View Questions to Gather Data

Home , Between the Two of Them

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

Teacher Job Satisfaction in Kentucky: The Impact of Accountability, Principals, and

Students

A dissertation submitted to the

Division of Research and Advance Study

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.)

In the Department of Educational Studies

of the College of Education, Criminal

Justice, and Human Services

2007

Rachel Elizabeth Noll

B.A. Secondary Education, Northern Kentucky University, 1995 M.A. Secondary Education, Northern Kentucky University, 2001

Committee Chair: Annette Hemmings, Ph.D.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze job satisfaction and the

impact accountability, principals, and students have on high school teachers in two

Kentucky school districts. The study explored how teachers fulfilled intrinsic needs, such

as achievement, recognition and the work itself, while dealing with the demands of

heavy-handed governmental bureaucracy and fostering relationships with principals and

students.

This qualitative study used observations from field notes, classroom maps, teacher artifacts, and participant responses to interview questions to gather data. Individual, semi- structured interviews were based on open-ended questions and allowances were made to assist in the collection of additional data important to the study.

Findings of the study showed that the relationship teachers had with principals

and students was a major factor in determining job satisfaction. While teachers mostly criticized accountability measures such as Kentucky’s CATS testing and No Child Left

Behind, they contended that the positive relationships they developed with principals and

students mitigated the extent to which accountability measures impacted their job satisfaction.

Acknowledgements

To my parents Lou and Pat Noll: Thank you for all your love, support, and

financial assistance in helping me make my dream become a reality. You instilled in me

the notion of what education was all about by encouraging me to explore liberal arts

education and pursue the “well-lived” life.

To my brothers and sisters Tony, Laurie, Lisa, Lynne, Patrick, Sean, Regina,

Adam, and Sarah: I could not have asked for better friends. You always told me I could

do it and you were there for me in my darkest hours before the dawn of day arrived in the

form of graduate school. Thanks for all the times you fed me, lent me money, did my

laundry, and told me to finish my degree so that I could get a “real job.”

To my advisor Dr. Annette Hemmings: Boss, thank you for being the perfect fit

and allowing me to grow in my own time and on my own terms. Your light, guiding hand

was the touch I needed to navigate this journey.

To my committee members: Thank you for taking this journey with me. Your

encouragement, guidance, support and sharing of yourselves has made the trip all that

more enjoyable.

Last, but not least, to the “Club” girls: Wow, ten years has flown by! It seemed like yesterday that we all met at Scott High School as teachers and now, we all meet as friends. Thanks for being there for me in my darkest hours, listening to me complain about classes and papers I had to write, and, most importantly, nurturing my soul as only friends can do.

Table of Contents

Abstract iv Acknowledgements v Table of Contents 1

Chapter I: Introduction 3 Reflexivity 3 Statement of the Problem 6 Research Question 7

Chapter II: Review of Related Literature 8 Job Satisfaction 8 National and State Legislation 12 The Teacher – Principal Relationship 21 The Teacher – Student Relationship 24

Chapter III: Methodology 30 Overview 30 Design of the Study 31 The Role of the Researcher 32 Participants 33 Data Collection 35 Data Analysis 36 Limitations of the Study 36

Chapter IV: Narrative of Findings 37 The Hands That Tie, Bind and Gag: The Realities of Accountability 37 Authentic Learning 37 Utopia and Lack of Student Accountability 42 They Walk the Line 46 Principals to the Rescue 48 Transformational Leaders 48 They Make It Personal 49 No One Puts My Teachers in the Corner 54 The Disrespect of a Nation 56 A Job Well Done 57 Students – The Good, the Bad and the Children They Never Had 58 The Risk-Reward Factor 58 Care and Concern in Many Forms 60 Is the Joke on Me or You? 64 High Maintenance 67 The Rainbow Connection 74

Chapter V: Conclusions 80 Teacher Satisfaction and Accountability 80

Principals Matter 82 Students and the Real World 84 Contributions to the Literature 86

References 89

Appendix A Individual Participant Consent Form 96 Appendix B Interview Question Guide 98

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Reflexivity

I chose to research the question of teacher job satisfaction and the impact of government policy on teacher relations with principals and students because it has affected me personally as a teacher and a researcher. I have felt the power of state government educational policy directly as a teacher. Being a teacher in the state of

Kentucky meant complying with the guidelines of the Kentucky Education Reform Act, commonly referred to as KERA. My first teaching position was a direct result of KERA.

In order for students to pass the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System, or

CATS, in Social Studies, the students needed civics and geography information most schools would not teach until the senior year. Therefore, a Humanities class was created to teach the information on the test and I was hired to teach the class to sophomores. The only reason I had a job that year was because of the state assessment testing. Along with

“teaching to the test,” I was also required to create at least one assignment per quarter that students could use for their writing portfolio, which was mandatory for every student to have in order to receive a diploma from the state.

Another requirement in my job was to stay after school for two days in April and

score the writing portfolios of seniors in our building. I was sent to a state training

seminar in October where I was told the philosophy behind having students create

portfolios (to show a progression of their work from freshman to senior year) and the

basics of how to score portfolios properly. As I sat in the library in April with fifteen

other faculty members and was handed the state assessment rubric for scoring, I became

disgusted. The basic philosophy I was presented in October did not match the scoring

rubric I had in front of me. It did not make any sense to me. It did not take into account

the progression of the student as a writer in voice, content, or mechanics. Every piece in the portfolio had to be perfect or close to it in order for the student to achieve the highest rating of “Distinguished.”

I dutifully and responsibly scored each portfolio based on the state’s rubric while

in my mind I was thinking, “I am going to lose my job because the state cannot make up

its mind what it would like students to do.” For the rest of the year I became a more

defensive teacher, making sure that students achieved the standards set on the state

rubric, even if it meant having them rewrite it several times. It took the fun out of the

assignment but it was one way to ensure I would keep my job.

My time in Kentucky public schools was short-lived. I saw KERA as a system

that punished good teachers by drowning them in senseless paperwork (lesson plans that

were based on “learner outcomes” and objectives designated by the state as essential) and

robbing them of important classroom time by testing students for two weeks, not to

mention the “practice” time that was given before the test (our school actually bused the

students to a different school where they could “concentrate” on the “practice” days). I

came to see the state education system as “Big Brother,” bureaucrats who descended on

teachers with clipboards and pages of lists with items to check off (Timar, 1997, p.251).

They had no interest in my job satisfaction.

For most of my career I taught in a parochial school in Kentucky, which was not

required to participate in CATS testing and did not have to follow learner outcomes. I felt

“free” to do my work as a teacher there. I was not forced to assign portfolio pieces to my

students, even though I did give them as an assignment. I called them what they were – defend a position essays, fact-finding stories, or material for debate. I was allowed to teach or explore any subject I wanted, within the guidelines of the particular course I was teaching. I could spend two weeks of class time having students create a newspaper that might have been published in the North or the South during the Civil War. The measurement of my success was not based on students passing a standardized test but rather on whether students were prepared to enter the AP classes and how well they did in my subject areas when they got to college. Sally Wassermann (2001) summed up my feelings best in an article from Phi Delta Kappan:

“. . . for it is the professional teacher who really is in the best position to know,

from multiple observations, in multiple contexts, how a student is actually

performing and what kinds of assessment tools might be used to find out how

better to help him or her” (p.36).

I quickly learned from students whether or not I was helping them to perform at the level they envisioned for themselves. I was fortunate enough to have students come back and tell me how easy their History 101 class was after having me for a teacher in high school or that I had sparked an interest in history they had not had before entering my class. I even had one student who told me that she used several of the study tips I had taught her for other classes in college. Being a positive influence in a student’s life was what I believed education to be and in practicing that philosophy of education, I was more than satisfied.

In every school system, whether public or private, there will always be some barrier to teacher job satisfaction, especially when standardization and accountability are

emphasized. I see every school system having some bureaucracy teachers must deal with

in their everyday work lives. Susan Moore Johnson (1990) illuminates the quandary, or predicament, teachers in bureaucratic systems face as they search for that which will bring them satisfaction in their work:

“Their (teachers) goals are notoriously ambiguous and conflicting; schools are

expected to provide everything for everyone, to teach children both conformity

and creativity, to inculcate respect for authority as well as critical thinking.

Teachers are simultaneously told to attend to the needs of the individual and the

group. They are expected to teach broad concepts, but their students are often

tested for proficiency in discrete skills” (pp. 109-110).

Statement of the Problem

The U.S. Army is famous for creating a recruitment slogan that is most

appropriate for teachers today: “It’s not just a job; it’s an adventure.” Teachers are asked

to do more than just teach. They take on numerous roles in their work over the course of

a year, or maybe several roles in the course of one day. A teacher I know made this point very clear as I discussed the state of teaching and education in today’s world:

In my twenty-one years of teaching, I see more and more responsibility placed on

the educational institution in terms of not only teaching my child, but teach my

child morals, teach my child discipline, teach my child substance abuse

awareness, and thought processes. We are becoming more and more of a parent

model, a parent influence on the students each year.

The model delineates a new perspective from which researchers should view teacher job

satisfaction. Productivity in education has been traditionally measured by comparing the

ratio of outcomes (test results, graduation rates) to inputs (tax money, teacher education standards) (Ball and Goldman, 1997, p.229). This equation, however, does not take into account the intrinsic factors such as teacher satisfaction, as it pertains to relationships with principals and students, as a motivating force for teacher productivity. Studying these factors may help the educational system recruit and retain quality candidates, help decrease the number of teacher absences (especially in inner-city districts) and help teachers feel empowered to do the best work possible.

Research Question

The realities of bureaucracy and the accountability movement, along with the lack of voice for teacher concerns, especially in the state of Kentucky, have lead to my research question: How do the effects of standardized testing (especially CATS testing) and relations with principals and students, affect teachers’ satisfaction?

CHAPTER II

Review of Related Literature

Job Satisfaction

Since its early beginnings in the 1930s, the study of employees’ attitudes toward

work and job satisfaction has generated much knowledge about what makes people happy

or unhappy with their jobs (Evans, 1997, p.319). These studies have recognized various

factors that can be generalized to any profession, including the present study of teacher

job satisfaction. McNamara (1999) defines job satisfaction as:

. . . one’s feelings or state of mind regarding the nature of their work. Job

satisfaction can be influenced by a variety of factors, e.g. the quality of one’s

relationship with their supervisor, the quality of the physical environment in

which they work, degree of the fulfillment of their work, etc. (par. 1)

Pennington and Riley (1991) contemplate a view of job satisfaction as an external or

internal value. In their view,

a person’s general assessment of how satisfied he/she is on the job

is made according to an absolute frame of reference, while a person’s assessment

of level of satisfaction with individual job facets is based on a relative standard

that is specific to the work context and that involves comparison with the situation

of other employees (p.1)

Weiss and Cropanzano (1996, as cited in Thoms, Dose, and Scott, 2002), contend

that “job satisfaction represents a person’s evaluation of his or her job and work context.”

Kreis and Brockopp (1986) suggest that job satisfaction “is related to self-perception of needs fulfillment through work” (p.110). They integrate the ideas of Maslow (as cited in

Kreis and Brockopp, 1986) who saw the needs of workers as a hierarchical order, with basic (psychological) needs at the bottom and self-actualization at the top. Gawel (1997) reports that Maslow believed a person “could not pursue the next higher need in the hierarchy until her or his currently recognized need was substantially or completely satisfied,” an idea known as prepotency (par. 7). Studies done by Herzberg and Hinrichs

(as cited in Kreis and Brockopp, 1986) add to Maslow’s theory by purporting that in taking care of a worker’s lower level needs, dissatisfaction is wiped away.

At the same time, it is only in meeting the higher level needs of workers that satisfaction is brought to fruition. Dinham and Scott (1998) put forward Herzberg’s construct of a “two-factor theory” which links satisfying factors, or “motivators,” with higher order needs and dissatisfying, or “hygiene” factors with lower order needs.

Satisfiers, equated to motivators by Gawel (1997), are “elements that enriched a person’s job and were associated with long-term effects in job performance” (par.5). Satisfiers pertain to intrinsic factors such as “achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and opportunity for advancement . . .” while dissatisfiers pertain to extrinsic factors such as “working conditions, supervision, work policy, salary, and interpersonal relationships” (Bogler, 2001). Dissatisfiers, as Gawel (1997) posits,

“consistently produced only short-term changes in job attitudes and performance, which quickly fell back to its previous level (par.5) He further explains satisfiers and dissatisfiers:

Satisfiers are a person’s relationship with what he or she does, many related to the

tasks being performed. Dissatisfiers . . . have to do with the person’s relationship

to the context or environment in which he or she performs the job. The satisfiers

relate to what a person does while the dissatisfiers relate to the situation in which

the person does what he or she does (par.6)

The study done by the National Center for Education Statistics (1997) would likely

support the “two-factor” theory of motivators and hygiene factors as the report conveys

that salary and benefits showed a weak relationship to job satisfaction, while items such

as administrative support was “consistently shown to be associated with teacher job

satisfaction” (p.IX).

Chapman and Lowther (1982) do not dispute the general validity of Herzberg’s two-factor theory as it would apply to educators, but they intimate that teacher career

satisfaction is influenced by four factors: (a) a teacher’s personal characteristics, (b) a

teacher’s skills and abilities, (c) the criteria teachers use to judge his/her professional

success, and (d) professional accomplishments. They believe that these factors influence

and shape each other and the work done by Chapman and Hucheson (as cited in

Chapman and Lowther, 1982), as well as studies done on vocational choice by Holland

and identification of values by Super and Hall (as cited in Chapman and Lowther, 1982)

confirm it.

The concept of identification of values created by Super and Hall (as cited in

Chapman and Lowther, 1982) can be applied to teacher job satisfaction. They claim that people, who feel challenged by work, have autonomy to carry out work, and feel adequately rewarded in their work tend to stay in and be satisfied with their jobs. In

addition, the idea of intrinsic rewards, or satisfiers, that Herzberg and Bogler developed

seems to be important for teachers. Several studies have reported similar findings on

why people select teaching as a profession. They include: a) working with people (or

children), b) desiring to be of service to others, c) wanting to teach the subject matter, and d) working on a school schedule and calendar (Johnson, 1990; Lortie, 1975).

Some of the previously mentioned notions of job satisfaction directly correlate to the educational models of teacher job satisfaction, thus leading to the idea of job satisfaction in education as multi-faceted and influenced by several factors (Evans, 1997).

Linda Evans (1997) defines teacher job satisfaction as a “state of mind determined by the extent to which the individual perceives his/her job-related needs being met” (p.833).

How are the many facets and factors of teacher job satisfaction measured?

Zigarelli found a single, general measure of teacher satisfaction while Dinham argued that several separate measures are needed to assess all the factors that are mutually exclusive (Shann, 1998, p.68). Dan Lortie (1975), in the classic sociological study of schoolteachers, addresses this issue and asserts that there are three types of rewards that meet job-related needs which teachers can look for in their careers: extrinsic, ancillary, and psychic (or intrinsic) (p.101). Extrinsic rewards, in his view, deal with money income, prestige, and power over others and generally are “objective” since everyone experiences them. Ancillary rewards are objective and subjective because they refer to objective qualities of work that may be seen as rewards (e.g. women with children might deem their work schedule rewarding whereas men might not). Psychic rewards are seen as subjective appraisals made in the day-to-day routine of a teacher’s work (e.g. value of student-teacher relationship) and are inconsistent from person to person (Lortie, 1975, p.101).

Throughout Lortie’s work, various teachers from around the country were asked the same basic question: what is the source of professional (work) satisfaction?

Overwhelmingly, the answer was psychic rewards. In one study, 76.5% of teachers chose psychic rewards as their main source of work satisfaction, compared with 11.9% for extrinsic and 11.6% for ancillary (Lortie, 1975, p.104). Dinham and Scott (2000, as cited in Mottet et al., 2004), in a more recent study, ascertain that teachers were most satisfied by factors intrinsic to the role of teaching. Lortie (1975) reports that in another study done by the NEA (National Educators Association), “students” was chosen by 78.9% of teachers and 18.3% said “teaching in general” (p.104). The intrinsic rewards associated with teaching and students are inextricably linked to what Nel Noddings advances as an ethics of care.

Noddings (1992) promotes caring relations as a connection or encounter between two human beings, a carer and a cared-for, in which both parties contribute to the relation in characteristic ways (p. 15). In the educational view, Noddings (as cited in Pace and

Hemmings, 2007) sees teachers and students “taking responsibility for their relations with each other through acts of care that foster intellectual growth and also address physical, emotional, and psychological needs” (p. 11). The ethics of care Noddings alludes to, as well as other intrinsic factors of teacher satisfaction, influence job performance, attrition, and ultimately, student performance (Shann, 1998).

