miron & Applegate, 2007). Other reasons include class

size, academic reputation, and commitment of parents (Miron & Applegate,

2007).

Researchers have found that teachers at charter schools worked more

hours and had less job security but reported being relatively satisfied (Datnow,

Hirshberg, & Wells, 1994; Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003; Riley, 2000). The longer

hours were attributed to administration and decision making responsibilities such

as hiring, peer evaluation, curriculum and instruction decisions, and governance.

This indicates that at least part of the pool of teachers in our country are willing to

give up job security and work more hours to be afforded greater participation in

decision making and administration.

Some researchers have noted, however, that teachers’ expectations are not

being met by charter schools (Bomotti et al., 1999; Crawford, 2001; Miron &

Applegate, 2007). It is asserted that the capacity for teacher autonomy is greater at

charter schools (Lasley, Ridenour, Talbert-Johnson, & Raisch, 1999; Malloy &

Wohlstetter, 2003; Miron & Applegate, 2007; Riley, 2000) and that this autonomy

leads to greater innovation (Lasley et al., 1999; Miron & Applegate, 2007) and

increased student achievement (Riley, 2000). The idea is that with

decentralization and more site control, teacher professionalism is increased and

student outcomes are improved. Several charter school studies have found these

assertions unmet (Datnow et al., 1994; Zimmer & Buddin, 2005a, 2005b).

36

As mentioned above, there is a wide variety of charter schools and they

have been studied with diverse intents and foci. Therefore, it is not surprising that

the results of charter school research vary greatly. In looking at charter school

research which incorporates work environment components and dimensions, few

studies have similar conclusions. One area in which the studies do agree is on job

satisfaction.

Charter School Job Satisfaction

Studies report that charter school teachers are satisfied with their charter

school experience (Lasley et al., 1999) and have fairly high level of satisfaction

(Miron & Applegate, 2007). Only one of the studies compared charter school

teachers’ satisfaction levels with traditional school teachers’ satisfaction levels

and found that charter school teachers have the same amount of satisfaction as

regular teachers (Bomotti et al., 1999). However, the two groups of teachers

reported different sources of job related satisfactions and dissatisfactions (Bomotti

et al., 1999). Studies noted that charter school teachers are satisfied despite some

concerns (Bomotti et al., 1999; Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). The concerns and

satisfiers can be placed in the categories of work environment components and

work environment dimensions.

37

Charter School Work Environment Components

What does the research on charter schools tell us about the classroom, site,

and larger domains? There does not appear to be charter school research that

directly employs the three domain framework. Research on motivation for taking

employment at charter schools reveals that teachers want to take part in reform

(Bomotti et al., 1999) suggesting that teachers envision their work as affecting the

larger domain. Indeed one reason given for charter school creation is to encourage

change and innovation in public education (Datnow et al., 1994). However, there

is little evidence of district change in response to charter schools (Bulkley &

Fisler, 2003). It appears that the larger domain has had more affect on the charter

school classroom than the charter school has had on the larger domain. One study

noted “while increasing re-regulation and growing pressure from NCLB mean

that charter schools are realizing far less autonomy than originally expected…”

(Miron & Applegate, 2007). It appears that for some charter schools,

individualized accountability plans are not being realized but rather charters are at

the mercy of external accountability requirements such as large-scale student

testing (Hadderman, 2002).

Site level operations at some charter schools do appear to include teachers.

Bomotti (1999) asserts that there is more teacher professionalism outside the

classroom at charter schools and that teachers are involved in site level decision

making. In another study, charter school teachers reported interactions in

38

governance, hiring, and peer evaluation, (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). An

exception seems to be at parent-founded schools where parents hold a majority on

governing boards. One study cited complaints about school wide management as

the second most common comment reported (next to inadequate facilities)

(Bomotti et al., 1999).

Bulkley and Fisler (2003) report that much more is known about charter

school organization and governance than about what happens inside charter

school classrooms. Some studies report that charter school teachers make

individual decisions about curriculum and instructional strategies (Malloy &

Wohlstetter, 2003) and have more professional flexibility in their classroom

(Bomotti et al., 1999). Other studies report that classroom organization and

pedagogy at charter schools are similar to regular schools (Bulkley & Fisler,

2003) and that there is no difference between the curriculum content at charter

schools and regular schools (Bomotti et al., 1999). It is unclear whether these

apparent discrepancies are due to some difference between charter schools

themselves or some difference in teacher perception.

Charter School Work Environment Dimensions

Intrinsic and extrinsic work features

More has been reported about extrinsic work feature of charter school

teachers than intrinsic work features. It appears that charter school teachers work

39

more than regular teachers (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003) and are less likely to

have tenure (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). Charter school teachers report being

dissatisfied with their lack of job security (Bomotti et al., 1999). Information

about salary varied between charter school teacher pay being lower than regular

schools (Hadderman, 2002; Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003; Miron & Applegate,

2007) to meeting or exceeding regular schools (Lasley et al., 1999; Malloy &

Wohlstetter, 2003).

Role ambiguity and routinization

Although these specific terms were not used in the charter school research

reviewed, some assumptions can be made. It would appear that routinization is

low since innovation was listed as a motivator to enter a charter school (Bulkley

& Fisler, 2003; Lasley et al., 1999). Also, since teachers have the chance to

explore options in charter schools they offer better possibilities for teacher

autonomy (Lasley et al., 1999). None of the studies investigated charter school

teachers’ conceptions of role ambiguity.

Centralization of authority

It would be expected for charter school teachers to have the ability to

make a decision and act on it because of the professional autonomy promised by

the charter school structure. Also because there is teacher choice in working for a

40

charter school, there is greater alignment with teachers’ ideas of good teaching

and the school’s mission or purpose (Lasley et al., 1999; Miron & Applegate,

2007) which can translate into centralization of authority. It is important to note

that charter school teachers report having enough professional autonomy but not

as much as they initially expected (Miron & Applegate, 2007).

Involvement in decision making

Although one study concluded that teachers in regular public schools had

more opportunities to participate in the decision making process than charter

school teachers, (Crawford, 2001) most other research talks about the amount and

type of decision making that charter school teachers engage in. It appears that

there is decision making at the site level of charter schools (Bomotti et al., 1999).

Charter school teachers participate in a variety of decision making including

governance, hiring and peer evaluation, curriculum and instruction (Malloy &

Wohlstetter, 2003). One study reported that of those teachers surveyed, about

17% spent time every week on school governance (Lasley et al., 1999). There is

no indication of how this level of participation in decision making compares to

regular public school teachers.

Little research comparing regular public school teachers and charter public

school teachers exists so comparisons between the two are not well grounded in

research. In order to better understand how the larger domain influences teacher

41

work life in the classroom and site domains a study comparing regular public

school teachers and charter public school teachers is needed. Such a study would

help to uncover the site level differences affect teacher perceptions of control and

satisfaction.

Rationale of Study

Despite the influence of society and social forces on the education system,

little research has focused on how this larger domain affects teacher work life and

job satisfaction in the US. Past research on the influence of a larger domain has

mainly been conducted in other countries experiencing conspicuous change in

their education systems. In addition, US work environment research has

sometimes missed the connection to the larger domain or has overlooked

teachers’ desired control in the domains studied. Also, few studies have employed

teacher interviews containing questions on control and job satisfaction, due in part

to the reform and accountability focus on student academic performance.

This study focuses on teacher control, work environment, and job

satisfaction by finding the similarities and differences between teachers at a

Regular Public School and a Charter Public School in an urban Californian

environment with comparable student populations. It provides insight into

teachers’ perceptions on the challenges and rewards of their job and how external

mandates affect what they do in their classrooms. The study also illuminates

factors contributing to a disconnect between the policy aim of student academic

42

achievement and the outcome of many students not meeting academic goals. This

teacher oriented view is used to identify how external control might inhibit

teachers from doing their job effectively and what teachers need in order to meet

the goals that have been set for them. By contrasting the teachers’ views of their

work environment at a Charter Public School and a Regular Public School,

concrete, specific instances of control and consent in action are revealed. The

study will address the following questions.

Research Questions

1. To what degree do teachers feel a decreased sense of control because of external mandates?

2. In what areas of their professional lives do teachers most feel a shift of

control? 3. How do these changes affect teacher job satisfaction in the workplace? 4. Do site level differences mediate this shift in control and its impact on

teachers?

Prior research has highlighted the importance of job satisfaction and

connected control to job satisfaction. Researchers have also connected external

mandates to lower levels of teacher job satisfaction. But, to what degree do

teachers feel a decreased sense of control because of external mandates? In order

to answer this, knowing where teachers perceive the locus of control in these

mandates and whom they envision as the decision makers has to be established.

43

Do teachers see these external decisions as affecting the amount of control they

possess, especially in the classroom, the domain in which teachers traditionally

exercise the most control? Do teachers want to have more control in any area of

decision making and if so, how do they conceptualize this happening? Do

teachers at regular public and charter public schools view these differently?

