http://aerj.aera.netAmerican Educational Research Journal

http://aer.sagepub.com/content/24/4/479The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.3102/00028312024004479

1987 24: 479Am Educ Res JAnn Weaver Hart

A Career Ladder's Effect on Teacher Career and Work Attitudes  

 Published on behalf of

  American Educational Research Association

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:American Educational Research JournalAdditional services and information for    

  http://aerj.aera.net/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://aerj.aera.net/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.aera.net/reprintsReprints:  

http://www.aera.net/permissionsPermissions:  

http://aer.sagepub.com/content/24/4/479.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jan 1, 1987Version of Record >>

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

American Educational Research Journal Winter 1987, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 479-503

A Career Ladder's Effect on Teacher Career and Work Attitudes

Ann Weaver Hart University of Utah

Interest in teaching career attractiveness and school effectiveness has spawned a variety of incentive packages across the country. Career ladders are part of this move to reform teaching. Though career ladders can be a significant change in the way teaching work and careers are organized, they take a variety of forms. A study of a career ladder designed to affect the work structure and career opportunities of teachers was designed to examine the redesign effect on teacher attitudes about their work and careers. Factors associated with teacher attitudes were examined, as well as differences in attitudes between teachers at various career stages, level of participation in the change, and level of teaching. Teachers were found to differ in their responses to career ladder work efforts, the impact of the reform on the work of schools, peer supervision, career growth opportuni­ties, and the stability of career opportunities. The implications of the research for the future structure and assessment of teacher career ladder job redesign efforts and the target populations they are aimed at are discussed.

In response to perceptions of decline in quality and disillusionment with effectiveness, states are investigating incentives to attract, retain, and motivate able teachers. A group of reforms labeled career ladders is among

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Norman Hyatt, Brigham Young University, in the collection and compilation of data, and of Robert Johnston and Lee Hendrix of the Department of Statistics, Brigham Young University. The responses and suggestions of Larry Walters, Cecil Miskel, Roald Campbell, Michael Murphy, and anonymous reviewers to earlier drafts of the paper were also helpful. The research reported in this paper was supported in part by a University of Utah Research Committee grant and by the College of Education, Brigham Young University. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the conference of the Operations Research Society of America/The Institute for Man­agement Sciences, Miami, Florida, October 1986.

479

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

the incentive plans being widely considered (Cornett, 1986). Career ladders can be, but aren't necessarily, a significant change in the way teaching work and careers are organized. One small group of career ladders focuses on the redesign of teaching work, providing teachers with differentiated roles, responsibilities, and pay. These differences include such things as increased power over decisions on a schoolwide basis, supervision of novices, substantive control over curriculum and educational materials, and other opportunities for advancement and increased pay over the course of a career (Hart & Murphy, 1986; Malen, Murphy, & Hart, in press). Conforming closely to the recommendations of the Carnegie Commission (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986), the Holmes Group (1986), and other teacher empowerment reforms embraced by organizations such as the American Federation of Teachers, these ladders offer an alternative to career ladder structures providing pay ranks based on tight regulation and evaluation. The purpose of this study is to examine teacher attitudes about a career ladder that attempts to make changes in the work and career of teachers.

Background

Although 40 states are developing, implementing, or considering career ladder structures, data collected across the country to date are limited primarily to descriptions of legislation, career ladder plans, career ladder teacher evaluation procedures, and policymakers' intent ("Changing Course," 1985; Cornett & Weeks, 1985a, 1985b; "Making Teaching," 1985). Recently, opinion data on teacher support for the reforms is becoming available (Nelson, 1986).

However, general surveys across types of plans may not yield information about the many possible features, their relative impact on teachers' work, and the differential responses of teachers. Plans differ substantially.

The attractiveness of a career depends on many factors, including career expectations, stage, orientation, and social influence (Derr, 1980, 1986; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Hall, 1976; Kanter, 1977; Seybolt, 1980). Explicitly or implicitly, career ladders are aimed at a target population with a specific set of career expectations—teachers and potential teachers who are academically able, who seek opportunities to grow and progress, and who might be most at risk of leaving (or not joining) the profession. People in this group have either multiple career options or career and growth needs not met by the current structure of teaching (Hart & Murphy, 1986; Murphy & Hart, 1985).