National and State Legislation

Shann (1998) makes the case that teacher satisfaction “is a pivotal link in the chain of education reform” (p.68). When Lortie produced his study on job satisfaction in

1975, he probably could not have imagined the impact that political forces (from political parties to federal and state legislation) may have on teacher job satisfaction. Michael

Apple (1994) argues that strong political and economic forces outside of schools, which

affect the primary goals of education, influence education. He notes that a powerful conservative political alliance formed what he calls the “conservative restoration” movement (p.72). The movement, comprised of politicians on the political Right in the

United States, has been very successful in shifting public dialogue about what should go on in schools and more importantly, what schools are for (pp.72-73). Apple (1994) outlines what he considers to be the four major educational policies and proposals of the group: (a) call for voucher plans, tax credits, or programs of "choice" to make schools more like a thoroughly idealized free-market economy; (b) the movement in state legislatures and state departments of education to "raise standards" and mandate both teacher and student ''competencies" and basic curricular goals and knowledge, thereby centralizing even more at a state level the control of teaching and curricula; (c) the increasingly effective assaults on the school curriculum for its supposedly antifamily and anti-free-enterprise bias, its lack of patriotism, its secular humanism, its neglect of the qualities of character and values that "made this country great," its lack of focus on work skills and dispositions, and its neglect of the "Western tradition"; and (d) the growing pressure to make the needs of business and industry into the primary goals of the educational system (p.72). It is important to note that while Apple argues the movement comes from the political Right, there was support from the political Left in the form of prominent Democrats such as Bill Clinton (Goals 2000) and Ted Kennedy (No Child Left

Behind) for policies involving improving standards and linking business and educational goals (Tirozzi and Uro, 1997, p.242). No matter what party supports the policies, the intense focus on issues surrounding assessment and accountability in schools, aimed at

mollifying this movement, have given rise to a major source of teacher job dissatisfaction

(Thorton, 2004).

How do politicians and political parties fashion policy and expectations and how

do they come to have such power over teachers? The federal government has had a long

history of enacting legislation pertaining to education. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787

allowed for a parcel of land to be set aside for educational use and the Morrill Land Grant

Act of 1862 gave each state 30,000 acres of federal land for every senator and

representative the state sent to Congress. These lands were to be sold and the proceeds

used to establish higher educational institutions aimed at agricultural and industrial

education. The second Morrill Act of 1890 provided additional endowments for all land-

grants, but prohibiting distribution of money to states that made distinctions of race in admissions (West Virginia University Extension Service, 1999, par.6). The proliferation of federal educational laws, such as The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (the G.I. Bill,

1945), National Defense Education Act (NDEA, 1948), Head Start (1964), Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1965), Bilingual Education Act (1968), and

Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), occurred after World War II and started in response to the Cold War and the “Space Race,” as well as President Lyndon

Johnson’s “Great Society” (Finn and Petrilli, 1998; Tirozzi and Uro, 1997). Tirozzi and

Uro (1997) note that in the late 1980’s, the federal government was alarmed by large gaps in test scores in core subjects, mainly math and science (low scores) versus reading (high scores), and in gaps between racial and ethnic groups (p. 242). Moreover, the government was also interested in comparing American student achievement with achievement of students from other countries as the American economy trended toward globalization

(p.242). To this end, a new wave of accountability legislation was passed, including:

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990), Improving America’s Schools

Act (IASA, 1994), Educate America Act (1994), Goals 2000 Act (1994), and No Child

Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) (p.242). All of these had the stated goal of improving

education for all students.

Not only was the national government passing legislation, it was also creating

commissions of experts, stakeholders, and concerned parties such as the Education

Commission of the States (1983), the National Commission on Excellence in Education

(1983; out of which came A Nation At Risk), and the 1989 Charlottesville Education

Summit called by President George H.W. Bush (the Charlottesville Summit gathered the

nation’s governors whose recommendations played a major role in shaping the Goals

2000 Act). These are just some of the many groups whose recommendations have developed national educational policy (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Tirozzi and Uro, 1997).

These powerful forces in education have created, doing so for the sake of “educating all children,” a multifaceted atmosphere of accountability, expectations, regulations, and standardization in schools (Mitchell, 1997, p. 265).

For a country whose constitution does not give the federal system any established

role, how can the American federal government have power over education? The answer

is simple: money. Although the federal government only accounts for eight percent of the

K-12 budget (Finn and Petrilli, 1998, p.58), that eight percent is still vital to many school

districts that could not afford to offer existing services and educational opportunities

without it. When school funding is cut by state and local governments, federal money is

often used to supplement school budgets.

Even though federal money is important to school districts, the more crucial

source of funding comes from state government. Because of its role in funding, state

government also wields a great amount of control and power over educational policy and

accountability within each state.

State policy has evolved in modern times to become a system of accountability

and testing to prove to taxpayers footing the bill for education and expecting to see

results for their investment that their money is being well spent. Kirst (1995) notes

between the years 1966 and 1976, thirty-five states passed accountability laws, fourteen other states claimed to have “comprehensive systems” of accountability with various components, and by 1984 over 250 state task forces had been established to study

education on the local level. (pp. 44-45). In addition, federal legislation included in Title I intended to produce single and “seamless” accountability systems to treat all schools equally, only twenty-two states had them in 2000-2001 (Goertz, 2001, p. 64).

Why has accountability become such a huge issue? Proponents of state systems of

standardized testing allege these systems “raise the quality of education and do so in

ways that are measurable and can be generalized” and blame low test scores on

“management’s failure to direct its ‘lowest-level’ employees (that is, the teachers) to

induce achievement in students”(McNeil and Valenzuela, 2001). Finn and Petrilli (1998)

contend that voters see education as a problem that needs to be solved but are naïve about what it will take to solve it (p.57). Sheldon and Biddle (1998) propose that the public assumes educational problems occur because teachers do not focus on the basic issue of student performance and the way to solve the problem is to “set higher standards for students, assess students’ performance with standardized tests, and reward or punish

students, their teachers, and their schools . . .” based on whether standards are met (p.

165). Essentially, if students pass the standardized tests, then they and their teachers are

doing a good job and taxpayer money is being spent wisely.

Because there are no enforceable national standards in regards to state education

systems, it is difficult to talk about specific pieces of legislation. What can be said about

the legislation, in general, is that it is formulated from the top down. “While education in

the U.S. is supposedly ‘decentralized,’ in reality it is one of the most top-heavy and

bureaucratic systems in the world” (Ball and Goldman, 1997, p.229). Ball and Goldman

assert this system and the proliferation of goals decrease productivity and limit the

freedom teachers need in order to be more effective in their classrooms.

According to Apple (1994), schools have been reduced to “economic utility” by

making the needs of business and industry the primary goals of the educational system

(pp.103-104). And how are these goals being supported in the societal framework? For

Apple, it is through the mechanism of state governments: “. . . the movement in state legislatures and state departments of education to ‘raise standards’ and mandate both teacher and student ‘competencies’ and basic curricular goals and knowledge, thereby centralizing even more at a state level the control of teaching and curricula” (p.72).

Texas and Kentucky offer two models on how state government is influenced to enact changes in the educational code. McNeil (2000a) points out that state reform in

Texas was driven from the top, created on the assumption that schools are at the bottom of the bureaucracy (p.153): “The state government enacted a set of standardized controls to monitor children’s learning and teachers’ classroom behavior. These controls arose outside the educational system . . .” (p.4). The history of Texas’ modern accountability

and standards movement started in 1979 with Senate Bill 350, which established the

Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (TABS) and continued in1981 with House Bill 246,

which mandated the first statewide curriculum. Two years later, in response to A Nation

At Risk, then Governor Mark White created a “Select Committee on Education,” led by

billionaire businessman H. Ross Perot, to study public education in Texas and how it

could be improved (Texas Education Agency, 2004, pp.65-66). Many of the

recommendations were condensed into a landmark piece of legislation known as House

Bill 72. The bill, called the “Educational Opportunity Act of 1984,” required students in

odd-numbered grades take a annual test centered on Language Arts and math and that all

students pass an exit-level test in order to receive a diploma. In addition, it regulated that

all administrators and teachers pass the Texas Examination of Current Administrators and

Teachers (TECAT) for recertification (p.66). In 1985, a new state assessment labeled the

Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (TEAMS), was developed and

administered until 1990, when the “more difficult” Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

(TAAS) was implemented (p.67). The educational codes of the state were revised in 1993

and 1995, affecting assessment, accreditation, performance reporting, and accountability

features.

The legislature focused on educational finance issues for a few years but came

back to assessment and accountability in 1998 when the Texas Essential Knowledge and

Skills (TEKS) curriculum was put into effect and, to align these new standards to state

testing, the “more rigorous” Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) was

introduced in the 2002-2003 school year (Texas Education Agency, 2004, p.69).

Governor George W. Bush believed that statistics gathered from the past two decades

showed Texas’ curriculum and accountability reforms were working: “Texas leads the nation when it comes to improving public schools. We are raising standards, strengthening accountability . . . so that no child is left behind” (p.69). Many of the concepts and accountability measures used in Texas while George W. Bush was governor would become the basis for the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965, more commonly referred to as the “No Child Left Behind Act.”

The songs of praise sung for a system brought to life by business leaders and legislators had teachers singing the blues. They maintained that the “margins” (the spaces even teachers in the most restrictive settings can use to “really teach”) were dwindling as accountability systems, created by legislatures, tied teacher pay to student scores

(McNeil, 2000b, p.730).

The gradual overhaul of the Texas educational system came in various pieces with

a push from governors, legislators, and business leaders. However, reform and

accountability in Kentucky were driven by the Kentucky Supreme Court, which ruled in

Rose v. Council for Better Education (1989) the educational system in place before 1990

violated Sections 1, 3, 183 and 186 of the Kentucky Constitution and ordered the

Kentucky legislature to fix the problem (LaMorte, 2002, p.363).

The initial objective of the suit was to secure equitable and adequate funding for

the approximately 66 (mostly rural and small) schools the Council for Better Education

represented, as well as 22 individuals (students) who were folded into the case (Foster,

1991, p.34; Day, 2003). The case was first filed in 1986 in the Franklin Circuit Trial

Court, the county seat of state government, since all the defendants were either legislators

or state employees and was entitled Council for Better Education v. Collins, et. al.

(Martha Layne Collins was governor at the time). The lower court ruled in favor of the

Council in 1988 and the state legislature decided to directly appeal the case to the

Kentucky Supreme Court (Day, 2003).

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rose v. Council for Better Education went well

beyond the financial issues the lower court ruled on when Chief Justice Stephens

declared “most of the witnesses before the trial court testified that not only were the

state’s educational opportunities unequal and lacking in uniformity, but that all were

inadequate” (LaMorte, 2002, p.366). Stephens emphatically states in his opinion: “We

have decided one legal issue – and one legal issue only – viz., that the General Assembly

of the Commonwealth has failed to establish an efficient system of common schools

throughout the Commonwealth” (p.368). At the end of the opinion, the chief justice

declares the educational system in the state in violation of Section 183, the part of the

state constitution mandating the state legislature to provide an efficient system of

common schools throughout the state, and orders the General Assembly to “re-create, re-

establish a new system of common schools in the Commonwealth” by April 15, 2000

(pp.368-369).

The justices placed sole responsibility to recreate this new school system, as

created in the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), on the Kentucky General

Assembly (p.369). Foster (1991) writes that the “justices identified specific educational

outcomes that every student should attain . . . making the attainment of certain student

outcomes a constitutional obligation of the public schools” (p.34). Not only would the

Assembly be charged with developing an efficient system, it must also formulate

adequate assessment, bureaucracy, curriculum and standards to ensure certain student

outcomes. Unfortunately, few of the Assembly members had ties to education (most were

lawyers and business professionals), and by the time the court rendered its decision, the

legislature had less than 11 months to craft the system (p.34). The system they created

became known as the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) and

was used until 1998, when the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS)

took the place of KIRIS amid concerns that KIRIS was not a reliable measure of what

schools and students were achieving (Clements, 1999). Schools and teachers were not

heavily consulted in the process of creating solutions for a more “efficient system of

common schools” or the formulation of adequate measures to ensure outcomes. It seemed

that was better left to higher-level bureaucrats who had the power to change the law and

solve educational problems, a very top-down notion of bureaucracy and education.

The upshot of state control is that the basics of accountability reform (teaching

methods, textbooks, testing, and outcomes) are being taken away from teachers who are

charged with executing them in practice and instead are “being legislated by state

legislatures, state departments of education, and central office staff” who are attempting to “increase the quality of educational outcomes” (Apple, 1994, p.74).

The Teacher-Principal Relationship

Outside forces such as state legislatures and central office staff take a toll on

teachers. Thorton (2004) states “the more constraints and mandates were ‘pushed on

them (teachers) from the state and the district,’ the more they thought about leaving the

profession because they were not ‘permitted to teach’” (par. 13). So, how do teachers

manage to find satisfaction and continue in the teaching field? Many researchers believe

one answer is found in the relationship teachers have with administrators. The National

Center for Educational Statistics (1997) reports that the relationship between teachers and

administrators does have an effect on job satisfaction. They note that as administrative

support and leadership rankings rise, so too did satisfaction scores. The MetLife Survey

(2005), based on a sample of 800 new teachers (five years or less of experience) around

the country, notes that 89% of teachers surveyed either strongly or somewhat strongly

agree principals at their school create and environment which helps them be an effective

teacher (p.29) and 53% of all teachers described the teacher-principal relationship as very

satisfying (p.5). At the same time, 62% of principals believe one of the key aspects of

their job is to guide and motivate teachers (p.39). In the same study, only 34% of those

teachers who were very or fairly likely to leave the profession said they were very satisfied with the teacher-principal relationship (p.5) and cite stress and anxiety related to

their relationship with their supervisor as a main reason to leave the profession (p.94)

Chapman (1983) comments that teachers who stay in teaching attach higher value

to recognition and approval of supervisors, and Chapman and Hutcheson (1982) agree

that more satisfied teachers assign more importance to recognition by administrators and

supervisors than to other factors, such as salary. The MetLife Survey (2005) states

teachers who identify themselves as most likely to leave the profession feel as if their job

is not valued or recognized by their supervisor (p.3-4).

Principals who guide and motivate teachers, recognize their hard work, and value

them as individuals find themselves in a distinct category of administrators known as

transformational leaders. James McGregor Burns, first developed transformational, or

collaborative leadership, in 1978 (Liontos, 1992). Burns, a political scientist, stated that

transformational leadership “occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such

a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (Louv, 2002, par.15). Burns believed leadership, in any style or form, could be expressed by so-called ordinary people in their own communities (Louv, 2002). This could be interpreted to mean a principal or any other member of an educational community. In addition, he recognized leaders and followers needed to engage themselves and each other and, in doing so, each would alter the other’s position on the matter under consideration before them (Dinham et al., 1995).

Silins (as cited in Bogler, 2001) denotes that transformational leaders “bond leader and followers” and consequently, the transformational principal “finds a way to be successful in collaboratively defining (with teachers) the essential purpose of teaching and learning” (Liontos, 1992, par.5). According to Leithwood (as cited in Liontos, 1992), the transformational principal has two main goals: a) foster teacher development by having teachers internalize professional growth goals and b) help teachers solve problems more effectively which, in turn, allows teachers to work smarter, not harder.

To compliment these goals, Leithwood and Jantzi (1990) identify six main attributes that educational transformational leaders possess: a) they build school vision and goals, b) they provide intellectual stimulation, c) they offer individualized support, d) they symbolize professional practices and values, e) they demonstrate high performance expectations, and f) they develop structures to foster participation in school decision- making. Many of these attributes contribute to teacher job satisfaction as they project the notions of achievement, recognition, and the opportunity for teachers to control a part of what goes on around them.

Sergiovanni develops a more categorical, and somewhat spiritual, approach to the concept of educational leadership. Sergiovanni (as cited in Johnson and Castelli, 2000)

takes the ideas of Leithwood and Jantzi and boils them down into five simple “forces” or

“dimensions” of leadership: a) technical, b) human, c) educational, d) symbolic, and e)

cultural (p.80). The symbolic and cultural forces encompass the direction and meaning

needed for a life filled with learning and living. The educational force is the overriding

force, for it may help clarify and/or define a school’s mission and guide its work. The

human and technical forces provide processes and means of management to conduct the

school’s work (Diegan, as cited in Johnson and Castelli, 2000).