44

Chapter 3

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Context

This exploratory, qualitative study was conducted at two public schools, a

regular elementary school, and a charter elementary school. The regular public

school site chosen for this study is considered a Title I school. Federal Title I

funds are granted to schools with students in poverty. In addition, because this

school site has an approximately 70 percent minority population, it is considered a

high minority school. This is a large school with approximately 890 students and

40 regular classroom teachers. There are five male teachers making up about 13

percent of total classroom teachers. This school is in a mid size, central city

location. There is one principal and no vice principal at this K-6 school. There are

four tracks that run in this year-round school and three of these tracks are in

session at any given time with the other track being out of session.

The year prior to data collection, the school district adopted a standards

based report card. Two years prior to data collection, the district decided to

withdraw funding for a learning director (vice principal) to schools with fewer

than 900 students. Although this site was close to the cut off number, it was

denied the funding for a learning director. The pseudonym “Sunshine School” is

used in this paper for the Regular Public School.

45

The charter public school is also a Title I school and is located in a mid

size, central city location. There is an approximately 89 percent minority

population and thus is also considered a high minority school. This is a small

school with 220 students and 10 regular classroom teachers. There are four male

teachers comprising 40 percent of total classroom teachers. There is one principal

and no vice principal. Two years prior to data collection, a full-time principal was

hired. Before that, the main leadership duties were handled by a “School Leader”

along with a Lead Teacher. This School Leader was not a teacher at the site and is

no longer involved with the school. The Lead Teacher is still a teacher at the

school.

This charter school is a dual language immersion school founded in 2000.

It follows a 50/50 model, meaning that students learn two languages and they are

educated in both of those languages. The target languages in this charter school

are Spanish and English. The teachers act as the “Spanish Model” or “English

Model” meaning that even though teachers are bilingual, they are responsible for

language instruction in that language. Students elect to attend this charter school

and population is evenly divided between native Spanish speakers and native

English speakers. In its first year, kindergarten and first grade students were

admitted and one grade was added on in each subsequent year. It is now a K-6

school. The pseudonym “Heritage Charter School” is used in this paper for the

46

Charter Public School. More information about teachers’ work lives at both

schools is found in the Results section.

Sample

Teachers from both sites were selected with the assistance of the principal.

Interviewees had at least five years of teaching experience, preferably at the same

grade level. This criterion was employed to facilitate a clearer idea of how

external mandates have changed teachers’ work lives without the extraneous

changes that occur when teachers change schools or grade levels. Because of the

evolution of Heritage Charter School beginning in 2000 and adding one grade

each year, this was not always possible. In addition, because of a higher

percentage of male teachers at Heritage Charter School, more males were

included than in the Sunshine School sample. There is parity of “grade currently

taught” by teachers in both schools. At each school, one kindergarten teacher, one

first grade teacher, two second grade teachers, one fourth grade teacher, and one

fifth/sixth grade teacher or sixth grade teacher were interviewed, for a total of six

teachers at each school.

A short profile of each participant follows using a pseudonym. The

Regular Public School (Sunshine School) participants will be presented first

followed by the Charter Public School (Heritage Charter School) teachers. This

information is summarized in Table 1.

47

Rebecca teaches first grade and is Sunshine School Teacher #1. She has

taught for 11 years and has 3 years of experience teaching first grade. Janice

teaches second grade and is Sunshine School Teacher #2. She has taught for 20

years and has 13 years experience teaching second grade. Paula teaches sixth

grade and is Sunshine School Teacher #3. She has taught for 17 years and has 6

years of experience teaching sixth grade. Kristen teaches fourth grade and is

Sunshine School Teacher #4. She has taught for six years, and has four years of

experience teaching fourth grade. Robin teaches kindergarten and is Sunshine

School Teacher #5. She has taught for 15 years, and has 1 year of experience

teaching kindergarten. Carol teachers second grade and is Sunshine School

Teacher #6. She has taught for 13 years, and has 6 years of experience teaching

second grade.

Martin teaches second grade and is Heritage Charter School Teacher #1.

He has taught for five years, and has three years of experience teaching second

grade. Martin is the English Model for both second grade classes. Gabby teaches

second grade and is Heritage Charter School Teacher #2. She has taught for five

years, and has two years of experience teaching second grade. Gabby is the

Spanish Model for both second grade classes. Linda teaches fourth grade and is

Heritage Charter School Teacher #3. She has taught for five years, and has two

years of experience teaching fourth grade. Linda is the English Model and

Spanish Model for fourth grade as there is only one class. Monique teaches

48

kindergarten and is Heritage Charter School Teacher #4. She has taught for over

20 years, and has 6 years of experience teaching kindergarten. Monique is the

English Model for both kindergarten classes. Nicholas teaches a fifth/sixth grade

combination and is Heritage Charter School Teacher #5. He has taught for eight

years, and has five years of experience teaching fifth grade or a fifth/sixth

combination. Nicholas is the English Model and Spanish Model for fifth and sixth

grades as there is only one class. Karl teaches first grade and is Heritage Charter

School Teacher #6. He has taught for five years, and has four years of experience

teaching first grade. Karl is the English Model and for both first grade classes.

Instrument

To help ensure consistency between interviews, an interview guide was

used (see below) (Patton, 2002). The interview questions fall into three main

categories of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the Profession, Teacher Control in

Decision Making and Implementation, and Changes in Teaching Life.

Item 1 was included to gain background information on the participants

that could be used in analyzing responses. It was also used to put the participants

at ease, as was item 2, an easily answered question. Several items were designed

to give information on the Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the Profession including

Items 5, 11, 12, and 13. Items 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were designed to collect

49

Table 1 Summary of Sample

Sunshine School Teachers

Teacher Grade taught Years Experience

Years at Grade

Robin K 15 1

Rebecca 1st 11 3

Carol 2nd 13 6

Janice 2nd 20 13

Kristen 4th 6 4

Paula 6th 17 6

Average 13.7 5.5

Heritage Charter School Teachers

Teacher Grade taught Years Experience

Years at Grade

Model Language

Monique K 20 6 English

Karl 1st 5 4 English

Martin 2nd 5 3 English

Gabby 2nd 5 2 Spanish

Linda 4th 5 2 English & Spanish

Nicholas 5th/6th 8 5 English &

Spanish Average 8 3.7

50

information on Teacher Control in Decision Making and Implementation.

Information on Changes in Teaching Life was gathered from Items 4 and 10.

Interview guide 1. Tell me about your background – how long you have been teaching, how

you came to this school and so on. 2. Briefly, what do you do in your classroom day-to-day? 3. What other professional responsibilities do you have, such as head teacher,

union rep, mentor teacher, and so on? 4. Would you tell me about the changes that have happened in your teaching

life over the past several years? 5. Would you say you are satisfied with your experience of being a teacher?

Why/Why not? a. What is the best part of your profession? b. What is your least favorite part of the profession?

6. Can you describe how the following decisions are made a. what students are required to learn. b. how that will be taught. c. which materials are used in the classroom. d. budgeting

7. What could be done to improve the way those decisions are made? 8. Over which decisions would you like more control?

9. How could teachers be given more control over these things?

10. Can you tell me about any (other) state or federal mandates that have changed things in your teaching life?

11. Do these mandates help you meet the needs of your students? Why/Why

not? 12. Which state or federal mandates expect you to do things that are not really

“a fit” for you or your students? a. What are you expected to do?

51

b. How do you deal with that?

13. Do you have the resources like materials and training, to meet the goals that you are being given? If not, what do you need?

14. Is there anything else you could add to help me better understand your

perceptions on this subject? Table 2

Major Categories for Interview Questions

Major Categories

Question Number

Background 1, 2,

Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the Profession 5, 11, 12, 13

Teacher Control in Decision Making and Implementation 3, 6, 7, 8, 9

Changes in Teaching Life 4, 10

General 14

Procedures

Audio recordings were made of the interviews and field notes were taken.

Each participant was interviewed in person, usually in their classroom, and the

interviews were recorded with both a digital recording device and an analog tape

recorder. The interviews followed an interview guide (see above) and ranged from

55 minutes to 1 hour and 40 minutes. Questions were asked in the same order for

52

each participant. Follow up questions were asked in order to clarify or expand

teachers’ statements. Transcripts were made of each interview. Direct

transcriptions were made adhering to the rules of written Standard English as

much as possible. Sentence structure was variable so punctuation and

capitalization were used at the judgment of the researcher. Quotes that appear in

the final paper were modified to be more accessible to the reader. Repetitions

were removed as well as verbal placeholders, such as “um” and “you know.”

Researcher

The researcher in this study was an experienced classroom teacher. She

had many years’ experience in Title I elementary schools with high English

language learner and minority populations. As part of her negotiation of entrance

with the principals and her pre-interview introduction to participants, the

researcher briefly shared her teaching experience and the goals for this study.