Groups of teachers and potential teachers can thus be expected to differ. People bring to their work certain personal needs that may determine to a large measure the incentives that appeal to them (Derr, 1980, 1986; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Hall, 1976; Kanter, 1977; Seybolt, 1980). Although career ladder structures might address the needs of young adults

480

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Career Ladder

entering the work force—for challenging work, psychological involvement in work, feedback, and coaching from supervisors and experienced col­leagues—identified in psychological research, many challenges and obsta­cles lie in the way of the successful implementation of the reform (Hall, 1976; Murphy & Hart, 1985).

Framework

Case study field research completed in a medium-sized district in the western United States during 1984-85 showed that authority, leadership, and collegial interaction were affected by the features of the career ladder being implemented (Hart, 1985). Many of the patterns observed in the field corresponded with those described in research in other organizational settings (Blau, 1963; Dornbush & Scott, 1975). As field research data were analyzed, data often resonated with issues in management and social psychology research on job redesign.

A redesign approach to career ladders that considers as broad a range of work incentives as possible opens many options closed under incentive plans limited to merit pay, pay rank, and short-term project plans (Malen & Hart, 1987). Incentives aimed at the total work life and career are made available. The job redesign approach is consistent with research and development in management for several decades and has been proposed as an alternative to narrow definitions of career ladders (Bacharach, Conley, & Shedd, 1986). This study, therefore, was designed to apply a job redesign framework of analysis to a career ladder for teachers, examining the early effects of changes in work and authority relationships.

The conceptual framework of the study is based on this emerging congruence between job redesign literature and investigations of career ladder plans. Decisions to redesign supervision, collegial and authority relationships, and pay structures had been made in the district chosen for study. These decisions set the stage for an examination of teacher responses to a redesign effort.

The assumption that more able or more career-oriented people might be attracted to teaching by an incentive package helps drive the current enthusiasm for career ladders. This assumption requires investigation. Consequently, the study probed differential and emerging responses of groups of teachers to different plan features. Additionally, because job redesign concepts have not been applied to teaching, it was necessary to test this work setting for the presence of constructs and pilot an instrument designed to probe the congruence between job redesign concepts and a career ladder using new roles and relationships in teaching.

Discomfort with new work structures may be a natural result of the dissonance created by change. Research in job redesign reveals that, even if individuals are dissatisfied with current work patterns and think the change is a good idea, they will often resist the new patterns (Hackman &

481

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

Oldham, 1980). So the job redesign framework included emerging oppo­sition to the ladder.

The potential of job redesign for influencing the target population's career choices is currently unestablished. Many demographic, personality, and organizational variables alter main and interaction effects of job redesign. For example, participation, the task experience, social cues from others at work, personal growth needs, job characteristics, past job experi­ences, the nature of the previous career path in the organization, expecta­tions, values, and task interdependence have all been identified in job redesign literature as moderating influences (Adler, Skov, & Salvemini, 1985;Greenhaus,Seidel,&Marinis, 1983;Griffeth, 1985;Kiggundu, 1983; Latack, 1984; Vance & Biddle, 1985). In addition, literature on teaching suggests that socialization and elementary and secondary teaching levels affect career orientations (Boyer 1983; Lortie, 1975).

Pioneering work in the job characteristics model of work motivation by Hackman and his colleagues over the last decade assesses the motivating potential of the job itself. Three main job dimensions related to tasks, autonomy, and feedback have been examined and manipulated to deter­mine their effect on people's propensity to perform (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Additional studies of authority, scope, and interdependence of work suggest that opportunities and relationships may also influence people's work attitudes and performance (Kanter, 1977, 1983; Kiggundu, 1983). And, though supervision structure is not the major focus, the research indicates that any manipulation of authority relation­ships causes changes in the work of the immediate supervisor and leader-member relationships (Hackman & Oldham; Green & Novak, 1982).

Authority relationships were included in the study for two reasons: (a) Early evidence of effects on principals emerged in the district that stimu­lated this research; and (b) job redesign literature reports effects on the work of the immediate supervisor; increased authority and influence for teachers may change the role of principals in schools. Principals are the immediate supervisors of teachers and often function in the role of gate­keeper in a school, playing a substantial role in any reform effort (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978). A perceived loss of authority may encourage them to subvert or impede implementation of a teacher career ladder.