The Teacher-Student Relationship

Although several factors associated with teacher job satisfaction have been

studied at length, such as national and state legislation, as well as relationships with

principals, one of the most significant and relevant factors is the teacher-student relationship. Bogler (2001) maintains that teachers obtain some job satisfaction from

“their relationships with current and past students who keep in touch with them” (p.666).

Gay (1995) revealed that effective teachers put great emphasis on their association with students and Shann (1998) stated that teachers “felt that teacher-pupil relationships were most important and reported that they were more satisfied with this aspect of their job than any other” (p.72).This is substantiated by the 2005 MetLife Survey which reports

75% of teachers are “most likely to mention students as their greatest source of satisfaction” (p.86).

Teachers put sizeable weight on the teacher-student relationship as a factor for job satisfaction. But do students feel the relationship has importance? According to students

interviewed by Pomeroy (1999), a good teacher is one who can establish meaningful

relationships with students (p. 472). Wallace (as cited in Pomeroy, 1999) found, in her

study of secondary school students, that interactive relationships formed with students

were more important to them than the way teachers taught a subject (p. 468). The

MetLife Survey (2005) heard from 1,075 public school students (grades 7-12) on the

subject of good teachers:

Nearly all secondary school students have had at least one teacher who they

describe as having made a difference in their lives. Those students who have had

at least three such connections with teachers report a variety of positive school

experiences. Students who have had at least three teachers who have made a

difference in their lives are more likely than others to be interested in their

classes, to feel safe at school, to value higher education and to say that their

opinion counts at school (p.4)

A number of studies have pointed out several positive qualities students feel good teachers possess: a) the willingness to talk and listen to students, b) the ability to understand and relate to students, and c) the readiness to have a friendly approach and a sense of humor in establishing and maintaining student relationships (Pomeroy, 1999).

In the Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher 2002, 878 students from

across America were surveyed on their views of how well teachers understood students.

No more than a quarter of students strongly agreed that teachers:

a) Were interested in what was best for students (24%);

b) Think of students as individuals (20%);

c) Respect all students (18%);

d) Listen to what students say (18%); and

e) Know a lot about the community or neighborhood students live in (9%)

(p.58).

Although the data presented in the previous paragraphs gives two very different

views on the teacher-student relationship, one thing is very clear – it is extremely

important to both sides that a strong relationship be developed in order for both sides to

be happy. To explain the incongruities of feelings, Metz (1993) claims that “. . . many

teachers hold themselves fully responsible for the effects of their efforts even though they

cannot fully control that work because it consists of transforming the minds and perhaps

the characters of their students” (p. 118). Metz also suggests that this validation for

teachers may not come until students become adults and the teachers’ efforts are

appreciated (p.119). Students may not be understand the value of what teachers are doing

in the present moment and as a result, give teachers less validation for the work they are currently engaged in, thus lowering their job satisfaction levels.

As researchers were starting to focus on the student relationship as relevant, the

age of accountability testing was being ushered in during the 1980’s. This era in

education has created several external features that not only affect the teacher-student

relationship aspect of job satisfaction, but job satisfaction for teachers in general. The

influence and demands of national and state policy, along with community and school

expectations, shape the ability and willingness of teachers to perform on a consistently

high level for their most important clients – students. Day, Elliot, and Kington (2005)

frame the dilemma teachers face in the current age of accountability:

Teachers are drawn away from what they regard as the essential part of their work

of interacting with students to deal with managerial priorities within new

contractual accountabilities expressed, for example, through imposed national

competency-based standards of school and teacher performance. (p.564)

The dilemma is tackled from two distinct points of view by Mary Metz and Linda

McNeil. Metz (1993) argues that students affect that which makes teaching worthwhile

for teachers. “Students can confirm or destroy such teachers’ pride of craft;”

subsequently, teachers depend on students for the intrinsic or psychic rewards they aspire

to because, in part, teachers cannot perform their job at the highest levels without the cooperation and support of students (p.104). This line of reasoning can be overlaid onto the issue of accountability. Metz (1993) asserts that teachers must not only “control their

charges, but they must also set the agenda. . .” and decide what “students should learn,

how they should learn it, and how fast they should assimilate it” (p.108). When Metz

wrote Teachers’ Ultimate Dependence on Their Students in 1993, she believed that

parents and college admissions officers directed what should be taught and what standards of achievement are judged to be competent. But in 2007, it is clear that federal and state standards have become the guiding force in what is acceptable and competent.

Either way, it still leaves teachers in a quandary since state accountability measures such as testing dictate what should be taught in class to students, not the experience of a teacher.

McNeil (2000a) takes on the teacher-student issue from a different perspective.

She believes that outside demands from national and state policy, in addition to

community and school expectations “require that they (teachers) choose between their

personal survival in the system or their students’ education” (p. 192). Many teachers feel that in order to cover “official” knowledge (standards and information thought to be important by mandate of the legislature), they delete their personal knowledge of the subject (McNeil, 1986, p.76). McNeil (1986) calls this a sort of “de-skilling,” a practice in which the worker (teacher) is reduced to a “mechanism rather than a whole being whose self is participating in the creative work process” (p.76). The de-skilling of teachers leads to, in McNeil’s words, “reducing content to rituals of lists and apologizing for assignments” or what she commonly calls “defensive teaching” (McNeil, 1986, p.209).

Looking at the situation through McNeil’s (2000a) lens, teachers attack the problem using “school knowledge” and “defensive teaching.” School knowledge is the course content taught by teachers that covers what is required for students to know but does not endow the student with the knowledge or opportunity to create their own understanding of the content (p. 12). Defensive teaching operates hand-in-hand with school knowledge for it lowers requirements of a class so that the least amount of participation and resistance for meeting requirements is achieved (McNeil, 2000a, p. 12).

It does not allow for rich understanding of the material; instead, it generates what she labels a “cycle of lowering expectations” (p. 15). McNeil (2000a) charges that as teachers are forced to meet national and state standards, teachers tightly control their classrooms, which disengages students from the learning process. As students disengage, teachers see the need to tighten control and administrators view the school as “out of control,” calling for more mandates and forcing teachers to tighten control of their classroom, thus perpetuating the cycle (p. 15). And all of this happens due to the teacher’s belief, as

stated previously, that outside policy and expectations compel teachers to choose between

their jobs and their students’ education.

Sheldon and Biddle (1998) are of the same opinion concerning defensive

teaching: “When teachers’ livelihoods are tied to test results, they become less willing to

let students explore and experiment with subject materials and may instead become more

controlling in their presentations” (p.174). On the other hand, if a policy (such as a

standard) is ascertained to have positive or desired consequences, a teacher may favor employing it if the policy is seen as pertinent to their work (Leithwood, Steinbach and

Jantzi, 2002, p. 98). Accountability tests can press teachers to concentrate on certain

content, skills, and instructional practices that may aid students (Mitchell, 1997, p. 263),

yet governments must be aware that teachers fear negative sanctions caused by poor test

results (such as Kentucky’s state intervention in managing schools and giving bonuses)

(Leithwood, Steinbach and Jantzi, 2002, p. 100). Needless to say, these consequences

(both good and bad) have an effect on teacher job satisfaction.

CHAPTER III

Methodology

Overview

This chapter provides the design and methods for a qualitative study of teacher job satisfaction for high school teachers in two Kentucky school districts. A qualitative study was chosen to best determine the effect KERA, as well as teacher relationships with principals and students, has on teacher job satisfaction. During observations and interviews, participants had the opportunity to further describe and elaborate on their experiences, providing me with information not available through surveys or pre-existing data sets. For many teachers, job satisfaction is shaped by the mind and the heart, and as such, demands the creation of questions to fully ascertain what factors are significant for job satisfaction.

A number of studies over the past 20 years focus on teacher job satisfaction and a large percentage of the more recent studies concentrate on teachers outside the United

States. Teachers in Kentucky have been included in the few national studies conducted but little, if any, research addresses the concerns brought on specifically by KERA. The rationale of this study was to collect, identify, and compare information related to two public high schools in Northern Kentucky.

This study was conducted at two high schools located in Kentucky. School A is

Reagan High School1, a large county school situated in a city of approximately 9,400 citizens. Although the school is located in one city, this large county school serves fourteen cities and unincorporated cities in the county. The cities have predominantly

1 The names of the people and the schools referenced in this text are pseudonyms used to ensure confidentiality.

White Non-Hispanic populations, ranging from 87.05% to 98.52%. In the year 2000, the

range for median household income ran from $30,735 to $76,218 (Estabrook, 2005). The

school serves grades 9-12 and has a total population of 1130 students. Of the total school

population, three percent of the students were considered to be of minority status. There

are 78 faculty members, 55 females and 23 males who are all White Non-Hispanic. The

superintendent, school principal, and school board members are all White Non-Hispanics

(School Report Card, 2005).

School B is Anderson High School, a small, independent school district situated

in a city of approximately 16,700 citizens. Although the school is located in one city, this

school also serves a neighboring city with approximately 8,200 citizens. These two cities have predominantly White Non-Hispanic populations, 96.08% and 92.11% respectively.

In the year 2000, the median household incomes were $42,835 and $42,262 respectively

(Estabrook, 2005).

The small school district has one high school that serves grades 9-12 and has a

total population of approximately 625 students. Of the total school population, seven

percent of the students were considered to be of minority status. There are 41 faculty

members, 27 females and 14 males who are all White Non-Hispanics. The

superintendent, school principal, and school board members are all White Non-Hispanics

(School Report Card, 2005).

Design of the Study

My intention in designing this study was to see if there was a significant

difference in job satisfaction between suburban and urban public high school teachers as

it pertained to implementing KERA. I initially chose Reagan High School (suburban

school) in the Northern Kentucky area due to my prior relationship with the principal,

Mrs. Strong, who served her principal internship at a private high school where I was

employed six years before the study began. Mrs. Strong then suggested two urban

schools whose principals she thought would be open to allowing me access to their

teachers for the study. I called and met with Mr. Sims, who agreed to allow me to shadow

teachers from Anderson High School.

Once I had received permission to shadow teachers, I asked each principal to

recruit teachers from each of the four core subjects of CATS testing: English, math,

science, and social studies, for a total of eight participants. Each principal managed to elicit volunteers from all the subjects except social studies and I ended up observing six

teachers, three from each school. These teachers, in general, had several years of teaching

experience and seemed to be generally satisfied in their job.

The Role of the Researcher

In this study, the main role I performed was one of a learner, gathering and

recording observational and interview data, then later analyzing said data. The interview

process, with its many unscripted questions and answers, created a study with an

emergent design. Patton (2002) defines emergent design as “openness to adapting inquiry

as understanding deepens and/or situations change; the researcher avoids getting locked

into rigid design that eliminates responsiveness and pursues new paths of discovery as

they emerge (p.40). As the study progressed, my initial focus of the impact KERA had on

teacher job satisfaction broadened to encompass how both the teacher-principal and

teacher-student relationships affected teacher job satisfaction.

As I engaged in my major role of researcher, I also found myself performing in

the minor role of a participant. At various times, teacher participants drew me into

conversations the participants carried out with students or asked the researcher for input

during a lesson. Although a small role, this interaction helped to establish a rapport with

participants but may produce bias on the researcher’s part.

Participants

In the first week of August 2005, I went to each school and met with the three teachers. I introduced myself, gave a brief background of my own teaching career, and explained the rationale behind the process of coming up with the research questions for the study. At the end of my presentation, the teachers were informed about confidentiality protocol, given time to ask any questions, and then asked to sign the individual consent form. When the forms were completed, an observation schedule was worked out with each teacher that started the first full week of September 2005 and ended in the last week

of November 2005.

From my observations and interviews with the teachers, some important

background information was obtained. The first teacher I observed at Reagan High

School was Mrs. May. She was a twenty-two year veteran who taught Geometry and

Accelerated Algebra II. A “no-nonsense” teacher with a big splash of personality and a

wry sense of humor, Mrs. May was seen by a majority of students as a motherly figure

that cared about them far beyond what they accomplished in her classroom.

Mrs. Herringer was a thirty-three year veteran who taught English III and

Advanced Placement English IV. Mrs. Herringer had a very dry sense of humor and an

easy-going demeanor. Her quiet self-assurance and mastery of her subject was perfectly

suited for teaching upperclassmen the nuances of language and literature on an

accelerated level.

The last teacher from Reagan High School was Mrs. Heaton, a sixteen-year science educator who taught Earth Science (a required class mostly comprised of underclassmen) and Environmental Science (an elective for juniors and seniors). She was a passionate advocate of the practicalities science brought to a student’s everyday life and sponsored activities and clubs, such as the Environmental Club, that embodied her philosophy. Her enthusiasm and love of teaching was tempered, however, by the realities of students who could not see the benefits that science provided in their world.

Mrs. Carr was the first teacher I encountered at Anderson High School. She was a

math teacher with twelve years of experience currently teaching Algebra II, Pre-Calculus,

and Calculus. Her effervescent personality, quick wit, and knowledge of popular culture

attracted and held the attention of most students, allowing her to make connections with

students on a deeper level than mere subject matter.

Mr. Ledoux was the only male participant in the study. A “rookie” compared to

other teachers with four years of experience, he taught Integrated Science (these classes

were segregated by sex and were offered on a basic and advanced level for both sexes) and Earth Science (a co-ed elective). A product of an alternative certification program

(Master of Arts in Teaching or MAT) through a local university, he brings plenty of life

experience from his previous career as a certified beer brew master. His passion for

science was only matched by his passion for running, and he was able to combine the two

when he kept a running diary for his students about his week-long run in the Marathon de

Sables.

The last teacher, Ms. Stone, was a study in contrast. A teacher for only three years, she taught English I (again, segregated by class and ability) and Advanced

Placement English IV. Students had a healthy fear and respect of her authority but also enjoyed her sense of humor and her willingness to poke fun at herself. Her feisty personality, passion for literature, and reputation as a strict disciplinarian (molded in her

time as an Army soldier) belied her compassion and commitment to be driven by

something larger than the pursuit of money, fame or grandeur.

Data Collection

In January 2005, I placed a phone call to the principal of Reagan High School to

inquire about the possibility of conducting a study of teachers concerning job satisfaction.

Mrs. Strong, the high school principal, agreed to gauge possible participation of her faculty for the research study and acquired the names of three teachers willing to participate. Mrs. Strong gave the researcher the name of another principal whom she thought would be willing to allow the same research to occur at his school. I then contacted Mr. Sims about conducting a study of his teachers. Mr. Sims agreed to gauge possible participation of his faculty for the research study and acquired the names of three teachers willing to participate.

I observed each of the six participants for five full teaching days over a two week

period. Observations including written field notes of activities within the classroom, maps of each teacher’s classroom, and descriptions of classroom artifacts (posters, bookshelves, student works, and classroom rules). Other teacher artifacts were also collected, such as faculty meeting agendas, handouts, syllabi, tests, and worksheets. Each teacher was interviewed for approximately one hour and asked questions concerning

several aspects of teacher job satisfaction and CATS testing. These interviews were recorded on a digital voice recorder and transcribed.

Data Analysis

Field notes, classroom maps, and teacher and classroom artifacts, in addition to

participant interviews, were hand-coded and categorized according to three major

themes: accountability, teacher-principal relationships and teacher-student relationships.

These themes were divided into sections based on aspects of each found in the literature.

Limitations of the Study

There were several limitations to this study. The study utilized convenience

sampling. The sampling technique was partly driven by the difficulties associated with

gaining entrée to school sites where the researcher is unknown. This is especially true in

studies with sensitive topics such as how satisfied teachers are. I also had a prior

relationship with one of the principals who was quite supportive of the research.

Another limitation was the researcher’s reliance on the principals to recruit

volunteer participants. Neither principal was able to obtain a fourth participant and the

one core subject of CATS testing left out of the observations was social studies.

Additionally, most of the participants seemed to be generally satisfied in their work and

had several years of teaching experience. Different results may have been obtained if

more unsatisfied teachers had been a part of the study.

CHAPTER IV

Narrative of Findings

The Hands That Tie, Bind and Gag: The Realities of Accountability

Authentic Learning

From America’s earliest beginnings, the idea of education has always been

present but its motives and purpose have changed as the country has grown. It went from

teaching religion and literacy to having an informed citizenry which would suppress the

rise of oppressive governments to preparing students for positions of economic production (McNeil, 1986). The vision of a global economy has fostered a need to prove,

not only to ourselves but others around the world, that future generations of workers can meet the needs of this ever-changing marketplace. In addition, the increase in competition globally forces taxpayers in America to look at how diligently and effectively their money is being spent to educate students and create a competitive workforce for the present and the future.