Analysis

Data from recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim without

parameters for use of punctuation and capitalization. Analysis was approached

with Ad Hoc Meaning Generation (Kvale, 1996). Transcripts were first read to get

an overall impression of them. Then the transcripts were reviewed for patterns

and themes, plausibility, and clustering in order to find commonalities (Miles and

53

Huberman, 1994). The existing categories of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the

Profession, Teacher Control in Decision Making and Implementation, and

Changes in Teaching Life were a starting point. Data were sorted by examining

responses to questions corresponding to these categories (see Instrument above).

Next, differentiation was sought through making contrasts and comparisons and

partitioning variables (Miles and Huberman, 1994). While data were not coded by

two people, parameters for coding and specific inclusion and exclusion decisions

were made by the researcher and her committee chair. For example, the comments

included in the larger theme of dissatisfaction were further analyzed for contrasts

and comparisons. The outcome further divided the larger theme of dissatisfaction

into many smaller categories, the most common of which were Lack of

Professional Autonomy, Lack of Support, Barriers to Collaboration / Community,

Dissatisfaction with Decision Making, Inappropriate External Directives,

Dissatisfaction with District, Lack of Flexibility of External Directives, Pastoral

Care, and Testing. The data was then “culled” (Mostyn, 1985) and data were

reinterpreted and condensed. For example, Dissatisfaction with District (from the

above list of smaller categories) was reevaluated by researcher and committee

chair and then condensed and used in the Teacher Control in Decision Making

and Implementation section rather than the Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the

Profession section.

54

Chapter 4

RESULTS

The results are discussed using the categories of Satisfiers and

Dissatisfiers in the Profession, Teacher Control in Decision Making and

Implementation, and Changes in Teaching Life. Additional demographic

information is given for both schools before the results are discussed

As mentioned in the Methods section, the demographics for both schools

are similar. There are also some similarities and differences in teachers’ work life

at these two schools. For both schools in this study, external pressure from

mandates is reality. Standardized tests are given each year to students statewide

beginning in second grade. These test scores are made public, often through the

local newspaper, and are used to place schools on the Academic Performance

Index (API). The API is used to measure academic performance and growth in

California schools and functions as the state accountability component of Public

Schools Accountability Act (PSAA). Schools must achieve a certain score on the

API or show sufficient growth toward that score in order to meet the state

performance standards. If the state performance standards are not met, schools are

subject to interventions and sanctions. In addition, should the charter school fail to

reach the state performance standards, it could be denied a charter renewal and

have to close down.

55

Since both schools have a large percentage of English language learners,

teachers are responsible for teaching English Language Development (ELD) in

addition to the other subject areas. English language learners are to receive 30

minutes of ELD instruction daily at their proficiency level. Teachers could have

students with several different levels of proficiency who each require 30 minutes

of specialized instruction each day in addition to the other required content. While

teachers are providing ELD instruction to the English learners, the English

proficient students have to work independently thus requiring additional planning

and preparation of the teacher.

The two school sites are essentially different in the hierarchical structure

in which they exist. The Sunshine School is one of many schools in a large district

with 20 elementary schools. The district coordinates and dictates many facets that

affect school sites. The district makes decisions about budget, materials, tests and

assessments, training, and guidance of principals. There are no longer district

level committees for the different subject areas as there once was so teachers have

no district level input in this form. The Sunshine School does have site-level

mechanisms in place that allow teacher participation. There are monthly grade

level meetings and track meetings allowing teachers time to collaborate as well as

a regular staff meeting where information is exchanged. The leadership team is

made up of the principal and 8 to 10 teachers nominated by peers and is designed

to facilitate teacher input in decision making about budget, training, and other site

56

concerns. Teachers are encouraged, but not required, to find alternative teaching

arrangements like having one teacher instruct lower achieving students from two

classes while the other teacher instructs the higher achieving students in the same

subject.

In contrast, the Heritage Charter School is affiliated with, but not under

the auspices of, the local school district and most of its decisions are made at the

site level by the teachers or the principal. An exception is the Governance

Council, composed of parents and community members, which makes budget

decisions. There are regular staff meetings where information is exchanged,

trainings are performed, and other site concerns are addressed. The kindergarten

and primary grades use a two-teacher model for language instruction and

regularly work with their partner-teacher’s students.

The teachers at Sunshine School pay dues to the local union and are under

the collective bargaining power of the union. The union assists teachers in

securing pay raises and in settling disputes between the teacher and other teacher,

their school, or their district. Teachers at Heritage Charter School are not under

the collective bargaining power of the local union, however there are other

structures in place. The pay scale is decided on by the Governance Council, which

uses the district pay scale as a guide. In addition, the school charter lays out

procedures to resolve disputes, employee rights and other procedures and

structures that would normally be handled by the local union. It appears that

57

teachers at Heritage Charter School and Sunshine School both have assistance in

resolving disputes and in advocating pay scales.

During the interview, teachers spoke of different aspects of their teaching

life. The results of the interviews cover Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the

Profession, Teacher Control in Decision Making and Implementation and

Changes in Teaching Life.

Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the Profession

All 12 participants replied in the affirmative to being satisfied with their

experience of being a teacher. However, four teachers, two Sunshine School

Teachers and two Heritage Charter School Teachers expressed some reservation.

Carol acknowledged that sometimes she had problems with her job by saying,

“Overall I’m very satisfied. I’m very pleased that I went into teaching. I love

what I do and I don’t have to take my problems home. My husband’s a good

listener, but most of the time I really enjoy what I do.” Karl expressed a similar

sentiment, “Yeah, there’s really not anything I’d rather be doing. I consider

myself blessed to work with kids; the rewards of just being around little people

like that is just great. It can be very frustrating at times, but overall, I’m happy.”

Every participant said that the best part of their profession concerned

students. The Sunshine School Teachers’ answers mainly centered on student

learning and achievement. For example, Carol said, “the progress they [students]

58

make in a year’s time," and Rebecca said, “Also, [students] knowing no letters

and sounds, not being able to spell their names. Leaving, getting their words down

on paper and with a matching picture, with the curiosity of knowing more and

wanting to discover more about language and literacy and life.” The Heritage

Charter School Teachers’ answers mainly centered on teaching and influencing

the students. Karl responded, “I love teaching the kids how to read,” and Nicholas

said, the best part of the profession was “to be an effective part of changing kids’

lives.”

When talking about their least favorite part of the profession, Sunshine

School Teachers’ answers tended to be longer and more wide-ranging than when

talking about the best part of the profession. Responses included lack of support,

pastoral care, lack of time, and external demands (see Table 3). Rebecca

articulated her displeasure about,

The downfall is the push-push, go-go mentality that I have so much time to shove this much stuff into the child, and a lot of it not being developmentally appropriate. So there is definitely an anxiety from the state - with No Child Left Behind, now all children have to be at the same level. And then the paperwork, the constant testing, the constant assessment, and the lack of parent support.

Paula expressed her frustration at the lack of professional autonomy by

saying, “It’s like all of the hoops that you’ve got to jump through because you

want to try something innovative and something a little different.” When talking

about their least favorite part of their profession, Heritage Charter School

59

Teachers gave fewer answers than about the best part of the profession. Their

responses included external demands, and pastoral care (see Table 3). Linda felt

overwhelmed with the external demands including “the constant assessment” and

“too many standards.” Gabby relayed the pressures of pastoral care for her

students saying, “That’s the hardest part. Listening to their stories and how hard

these little people’s little lives can be. And I just try to give them opportunities

where they know that, ‘This too will pass.’ That it won’t always be like this and

they have choices.”

Table 3

Comments Per Category Concerning “Least Favorite” Part of Profession

Category

External demands

Lack of support

Pastoral care

Lack of time

Other Total

Sunshine School

6 4 2 2 4 18

Heritage Charter 6 0 2 1 1 10 School

Teacher Control in Decision Making and Implementation

In accord with the view that the classroom is traditionally where teachers

are thought to have the most control, these teachers discussed decision making for

60

three areas of classroom practice: what is taught, how content is taught, and

materials used to teach. Often, teachers cited multiple sources of decision making

for one of these areas and at times, participants cited the same source but talked

about these sources differently.

Who Decides What is Taught?

All of the 12 participants listed the state or state standards as deciding

what is taught in the classroom (see Table 4). Rebecca noted,

Well, the state standards is the biggest one. State standards. The materials I’m provided to teach the areas, language arts, math, science, social studies, kind of guides instruction. There is some personal choice. I can embellish on some units that maybe I have more background or awareness in, you know, such as music. I know a lot about music and I give the children a lot of experience to draw on, that kind of thing.