Other challenges also face job redesign and teacher incentive plans. Career needs evolve across time (Derr, 1986; Derr & Chilton, 1983). Schools are tightly locked in long traditions of current practice (Boyer, 1983; Cusick, 1983; Sizer, 1985; Wolcott, 1973). The target population (teachers with greater academic ability and promise) is at high risk of leaving teaching long before its members accumulate much experience in the profession (Schlechty & Vance, 1981).

The assessment of teaching job redesign must, therefore, include an examination of possible differences in impact on various teacher groups at

482

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Career Ladder

different career stages at different levels and on principals. Reformers and researchers alike should know if variables such as participation in career ladder jobs, the level at which people teach, and length of tenure in teaching influence responses to job and career characteristics of the reform in order to frame future research and make management decisions.

The Career Ladder

The district's career ladder had three major components. Teacher leaders (approximately 10% of teachers in the district) were selected through an evaluation system including classroom observations, peer, parent, and student reviews and competition by a school committee including the principal and two teachers. They worked primarily at the school level, though some had assignments at the district level. Job descriptions for these roles were developed at each school. Probationary teachers, those with 1 to 3 years experience, were not eligible. Teacher leaders were compensated by a stipend plus additional days of pay, often approaching full-time work, at their regular daily contract rate. Teacher leader positions were automatically vacated every 2 years, and leaders reapplied and competed for their positions.

Teacher specialists (approximately 40% of teachers) were chosen for more narrowly defined roles, by competition and evaluation, and received a stipend and a few extra days of pay at their contract rate. Teacher specialist positions were for 1 year. AH teachers worked additional contract days without students in the school, paid at their salary schedule rate.

Method

Based on the field research and literature on job redesign, several questions guided the study:

1. What factors are important elements of teacher responses to the career ladder?

2. Do participants and nonparticipants differ in their attitudes about the career ladder?

3. Do teachers in various career stages differ in attitudes about the career ladder?

4. Does level of teaching (elementary, junior high, or senior high) influence teacher attitudes about the career ladder?

5. Do all teachers describe the reform as discomfiting, or are changes evolving less disruptively?

6. How are authority and supervision relationships affected by the career ladder?

Using theme and issue data from the first year's field research in the district (1984-85) and issues raised by job redesign, career, and teaching literature, the researcher constructed a survey instrument to examine attitude and work factors emerging during the implementation of the

483

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

career ladder (Hart, 1986; Hart, Kauchak, & Stevens, 1986) and to see if job redesign constructs might emerge from teaching work. To establish content and construct validity, multiple sources for questions were used. In addition, three scholars currently working on career ladder research examined the questions and suggested revisions. The career ladder task force (made up of one teacher from each school, the superintendent, and two principals), two additional principals, and representatives of the teach­ers association in the district then examined the instrument and made editorial and substantive suggestions. Open-ended questions were added.

Reliability was determined by administering the instrument twice to a pilot sample of 11 teachers with responses separated by several days. Test-retest reliability percentages were calculated to establish the consistency and stability of overall responses to the survey. The instrument had a test-retest reliability of 94.6% on individual items. Teachers in the pilot sample also offered several minor suggestions for wording of items.

The final survey included 51 declarative statements to which teachers responded using a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning "strongly disagree" and 5 meaning "strongly agree." About one third of items were phrased in the negative, with a 5 response meaning a negative attitude toward the concept embodied in the question. Thirty-six of the items were answered by all teachers, six items were answered only by probationary teachers, and nine items were answered only by teacher leaders. Five open-ended questions were also posed.

The population and sample included all classroom teachers in the district. The unit of analyses were groups of teachers, depending on school level (elementary, junior high, high school), experience, and participation in the career ladder, and the district. The survey instrument was given to all teachers present during a regular faculty meeting in November 1985 by each school's teacher association representative. Surveys were placed in sealed envelopes by respondents and delivered to the researcher. Of 420 teachers in the district, 389 usable responses were collected, representing 92% of potential respondents.