With this in mind, taxpayers and legislators have looked to an accountability

model for proof that schools are functioning at an adequate level to reach these economic

objectives. McNeil and Valenzuela (2001) state that those who promote accountability

systems, especially state systems of standardized testing, believe it raises the quality of

education in ways that can be measured and generalized (p.127). However, as McNeil

(2000a) argues, what it really has done is created a curriculum that is driven by test

materials and minimized opportunities for teachers to engage in authentic teaching.

McNeil and Valenzuela (2001) describe the effects that the TAAS system has on

Texas teachers in the way they create curriculum and engage in teaching practices: “The

pressure to raise TAAS scores leads teachers to spend class time, often several hours each

week, drilling students on practice exam materials. This TAAS drill takes time from real

teaching and learning. . .” (p. 132). The picture painted by McNeil and Valenzuela was

also played out in Kentucky under the pressures of CATS testing. Mrs. Carr, trying to

boost math test scores, decided to use a workbook designed around CATS standards, in her junior level classes. The workbook was produced by Glencoe-McGraw-Hill, publisher of her math books, to help the students review all math standards they may be tested on in April. Her plan was to solely concentrate on covering this particular material

every Friday until they finished the workbook. Unfortunately, more than just Friday each

week was spent on covering the material and Mrs. Carr, as well as the students, felt the

frustration as she said, "I know this CATS workbook isn't the highlight of your year, but I

need you to pay attention" and remarked that she wanted to “get this over with.” After

four weeks of spending extra time on the workbook, she decided to forego it for one

week and work on what she considered important – the lessons in the textbook. Her

judgment concerning “important curriculum” and her discontent were even more

apparent in a conversation she was having with her practicum student Andrea from a

nearby university. They were talking about a professional development meeting Mrs.

Carr attended the week before and she indicated the college professors at the meeting

were critical of CATS and said what she already knew; essentially, several of the

standards KERA and CATS emphasized were ones that professors and other

professionals believed students didn’t really need to know to be successful on the college

level. Mrs. Carr pointedly observed:

They (students) know it doesn’t get them into college. They know it doesn’t

necessarily coincide with all the ACT material. They know it doesn’t affect their

grades. I’m talking about, again, just the mass amounts of paperwork and the

whole core content coming from CATS versus ACT versus what colleges want.

You just feel like you are never caught up. It’s very hard.

Mrs. Herringer felt Mrs. Carr dissatisfaction that teaching to standards had on

authentic learning. Throughout the semester, Mrs. Herringer used Friday as a day to have

her two senior Advanced Placement English classes work on revisions for portfolio

pieces they chose to submit as their formal portfolio project required by the state. Most

pieces were actually composed during the previous three years of their high school career

and compiled in a folder that traveled with them to each new English teacher. Students selected the compositions they wished to place in the portfolio. In Mrs. Herringer’s class,

the students paired up with a partner and critiqued each other’s pieces based on several

criteria listed on a worksheet. The “grader” was encouraged to make comments on the

worksheet about how the partner could improve the piece and the activity was carried out

for most of the 88-minute block of class time.

Since they were AP students, the school expected them to score at least a

“Proficient” on the portfolio (scoring scale: Novice, Apprentice, Proficient, and

Distinguished) to help boost overall scores. If they did not reach the score, the pieces

were reworked until the student’s teacher graded it as such (this does not override the

grade given by the state however). The school, in addition to each English teacher, also employed a person who met with each senior individually to help with their portfolio, and

collaborated with teachers to create prompts and mini-lessons for each type of portfolio

piece.

Needless to say, Mrs. Herringer found this to be a fruitless exercise and commented that there was nothing authentic about it: “Portfolios have turned our kids

into the kings and queens of bullshit!” She worried that the time devoted to portfolios

took away time students should spend on learning the material and skills she felt were not

only essential for a meaningful education but would also help them pass the AP exam.

Her concern was legitimate because students tend to focus more on AP exams, which

earn them college credit and save them money, than on state testing that carried no

positive or negative consequences for students.

Ms. Stone, like Mrs. Herringer, an English teacher, suspects she is being stymied by the strict “rules of engagement” concerning portfolios and how it crushes her ability to teach authentically:

One teacher in this department thinks that portfolios are a good idea and

that they teach the kids to write. I think it is actually probably detrimental

to the writing process. I know that’s a strong statement but I could teach

the kids to write far better. For example, let’s take the essays that we are

doing for To Kill a Mockingbird. . . The results from that are far greater

than if I worked with them on a portfolio piece. I don’t have to follow the

rules. When I grade their essays I can cross something out and I can do

what I want to do with them. It’s all those little things that English

teachers do. When they do portfolio pieces, I can’t say “you spelled this

wrong; here is the correct spelling.” I have to put SP and then trust the kid

to be at home or be on the computer revising. With essays I can teach

them, but with portfolios not only are the teaching process and the

learning process slower, it just drags. Not only is it slower but it also

takes up such a huge chunk of time that what could be done is

overshadowed by what needs to be done. Think about that! If the ultimate

goal is to teach kids how to write, what you are making me do or what I

need to do is like throwing a stick in a spoke. It just doesn’t work. It’s

frustrating!

The frustration did not end there:

Portfolios wouldn’t have the stigma but there is a stigma when you say to a kid

you are going to write a personal piece and the first thing that comes out of their

mouth is, ‘Oh gosh, is this a portfolio?’ I don’t even let them say the “P” word in

class. It’s a bad word. You are not allowed to say portfolio. . . The kids by the

time they are in ninth grade and they are going into the next grade they say, ‘Oh

my gosh, I hate this!’ I want to say, ‘me too!’ but I can’t. I say, ‘No, this is fun.

We are going to do this.’ I have to be the cheerleader as well.

In the most poignant and memorable line spoken throughout my research, Ms.

Stone summed up her attitude concerning the rules of engagement by saying, “I never

thought I’d have to worry about legalities of my red pen. I do and it makes me crazy.”

The irritation, aggravation, and annoyance she suffered were further outlined when she elaborated on the legalities her red pen brought up and how she viewed her response to them:

It’s a game. It’s a total dance. It’s funny because everybody knows the dance is

an illegal dance. We are like a bunch of Baptists . . . For example, on a portfolio

piece, I will put the word “punctuation” and then the kid will say, ‘I need

punctuation here?’ I will then say, ‘Yes.’ They will then ask, ‘Which one?’ and I

will say, ‘I can’t tell you.’ They will say, ‘Okay, is it a period?’ and I’ll say, ‘Will

you please read that and tell me if you think that is the end of a sentence?!’ They

will then say, ‘Oh, that’s not the end of the sentence.’ I ask them, ‘What do you

think should be there, according to the rules of punctuation?’ They will, if they

are at a keyboard, guess ‘Is it?’ as they point to whatever. I’m just like, ‘It’s a

game, I’m going to keep saying no until you hit the right one.’ I will say yes and

then they will put it in.

What good does that do them? We all play these little games, whether it is

rephrasing or whatever it is. We are dancing around the issue of legalities and

they become metaphorically those Baptists who went to church every Sunday but

then they went home and played cards or danced.

Utopia and Lack of Student Accountability

Why do teachers have to exist as metaphorical Baptists, playing cards and dancing while no one is watching? They do so because of the “utopia” lawmakers assembled with legislation such as No Child Left Behind and KERA. Mr. Ledoux summed up the thoughts of the teachers when he said the legislation was utopia because the intent of the legislation did not match up to the realities of teaching in terms of money, time and other resources:

We have No Child Left Behind, which is a utopia to start with. Then there is no

budget. On the other hand, we have to add students in and integrate them into the

classroom and we are given a classroom of thirty-two. It just doesn’t make sense

what we are saying.

The CATS are in mid-April and are for both juniors and seniors. You have school

until the end of May. What do they expect? We are losing a month. There is

supposed to be a month of instruction. You have to learn this (the material for the

test) in the class almost a month before. You can’t throw away two months of

instruction with those kids.

Society and politicians want No Child Left Behind and they have to have tools to

justify it. Then they say, ‘We don’t have the money for it so you better be good or

we are going to chop your leg off.’

Most teachers know the Tony Soprano-type scenario Mr. Ledoux spoke of will not happen. Yet, there was a feeling of the Orwellian “Big Brother” government watching and dictating teacher efforts with failing results, as Ms. Stone decries:

After teaching for three short years there is nothing I am more certain of than the

absolute fact that CATS is ruining Kentucky schools. Why do you think we are

48th in the nation? Well, let’s start with the fact that teachers feel pressured to

teach to the test all the time. No one considers what we could be accomplishing if

we could actually teach. The system only means something to the non-teachers

and non-administrators wearing the suits in Frankfort. Would you ask a lawyer to

fix your toilet if you had a leak? No! Why, you ask? Because lawyers don’t do

plumbing; plumbers do plumbing. Why is that logical in the real world yet not in

ours? Why do we allow public officials, most of whom have never been inside a

classroom, to make the rules? The people who have been in education, who are

now working for the state, most likely have not been in a classroom in years and

have lost touch. Get a clue, people, we know that you know CATS is a failure, and

we know that you won’t do anything about it because it's all about the almighty

dollar. So what do we do? We sacrifice our kids for another decade of failure. The

truth is CATS reflects nothing except how well the teachers busted their ass to

please the lawyer who came to fix the toilet.

These teachers, who were treated more like bureaucratic puppets by the state government, had several points of contention they wished they could take up with the legislature. One of the biggest areas was a lack of student accountability in the testing system and the increased expectations it placed on teachers.

Every public school student in Kentucky must take the CATS test but does not have to pass the test as a condition of graduation. No scores are reported on a student’s transcripts and there are no consequences for students performing poorly on the test. The accountability measures are directed at teachers, principals, superintendents and school districts that are rewarded or punished. The rewards are monetary and the punishments may range from schools being labeled “low-performing” to being completely shut down.

All the teachers commented that their biggest frustration with KERA was the lack of student accountability. I could hear the exasperation in their voices as they spoke about their jobs being dependent, in part, on students who had no motivation or incentive to do well. Mrs. May pointed out a teacher’s worst nightmare. “It’s all about student accountability. We can have the top ten students in the graduating class get a novice.

They can write their name on it and turn it in and no one in the school can legally say one

word to them. There is no accountability and they know it. They know it!” Ms. Stone

seconded the emotion: “Students get their CATS scores back and they mean nothing to

them except that the administration threatens them with disciplinary action if their scores

don't reflect what the teachers think it should.” Mrs. Heaton “knew it” as well when she

compared her experience with student accountability in Kentucky to her experience with

it in Virginia:

There are a lot of instances where kids (in Kentucky) just go in and blow that test

because there is no accountability for doing bad. There is so much emphasis on

improving, improving, improving and meeting new standards. I think that there

should be standards but I don’t think it’s going to work because here it just makes

teachers accountable. The schools get punished if the kids don’t do well. There

is nothing really at stake to make the kids do well.

In Virginia, we had a course test with these standards of learning . . . each class

had an end-of-course test. You had to pass seven of eleven to graduate. It was on

the kids. Kids knew. They would study and study. They would even go to extra

study sessions. Here the kids don’t care. They are not accountable. I’m resentful

of that.

Even Mrs. Strong voiced her suspicions of CATS as I spoke to her one morning before

school started. As she patrolled the hallway before the homeroom bell rang, we talked

about the implications of the state testing system. She thought that students not having

consequences for testing were bad. She also talked about how subjective the grading was for portfolios and for on-demand writing. She said a recent graduate of the school only

scored a proficient on his writing sample in high school but was already publishing on the

collegiate level as an undergraduate. Ms. Stone had a similar situation with a student who

she said was one of the most brilliant writers she has encountered. His vocabulary was

better than hers; in addition, he was eloquent, persuasive, and articulate. He was truly a

gifted, talented young man. What did he score on his on-demand writing score? A

proficient. “This is laughable. It angers me, infuriates me, and makes me want to march

down to Frankfort and scream, ‘What's the use? You people are mad! Screw it; I'll go

teach somewhere where things make sense!’”

They Walk the Line

With all the apparent contradictions of the testing system, how did these teachers

combat the dissonance forged by the resentment and anger surrounding continual

pressure to prepare students to pass standardized tests and the desire to teach material

relevant to the learning process? Linda McNeil (2000) hypothesized they straddled the

line. “They could juggle the two – an important option when they saw that the test-based curriculum format so trivialized and fragmented course content that the ‘knowledge’ represented was too far removed from the curriculum the teachers wanted their students to learn” (p.730). Mrs. May, undeterred by the limits that KERA and the CATS testing system seem to place on curriculum teachers want students to learn, admitted she did not necessarily “teach to the test” or spend considerable time on standards; instead, she taught what they thought was necessary for students to succeed.

Well you know that technically we are not supposed to spend any time preparing

for CATS. It’s all supposed to be. . . I have my students write the standards on

the board based upon my objectives and in years past, that was strictly a quirk

kind of thing. Because I am so involved this year (in adopting state diploma

standards) I added a diploma standard, so I go by several standards. Specifically,

because of CATS, we do open response questions. In the classroom, not counting

grading, I would spend approximately 20 minutes a week.

Mrs. Heaton found that her curriculum did not deviate significantly from the standards and objectives CATS deemed important but was willing to adjust for the testing:

You know a whole lot of what I teach, it just so happens, already matches up with

CATS so I really didn’t have to recreate the wheel, I guess. I’ll look at those

results and I’ll think, this year our problem areas were the astronomy part. I know

in the past that I’ve put astronomy at the end and I sometimes run out of time and

have to do a shorter unit on it. I will tweak what I’m teaching to help get our

students scores up.

As Mrs. Heaton was tweaking her set of courses, Mr. Ledoux was just trying to keep his

head above water and encompass as many ideas as he could:

I’m being very, very honest with you. I started teaching in survivor mode with

absolutely no understanding or knowledge at all of the education lingo. That is not

in my radar, the CATS. At that stage, my idea from the real world was that it’s

not about memorizations. I understand directly and I tailor it to that. . . . I would

say nothing. I try to cover the curriculum as best as I can. I look at the CATS

questions as a little bit of a guideline.

For all the teachers in the study, the name of the game when it came to

accountability was survival. Whether it was sticking to the curriculum they knew was

successful because they had used it for years or whether it was trying to employ new

standards and objectives from the state into their lesson plans, all the teachers worked toward one goal: molding students into the best people they could be.

In the midst of teachers trying to survive the “jungle” of accountability, they recognized the critical need to feel satisfied in their work. They fulfilled this need by molding their students and by leaning on the extraordinary support they received from principals.

Principals to the Rescue

Transformational leaders

Principals have many roles and serve many masters, including the public, but one of the most important roles they play is that of liaison between teachers and the

“administrative hierarchy” (superintendents, state education officials, state legislators, and governors). Teachers view themselves as the bottom rung of the bureaucratic educational ladder with principals one rung above. Even though principals are regarded as administrators for job classifications, teachers see principals through their working relationship as a direct ally or direct foe, significantly affecting teacher job satisfaction.

When asked to name an important aspect of teacher job satisfaction, Mrs. May echoed a sentiment held by most teachers in the study:

Administrative support and encouragement; I have seen a lot of teachers leave

teaching and that’s directly related to administration – directly. I mean, no other

reason, in the end, this is the reason why they left. Um, administrators have to

back them 100%. It doesn’t matter if they agree with them or not, they have to

back them 100% then they can take them into the back of a room and yell at them,

but you have to back them 100%, you have to! You (administrators) can’t send a

note back with the kid and say, “I believe them.” You just can’t.

Chester Bernard (as cited in Walonick, 2004) backs a theory of successful

organizations that may also explain why the teacher-principal relationship is so

important. He held that successful organizations had a system of consciously coordinated

activities, lead by a manager whose authority resulted from the subordinate’s acceptance,

not the power of the hierarchical structure. In essence, a principal who receives the consent of subordinates (Metz, 1978) most likely will be perceived as a direct ally, not as

part of the power structure that seems so distance and apathetic to teacher concerns.

They Make It Personal

These forces of leadership allowed teachers at both schools to see principals (and

even assistant principals) as people with whom they could share their frustrations, their

joys, their disappointments, and their victories, as well as hear their concerns. One of the

first examples I saw of this was with Mrs. Carr and Mr. James, one of the assistant

principals of Anderson High School. As Mrs. Carr and I were talking in the hallway

before her first class, Mr. James came by and stopped for a chat.