Nine of the respondents said teachers decided what is taught but of those

nine, two Sunshine School Teachers stipulated that teachers make the decision in

theory only and not in practice. Carol phrased it this way, “But I often feel, and a

lot of other teachers, I think, feel, that it seems like the district has already made

up their mind before we have a chance to give our professional input.” There were

seven out of twelve participants stating that, in practice, teachers decide what is

taught. None of the Heritage Charter School Teachers included the district in their

response while every Sunshine School Teachers did. Two of the Sunshine School

Teachers listed the district first in their multiple answers. Robin said, “…we’re

61

told by the district what to teach, who is told by the state, who is told by this

group of people sitting on the Board of Education, who may or may not be

educators - most of them are not.… ultimately it’s the teacher who’s deciding

what the students learn.”

Table 4

Comments Per Category Concerning “Who Decides What is Taught”

Category

State/state standards

Teachers District Other Total

Sunshine School

6 5 6 4 21

Heritage Charter School

5 4 0 3 12

Who Decides How Content is Taught?

When talking about who decides how content is taught in the classroom,

10 respondents said the teacher did. Martin stated, “How we teach it is totally up

to us.” The two teachers who did not list the teacher as deciding how content is

taught were from Sunshine School. Paula said the state and district decide now

and contrasted that with what used to be expected. “We had frameworks for each

thing. This is what you need to be teaching, but it wasn’t direct at how you would

62

teach it… But I see now it’s getting to the point where they want to dictate how

you teach it… And to me that’s a little bit frustrating.” Half of the respondents

(six) mentioned the textbook or teacher resource manual for the textbook (see

Table 5). Janice said, “But if you look at the Houghton Mifflin and the Harcourt

math, they do tell us how to teach.”

Table 5

Comments Per Category Concerning “Who Decides How Content is Taught”

Category

Teachers Textbooks District Other Total Sunshine School

4 4 2 3 13

Heritage Charter School

6 2 0 1 9

Who Decides Which Materials Are Used?

There was a difference between the answers given by the Sunshine School

Teachers and the Heritage Charter School Teachers concerning who made the

decision about the materials used in the classroom. First, all of the Sunshine

School Teachers listed the district and three also said state while none of the

Heritage Charter School Teachers listed either. Two Heritage Charter School

63

Teachers said they decide on materials with input from the principal while none

of the Sunshine School Teachers mentioned the principal.

Every respondent said teachers decide which materials are used in the

classroom, however the Sunshine School Teachers and Heritage Charter School

Teachers expressed different roles that teachers play in this decision. All six of the

Heritage Charter School Teachers said that the individual teacher chose materials.

Karl replied, “That’s all up to me as well.” Only half (three) of the Sunshine

School Teachers said individual teachers chose materials and respondents

specified that these materials were supplementary, not the main text. Kristen

stated, “And so, as far as those materials, I always use what is adopted by the

district. But any supplementary things, I think the teachers get to pick.” A group

of teachers, either a committee or the staff was listed by six respondents, three

Sunshine School Teachers and three Heritage Charter School Teachers. Nicholas

noted, “[the decision on new textbooks is] totally site based. And being a charter

school, it wasn’t a districtwide thing, we had a choice. Which was nice, very

nice.” Conversely, Robin said, “[new textbook adoption] is decided on

supposedly by the staff at the schools. You vote on the materials you want, but

you’re given a limited choice, so…”

64

Table 6

Comments Per Category Concerning “Who Decides Which Materials Are Used”

Category

Teachers State District Other Total Sunshine School

6 3 6 0 15

Heritage Charter School

11 0 0 1 12

In comparing the answers from the two groups of teachers, an interesting

pattern emerges. Both groups noted that teachers make the classroom decisions

about content, approach, and materials roughly the same number of times, as seen

in the Classroom column of Table 7 and Table 8. However, the Sunshine School

Teachers cited entities from the Larger Domain, such as district and state, many

more times than Heritage Charter School, as shown in the Larger domain column

of Table 7 and Table 8. In both groups, teachers were named as decision makers

in roughly the same numbers. For Sunshine School Teachers, the part they play in

the decision making process is proportionally much smaller, accounting for 28

percent of the total as opposed to the Heritage Charter School Teachers’ 56

percent. Sunshine School Teachers report the Larger domain as accounting for 68

percent of the total as opposed to the Heritage Charter School Teachers’ 22

percent.

65

Table 7 Sunshine School – Number of Times Teachers Mentioned Themes Related to Domain of Decision Makers

Domain

Classroom Site Larger Total

Content 3 2 14 19

Approach 4 0 9 13

Materials 6 0 9 15

Total 13 2 32 47

Percent of Total 28% 4% 68% 100%

Table 8 Heritage Charter School – Number of Times Teachers Mentioned Themes Related to Domain of Decision Makers

Domain

Classroom Site Larger Total

Content 4 2 6 12

Approach 7 0 1 8

Materials 7 5 0 12

Total 18 7 7 32

Percent of Total 56% 22% 22% 100%

66

Who Makes Budgeting Decisions?

While budgeting impacts the classroom, it is traditionally considered a site

or larger domain decision. When speaking about who makes the decisions

concerning budgeting, teachers from Sunshine School and Heritage Charter

School responded differently. All of the Sunshine School Teachers said the

Leadership Team, which is composed of the principal and teachers who have been

voted in by their peers, made budgeting decisions. Rebecca explained it as

They are handled at the district level, you know, through the governor, how much money he filters down to each school. And then we have a Leadership Team here that decides how much is budgeted per area. We’re allocated $150 a year to spend on our classroom materials and programs that we would like to fund. Then we just have PTO to ask to do our fundraiser to give us money for field trips, Artists in the Classroom. And that doesn’t account for our personal money that comes out of our pocket - at least $200 to $500 to $1000 a year. And we’re just talking little things, like pencils, erasers, seeds, whatever.

In contrast, all of the Heritage Charter School Teachers said the

Governance Council, which is composed of community members and parents

made such decisions. Most of the Heritage Charter School Teachers said

something similar to Nicholas’ comment,

Well, we have a Governance Council that signs off on our budgets. They have a treasurer and a little budget committee. We are always welcome to go to those meetings and when I have gone, I have felt that my voice was heard. I feel very, very respected at our school when it comes to budgetary decisions. I think I mentioned earlier in the context of textbooks or materials, they hardly ever say no. And if they do there is an explanation, like it costs this much here’s what we have in the budget. We can set aside

67

that for next year. That has always been the case. So our school has been just excellent.

However, Karl voiced his displeasure with the process by saying,

That to me is largely a question mark. I don’t know what our school budget is. I think it is public knowledge; it should be if it isn’t. I’m pretty sure it is. But it’s not given to us – we don’t really know what our classroom budget is, we’ve never been given an allotted amount. Just this year, my partner and I have started to order things, for the first time. We usually have gotten things that the school has ordered on their own or the office personnel has ordered. We get things, but now we are starting to order things. But we don’t really know how much we can order, what our price limit is. So we just put in an order and we see what happens with it. It would be nice to have more awareness in that area of what’s going on and some specifics as to how much we can spend. But we’re kind of shooting in the dark on that.

Four Sunshine School Teachers said the district and three said the state or

the governor although none of the Heritage Charter School Teachers listed any of

these. There were six respondents, three Sunshine School Teachers and three

Heritage Charter School Teachers, who included the principal but with noticeable

differences. The Heritage Charter School teachers tended to speak as if the

principal was acting within her decision making sphere when she made final

budgeting decision. For example, Linda said, “We just ask the office and they

approve it or not, [the principal] approves it or not.” One Sunshine School

Teacher mentioned how the principal overrode the Leadership Team’s decision

and Robin said,

68

Well, after being on the Leadership Team for a number of years - I mean,

the leadership team as it stands, the principal basically says these are the

categories that we have money in, and you come to a consensus with the

leadership team of what you think your school needs. And then you take it to the

staff from there, and they take a look at it and voice their concerns. But I think a

lot of it, too, the principals have the final say and are being kind of pushed by the

district in certain areas. Like, you should keep money here. You should spend

money on this type of thing, whatever the district is pushing.

Do Teachers Desire More Control?

An estimate of teachers’ desired control can be gauged by looking at the

ways teachers talk about their desire for more control in specific decisions and

how the decision making process could be improved. Only two Sunshine School

teachers and two Heritage Charter School teachers responded directly about

decisions that they personally would like more control; the answers included

schedule, student behavior, ELD materials and methods, and budget. The other

eight teachers said that they did not want to have more control in decisions. Many

teachers had a reply similar to Linda’s, “Not necessarily, I haven’t felt that pull.”

Monique expressed the divide between what she was interested in doing and what

she wanted someone else to do by saying, “Since we picked a principal, she is

69

taking care of the budget and we personally - I don’t want to be involved. You

know, I am a teacher. I don’t want to be a principal. I am very clear on that.”