The return rate reflects the teachers who were absent during faculty meetings the day the survey was administered and teachers who had the autumn cycle off in two year-round schools. A small number of teachers may have chosen not to return the survey. Of responding teachers, 54 were teacher leaders, 137 were teacher specialists, and 198 were not on the ladder; 231 were elementary school teachers, 57 were junior high school teachers, and 101 were high school teachers; 109 had 1-3 years of experi­ence, 124 had 4-10 years of experience, and 157 had more than 10 years of experience. At the request of the teachers association, sex was not included as a variable. Teachers feared that in small schools with few teacher leaders, the combination of sex, experience, level, and participation would violate their anonymity.

484

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Career Ladder

A classic rotated orthogonal-factor analysis of responses on the first 36 items (completed by all teachers) was performed in order to group items by work and career factors (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975). Five major factors were isolated. A multivariate analysis of the standardized factor scores (with an alpha of .05 preestablished to assess factors) was then completed to protect against compounding alpha in future univariate analysis. All standardized factor scores were within the significance level.

An analysis of variance was then performed on the data using experience, level, and career ladder participation as independent variables and the five standardized factor scores as dependent variables. An additional analysis of variance of items completed only by probationary teachers and teacher leaders was performed to examine any differences that might be attributable to level. Scattergram tests for homogeneity of variance and tests for normal frequency distributions were performed with satisfactory results for all five factors to guard against violation of assumptions of analysis of variance (Scott, Carter, & Bryce, 1981).

Findings

The findings of the study will be presented in three sections: summary of themes in the open-ended responses, factor analysis, and analysis of variance.

Themes From Open-Ended Responses

Responses to the questions were first summarized into issue or task categories and then were collapsed into major themes. The number of comments offered in each theme is contained in the Appendix.

Describe the influence you see teacher leaders having on other teachers in your school. Sixteen issue categories were identified by the first reading of the written responses. From these, six major themes emerged. They were: (a) professional development and mentor; (b) curriculum develop­ment; (c) instructional improvement; (d) school improvement and problem solving; (e) administration and organization; and (f) a negative influence on teachers. Of the comments offered, 5% came from district teacher leaders, 36% came from teacher specialists, 17% came from school teacher leaders, and 42% came from other teachers. All comments indicating that the extra preparation time for teacher leaders is a negative influence on the school came from career ladder teachers (5 teacher specialists and 3 teacher leaders). One teacher specialist and one teacher said the teacher leaders have no influence, because "even if you begged for [help] they won't give it." Only 2% of the open comments offered by teachers about the influence of teacher leaders on other teachers were negative.

Teachers in the district see the teacher leader role as the development of other teachers (mentors) and involvement in professional issues of curric-

485

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

ulum and instruction. They perceive teacher leaders' work extending beyond individual classrooms and into the greater school environment. Teachers feel that the career ladder teachers should work for the improve­ment of the school as a whole, with influence over all aspects of the school enterprise, including classroom and school discipline.

On what aspects of the school program do the teacher leaders focus their efforts? What do they do? Fifteen issue categories were reduced to five aspects of the school program. They were: (a) program and curriculum development and coordination; (b) professional development/mentor; (c) school improvement; (d) administration and organization; and (e) doing their own thing. Of the total 452 comments made by teachers, 5% came from district teacher leaders, 39% from teacher specialists, 19% from school teacher leaders, and 37% from other teachers. Of teachers com­menting, 0.7% felt that teacher leaders "do their own thing." Another issue of concern to teachers in the district, administrative responsibilities (meet­ings, office duties, material resources, and class schedules) was mentioned by 17% of teachers who chose to comment (See Appendix).

As in the responses to Question 1, teachers saw the teacher leaders focusing their major efforts toward issues of curriculum, instruction, professional development, and school improvement. They mentioned a wide variety of activities within these categories, including school climate programs, discipline, in-service training, modeling instructional tech­niques, and curriculum development and coordination.