Mrs. Carr: I’m Pete Rose today. I’m playing hurt. I have the Pepto-

Bismol on the desk and I’m ready to use it.

Mr. James: I'd rather have you at 50% than a substitute at 100%. At one of

the districts I taught at, they gave a $250 bonus to any teacher

who didn't use a sick day the whole year. I played hurt a lot of

days.

Two hours later, during her planning period, Mr. James came back to check on her.

Mr. James: How are you doing Pete?

Mrs. Carr: (Shakes her head and pulls out the Pepto-Bismol) I just don’t

feel well but I guess I’ll be alright.

Mr. James: Are you sure?

Mrs. Carr: Yes, I’ll be fine. I can make it through the day.

Mr. James: Well, just remember, I’d rather have you at 25% than . . . (Mrs.

Carr smiles and laughs at him). Just hang in there, OK?

Mrs. Carr: OK (another smile on her face).

Shortly after this conversation the bell rang and Mrs. Carr’s next class began. She was more mellow and gentle with this class and her energy level has picked up significantly from the first class of the day – a result of Mr. James’ encouragement and concern for

Mrs. Carr. Not only can he understand her circumstances, he also valued the effort and

sacrifice she made.

Ms. Stone encountered a situation outside the regular school year which saw her

look to the principal, Mr. Sims, for help and left her with a sense of being appreciated and

listened to by him. Ms. Stone teaches summer class in her home town area (she lives in

another state), and there was an incident where bullets were found in the school. She

asked the summer school principal what he was going to do about it and he said nothing

because it was probably a student looking for attention. She was worried, so she called

Mr. Sims at his office and asked him what he she should do. He suggested that she tell

the administration she was troubled about her safety and wanted some action taken

regarding the circumstances. Unfortunately, the situation was never really addressed by

the summer school administration, and she felt she was not respected and her concerns

were not valid. She was very upset for several days but she was comforted by the fact that she knew if she needed any more help, Mr. Sims was only a phone call away to support her. He was acting as her support system outside their workplace, a gift that she appreciated and saw as a sign of respect.

Mr. Sims was not only a gift to Ms. Stone outside the workplace but within it as well. She recounts Mr. Sims’ influence on her as a first year teacher:

My first year I could walk in, and it was fairly early in October end of December,

and I knew at anytime I could walk into Mr. Sims’ office and have a concern and

be heard, which is key. I knew within weeks of teaching that if I had any

concerns, number one he was successful and number two this is the principal. I

would be heard and I would be given any number of sufficient solutions and be

allowed to choose whatever solution I wanted to do. If I had screwed up in some

way, because I did have a major screw up my first year, I would be backed up on

the screw up and that floored me. . . . Whatever the situation would be he would

say, “Look, this is what happened and let’s deal with it in this particular way and

if need be I have your back.” I was like, “they are going to pay me to do this?”

Along the same lines of understanding and connection, Mrs. Heaton and Mrs.

Strong from Reagan High School both tell a story that shows not only the personal relationship between them but also the profound respect Mrs. Heaton has for her principal.

Mrs. Heaton was at one of the football games on a Friday night working the entrance gate. During halftime of the game, the school generally has some type of game or competition to entertain the crowd. Mrs. Strong told Mrs. Heaton that the game was

going to be a golf chipping contest and Mrs. Strong asked Mrs. Heaton to participate.

Mrs. Heaton said that she really hadn’t golfed much and she wasn’t very good. Mrs.

Strong coaxed her along by saying that she would be participating in the game as well.

Mrs. Heaton asked her if she had kept up with her golf game and Mrs. Strong said no, so

Mrs. Heaton decided she would not be totally embarrassed and finally agreed. They walk

out to midfield at halftime and Mrs. Heaton has a few short shots; meanwhile, Mrs.

Strong has her rhythm going and rips long shots down the field. Mrs. Heaton is shocked at how well Mrs. Strong did.

On Monday morning, Mrs. Strong comes to school and sends out a sarcastic email

to all the faculty members telling them that Mrs. Heaton did so well at the competition on

Friday night; she is now offering golf lessons to any faculty member for $60 an hour. The

two send emails back and forth to each other, questioning the “truths” that were told by

each person. Finally, Mrs. Strong writes back and says she never lied – “that would be

neither appropriate nor professional.” Mrs. Heaton writes her back and says that she

would tell Mrs. Strong to “Kiss my butt” over the golf lessons, but that would “neither be

appropriate or professional.” Mrs. Strong laughed at the email and when they saw each

other at lunch, they playfully argued about it.

Mrs. Heaton told me this story to show just one of the examples of how Mrs.

Strong really did relate to the teachers, how she understood their frustrations, and tried to

connect with them on a personal level. She felt that she could talk to Mrs. Strong about

anything and felt that her concerns were being heard; they weren’t always agreed with, but at least they were always heard. Mrs. May reaffirmed the sentiment by stating, “Not that I agree with everything they do . . . but if I ask for something, they may say no, but

they think about it very seriously first. They will give me a good reason why – no one will just come and tell me no. They will think about it first.”

The connection between principal and teacher at both of the schools in this study

went deeper than a mere employer-employee relationship, as the above story illustrates.

These teachers see their principals as “one of them,” a human being who has been in their

shoes, has some of the same struggles that they do, and is willing to reveal a more

personal side to their life. Mrs. Heaton describes it this way:

They joke with you. Next week at our principal’s house we are going to have a

wine and cheese party. And later on in the school year at another event, she is

going to be kissing the cow at the Cow Drop. The principal and assistant

principals act like one of us. They are good sports. You can kind of feel that.

Lunch often provides a good time for this deeper connection to occur. Mrs. Strong, when

she is able to eat lunch, often sits at the faculty tables in the cafeteria and chats with

teachers and staff who join her there. The conversation may be as simple as how their day

is going but may also include follow-up on more personal conversations she may have

had with a particular person, which may or may not be serious as in the case of Mrs.

Heaton and golf.

Mr. Sims tends to spend his lunch with a group I refer to as the “Lunch Bunch.” It

is usually a group of five or six teachers and staff (although any faculty/staff person on

the first lunch bell is invited to join) that gather in the office of one of the counselors. The

office is large enough to fit a table and chairs (for eating), sofa, recliner, and work desk

in, with a little room to spare. Mr. Sims comes in and spreads out on the sofa or recliner while the ladies eat and chat. He and these women have a close relationship and they all

feel free to talk about their marriages, boyfriends, kids, students, and anything else they deem relevant. Mr. Sims doesn’t hesitate to fire off a sarcastic comment about how old one of the women has to be in order to go with her husband to a 30th high school reunion,

but is also willing to help with any problems the women encounter.

No One Puts My Teachers in the Corner

One lunch period, an English teacher joined the Lunch Bunch and was expressing

her frustration over an email she had received from the head of a writing contest

sponsored by a local university. The teacher felt she was being attacked by this person

because she and her students had not signed up for a banquet in recognition of the contest

winners, which was being held on a Sunday afternoon for which she already had made commitments. The email suggested that if it were an event to honor athletes, she and the school would have shown more interest in it. The teacher was offended by the email, not only because the implied statement was not true, but also because she felt she was being bullied by the head of the event. When Mr. Sims came in, he saw the teacher was extremely upset (almost to the point of crying) and asked her what was wrong. She related the story and Mr. Sims immediately called the superintendent to let him know an email would be sent objecting to the treatment of this teacher and that they would not be participating in the contest anymore. After concluding his conversation on the phone, he asked the teacher to join him in his office to help him draft a reply to the email that would let the head of the writing contest know he would not allow any type of personal attack directed toward any of his teachers.

The teachers in these two schools appreciated the recognition and respect that

each administration, whether principal or assistant principals, accorded them. This

particular characteristic was especially noteworthy for some of the teachers whose time

under other administrators was not so satisfactory.

As in every job or career, not every boss is a good boss. Mr. Ledoux saw that in

his previous career as a brew master: “It may also end up in some position where you

don’t like your boss or maybe you don’t see eye to eye with your boss. It makes the day go so slow. I guess you always have that little thing; that cloud over your head.”

Mrs. Heaton’s history with bosses started out rocky as she recalls her first teaching

assignment and her relationship with the principal:

The first year I taught in Kentucky I had this terrible principal who was under the

assumption that I was hired only because I knew the assistant superintendent’s

daughter, which was stupid because we went to the same college but I didn’t

know her. He made my life miserable or at least he tried to.

Mrs. May, through her many years of experience, witnessed the damage bad

administrators inflicted on teacher relationships: “I have had principals and assistant

principals that you just turned around and went in the other direction when you saw

them.” The damage, in her eyes, continued to mount even after the administrator left:

“You knew that . . . administrators made a lot of important decisions that the teacher has

to live with for many, many years. They make the decisions that affect you (as a teacher)

but they (administrators) leave and you are stuck with those decisions for many years to

come.”

Even when an administrator stays, the decisions s/he make and the culture

fashioned by those decisions can negatively affect the principal-teacher relationship. Mrs.

Carr had mixed feelings concerning the previous administration she worked under at a

smaller, private school. Although she felt supported in various facets of her daily work

and enjoyed her job, she told me she saw herself being judged by the administration as

little more than a “female math teacher.” She conveyed a resignation of sorts that implied her strong belief that not only the “glass ceiling” existed in that job, but maybe even a

“steel ceiling” had been constructed. She attributed this mentality to the “good old boys”

network she saw in place within the administration and the culture that was cultivated within the school. Although this scenario is not hard to envision on the secondary level as men (as principals, assistant principals, and athletic directors) dominate administration,

comprising 76.9% of all public and private secondary principals (Wirt et al., 2004), it is

ironic that Mrs. Carr has found her voice as a department head and leader in the faculty

under the guidance of Mr. Sims.

The Disrespect of a Nation

While many of the teachers in this study felt administrators respected them and their work, society and more directly parents, had less respect for teachers and education.

Mr. Ledoux found that when it came to the public and the politicians, people did not put

their money where their mouth was:

I think it's a very, very important job; however, despite what society says I don't

think that society is putting the money where it should be. Every time you hear

about budget cuts, it's about education all the time. Everybody says it's very, very

important, but again that's the first place where they cut. People say that we know

it's important, we're told that it's important, but on the other hand we (society)

don't want to, monetarily or with resources, support it.

The source of Mrs. May’s dismay was the lack of respect parents had for teachers:

It’s (teaching) a very important job but it’s . . . every single year that I have taught

the importance of that, your (teacher’s) importance in the parent’s eyes has

decreased. Where they think they have the right to intimidate you, they think they

have the right to come in and say, ‘I’m going to get you fired!’ and make your life

miserable.

Parents acting as pseudo-lawyers for their children and shielding them from the consequences of their actions was the chief complaint of Ms. Stone:

The students, the parents, the administrators and really everybody in the whole

line of wherever we are going with this, tend to think that part of our job is to

keep all of their stuff squared away -whether it’s the paperwork or their averages.

I will call home and say ‘I’m just letting you know that Johnny hasn’t been doing

his homework and his average is a 47%.’ The parent starts yelling at me and then

cusses me out and says I probably lost all of those papers. I just feel like saying

‘I’m not your son’s secretary’. . .

A Job Well Done

Despite the fact that teachers felt undervalued by outside forces, they saw the assistant principals and principals playing a significant role in bolstering their job satisfaction through signs of respect, as well as care and concern, as Mrs. Heaton illustrated with this comment:

In this school I know I feel appreciated. I think the administration goes out of

their way to do those little things that really make it nice. During teacher

appreciation week they will bring a food cart around . . . anytime we have either

parent teacher conferences or workshops our principal will spend the money to

feed us well. You just know that they are interested in you.

Appreciation and recognition didn’t just come in the form of food or parties.

Some recognition came in words of praise and admiration. One day in September, the scores achieved for each school and district on the CATS test were published. The schools received their individual subject scores and Anderson High School was ranked in the top three high schools in the area. During the faculty meeting that same day, Mr. Sims announced the scores in the major areas that were being tested and praised each department for all the hard work that they had done. "I'm really proud of you; you truly are working miracles here." The scores they did achieve were impressive considering the demographics of the school. He and the assistant principals generously reiterated how proud they were to work with this type of faculty and mused on the possibility of what this faculty could achieve if they taught at schools where students that didn't have as many problems as the kids at Anderson had.

This was a celebration of the relationship between principals and teachers. There was no superintendent and no state education bureaucrat to congratulate and pay tribute to the work that had been done by these teachers. Yet, that didn’t seem to matter, for every faculty and staff member left that day with a sense of accomplishment and the understanding that the work they had put in over the past year was being recognized by the people who walked with and sometimes carried them through the school year.

Students – The Good, the Bad and the Children They Never Had

The Risk-Reward Factor

As the principals in this study showed, intrinsic factors such as recognition and appreciation of the work teachers put forth was significant in promoting job satisfaction.

While the relationship between teachers and principals cannot be minimized, there is another relationship that teachers derive even more pleasure (and pain) from – the one with students.

Lortie (1975) championed the notion that “it is of great importance to teachers to feel they have ‘reached’ students – their core rewards are tied to that perception” (p.106).

Reaching students and having core rewards tied to that perception is a high-stakes risk- reward endeavor. While all teachers understand this on some level, it does not take away the intensity with which they feel it. Mr. Ledoux and I were talking during his planning period about the events of the previous day. He told me he had to have two girls searched for contraband in one class and that he had a conflict with a student who was being very negative and argumentative in another class. “As high as I was when you were here

Wednesday, I was that low yesterday.” High risk and high reward – that is the life of a teacher – and most teachers consider the risk one worth taking.

What made it worthwhile for teachers to take the risk? For Mrs. May, it was a note at the end of the year from a student that said, “You were just the best teacher I ever had!” or graduating seniors who honor her as their most influential teacher. Mrs. Carr saw the reward in the form of growth and maturation: “I help a student, watch them grow, and it is satisfying to see the results that we see. With students in a small school like this,

I can watch them grow from freshmen to senior and it’s very satisfying.” Student growth on the academic front gratified Ms. Stone:

Seeing tangible improvement in my students gets me really excited. I feel this

more with my freshmen than I do with my seniors . . . I have freshman that come

to me that can’t write a sentence but then they start to write not only sentences,

but also fairly cohesive and coherent paragraphs. I start to see this improvement

and I get giddy, just goofy. I’m so excited that they are actually . . . learning. I get

so goofy excited when the kids spark and you see it because you know that they

just got it. Whether learning something large or small, the satisfaction comes in

because you don’t expect it. That is the best feeling in the world.

None of the risks and rewards, either on a high or low level, teachers experience

would be worthwhile if they did not create some type of relationship with students. The

relationships were built on several factors, including: the care and concern for student

welfare, the use of humor and the ability to control and relate to students. These factors,

though not always visible or easy to deal with, combined to bring about a driving force

that continually motivated these teachers to carry out their jobs to the best of their

abilities.

Care and Concern in Many Forms

One of the most obvious aspects of the teacher-student relationship I observed was the care and concern for student welfare, both inside and outside the classroom. Mrs.

May exuded a motherly type of air about her which students seemed to thrive on. Many

students, who had moved on from her classes, stopped her in the hallway to chat. As

Mrs. May took me on an extensive tour of the school, she ran into Mandy, a student she

had taught the previous year. Mandy said she hadn’t seen Mrs. May in a long time and

she gave the teacher a hug. Mandy told Mrs. May she took the ACT and scored a 28

overall, 27 on the math section. Mrs. May looked at her and said, “The goal is. . .” and

the student replied, “To get a 36!” They both laughed and smiled and went their separate

ways. The next day, before first block, we saw Mandy again outside the cafeteria. She

came up to Mrs. May, gave her a hug, told her what a great teacher she was and how

much she missed her. Mrs. May said she missed Mandy too and, as we walked to her

room, a smile crept upon Mrs. May’s face as if to say, “That is the reason why I keep

doing this job.”

Another reason for doing her job walked in after school one day as Mrs. May and

I were wrapping up a discussion about standards. Mark, a junior who had Mrs. May for

math his freshman and sophomore years, was catching a bus on second shift and had

some time to kill. After a few questions about his schedule for the year, she asked him if he was still thinking about college in Oregon and he said he wasn't sure anymore (it was a college set up by a computer gaming company that dealt with every aspect of the gaming industry). She asked him what he really wanted to do as a career and he said he wanted to be a computer technician. She told him that was not acceptable. “You have much more potential than that and I refuse to allow you to have such small goals for yourself.” She told them it would be acceptable to be a systems manager, but not just a computer technician. She wanted him to make something of his life. He promised he would look into other options and she told him to keep her updated. After he left, she then told me that he lived with his mom and brother in an apartment and they probably did not have the money to send him to the school in Oregon or, for that matter, any other college or university. She turned to me and said, “That’s my job - to push them and get the best out

of them." It was almost as if she believed her sheer force of will would transform him and

give him the strength he needed to get what he wanted out of life.