Although most teachers’ direct response indicated that they did not want

more control, many teachers mentioned something that they had done to engage

in the decision making process, like working on a committee. At the time of the

interviews, four of the Sunshine School teachers were on the newly formed site-

based Behavior Committee. Other Sunshine School Teachers and Heritage

Charter School Teachers had worked on committees, been on Leadership Team,

attended Governance Council meetings, attended PTO meetings, and attended

school board meetings. Paula voiced her disappointment that the district had

stopped having content area committees,

Well, I think we need to go back to the old committees that used to be where teachers - When I first started here every site would send a representative to the district office for math, for language arts, for social studies. And at certain times you would do more if, say if it was an adoption year, then you would get that information, take it back to your staff. Try to get people to pilot the material, all those kinds of things. And I see it’s disappearing over time.

How Can the Decision Making Process Be Improved?

Most participants offered ideas for improving the way decisions are made.

There were 31 comments in total by five Sunshine School respondents and six

Heritage Charter School respondents that mentioned teachers in some capacity.

Of these comments, 5 concerned committees of teachers, 20 comments were

about making the voice of teachers heard in decision making, and there were 6

70

comments on collaboration or viewing other classrooms (see Table 9). Nicholas

said, “I think that the teachers should have input; they are the ones in the

classroom. They should have the largest amount of input.” Rebecca commented

on the importance of committees employing a wide range of participants,

With our district being so huge, it really comes down to the committee and how well those teachers are educated. You know, getting first year teachers as well as midyear teachers, and seasoned teachers together from all the different grade levels, English and bilingual, just to really meet and have a session. Table 9

Number of Comments Per Category on How Decision Making Can Be Improved

Teachers

Committee Voice heard Collaboration Total

Comments 5 20 6 31

Not only did these participants state that teachers should be more involved

but most participants gave recommendations about how teachers could be given

more control in decision making. Some of the answers called for new structures to

be put in place such as a new committee or a site advocate working with the

district office. Nicholas suggested,

71

But I thought what would be really smart would be to send around a report on the proposed budget a couple of months before any decisions were made and a comment sheet. And you know, a lot of teachers – it’s just going to go right in the recycle bin. But the ones that want their voice to be heard, they have that forum. … And apart from that, also having a budget committee. … a group of people that considers all of those concerns. Other answers concerned structures that were already in place such as the

PTO, staff meetings, and having teachers involved earlier in the decision making

process. Paula said, “I think there’s a frustration that decisions are already made

before they ever get to you. So you more or less spin your wheels.”

Teachers as Street Level Bureaucrats

Teachers talked about various aspects of their professional lives that

uncovered their role as street level bureaucrats and in implementing decisions. A

gauge of how teachers perceived dictates from the larger domain that they are

required to implement emerged when participants talked about whether mandates

help them meet the needs of their students. Their responses on this subject were

mixed. Each Sunshine School teacher mentioned some positive and some

negative aspects to mandates in relation to meeting the needs of their students. For

example, Robin said, “I mean, it’s always good to have some type of set standard

for everyone so we all know what we’re doing. So I think the state needs

standards. I don’t think we necessarily need so many of them.” However, most of

the Heritage Charter School Teachers’ answers were negative. Martin expressed

72

his view as, “I think it’s [mandates] mostly a game. I think it’s just mostly

politicians trying to get re-elected, being ill-advised by political advisors that

know what will make people vote for them but don’t necessarily or care to know

what’s going to make the schools better.” The positive aspects of the mandates

were listed as accountability, focus, and continuity. A common sentiment was that

meeting the needs of students is core to the job of teaching. Karl said, “I’m

personally always trying to meet the needs of my students, I think in general that

is what I’m expected to do.” Many teachers said that they were already striving to

meet the needs of their students and sometimes found mandates overly

burdensome or inappropriate. Linda mentioned, “There is too much to teach so I

get overwhelmed by that.”

Another area of implementation that teachers discussed concerns about

was being required to do things that were not a fit for their students and how

teachers dealt with that. Every Sunshine School Teacher had something that they

felt was not a fit for their students but not every teacher had a clearly defined

response to coping with it. Every Sunshine School Teacher mentioned standards

that were inappropriate for their students and three Sunshine School teachers

mentioned high stakes tests or assessments. Four of the Heritage Charter School

teachers mentioned high stakes testing. Martin noted,

Because in our program students start with literacy in their first language. You know that premise in dual immersion education where you get the strong foundation in your first language and slowly transition into the second. In third grade is that transition time. It was 30 minutes a day in

73

their second language of literacy. Half and half English and Spanish instruction but the explicit literacy component was only 30 minutes in the second language. But in second, third, and fourth grade, well in all the grades, they were being tested in English and our school being held accountable for the scores. Which really isn’t fair at our school because with the model we have, we really wouldn’t expect them to do well until fifth, sixth grade. So setting them up to fail is completely unfair because anyone who has ever taken a test can tell you that when you don’t understand the questions it is very demeaning, you know, it is very hurtful to your self-image. Some of the coping behaviors listed by respondents were doing what was

mandated (even though the teacher disagreed), anger, complaining, encouraging

students to do their best, and developing as a professional. Linda summed up her

approach as,

Tomorrow I’m going to go in and give my kids the best eight hours I can and teach them the most I can and hope against hope that things will open up. And that there will be access points for some of these students who will always be far below basic in elementary school. So I feel like I’m on this – I need to just give what I can daily and not get caught up in the dark cloud.

Role Ambiguity and Routinization

Having enough information to implement decisions yet not having too

many rules or strictures can impact how teachers feel about implementing

decisions. Throughout the interview, participants talked about areas of their job

which had a lack of clarity (role ambiguity) and areas of their job that were overly

prescribed (routinization). There were 73 comments in total in which teachers

relayed a lack of clarity in doing their job: 33 from Sunshine School teachers and

74

40 from Heritage Charter School teachers. The majority of these fit into the three

categories of teaching, mandate implementation, and testing.

There were 25 comments on teaching from 4 Sunshine School teachers

and 5 Sunshine School teachers. Kurt talked about coming to Heritage Charter

School as a newer teacher, “And then when I was put here with no resources and

no colleagues with experience to support me. I really felt like I was just surviving.

And that was really the case my first two years.” All 6 of the Sunshine School

Teachers and 1 of the Heritage Charter School Teachers made a total of 14

comments concerning lack of clarity in mandate implementation. Kristen talked

about the ambiguity in transitioning to standards-based teaching, “Just thinking in

terms of a standard, and how do I set the standard, and what happens if a child

continuously doesn’t meet the standard? What do I do? Do I keep retesting them?

Do I let the parents know?” There were six comments on testing from one

Sunshine School Teacher and three Heritage Charter School Teachers. Martin

talked about his students with lower English reading levels, “And when they do

the STAR test, they are looking at advanced stuff. And they have to sit and look at

it for a couple of hours and there is no point. It’s just breaking them. It’s just

hurting them and I can’t do anything about that and that’s very frustrating.”

Throughout the interviews, teachers also expressed that some areas or

situations were too prescribed and they were expected to do things that were not

in the best interest of their students as a whole. For example, teachers felt some

75

standards were developmentally inappropriate for that age of student. Robin

noted,

I think that some of them [standards] are inappropriately placed based on students’ development level. I mean, I’ve gone to some workshops on brain development and stuff, and just, you know, there’s always teachers complaining when you send them into fourth grade, those kids, they don’t know their multiplication facts. Well, it’s been proven that they’re not capable of memorizing that many facts, and those facts, most brains, until they’re like in seventh grade or something. So you’re asking them to do something that really most of them can’t do. Not because they want to, but they just can’t. Often these situations were connected with stress or anxiety for the

teachers because they restricted the teachers’ ability to do their job as they saw fit.

There were 15 comments on Inappropriate External Directives from 4 Sunshine

School teachers, and 37 comments from 6 Heritage Charter School teachers

totaling 52 comments. There were comments included on goals, mandates, or

other directives that teachers viewed as unsuitable or inappropriate such as

assessments, testing, standards, kindergarten entrance age, and NCLB. Rebecca

talked about the inappropriate kindergarten entrance age by saying; “We can’t

have four year old girls and boys in school. They do not learn. They are not ready

to learn in general. You do have those few who are socially outgoing and ready to

learn, but in general, four year olds are not ready to go to school. They need the

extra time in preschool or to be with their parents at home.”

The 12 comments on Lack of Flexibility of External Directives, 6

comments from 4 Sunshine School teachers and 6 comments from 3 Heritage

76

Charter School teachers focused on having to do the same testing or teach the

same standards to all of the students within a certain period of time. It was not

that the standards were unreasonable in themselves but that students develop at

different rates and yet were required to learn the same thing at the same time as

their classmates. These situations were also often connected with stress or

frustration for the teacher. Paula stated,

But not everyone is going to be at the same place at the same time. … Because a child walks anywhere from 8 months to 15, 18 months, and nobody gets super concerned, eventually they get up and walk, right? Well, that’s the way I view teaching in the classroom. Okay, some of them are going to get it at the eight month level, and there’s going to be … a larger group that is walking at that [average] time, and we’re not getting that larger group. It looks like we’re only getting a minimal amount of kids at that [average] level. Regardless of whether teachers agree with the external mandates, they

sometimes do not have what they need to implement it. Teachers mentioned a

variety of things they did not feel they had in order to meet the goals they are

being given. Only one teacher said she has what she needs. There were six

comments on materials from four Sunshine School teachers. Robin expressed her

chagrin that the school year begins in August “and this year I got my [ELD]

materials in May.” There were 11 comments on guidance/ training/ professional

development from five Sunshine School teachers. Janice talked about her

aggravation when “I was told by [the principal] that I could not go to

[professional development seminar promoted by the district]. That it was too

77

much money, and we didn’t need it because our school had acceptable test scores.

Okay, but I was told by my friends who went that they learned a lot.”

Most of the Heritage Charter School teachers responded in the affirmative

to having what they need. Two of the respondents said that they wanted another

person, like an aide, with them all day (they have aides for part of the day). Two

Heritage Charter School teachers, Gabby and Monique, attributed having what

they need to collaboration or teamwork.

Not all respondents felt that they were able to achieve collaboration or a

professional community with their coworkers, which could be an external goal or

a one the teacher has for herself. Teachers made comments about things that

inhibit efforts to collaborate or form a closer professional community. There were

12 incidents of Barriers to Collaboration / Community from 4 Sunshine School

Teachers and 1 comment from a Heritage Charter School Teacher. Many of the

comments from the Sunshine School Teachers concerned the track system or

teacher attitudes. Rebecca noted, “Well, just with the track system, it’s very hard

to collaborate with the person who is across the hall because they’re only in a

month and out a month.” The comment from the Heritage Charter School

Teacher, Linda, concerned not having a partner with whom she could collaborate.

“I lack a partner. I want a partner so badly. Next year we have a 4/5 teacher

coming in. I am looking forward to that so much. Sometimes I feel just like a

78

Lone Ranger decision maker. I always run it by my principal, but she is not in the

classroom working with my population of kids all day.”

Changes in Teaching Life

Teachers discussed changes in their teaching life and their responses fell

into eight categories. They are: What is taught, How it is taught, Materials/

environment, Mandates, Larger, Assessments, Support, and Development of

profession. The categories of What is taught, How it is taught, Materials,

Mandates, and Larger came from the interview guide. These categories cover the

content of what students are taught; how the content is relayed; materials used to

convey the content to students; mandates from state, federal, district, or site

levels; and The Third Domain, respectively. The categories of Assessments,

Support, and Development of Profession and the expansion of Materials to

Materials/ environment emerged from the data. These categories cover any

assessments given in the classroom; feelings about profession or some aspect of

profession; perceived support for teachers, areas in which teachers identify

personal growth in their profession, and materials and physical environment used

to convey the content to students.

There were 28 comments in total from the Sunshine School Teachers and

33 from the Heritage Charter School Teachers. Sunshine School Teachers talked

more about What is Taught and Assessments than did Heritage Charter School

79

Teachers. Sunshine School Teachers’ comments about What is Taught were

mainly negative and implied that the changes were out of line with what teachers

see as best for their students. They made comments such as, “a move away from

PE and music and art,” from Rebecca, and “more assessment now because the

whole report card,” from Janice. Heritage Charter School Teachers talked about

Support and Development of Profession more than Sunshine School Teachers did.

The Heritage Charter School Teachers’ comments had more to do with what had

changed that allowed them to better do their job. Karl said, “I think the big one

was having our principal come and be our principal. You know? The last principal

I had, he was out of touch with what needed to be done in our school. He had the

vision of establishing the school but he didn’t know how to run the school.” Linda

noted, “I’ve definitely learned how to get my parents more involved.”

Respondents talked about mandates that have changed things in their

teaching life. Some categories were mentioned by more than one teacher. Four

Sunshine School Teachers mentioned NCLB, three mentioned standards, and two

mentioned ADA funds. Two Sunshine School Teachers spoke of services for

English language learners. Only one category was mentioned by more than one

Heritage Charter School Teacher, which was the API (Academic Performance

Index). Otherwise, each Heritage Charter School Teacher had different responses.

80

Summary of Results

A brief summary of the results organized around the Research Questions

follows. Teachers do feel a decreased sense of control in the classroom because of

external mandates, such as state standards. This situation is more apparent with

the regular public school teachers from Sunshine School who report a much

smaller proportion of influence in decisions affecting the classroom. In addition,

Sunshine School Teachers were able to see both positive and negative aspects of

external mandates whereas Heritage Charter School Teachers mainly viewed

mandates as negative.

Teachers reported changes or shifts in control in several areas of their

professional life. The Sunshine School Teachers identified more changes and

tended to talk about changes that had external origins, such as change in mandated

subject matter, while Heritage Charter School Teachers talked more about how

they have changed things, such as organization of their classroom. Heritage

Charter School Teachers cited more instances of role ambiguity and routinization

and Sunshine School Teachers perceived that they did not have what they needed

to meet external goals, including support from the principal and parents.

Every participant stated that they were satisfied with being a teacher and

reservations were expressed by teachers at both sites. A contrast between the sites

is that Sunshine School Teachers expressed more dissatisfaction than Heritage

Charter School Teachers did. Heritage Charter School Teachers faced as much

81

pressure, or more, to meet the state mandated standards for student performance

but they expressed much less dissatisfaction than Sunshine School Teachers.

This may possibly be explained by site level factors such as Heritage

Charter School teachers reporting more control in decisions that affect the

classroom and the support they feel from their principal. The higher incidence of

role ambiguity and routinization by the Heritage Charter School Teachers was not

associated with greater dissatisfaction in this case. It does appear that site level

differences mediate teacher perceptions or experience of shifts in control.

82

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine how the larger domain impacts

teachers’ perceived and desired control as well as their job satisfaction. Some of

the findings were consistent with previous research and some differed. In this

chapter, findings for Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the Profession, Teacher Control

in Decision Making and Implementation, and Changes in Teaching Life are

discussed.

Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers in the Profession

The results from this study concerning satisfiers indicate that teachers

derive job satisfaction from some relationship with their students. This is

consistent with previous research (Brunetti, 2001; Cruickshank & Callahan,

1983; Dinham & Scott, 2000; Lortie, 1975; Priyadharshini & Robinson-Pant,

2003; Scott et al., 2001) and was somewhat expected. That four teachers

expressed reservation about their satisfaction with their profession or their job is

consistent with Lortie’s assertion that intrinsic rewards fluctuate (1975). It could

also be linked to Dinham and Scott’s findings that when the strength of satisfiers

stays the same but dissatisfiers increase in number or strength, teacher job

satisfaction is lowered (2000). It is notable that teachers from both sites reported

being satisfied with their job but that Sunshine School teachers more often

83

commented on dissatisfaction. Previous studies have found similar satisfaction

levels between charter school teachers and regular school teachers (Bomotti et al.,

1999; Bulkley & Fisler, 2003) but may have failed to capture differences in

dissatisfaction levels.

Sunshine School Teachers gave more and wider ranging responses about

their least favorite part of the profession than the Heritage School Teachers which

indicates that they do have more with which to be dissatisfied. It is possible that

Sunshine School Teachers have some experience that allows them to more clearly

identify and articulate their dissatisfaction. However, if this were the case, one

would expect that this clarity would extend to their other answers as well. This

was not, in fact, the case. Because both of these schools serve similar student

populations and operate under the same federal and state laws, this greater

dissatisfaction could be due to site level factors. It was found in this study, that

site level factors were connected to district control as well as management and

decisions making structures on site. The mediating influence of the site

demonstrated with the charter school in this study is consistent with other research

(Johnson, & Landman, 2000).

Teacher Control in Decision Making and Implementation

The results from this study challenge the idea of a “traditional pattern of

influence” where teachers have control over classroom decisions. The results

84

pertaining to who decides what is taught, how it is taught, and which materials are

used show that what happens in the classrooms is influenced by the site and larger

domains as well as by the teacher and is consistent with findings from other

studies (Corwin & Borman, (1988); Dinham & Scott, 2000; Ingersoll, 1994, 2003;

Poppleton, Gershunsky, & Pullin, 1994). When examining the results by school,

there is a clear difference in the proportion of influence that teachers report

having in classroom decisions. For the Sunshine School, the Larger domain

(which includes district, state and federal entities) was cited many more times

(68%) than either the site (4%) or teachers themselves (28%) (see Chart 1).

Undoubtedly at the Sunshine School, the Larger domain has the greatest influence

on content, teaching approach, and materials. In contrast, the Heritage Charter

School results show the Larger domain (22%) was cited as often as the site (22%)

and teachers themselves (56%) were cited the most (see Chart 2). Teachers at the

Heritage Charter School proportionally have the greatest influence on content,

teaching approach, and materials. While the Larger domain influences both the

Sunshine School and the Heritage Charter School, the proportion of control is

much greater at the Sunshine School. Other studies have shown teachers

possessing more control at charter schools (Bomotti et al., 1999; Johnson, &

Landman, 2000; Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003).