Many other “Marks” probably traveled through Mrs. May’s door after their time

in her class was long gone but she had a “Mark” in her class right now – Tony. During a

class change, she stopped Tony before he left her geometry class. She asked him when

he was going to stay after for tutoring. There was no response and she quickly tried a

different tact. She asked him, “What is your career goal after getting out of school?” He

said he was going into the military. She told Tony he needed to pass the Armed Services

Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASFAB) test before they accepted him and if he could not

pass the test, they would come back to her and ask her to help tutor him so that he could

pass (not all of this information was true but she was trying to sell him on the importance

of his grades). She did not want to do that so she informed Tony that they had a tutoring

"date" on Monday after school and she would supply the candy. Mrs. May was not to be

defeated and she imposed her will on Tony without him knowing it, or putting up much

of a fight, concerning it.

While Mrs. May was showing her care and concern for students on an individual basis, Mr. Ledoux was part of a school-wide effort to show students they mattered.

Anderson High School had a program that mandated failing students stay for an extra

class (a study hall of sorts) four days a week for an entire quarter. Mr. Ledoux was one of

the teachers that “taught” this class but it truly became more than just a class for him. He

talked to the students (he had seven girls in his class who he referred to as his “precious”

girls) and developed a rapport with them, getting to know them on a deeper level. Since he knew the students on a different level than most teachers, they felt free to discuss their

personal issues with him and he learned much more than he really wanted to know. He

took a personal interest in their success and really cared about them, trying to push them

to do better. The girls needed the attention and effort they received, but it drained a

significant amount of energy from him every day. He confided to me that he was not sure

he could still work this class in the upcoming quarter. The subject never came up again in

our discussions; however, he might have strengthened his resolve to teach the class again

if he had heard an unsolicited comment one of his precious girls made to me: “I really

like him. He really helps me in seventh period. I had two papers that he helped me with

and I got a good grade on both of them! I like that he took the time to help me understand

what I was doing and that I did a good job.”

Time was a valuable commodity these teachers were willing to share to show concern and care for students. For one teacher, time wasn’t enough; she also gave away her money. As I was standing in the hall waiting for classes to change at Anderson, I was drawn to a wall with several certificates and signs on it. As I glanced at each item on the wall, I saw a proclamation from the city council given to the faculty and staff for their donation of money to furnish a computer lab for the students. Knowing that Mrs. Carr was a faculty member at the time, I asked her about the circumstances behind the donation. She told me they donated the bonus money they earned through CATS testing to help students:

That was at a time when the state would give us money for improving CATS

scores and, on an individual level, $1500 wouldn’t have really put a dent in any of

our lifestyles; whereas, putting it together we could get stuff for the kids to use

and improve the technology in the school. It really was a no-brainer. I don’t know

if anybody was upset about it or against it or thought otherwise. In the big picture

$1500 is not that much.

Maybe Mrs. Carr was right - $1500 was really not that much for an individual – but it meant a great deal to the students who would now have a brand new computer lab to do their work in.

Is the Joke on Me or You?

Care and concern for students, whether in the form of expectations, time or

money, provided a basis for the teacher-student relationship and allowed teachers to use

humor to strengthen the bond between the two groups. Everyone can relate to humor on

some level and for teachers, sometimes laughter is the best medicine when dealing with a

stubborn student or a long, taxing day.

Some situations did not start out with the intention of being funny – they just

ended up that way. Mrs. Carr was working with her students on the CATS workbooks, an

activity few students found enjoyable or fun. At one point, a student asked Mrs. Carr if

she might collect a cricket that was in the room (apparently sophomore students had to

collect samples of different types of bugs for a biology project). Mrs. Carr replied,

“Knock yourself out!” The girl tried to scoop the cricket up with a piece of paper but

could not get it so she sat down. Another student got up and tried to capture the cricket

using his bare hands but when he caught it, the cricket jumped out. At this point,

everyone’s focus was on capturing the bug. A third student finally got the cricket into a

cup Mrs. Carr gave them. The student apologized for causing a disruption but Mrs. Carr

told her not to worry and instead, thanked her for waking everyone up (the class was

livelier for the rest of the period and even Mrs. Carr lightened up a little bit). Soon after,

another cricket appeared and a different student asked permission to capture this bug. A

plastic bag was used to contain the second cricket one and the rest of the period flew by.

Toward the end of the class, two students talked about how they would have caught the cricket and one student called the other student and idiot and Mrs. Carr said, "Look who's

talking!" while the whole class laughed. She told the student she was kidding and she

loved him. He took the comment in stride and even laughed at himself.

Sarcasm and wit directed at students also found its way into Mr. Ledoux’s Earth

Science class. As he started to discuss the equator, meridians and time zones, a student

asked him if they had the seasons in Canada and whether Alaska only had spring and fall

seasons. He had a little fun at their expense when he said the only weather condition in

Canada was snow and Canadians ice-skated and skied to get everywhere. Later in the

class, some of the girls were complaining about all the homework they received that day.

He heard the conversation and went up to one of them, stuck out his shoulder and told her

to “cry on this” as he simultaneously rubbed his fingers together to “play the world’s

smallest violin.”

The humor was not always about the students, as the teachers often made fun of

themselves to let students know that even teachers do not take themselves seriously all the time. Mrs. Carr handed out papers when one of her students commented on her exquisite taste in the choice she made this morning with her make-up (she had a black marker streak on her face, probably from the marker she used on her overhead machine).

Making up some plausible story, she told the student that she went to the Clinique store yesterday and they had a sale - buy a marker and get a free makeup bag! The girl started laughing and said, again, that she thought Mrs. Carr's look was very attractive. In the

next class, before it started, she acknowledged that she has marker on her face and

described her fake journey to the Clinique store. Apparently, she convinced one student

who stared at her and said, "Really? What else did they have on sale?” She looked at the

student gives a big hug and said she was just kidding.

Just to show her “teacher nerdiness” and get a laugh, Mrs. Carr made fun of

herself while going over vocabulary terms. A couple of times she gave a formal name for

a term and said they would not normally use or hear those terms at a party or in casual

conversation. The kids laughed and told her that they cannot remember a time they ever talked about algebra at a party. She scolded them, noting that these words were good conversation pieces and did wonders to help attract the opposite sex. They laughed at her but she insisted that it was true. “You should see how cute my husband is!" They mockingly asked for her forgiveness and requested a list of those terms as soon as possible because Homecoming was coming up and some of them still needed a date.

The funniest story which combined unintended humor and self-deprecation came

from Ms. Stone. She had a rash on her face that was very obvious around her mouth and

had been to the doctor to try to cure it. After two weeks, it still had not gone away and the

doctor sent her to the dermatologist for an appointment, which all the students knew

about. When she came back the next day from the appointment, she told the freshman

students that the doctor had diagnosed it as flesh-eating bacteria around her mouth. Since

Ms. Stone was usually serious when she spoke to them, they turned to look at each other

in stunned silence, never once questioning her. After 10 minutes or so, she finally told

them she really only has eczema and they did not have to worry about contracting it. One

of the students then asked if they could make fun of her. She said she knew they would

probably say something about her behind her back, which was fine with her, but if they

said it out loud, she would pray to get rid of it and have God give it to them. They all laughed and got the message and left it at that for the day.

In her next class, a student raised her hand and asked what was wrong with Mrs.

Stone’s nose. She gave the flesh-eating bacteria story and described the horrible suffering

she was bound to endure as the bacteria ate away part of her brain. She told the students

she did not care what she looked like because she did not have to see her face, but she

wanted to let them know so they would not worry. Upon completing the story, a second

girl raised her hand, asked a question, and started to tell a story. In the middle of the

story, Ms. Stone asks the girl if her story had anything to do with Ms. Stone’s face and

the girl responded in a dead-pan voice, "No, but I almost killed myself." Ms. Stone did

not miss a beat and informed the girl that right now, the story was all about her, not the student. "It's about me! It’s not about you - it's about me!" as she pointed back and forth

between the two of them. At this point, this group of impressionable and gullible young

freshmen figured out Ms. Stone has completely “punk’d,” or fooled them, and she would

be fine in a few days. The story was the talk of the Lunch Bunch the next few days.

High Maintenance

If using humor and caring for students forms the foundation in the teacher-student

partnership, as seen in the previous examples, the ability to control and relate to students

maintains it. One way teachers control students is through discipline. Discipline is one of

the toughest jobs a teacher carries out every day and it has a tremendous impact on how

students perceive and respect teachers. Sometimes, as I noticed, it can be dispensed with a light touch and sarcasm and sometimes it is fraught with sadness and sympathy.

Ms. Stone was as a strict disciplinarian and the students knew there was very little she let slip past her. A student sprinting down the hallway and into her room to grab a seat at their desk before the bell stopped ringing, so they would not have to suffer the punishment for being late, was a common sight in her afternoon classes. At my initial meeting with the teachers from Anderson, she asked me not to observe her until at least a month into the school year because in the beginning of the year she was a “bitch” (her own word) and made the students follow every rule to the letter. Once she established her authority and control, she relaxed a little bit and used a lighter touch to enforce discipline.

She used her military persona as a “weapon” of discipline. On the first day I

observed her classes, she told her AP English class that I was in the back and they were

not to look at me because I was from some federal agency and I would report back on

their suspicious behavior. Of course they looked back and glanced to see who I was but

after that, I was largely ignored.

Federal agencies were not the only military-type connections she used. When she

caught a male student with his head down, she pulled out her secret weapon – a

marshmallow shooter. It was made of small-barreled PVC piping, had a handle at the

bottom, and was simple to operate: place a bite-sized marshmallow in the mouth piece,

blow air into the mouth piece and watch the marshmallow fly out the other end, hitting

the intended target. She told me she received special permission from the principal to use

it; she only used it on male students and only when they put their heads down. The guys

loved it and snitched on each other just so they could see her use it (they sometimes even volunteered to be targets when she practiced with it!) One shot was fired and nothing more was needed to have the student fall in line.

Ms. Stone pulled off her strict disciplinarian persona with the help of her military

background but Mrs. May pulled off the same strict persona with her charm, wit and

words. She admonished a student and asked him to put away what he was playing with at

the moment. He sighed and rolled his eyes and she told him that yes, she was just a mean,

vindictive woman but then changed her mind. “Actually, no, I’m not a mean and

vindictive woman. I’m a jealous woman. I want everyone to focus and pay attention to

me. I don’t like it when other things get in the way of that.” In the middle of another

lesson, she playfully warned a student to keep his head up: “It doesn't have to do with the

physical properties of actually sleeping; it just means that I can't look into your eyes.

And remember, I'm a jealous woman; I want all attention on me.” In one other episode, a

student has been asleep for about 10 minutes. She finally noticed him so she quietly

moved over to him and eventually pulled his ear to wake him up. The other kids were

very quiet while she snuck up on the student and then laughed when he woke up. Mrs.

May told him she was offended and she hoped he would not fall asleep if he was out on a

date! "Girls don't like that!" she opined. The kids said they were surprised she let the boy

sleep that long and she said that she did not notice him until then because if she had,

justice would have been swift.

Although humor and sarcasm have a place in discipline, they were not always the appropriate means to handle a situation. One of the toughest parts to balance in discipline was the line between flexibility and the loss of control and/or respect in the classroom.

Mr. Ledoux was still learning the secret to balance and had to reign in a few of his classes on one particular day. As he looked over the report cards of his fifth period class, he notified them that from now on, they would dismiss by row and in order to be dismissed,

they must pick up all the paper around their table. They were not to leave until he

checked their row and gave them permission to get up. He also told them that the

honeymoon had ended because "the butt wiping" and the "handholding" were over. There was no more babying them and they would receive consequences for their actions. He gave the same lecture in sixth period and told them that in this day and age, they needed to have a high school diploma to do anything in this world. He implored them to do

something for themselves (basically, he wanted them to do their work) because he could

not give a grade if they did nothing for a grade.

Most of the students did have enough respect for Mr. Ledoux to heed his words of caution and advice but there was one student he encountered who, no matter how much discipline was dispensed, would never respect him because she had little respect for herself.

Mr. Ledoux had a rule that no student was permitted to have drinks or gum in his

classroom and, on this day, he caught Charlotte with a drink. He politely asked her to put

it away. A few minutes later he looked to find that she was chewing gum and searching through her purse to give some to a friend. While she searched, he saw a pack of cigarettes and he asked her for her purse. She said no and he requested she pull out

everything she was not supposed to have in his class, which consisted of Doritos,

Mountain Dew, and cigarettes. He wrote up a discipline slip for all the offenses and

personally delivered it to the dean of discipline after he asked the teacher across the hall

to come and watch the girls. He came back a few minutes later.

Before the bell rang to end class, he came back around to Charlotte and her friend

who did nothing during the class. He asked her why she chose to do nothing and she said

he treated her with disrespect when he “called her out” in front of other students and

acted like a "dick" to her. That comment got her a private audience with him out in the

hall. The bell rang and classes started to change. She came back into the room after all

the girls has left and told him that she would give him respect when he gave her respect.

He told her that he did not want to discuss it anymore and that she should leave. She turned around and mumbled something and then loudly called him a "fucking horrible teacher” as she walked away. He said, not knowing if she actually heard him, she did not understand the severity of the situation and it would be helpful if she showed up for class.

The teacher from next door came in to ask him what happened and he recounted the story for her. She said she thought it had to be important if he asked for her to cover his class and she gave him a little pat on the shoulder, consoling him. As Mr. Ledoux and I talked during his planning period, he realized that that he could only control what went on in his classroom and that the outside influences in Charlotte’s life were shaping what he saw in her everyday actions at school.

After lunch, while the boys in his class were working on a group project, he told me that Mr. Sims personally handled Charlotte’s write-up and he suspended her for the

rest of the day and for the first two days the following week. Mr. Ledoux told me that

she already had 11 unexcused days and 15 tardies this year (and it was only the 10th week of school). A bit of sadness came into his voice when he said, "I know she has major baggage, and that is sad, but it does not excuse what she did. There is no way that can be tolerated." This situation only made him appreciate the kids who did follow the rules, especially his current class, even more. He could not stop talking about how nice it was to have this group of guys in class because they were so well-behaved, they did what

they were asked, and that in general, they were just good kids. For Mr. Ledoux, they were

the ray of sunshine that busted through a cloudy day.

There were not that many rays of sunshine for Mrs. Heaton when it came to

discipline in her classes. In fact, one day in her class was not just cloudy – it was

downright stormy. A student in her Earth Science class asked if they were going on a

field trip this semester and she said no (the field trip was a day to see different geological

features of the earth’s crust visible in local areas). She explained there were too many

people she would have to leave behind and it was just not worth it because it was too

much hassle for other teachers and her. She started to explain their lab but someone made

another comment. She became very irritated and frustrated and told students that it was

not fair to them or her but “that’s the way it goes sometimes.” Her voice became very

strained and the students got quiet because they knew she was upset. One of aides was

still in the room and Heaton was so frustrated she told the students she needed to take a

walk and go to the bathroom for five minutes – and that they should work on studying for

the test. She walked out and the aide told them to settle down and not to laugh because it

was not funny (when she left, I thought she was ready to cry!). Most of the students did

not seem too concerned and talked amongst themselves. The aide did a good job of controlling the kids and watching them until the bell rang.

The next class started with lunch and there was still no sign of Mrs. Heaton.

Twenty minutes later, after the lunch period was over, I returned to her room to find her

talking to a student and a calm presence pervading the room. She spoke with me and

assured me she was alright and felt better because when she left the room, she wandered

into the counselor's office to have a chat and debrief herself. She made the comment that

she was just frustrated with the "it is all about me" attitude some of the students had and

felt it was better to walk out on them than blow up at them. She was not worried about

leaving the students there because the aide was present and was capable of controlling the

students. The students in this class must have heard what happened during lunch and

were extremely well-behaved, considering their usual conduct earned them the title of

“the class from hell.” They surprising became her “calm before the storm.”

Mrs. Heaton took her last class of the day to the computer lab to do research on

the Internet. Walking up the stairs to the computer lab, she told the instructional aide,

Joan, that she missed the "almost meltdown" that Mrs. Heaton had at the end of second

block. They have a few words about the stresses in Mrs. Heaton’s life, including a new

marriage, problems with the kids adapting to the marriage, and the everyday grind of

being a wife, mom and a teacher.