85

Figure 1

Sunshine School Teachers – The Proportion of Influence by Domain in Classroom Decisions

Site Domain4%

Teachers28%

Larger Domain68%

Figure 2

Heritage Charter School Teachers – The Proportion of Influence by Domain in Classroom Decisions

Larger Domain22%

Site Domain22%

Teachers56%

86

In addition to the variation of influence from the larger domain, site level

influence is different for the two sites. As stated above, in classroom decisions,

the Site domain is mentioned as often as the Larger domain at the Heritage

Charter School but influence from the Site domain is almost completely absent at

the Sunshine School. Teachers from the Sunshine School attributed much of the

classroom decision making to their district. For example, in deciding which

materials are used in the classroom, Sunshine School Teachers cited the state

three times and the district six times while Heritage Charter School teacher cited

neither the state nor the district. This indicates that in the absence of district

control, decision making is shifted to the site and teacher. This shift in control to

the site and teacher at the Heritage Charter School is also associated with less

dissatisfaction. Researchers have noted that the site shows the greatest variety of

factors and is the valuable place to make the changes that affect teacher

satisfaction (Datnow et al., 1994). It appears that the greater control enjoyed by

charter school teachers influences their dissatisfaction level and that site level

mediation of the Larger Domain positively impacts teachers.

Do Teachers Desire More Control?

Only four teachers responded directly about areas where they personally

would like more control; including schedule, student behavior, ELD materials and

methods, and budget. This is consistent with the areas listed by Corwin and

87

Borman in which teachers have traditionally exercised little voice (1988).

Teachers from both sites reported few areas where they desire more control and

when taken literally, this indicates that teachers, for the most part, do not desire

more control. However, there are other ways that teachers made it clear they do

want more control or have taken steps to have more control. Because of the in-

depth interview format, further insights into teacher dissatisfaction were derived

by examining comments throughout the interview. For example, teachers reported

multiple instances of participation in areas where they desired control, such as on

committees or school activities. This suggests a more action-based schema rather

than a theoretical schema. Specifically, teachers did not view control in the

abstract or as something that is applied outside of their physical sphere of the

classroom and site, but as a dynamic force applied to achieve a specific purpose.

When teachers express dissatisfaction over some decision or process, it

could be taken as a desire for more control. Throughout the interview, teachers

expressed their dissatisfaction through comments concerning role ambiguity and

routinization. The majority of these fit into the categories of teaching, mandate

implementation, testing, inappropriate external directives, and lack of flexibility

of external directives. The last four of these mainly originate in the Larger

Domain, and even some of the teaching comments do. This pattern of

dissatisfaction with things that come from the Larger Domain could indicate that

teachers desire more control over these decisions. Other studies have connected

88

large, systemic change with a shift in control away from the teacher and teacher

dissatisfaction (Dinham & Scott, 1996, 1998a; Poppleton et al., 1994).

Changes in Teaching Life

Results on changes in teaching life showed differences between the two

groups. Sunshine School Teachers talked more about What is Taught and

Assessments and had the overall effect of showing teachers as having things

happen to them. The things that happened to them came from the Larger Domain

and many were viewed as negative. Heritage Charter School Teachers talked

more about Support and Development of Profession and conveyed themselves as

being nearer the locus of control.

Future Research

This study has underlined how the Larger Domain influences teachers’

control and job satisfaction. An unexpected finding was how the role of principal

influenced teachers. Teachers from Sunshine School commented about the lack of

assistant principal and subsequent problems with student discipline in the school.

Teachers in Heritage Charter School mentioned problems associated with a

previous school leader. More information on how the site can mitigate control

shifts between the Larger Domain and the Classroom Domain can be gained by

investigating how principals moderate mandates at their school sites and how they

89

maintain or deviate from the traditional pattern of influence. With this greater

understanding of the mitigating role of leadership at the site, policies and teacher

support might be more effectively implemented.

Greater awareness of how the Larger Domain affects teachers will enable

authors of surveys to better capture what is happening in individual states. The

quantitative measures, such as the SASS, can reexamine their survey items and

the appropriateness of their categories. Adding items that addressed the Larger

Domain to their instruments would provide more focused data on teacher

satisfaction and control.

The influence of non-traditional decision making on teacher satisfaction

and retention is another area rich in possible research. Schools that employ site

based management or other methods to increase teacher decision making can be

studied with attention to teacher attrition and retention. Insight from these studies

might then be applied to school reform that enhances teacher persistence in the

profession.

As finding a regular public school and a charter public school with similar

high-needs population was a priority for this research, school size was not

matched. While school size can affect teacher job satisfaction and dissatisfaction,

the school size variable was not explored in this study. Future studies might

examine schools of more similar size.

90

As the charter school in this study was associated with less dissatisfaction

than the regular school, a comparison of satisfaction and dissatisfaction at

multiple charter schools could be explored. Finding charter schools run by a

company and others started by teachers or parents could reveal interesting

information on how charter school genesis affects teacher satisfaction and

dissatisfaction.

Finding situations where teachers can realize greater control over

decisions made in the Larger Domain while honoring teachers’ action-based

schema of control would enable the system to work more effectively. This study

indicates that teachers feel decision making could be improved by incorporating

more input or participation from teachers. Perhaps a feedback system can be

explored to allow teachers input on mandate reauthorizations and revisions (albeit

that state and federal panels might include “handpicked” teachers). This would

allow teachers to take what is happening in their classroom and with their students

and relay it to a larger entity, perhaps at the state level. For example, if teachers

were given state standards to teach and at the end of the year were asked if any of

them were inappropriate, the information could be used to fine-tune state

standards to better meet the needs of students.

91

References

Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners:

Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-

14.

Abelmann, C, Elmore, R, Evan, J, Kenyon, S, & Marshall, J. (1999). When

accountability knocks, will anyone answer? (Report No. CPRE-RR-42).

Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. 428463)

Alamillo, L, & Viramontes, C. (2000). Reflections from the classroom: Teacher

perspectives on the implementation of Proposition 227. Bilingual

Research Journal, 24(1-2), 155-167.

Alutto, J, & Belasco, J. (1972). A typology for participation in organizational

decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 117-125.

Apple, M. W. (2007). Ideological success, educational failure? On the politics of

no child left behind. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 108-116.

Bishay, A. (1996). Teacher motivation and job satisfaction: A study employing

the experience sampling method. Journal of Undergraduate Sciences, 3

(Fall), 147-154.

Bivona, K. N. (2002). Teacher morale: The impact of teaching experience,

workplace conditions, and workload. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED467760)

92

Bomotti, S., Ginsberg, R., & Cobb, B. (1999). Teachers in charter and traditional

schools: A comparative study. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(22).

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance: Against the tyranny of the market. New

York, The New Press.

Brooks, J. G., Libresco, A. S., & Plonczak, I. (2007). Spaces of liberty: Battling

the new soft bigotry of NCLB. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(10), 749-756.

Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to

practice. Educational Policy, 17(3), 317-342.

Butzin, S. M. (2007). NCLB: Fix it, don't nix it. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(10), 768-

769.

Brunetti, G. J. (2001). Why do they teach? A study of job satisfaction among

long-term high school teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(3), 49-

74.

California Charter Schools Association. (2007). Fact sheet on California charter

schools. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved September 28, 2007, from

www.myschool.org/resources.dyn/FactSheet_0407.pdf

Conley, S. C. (1988). Reforming paper pushers and avoiding free agents: The

teacher as a constrained decision maker. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 24(4), 393-404.

Conley, S. (1991). Review of research on teacher participation in school decision

making. In C. Grant (Ed.), Review of Research in Education; Volume 17

93

(pp 225-265). Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association.

Conley, S, Bacharach, S, & Bauer, S. (1989). The school work environment and

teacher career dissatisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly,

25(1), 58-81.

Conley, S., & Muncey, D. (1999). Organizational climate and teacher

professionalism: Identifying teacher work environment dimensions. In H.

J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining

healthy learning environments (pp. 103-123). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.

Conley, S. C., Schmidle, T., & Shedd, J. B. (1988). Teacher participation in

management of school systems. Teachers College Record, 90(2), 259-280.

Corwin, R. G. & Borman, K. M. (1988). School as workplace: Structural

constraints on administration. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research

on educational administration (pp. 209-237). White Plains, N.Y.:

Longman.

Crawford, J. R. (2001). Teacher autonomy and accountability in charter schools.

Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 186-200

Creemers, B. P. M. (1994). The effective classroom. Cassell: London.

94

Cruickshank, D. R., & Callahan, R. (1983). The other side of the desk: Stages and

problems of teacher development. The Elementary School Journal, 83(3),

250-258.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Wise, A. E. (1985). Beyond standardization: State

standards and school improvement. The Elementary School Journal,

85(3), 315-336.