We entered the lab and a paper wad flew across the room. Mrs. Heaton questioned

them about who threw it but no one admitted to doing it. She got upset and gave them a

choice: either someone confessed or everyone went back to the room and completed book

work all period. One of the students finally admitted to doing it and she sent him out into

the hallway. He started to complain that he was not the only one doing it; she asked him

for names but he would not give them and he walked out into the hall. As he sat in the

hallway, she remarked, “Incredible! Just incredible! This is exactly the kind of thing that

I was talking about downstairs.” The instructional aide for this class requested to take the

"hall" student with her for a while to give Mrs. Heaton a break. As the aide left, I heard her ask Heaton if she is all right and Mrs. Heaton responded, "I’m OK, I’m OK” but she was not, for as I moved to a different spot in the lab so I could see all the students, I

noticed she had tears rolling down her face and she sniffled. She was frustrated that this

was supposed to be an elective class and the students were very apathetic about the class.

During the rest of the class, the students were quiet and worked on their assignment until

she brought them back down to her room to hear the announcements. When the bell rang

to end the school day and the students filed out, Mrs. Heaton looked exhausted. With the

small amount of enthusiasm she could muster, she assured me that next week would

probably be much better as she laughed and blamed her troubles on a hormone change.

There was little doubt Mrs. Heaton had endured the “storm” and managed to survive it.

The ray of sunshine came in the aftermath that allowed her to see what needed to be fixed

before the next big storm came around.

The Rainbow Connection

The storms teachers endured to control their classrooms fade like a distant

memory as they felt the warmth of a sunny day shaped by connections they made with

students. Those connections, which made their struggle with discipline more tolerable,

formed a rainbow of student learning and a more personal bond of recognizing the

humanity that teachers and students shared.

There was no questioning the fact that both Mrs. Herringer and her students were less than thrilled with the requirements and pressures that portfolios placed on both of them. However, Mrs. Herringer tried to lighten the burden a little bit. She designated

every other Friday throughout the semester a portfolio day when they worked on and

edited portfolio pieces from their writing folders, as well as a partner’s folder. To foster a

relaxed and comfortable work setting, Mrs. Herringer set up a little “coffee shop” area on

one side of her room. She bought, using money from her own pocket, hot chocolate, tea,

and apple cider students drank as they worked. She gave them a little “pep talk” about

what she expected them to do for the next hour of class and gently reminded them of the

expectations of their grade for the completed portfolio - a proficient. One of the students

asked her if the pieces would be graded and she looked at him and hit him over the head

with his portfolio folder. He laughed and returned to his seat, glad to see she still had her

sense of humor this day. She then went over to another student and let him know his work was not acceptable in its current form and expected him to redo them to strengthen their content. With puppy dog eyes he looked at her and said, “Don’t say that Mrs.

Herringer! You know you just crushed my creativity and self-esteem.” She rolled her eyes and laughed and then provided him a specific idea he could use to create an acceptable piece. He agreed to it and went back to work.

Unlike the artificial material of portfolios the state of Kentucky forced Mrs.

Herringer and her students to deal with, Mr. Ledoux reveled in teaching real-world applications and skills:

In the real world, all that stuff you need to know for a job you can refer to in a

reference book. I say that to all my kids. Let’s take, for instance, a formula in the

real world. If you need that formula there are two things you can do. If you are in

a position that you need that formula but you don’t use it often, you’ve probably

got people around you using it so you can ask them for it. If it is something that

you use often but not everyone else does, then you can just pull a book or a

reference book or the internet and they will tell you what it is you are supposed to

do with that formula. This is what is important to realize. If you don’t remember

that then it’s no big deal - you can just look up the formula between times in a

reference book.

In the very first class I observed, he tried to instill these life skills to students. He handed

back a test which few students received a good grade. He comforted them with the “in the big scheme of life they will turn the page and forget about this” speech, but he wanted to discuss - not argue - about what happened with the test. He asked them what they found difficult or had problems with, and they had a lengthy discussion about individual

problems on the test. At one point, he told them that he said at the beginning of the year they hopefully would learn about science and life skills. “Asking questions is a life skill, because after you leave school and go out and get a job, if you do not know what to do, you need to ask questions so they can do things right. You should not be embarrassed or worried about asking questions.” He emphasized that they would not need to memorize anything for the test; they just needed to understand the concepts and ideas and then be able to apply it to the problem presented.

His quest to promote real-world applications spilled over into his curriculum content. One day his classes discussed speed and distance and all of them knew about his passion for running, which he shared with many female students in the class who were on the cross-country and track teams. With this in mind, he has them figure out the average speed per mile of his last 20 km run, which was 2 hours, 15 minutes. He then had them figure out the same measurement for his best marathon time, 2 hours, 48 minutes.

Together they work out the answer on the board and then asked them to figure out what his time was if he ran the first two miles in 20 minutes.

His quest to bring real-life into learning also focused on one student’s interest –

shopping. One of the girls had a problem converting minutes of an hour into a percentage

of an hour. She is confused by the words “half” and “percent”. He tried to explain it by

talking about dividing a pizza but she still did get it so he said, “OK, I am going to put it in a concept you understand. You go to the mall and you see a pretty dress. It says 50% off the original price” and she interrupted and said, “Half price!” In an exaggerated voice

of relief he answered, “Yes!” and rolled his eyes as the girls, including the one who

answered, laughed. He continued to use the analogy to explain different percentages and

their equivalent to minutes and hours so by the time the class was over, they all knew the

material.

Ms. Stone’s willingness to talk about real-life experiences that interested students,

just as Mr. Ledoux did, took her to an unusual place that showed teachers are human too.

When I observed Ms. Stone’s AP English class, comprised of seniors, they were in the

midst of reading Macbeth and had previously discussed the romantic implications in the

story with little controversy. As she talked privately to a student, trying to help him

answer a question, she protested loudly, “I did not say that! I know I never said that!

Believe me, I know I cross some lines sometimes, but I can guarantee I have never said

that!” She adamantly denied ever having said the word, insisted she was appalled by it

and spoke loud enough to interrupt everyone’s concentration. She headed back to her

desk and whispered to me that the student recalled her saying Shakespeare “banged” a

woman (she said she could just imagine the superintendent coming in and seeing that on

the board because he had just walked in with her paycheck a few minutes earlier!). In the

middle of the review for their test, she remembered the phrase she did use –“knocked

up.” The students noted, in a sarcastic tone that, indeed, knocked up was a much better

than banged. They cackle at her and, at this point, she admitted she probably crossed the

line due to a moment of weakness. The conversation did not end the way she wanted it to but those students saw her humanity and commented to me that was what they loved about her – she was a “real” teacher who acknowledged her own weakness and that made it easier for them respect her and connect with her.

Real teachers like Ms. Stone made real connections using their words, thoughts

and actions and I saw it clearly in an exchange between Ms. Stone and her student Gina.

In the middle of a discussion of To Kill A Mockingbird about the death of Bob Ewell and

who really killed him, Gina raised her hand and shyly commented, “So, is Boo Radley

the other Mockingbird?” Ms. Stone lit up and was almost speechless because Gina made

a huge connection to what Ms. Stone said at the beginning of their discussion of the book.

She stopped to perform a dramatic pause and then completed the gesture with her hand

raised to her forehead as she announced she had goose bumps. She went on to explain

how or why Boo Radley would be considered a mockingbird and the girls made the

connections. Although she exaggerated her actions and speech to a comic level, her pride

in Gina and the rest of the class for their insights and discussion was obvious and when

the girls walked out of class that day, they held their head high because their toughest

teacher had given them all a compliment.

Ms. Stone described to me what it was like to see students make connections in

their learning and how those moments of time made her feel:

Any time they make a grammar error that I can correct and they can learn from it,

then we discuss it in class. One girl said to me, ‘I don’t have no’ whatever it was.

I wrote it on the board and said, ‘Okay does anybody know what a double

negative is? Do you see where it is?’ because so many people say double

negatives. I try to get them to understand that means you have something. I went

through this for like, I swear, fifteen minutes and finally one girl said, ‘Oh my

gosh, I got it!’ They all want to get it so some of them say, ‘What do you mean

you have it? Explain it to me.’ You see the one explain it to one and then they say

‘Oh, I get it!’ It was almost like popcorn because you’ve got these fifteen kids in

a room and then all of a sudden it was like “ping.” They were all like, ‘Oh my

God!’ and that was the popcorn going off. I’m making popcorn in my class. It’s

goofy but it’s important. You make them little teachers too. You create - whatever

you want to call it - but I call it magic, Disney World magic. It’s powerful!

In many respects, the teacher-student relationship is similar to that of a parent and a child.

Teachers, like parents, care for their “children,” are happy to share in their joy and help guide them through the everyday living of life; yet, teachers, like parents, must also be disciplinarians who set boundaries and often become the “bad guy.” At the end of the day, both teachers and parents know their actions and words set the tone for their

“children” to grow, learn and mature into adults – hopefully, adults they can be proud to call their own.

CHAPTER V

Conclusions

Teacher Satisfaction and Accountability

I love teaching. I think it’s my God-given calling. I couldn’t imagine doing

anything else despite the fact that I’m irritated right now with everything. - Mrs. Heaton

This quote explained the paradox I witnessed as teachers enjoyed carrying out the daily

business of educating and molding students, even as pressure was mounting to integrate

the demands of faceless bureaucrats who were heard and obeyed but never seen.

The teachers in this study possessed pride in their craft but were weighed down by

the expectation and strain that came with following the rules and teaching material they

deemed artificial, demeaning, insignificant and downright stupid. As the literature

suggested, this notion is not new, and has been a part of the accountability movement since its inception. What differentiated the Kentucky system of accountability from most others was the lack of student accountability in the system and the fact that the “bulk of

KERA’s changes target teachers and teaching,” (Clements, 1999, p.7) which placed tremendous pressure on teachers to produce outcomes: “Establishing outcome measures for teachers . . . seems to be a logical next step in the KERA-inspired shift away from inputs and toward demonstrable outputs and accountability” (Clements, 1999, p.49). In essence, KERA based bonuses, job performance reviews and teacher workload on test scores that students had no real incentive to achieve. Even No Child Left Behind, federal legislation besieged by many loopholes, had student accountability language. Teachers, like Mrs. Heaton, became resentful and I was amazed that more of them did not act on

the emotions Ms. Stone harbored when she let me know she felt like telling the state

government, “Screw it; I'll go teach somewhere where things make sense!”

Lack of input from teachers on how KERA should run created a bureaucracy that

hampered teacher performance, just another aspect of the system that did not make sense.

“Were it not for educational bureaucracies . . . critics contend good teachers could do

good work” (Johnson and Landman, 2000, p.86). This statement was backed up by

teachers who worried about the legalities of red pens and wondered if doing their job

(namely English teachers) would violate the law. As I observed Mrs. Herringer and Ms.

Stone, I thought about what type of teachers they could be in a “deregulated” or private

school in Kentucky where KERA was optional. I suddenly realized that they did not

totally de-skill themselves but rather, they “walked the line.” They had students revise

pieces and turn in a completed portfolio; at the same time, they taught the AP material

necessary for students to pass the AP exam and earn college credit. What they actually

did was reverse the margins that McNeil (2000) alluded to as they minimized the testing

material and maximized “real” knowledge.

I asked the teachers whether or not KERA had affected their job satisfaction and

received a mixed reaction. More experienced teachers, like Mrs. Heaton, said it did not

play a significant role. “Not for me. I know that it does for a lot of people. They say that

(KERA) like it’s a cuss word. I can see that a lot of things that they brought in are definitely positive. I didn’t think “Oh, I don’t want to get a job in Kentucky.” Less experienced teachers, like Ms. Stone, had a slightly different view:

I don’t think so right now, even though I’m sitting here crabbing about all of this

stuff and, from time to time, teachers crab about it. I think if you give me another

decade I’ll be ready to start cutting corners. The bottom line is it is ridiculous and

it hinders the educational process. At some point it’s probably going to be more

like, ‘This is total crap. Why am I doing this?’ I’m just not there yet. Hopefully

by the time I get there it will be gone and it won’t be there anymore. That’s the

prayer.

I was surprised to find that KERA did not have a significant impact on teacher job satisfaction. It may have altered the way teachers taught certain material and it may have magnified their resentment and anger surrounding particular aspects of the system, but, in the end, these teachers found their satisfaction in the teacher-principal and teacher- student relationships.

Principals Matter

In the real-world lives of teachers, principals played a key role in alleviating resentment and dissatisfaction teachers endured as a result of accountability measures and the daily grind of dealing with students eight hours a day. I believe principals had a much greater effect on teachers in the study than the literature suggested they would. The student-teacher relationship is considered to be the “holy grail” of teacher job satisfaction, but in a state where student accountability was minimal, the principals became a constant source of friendship, recognition and support for these teachers.

Noddings (1992) saw the desire to be cared for as a universal human characteristic and argued that mature relationships were exemplified by mutuality (p.17).

I feel that her ethics of care idea, when applied to the teacher-principal relationship, sheds significant light on why the teachers in this study were able to overcome the frustration, anger, and resentment they had in trying to work within KERA’s accountability system

and still teach authentically. These principals truly cared about their faculty, treating

them as professionals and as colleagues, and built a culture of support and encouragement

which allowed them to thrive. The fact the teachers knew they were supported, even

when they made mistakes, allowed them to teach without having to look back over their

shoulder to see if Big Brother was watching. Mr. Ledoux underscored the respect and trust principals had for the professionalism of their teachers and the support it conveyed

to them:

I think it goes back to kind of a two-way trust between administration and

teachers. We are doing the best we can with the kids that we have and with the

facilities and the support that we have. When they (government) bring in more

and more rules and requirements as proof of doing things . . . you end up micro-

managed. You (the principal) have so much lack of control or lack of trust from

your employees that you feel like you have to micro-manage. You put in a lot of

rules, a lot of requests and a lot of requirements. Here we don’t have that and it

kind of makes you feel good about the way we are doing it.

The respect and trust elements principals demonstrated only furthered the strong

personal friendships that the principals managed to fashion with the teachers, such as

Mrs. Strong’s relationship with Mrs. Heaton and Mr. Sims’ friendships with the Lunch

Bunch. I was especially intrigued by Mr. Sims and the Lunch Bunch since the range of

topics they covered would probably considered “girl talk;” marriage, kids, shopping and

fashion. Since the ladies had known each other for a while and were friends with each

other, the conversation would sometimes become very personal and intimate. Society

does not consider this typical male conversation but Mr. Sims smoothly transitioned into

these conversations and had no fear of speaking his mind.

Mr. Sims and Mrs. Strong’s talent of relating to faculty and having more than

superficial relationships with them gave credibility to Chapman and Hutcheson’s (1982) claim that more satisfied teachers assign more importance to recognition by

administrators and supervisors than to other factors, such as salary. The transformational

leadership these principals displayed was most apparent to teachers as they cited the

personal care and attention the principals gave them. The assortment of the principals’

actions, such as buying small gifts to show appreciation for a job well done, providing

food for special lunches or long days of work, stopping by a class just to say “hi” and

protecting them from unwarranted criticism, left an indelible mark on the hearts and

minds of these teachers. As teachers reminisced on the many instances they were the

recipients of this concern and care from their principal, an overwhelming sense of

gratitude was pouring out of them. These teachers saw these principals as “one of them;”

someone who understood where they were coming from and who appreciated where they had been.

Students and the Real World

Mary Metz (1993) wrote a deep truth about the student-teacher relationship that

was obvious in my research: “Students can confirm or destroy teachers’ pride of craft.”

Mrs. Heaton corroborated Metz’s idea and the value it held: “What it all boils down to,

for me, is me and a classroom of kids. Either you are going to enjoy your experience with

them or you are going to hate it.” There is no doubt that teaching was a “high risk-high reward” endeavor for these teachers but it was one they felt was worth pursuing.

The effort that teachers put forth to make the relationship work centered on three

aspects I thought were most obvious in my research: care and concern for student

welfare, the use of humor and the ability to control and relate to students. Care and

concern was a palpable part since most people consider education to be a “service”

profession and humor was and continues to be a universal human emotion most people try to incorporate into their everyday living. What interested me the most was the impact that relating to students had on them. It would seem clear that being able to relate to students was important and, indeed, it was. What caught my attention was how teachers used their life experience, whether personal or professional, to make a connection to the material and students they taught.

Many teachers start out their teaching careers shortly after graduating with their

teaching degree and do not have much experience with having a job in the “real world,” such as the business world. Mr. Ledoux was an exception to that rule and his life experience had an impact on the students he taught. He served as a brew master for 20

years in the beer industry before he became a teacher and, of course, most of the students

loved hearing the stories about beer-making. He used the stories to draw students in and

then used practical examples from his whole life (brew master, marathoner, and tri-

athlete) to explain concepts and formulas he was trying to teach in his science classes.

The students loved it and he understood the power it had:

I bring in that connection that, even if we don't talk about it, just the fact that the

kids know that you haven't been in school all your life is a plus. One of the girls

keeps on saying, ‘God, he has such an interesting life and he does all that kind of

stuff.’ So, it might have nothing to do with the curriculum or the content but I

think it's bringing the kids closer to what is real life instead of saying, ‘What am I

doing calculating this stuff when I’ll never use it.’

This was just one of the various examples that showed how these teachers related to

students on a deeper level and, in many ways, contradicted Linda McNeil’s (2000a)

assertion that teachers have to choose between their personal survival in the system or

their students’ education. Often, these good teachers found a balance between the two.

I believe that the balance the teachers were able to achieve and maintain was also

in opposition to McNeil’s (2000a) proposed theory that school knowledge and defensive

teaching created a cycle of lowering expectations. I did not find that to be true with these

teachers; in fact, they held high expectations for students and were disappointed when

they were not met. From Mrs. May “willing” students into staying after school for

tutoring, to Ms. Stone being a “bitch” and enforcing all rules on all students, to Mrs.

Herringer expecting AP students to complete two hours of homework every night just for

her class, these teachers demanded excellence and usually received it.

Did every student deliver? No, but in what profession does a boss get the best out

of every worker all the time? Human beings are human; they make mistakes and they

falter. Even teachers do not execute their “A” game every day and that was what made the teacher-student relationship so important. Both teachers and students in this study were exposed throughout the school year and their strengths and weaknesses were on full display. It was the sharing of those traits in the full light of day that bonded them together

and reminded them of each other’s humanity.

Contributions to the Literature

“The devil is in the details” is a most apropos phrase when it comes to describing

what this particular study contributes to the larger body of literature on teacher job

satisfaction. Most of the literature on the subject showed that the relationships teachers

have with principals and students affected their perspective on job satisfaction, as well as the fact that standards and accountability measures create a negative impact on it. What was noteworthy was the extent to which these specific factors contribute to job satisfaction. In addition, I believe there are certain characteristics and qualities not mentioned in the literature which these specific teachers possess that enable them to be satisfied despite other factors that undermine satisfaction.

The main thrust of literature dealing with job satisfaction sustained the notion that

the teacher-student relationship was the most important factor in creating a satisfied

teacher. In this study and through my previous experience as a teacher, I would argue that

it was the care and concern shown through the teacher-principal relationship that was

most important in overcoming the factors that undermine teacher job satisfaction.

Teachers were angry and resentful over the lack of student accountability and over the

idea that many standards and goals of KERA seemed artificial and impractical. The

principals in the study understood their frustrations, for they had the same level of

accountability in the system. They counteracted the stress teachers felt when they listened

to teacher concerns, recognized the effort teachers put forth, and respected the

professionalism these teachers embodied on a daily basis. The viewpoint of these

teachers was obvious: their principal was “one of them” and the bond that image

established would carry these teachers through the highs and the lows they experienced

on a daily basis.

While teachers in the study received extraordinary support from their principal,

they were also blessed with certain qualities that led them to teach at a high level of

satisfaction. The three most common traits were: passion for the subject they taught, the idea that each was born to teach (I refer to this as the “it” factor), and the reward of intrinsic motivators.

All of the teachers I observed had a tangible and real passion for the content area

they taught. From Mrs. Heaton’s enthusiasm for the Environmental Club to Mr. Ledoux’s

practical life experience of how science works in everyday life with his job as a brew

master, each of these teachers truly enjoyed sharing their knowledge with their students.

It was evident in the way they crafted their lessons and drew students into the world of

knowledge the teachers considered vital to their everyday living.

Teaching exacts a toll on an individual in their everyday life and many times a

person has to find a motivation to continue putting forth the effort expected of good

teachers. I sensed that these teachers felt they were born to teach and considered it a

calling or vocation. Some of them came to the calling later than others, but they all said

they believed teaching was what they were meant to do and they were successful as

teachers because of the “it” factor. The “it” factor can be seen in all great leaders,

whether they be captains of industry or captains of sporting teams. These people draw

others to themselves and elicit the best from their followers, which in turn, serves as one

of many intrinsic rewards and creates enthusiasm to repeat the process multiple times. As

many people will attest to, it is hard to define the “it” factor but, when someone possesses

the characteristic, it is easy to recognize.

References

Apple, M.W. (1994). Is change always good for teachers? Gender, class, and teaching in

history. In K. Borman and N. Greenman (Eds.), Changing American Education:

Recapturing the Past or Inventing the Future? (pp.71-106). Albany: SUNY Press.

Ball, G. & Goldman, S. (1997). Improving education's productivity - Reexamining the

system to get the schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 228-232.

Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 662-683.

Chapman, D.W. (1983). A Model on the influences of teacher retention. Journal of

Teacher Education, 34, 43-49.

Chapman, D.W. and Hutcheson, S.M. (1982). Attrition from teacher careers: A

discriminant analysis. American Education Research Journal, 19, 93-105.

Chapman, D.W. & Lowther, M.A. (1982). Teachers’ satisfaction with teaching. Journal

of Educational Research, 75, 241-247.

Clements, S. (1999). Kentucky’s teachers: charting a course for KERA’s second decade.

Frankfort, Ky.: Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center.

Commonwealth of Kentucky. (2005). School Report Card 2004-2005. Retrieved

November 5, 2005, from http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). School reform at the Crossroads: Confronting the central

issues of teaching. Educational Policy, 2, 151-166.

Day, C., Elliot, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform, standards and teacher identity:

Challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5),

563-577.

Day, R.E. (2003). Each child, every child: The story of the council for better education,

equity and adequacy in Kentucky’s schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Dinham, S., Cairney, T., Craigie, D., & Wilson, S. (1995). School climate and leadership:

research into three secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration,

33(4), 36-58.

Dinham, S. & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school executive

satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 362-378.

Estabrook, M. (2005). [U.S. census data for Northern Kentucky school districts].

Unpublished raw data.

Evans, L. (1997). Addressing problems of conceptualization and construct validity in

researching teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Research, 39(3), 319-331.

Finn, C. & Petrilli, M. (1998). Washington versus school reform. Public Interest, 133,

55-67.

Foster, J. (1991). The role of accountability in Kentucky’s education reform act of 1990.

Educational Leadership, 48(5), p.34-36.

Fuhrman, S. (1994). Politics and systemic education reform (R117G10039). Brunswick,

NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place

called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gawel, J. (1997). Herzberg’s theory of motivation and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 5(11). Retrieved January 12,

2007, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=5&n=11.

Gay, G. (1995). Modeling and mentoring in urban teacher preparation. Education and

Urban Society, 28(1), 103-118.

Goertz, M. (2001). Redefining government roles in an era of standards-based reform. Phi

Delta Kappan, 83(1), 62-66.

Johnson, H. & Castelli, M. (2000). Catholic head teachers: The importance of culture

building in approaches to spiritual and moral development and the transmission of

faith tradition. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 5, 79-90.

Johnson, S. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York:

Basic Books, Inc.

Johnson, S. & Landman, J. (2000). “Sometimes bureaucracy has its charms”: The

working conditions of teachers in deregulated schools. Teachers College Record,

102(1), 85-121.

Kirst, M. (1995). Who’s in charge? Federal, state, and local control. In D. Ravitch and M.

Vinovskis (Eds.), Learning From the Past: What History Teaches Us About

School Reform (pp. 25-56). Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

Kreis, K. & Brockopp, D.Y. (1986). Autonomy: A component of teacher job satisfaction.

Education, 107, 110-115.

LaMorte, M.W. (2002). School law: Cases and concepts. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help

reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1, 249.

Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’

motivation to implement accountability practices. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119.

Liontos, L.B. (1992). Transformational leadership. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on

Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED347636).

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Louv, R. (2002). Mapping the new world of leadership. Leadership For a Changing

World. Retrieved from http://leadershipforchange.org/papers/mapping.php3.

McNamara (1999). Job satisfaction. Retrieved December 6, 2006, from http:// www.

managementhelp.org/prsn_wll/job_stfy.htm.

McNeil, L. (2000a). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized

testing. New York: Routledge Press.

McNeil, L. (2000b). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta

Kappan, 8(10), 729-734.

McNeil, L. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge.

New York: Routledge Press.

McNeil, L. & Valenzuela, A. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing

in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfield and M. Kornhaber

(Eds.), Raising Standards or Raising Barriers? Inequality and High Stakes

Testing in Public Education (pp.127-150). New York: The Century Foundation

Press.

MetLife (2005). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Transitions and the role of

supportive relationships. Retrieved on January 24, 2006, from

http://www.metlife.com.

MetLife (2002). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Student life: school, home

and community. Retrieved on July 20, 2004, from http://www.metlife.com.

Metz, M. (1993). Teachers’ ultimate dependence on their students. In J. Little and M.

McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ Work: Individuals, Colleagues and Contexts

(pp.104-136). New York: Teachers College Press.

Mitchell, K. (1997). What happens when school reform and accountability testing meet?

Theory into Practice, 36, 262-266.

Mottet, T., Beebe, S., Raffeld, P., & Medlock, A. (2004). The effects of student verbal

and nonverbal responsiveness on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction.

Communication Education, 53(2), 150-163.

National Center For Educational Statistics. (1997). Job satisfaction among america’s

teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and

teacher compensation. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education Office of

Educational Research and Improvement.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to

education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pace, J. & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of

theory, ideology, and research. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 4-27.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pennington, M.C. & , Riley, V.P. (1991). Measuring job satisfaction in ESL using the Job

Descriptive Index. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/

hkjo/view/10/1000015.pdf

Pomeroy, E. (1999). The teacher-student relationship in secondary school: Insights from

excluded students. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 465-482.

Shann, M.H. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban

middle schools. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 67-73.

Sheldon, K. & Biddle, B. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school reform: Perils and

pitfalls. Teachers College Record, 100, 164-180.

Texas Education Agency. (2004). Texas public school sesquicentennial handbook.

Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/comm/tps_

handbook04/pdfs/tps_handbook.pdf.

Thoms, P., Dose, J., & Scott, K. (2002). Relationships between accountability, job

satisfaction, and trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 307-323.

Thorton, H. (2004). What can we learn about retaining teachers from pds teacher’s

voices? [Electronic version]. Middle School Journal, 35, 5-12. Retrieved January

12, 2007, from http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/MiddleSchoolJournal/ Articles/

March2004/Article1/tabid/135/Default.aspx.

Timar, T. (1997). The institutional role of state education departments: A historical

perspective. American Journal of Education, 105, 231-260.

Tirozzi, G. & Uro, G. (1997). Education reform in the United States: National policy in

support of local efforts for school improvements. American Psychologist, 52, 241-

249.

Walker, E. (2004). The impact of state policies and actions on local implementation

efforts: A study of whole school reform in New Jersey. Educational Policy, 18,

338-363.

Walonick, D.S. (2004). Organizational theory and behavior. Unpublished manuscript.

Wassermann, S. (2001). Quantum theory, the uncertainty principle, and the alchemy of

standardized testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 28-40.

West Virginia University Extension Service (1999).About the Land-Grant System: The

Land-Grant College: Why Was It Created? Retrieved on May 3, 2007 from

http://www.wvu.edu/~exten/about/land.htm#later.

Wirt, J., Choy, S., Rooney, P., Provasnik, S., Sen, A., and Tobin, R. (2004). The

Condition of Education 2004(NCES 2004-077). U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Appendix A

University of Cincinnati Consent to Participate in a Research Study College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services Rachel Noll Phone: 556-3624 Email: [email protected]

Title of Study: Accountability and Job Satisfaction: A Look at the Effects of CATS Testing on Kentucky Teachers

Introduction: Before agreeing to participate in this study, it is important that the following explanation of the procedures be read and understood. It describes the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of the study. It also describes the right to withdraw from the study at any time. It is important to understand that no guarantee or assurance can be made as to the results of the study.

Purpose of Study: The purpose of this research study is to investigate how Kentucky’s CATS testing affects high school teachers’ job satisfaction. The research will examine the effects of CATS on teacher job satisfaction in terms of teacher relations with students and the impact on pedagogy. You will be one of approximately eight participants taking part in this study.

Duration: Your participation in this study will last for approximately three days.

Procedures: During the course of the study, the following will occur: • The investigator will observe your classes and accompany you to lunch, meetings, and other events for two full school days. • After the two-day observation period, you will participate in a semi-structured, recorded interview where you will be asked questions about teacher job satisfaction, your views concerning accountability measures in Kentucky, and how CATS testing affects your teaching. The interview will last no more than two hours and will be conducted at a time and location that is most convenient for you. The interview will be recorded on a digital audio recorder that stores files electronically.

Exclusion: You will not be able to participate in this study if any of the following apply to you: • You are union leaders • You have been formally reprimanded for professional misconduct.

Risks/discomforts: Although there are no anticipated risks associated with this study, the study may involve the following discomforts/and or risks: • you may experience some discomfort during classroom observations and/or interview discussions about your job. There also may be discomforts and risks that are not yet known. The safeguards or precautions to avoid these discomforts or risks are: • Should severe discomfort or unforeseen risks arise, you have the right to decide whether or not to remain in the study. • You also may discuss discomfort and risks with the investigator [Rachel Noll – (513) 556-3624], the investigator’s advisor [Dr. Annette Hemmings – (513) 556-3616], or you may call Dr. Margaret Miller, Chair of the Institutional Review Board - Social and Behavioral Sciences, at (513) 558-5784.

Benefits: You will receive no direct benefit from your participation in this study, but your participation may help teachers and administrators better understand factors that affect teacher job satisfaction which may lead to better recruitment and retention of possible teacher candidates.

Alternatives: The only alternative available to you is to not participate in the study.

Confidentiality: Every effort will be made to maintain the confidentiality of your study records. The researcher’s advisor at the University of Cincinnati will be allowed to read sections of the research records related to this study. The data from the study may be published; however, you will not be identified by name. To further ensure confidentiality, all field notes, interview audio files, and interview transcripts will be stored in a locked file cabinet and destroyed by shredding after the study is completed. Only the researcher and the researcher’s advisor will have access to study records.

Payments to participants: You will receive a gift certificate to a local restaurant for your participation in this study according to the following schedule: the end of your involvement in the study.

Right to refuse or withdraw: Your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to participate, or may discontinue participation at ANY TIME, without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. The investigator has the right to withdraw you from the study AT ANY TIME. Your withdrawal from the study may be for reasons related solely to you (for example, not following study-related directions from the investigator) or because the entire study has been terminated.

Offer to answer questions: If you have any other questions about this study, you may call Rachel Noll at (513) 556-3624 or Dr. Annette Hemmings at (513) 556-3616. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may call Dr. Margaret Miller, Chair of the Institutional Review Board - Social and Behavioral Sciences at (513) 558-5784.

Legal Rights: Nothing in this consent form waives any legal right you may have nor does it release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence.

I HAVE READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE. I VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY. I WILL RECEIVE A COPY OF THIS CONSENT FORM FOR MY INFORMATION.

______Participant Signature Date

______Signature and Title of Person Obtaining Consent Date

______Identification of Role in Study

2/2005

Appendix B

Interview Guide

1. What made you decide to become a high school teacher? Did your background influence it?

2. Where did you go to college? What degrees and/or certificates do you hold?

3. How long have you been a teacher? How long have you been teaching in this school?

4. Do you enjoy teaching as an occupation? Do you consider your job to be important?

5. How do you define job satisfaction? How satisfied are you in your job?

6. What would you say is the most positive asset or characteristic (tangible/non-tangible) of the school? What would you say is the least positive asset or characteristic of the school?

7. Do you feel supported in the work you do by the administration? Do you have the freedom to decide how to do your work?

8. Are you given a reasonable workload of classes to teach? Are you given a reasonable amount of duties to perform?

9. How much time do you spend in class preparing for CATS testing? How do you feel about that?

10. Do you feel KERA, specifically CATS testing, affects your teacher job satisfaction? If so, how?

11. Do you think CATS testing accurately reflects student ability? Why or why not?

12. Has CATS testing altered the way you teach your class? If so, how?