Datnow, A., Hirshberg, D., & Wells, A. S. (1994, April). Charter schools:

Teacher professionalism and decentralization. Paper presented at the

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,

LA

Davis, J. & Wilson, S. (2000). Principals’ efforts to empower teachers: Effects on

teacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing House.

73, 349-354.

Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(4),

193-204.

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1996). Teacher satisfaction, motivation, and health:

Phase one of the teacher 2000 project. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED405295).

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1997). Modelling teacher satisfaction: Findings from

892 teaching staff at 71 schools, Annual Meeting of the American

95

Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED408247).

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998a, April). An international comparative study of

teacher satisfaction, motivation, and health: Australia, England, and New

Zealand. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, San Diego, CA

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998b). A three domain model of teacher and school

executive career satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration,

36(4), 362.

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher

satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 379.

Fuller, B., Noel, M. M., & Malouf, D. B. (1985). Polity and competence: Can the

state change teachers' skills? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

7(4), 343-353.

Garcia, A. (2000). Informed parent consent and proposition 227. Bilingual

Research Journal, 24(1-2), 57-74.

Garcia, E. E., & Curry-Rodriguez, J. E. (2000). The education of limited English

proficient students in California schools: An assessment of the influence

of Proposition 227 in selected districts and schools. Bilingual Research

Journal, 24(1-2), 15-35.

96

Hadderman, M. (2002). Charter schools. Trends and issues. Oregon: Office of

Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC.

Harris, A. (2000). What works in school improvement? Lessons from the field

and future directions. Educational Research, 42(1), 1-11.

Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard

Business Review, 81(1), 86-96.

Hoff, D. J. (2007). Turnarounds central issue under NCLB. Education Week,

26(42), 1.

Houston, P. D. (2007). The seven deadly sins of no child left behind. Phi Delta

Kappan, 88(10), 744-748.

Hunter, R. C., & Bartee, R. (2003). The achievement gap: Issues of competition,

class, and race. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 151-160.

Hursh, D., & Martina, C. A. (2003). Neoliberalism and schooling in the US: How

state and federal government education policies perpetuate inequality.

Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 1(2), 67-78.

Ingersoll, R. M. (1994). Organizational control in secondary schools. Harvard

Educational Review, 64(2), 150 - 172.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An

organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3),

499-534.

97

Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers' work? Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

Johnson, D. P. (2007). Challenges to no child left behind: Title I and hispanic

students locked away for later. Education and Urban Society, 39(3), 382-

398.

Johnson, S. M., & Landman, J. (2000). "Sometimes bureaucracy has its charms":

The working conditions of teachers in deregulated schools. Teachers

College Record, 102(1), 85-124.

Kelly, M. (1994). Theories of justice and street-level discretion. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 4(2), 119-140.

Kirtman, L. (2002). Policy and Practice: Restructuring Teachers' Work. Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (25).

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Lashway, L. (1996). The Limits of Shared Decision-Making. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED397467).

Lasley, T. J. I., Ridenour, C., Talbert-Johnson, C., & Raisch, C. (1999). Charters:

A value added opportunity for urban teachers? Education and Urban

Society, 31(4), 499-511

Likis, L. (2006). How a strong school faced "failure". Educational Leadership,64

(3), 80-85.

98

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Lumsden, L. (1998). Teacher morale. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED422601).

Madsen, C. K., & Hancock, C. B. (2002). Support for music education: A case

study of issues concerning teacher retention and attrition. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 50(1), 6-19.

Malloy, C. L., & Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools:

What's the appeal for teachers? Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 219-

241.

Maupin, J. R. (1993). Control, efficiency, and the street-level bureaucrat. Journal

of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 3(3), 335-357.

Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2000). Factors influencing implementation of mandated policy

change: Proposition 227 in seven northern California school districts.

Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1-2), 37-56.

Meier, K. J. (1993). Latinos and representative bureaucracy testing the Thompson

and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory: J-PART, 3(4), 393-414.

Michaelowa, K. (2002). Teacher job satisfaction, student achievement, and the

cost of primary education in Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa

(Discussion paper). HWWA: Hamburg, Germany

99

Miron, G., & Applegate, B. (2007). Teacher attrition in charter schools.

Education Policy Research Unit. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

Mostyn, B., (1985). The content analysis of qualitative research data: A dynamic

approach In M. Brenner, J. Brown, & D. Canter (Eds.) The Research

Interview. (pp 115-145) London: Academic Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Job satisfaction among

America’s teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background

characteristics, and teacher compensation. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, USC 6301. (2002). Pub. L No. 107-110

(2002).

Osborn, M., & Broadfoot, P. (1992). A lesson in progress? Primary classrooms

observed in England and France. Oxford Review of Education, 18(1), 3-15.

Osborn, M., & Broadfoot, P. (1993). Becoming and being a teacher: The

influence of the national context. European Journal of Education, 28(1),

105-116.

Paredes, S. M. (2000). How Proposition 227 influences the language dynamics of

a first- and second-grade mathematics lesson. Bilingual Research Journal,

24(1-2), 179-199.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Third

Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

100

Piché, D. (2007). Basically a good model. EDUCATION NEXT, Fall 2007, 57-59.

Poppleton, P. (2000). Receptiveness and resistance to educational change.

Experiences of English teachers in the 1990s. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED441794).

Poppleton, P., Gershunsky, B. S., & Pullin, R. T. (1994). Changes in

administrative control and teacher satisfaction in England and the USSR.

Comparative Education Review, 38(3), 323.

Priyadharshini, E., & Robinson-Pant, A. (2003). The attractions of teaching: An

investigation into why people change careers to teach. Journal of

Education for Teaching, 29(2), 95-112.

California State Legislature. (1999). The public schools accountability act.

Statutes of 1999 (chap. 3). Sacramento, CA: Author.

Riley, P. A. (2000). A charter school survey: Parents, teachers, and principals

speak out. California.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American

Journal of Education, 93(3), 352-388.

Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and

fall of teachers' commitment. Sociology of Education, 63(4), 241-257.

Schirling, E., Contreras, F., & Ayala, C. (2000). Proposition 227: Tales from the

schoolhouse. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1-2), 127-140.

101

Scott, C., & Dinham, S. (2003). The development of scales to measure teacher

and school executive occupational satisfaction. Journal of Educational

Administration, 41(1), 74-84.

Scott, C., Stone, B., & Dinham, S. (2001.) International patterns of teacher

discontent. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9.

Smylie, M. A. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The

importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational

Researcher, 25(9), 9-11.

Stevenson, Z., Jr., Dantley, S. J., & Holcomb, Z. J. (1999). Factors influencing the

retention of mathematics and science teachers in urban systemic initiative

school districts: Administrative perspectives. The Journal of Negro

Education, 68(3), 442-450.

Stritikus, T., & Garcia, E. E. (2000). Education of limited English proficient

students in California schools: An assessment of the influence of

proposition 227 on selected teachers and classrooms. Bilingual Research

Journal, 24(1-2), 75-85.

Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-

stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3),

519-558.

Verdugo, R. R., Greenberg, N. M., Henderson, R. D., Uribe, O., Jr., & Schneider,

J. M. (1997). School governance regimes and teachers' job satisfaction:

102

Bureaucracy, legitimacy, and community. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 33(1), 38-66.

Vulliamy, G., Kimonen, E., Nevalainen, R., & Webb, R. (1997). Teacher identity

and curriculum change: A comparative case-study analysis of small

schools in England and Finland. Comparative Education, 33(1), 97-115.

Walker, E. M. (2002). The politics of school-based management: Understanding

the process of devolving authority in urban school districts. Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 10(33).

Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional

innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational

Review, 47(2), 171-197.

White House. (n.d.). No Child Left Behind: Transforming the federal role in

education so that no child is left behind [Web based document].

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from

www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html

Winfield, L. F. & Hawkins, R. (1993). Longitudinal effects of Chapter 1

schoolwide projects on the achievement of disadvantaged students. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED366671).

Wood, N. B., Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Viewing the

school environment through multiple lenses: In search of school-level

103

variables tied to student achievement. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 43(3), 237-254.

Woods, A. M., & Weasmer, J. (2004). Maintaining job satisfaction: Engaging

professionals as active participants. The Clearing House, 77, 118-121.

Woods, P. (1994). Adaptation and self-determination in English primary schools.

Oxford Review of Education, 20(4), 387-410.

Yeagley, P. (2005). The impact of teacher control on their job satisfaction.

Unpublished master’s thesis. University of California, Santa Barbara.

Young, D. J. (1998.) Characteristics of effective rural schools: A longitudinal

study of western Australian rural high school students. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED42215

Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2005a). Charter school performance in urban

districts: Are they closing the achievement gap? Santa Monica, CA:

RAND.

Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2005b). Getting inside the black box: Examining how

the operations of charter schools affect performance: Santa Monica, CA:

RAND.