In what areas do the teacher specialists work? What do they do? Nine issue categories led to the development of six areas of emphasis in the work of teacher specialists in the district: (a) professional development and assistance, including workshops in specialty areas; (b) program and curric­ulum development; (c) administration and school organization, including communication; (d) research and diagnosis; (e) developing collegiality; and (f) special projects, programs, or activities. Excluding the list of curriculum specialty areas provided by teachers in response to this question, 6% of comments were offered by district teacher leaders, 52% of comments by teacher specialists, 19% of comments by school teacher leaders, and 22% of comments by other teachers. Teachers made no negative remarks.

The vast majority of comments related to teacher specialists' work involved specific training and assistance in subject areas. When combined with curriculum and program development, the subject area/curriculum emphasis in the work of teacher specialists in the district is clear (See Appendix).

Describe the effect the career ladder has had on your working relationship with the principal of your school Teachers choosing to respond to this question indicated that (a) they had developed a better working relation­ship; (b) there was no noticeable effect; or (c) the situation had deteriorated. Of those commenting, 2% were district teacher leaders, 29% were teacher

486

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Career Ladder

specialists, 12% were school teacher leaders, and 57% were other teachers. Total response of those choosing to comment indicated that 62% felt their relationship had improved, 34% felt there had been no change, and 3% felt the situation had deteriorated.

Anything else you would like to share about career ladders. General comments were more negative than those given in response to particular questions. Some teachers (15% of teachers responding to the survey) said their feelings had not been given a proper hearing. Secondary teachers were concerned about the reliance on subject area divisions to determine what teacher leader positions were available, limiting access to those in less populated subject areas and making the process vulnerable to manip­ulation and power plays. Comments also indicated that resentment over reduced class teaching loads for teacher leaders persisted side by side with feelings on the part of teacher leaders that too much was expected of them, with negative consequences for their teaching.

However, teachers also commented that in-service had been helpful to them and that career ladder teachers took some responsibility for school-wide improvement. Other teachers commented that teacher leaders were capable teachers who were more than willing to assist when asked, and that many teachers had sought assistance. Fifty-nine teachers said they wanted to give the district feedback on career ladders in another form (not by survey), 64 expressed dissatisfaction with some feature of the plan itself or with some aspect of its implementation, and 21 offered strong praise for career ladders. Two teachers said they felt the survey did not give them the opportunity to express the strength of their support.

Factor Analysis

The factor analysis defined five career and work factors: (a) career ladder teacher effort; (b) career ladder impact on schools; (c) peer supervision and observation; (d) career growth in influence and power; and (e) promotion stability (See Tables 1 and 2).

The first factor included questions relating directly to the tasks of career ladder teachers in the district. Examples of questions whose variance was best explained by Factor 1 include:

• I approach teacher leaders in my school for information about teach­ing.

• Teacher leaders in my school offer curriculum and lesson plan help to me.

Career ladder impact on schools, Factor 2, and the factor describing attitudes toward peer supervision, Factor 3, are core issues in the current reform debate. Examples of impact questions include:

• The information about teaching that the career ladder teachers have shared with the entire faculty has been useful to me.

487

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

TABLE 1 Analysis of variance on five factors

Factor

1—Career ladder work effort

2—Impact on schools

3—Peer supervision

4—Career growth in power

Source

Level Elem. vs. Sec. Jr. vs. Sr.

Experience 1-3 vs. others 4-10 vs. over 10

Participation TL & TS vs. none TL vs. TS

Level x Exp. Elem. vs. Sec. x

4-10 vs. over 10 Error

Level Elem. vs. Sec. Jr. vs. Sr.

Experience 1-3 vs. others 4-10 vs. over 10

Participation TL & TS vs. none TL vs. TS

Error

Level Elem. vs. Sec. Jr. vs. Sr.

Experience 1-3 vs. others 4-10 vs. over 10

Participation TL & TS vs. none TL vs. TS

Error

Level Elem. vs. Sec. Jr. vs. Sr.

Experience 1-3 vs. others 4-10 vs. over 10

Participation TS & TL vs. none TS vs. TL

df

2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 4

1 227

2 1 1 2

1 2 1 1

227

2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

227

2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

MS

.514

.780

.195 5.230 2.227 8.522 3.192 5.636 4.377 2.493

5.885 .847

2.533 5.065 .012 .038 .045 .035 .791 .895 .014 .944

2.120 1.648 2.328 2.912 2.486 3.138 2.854 3.567 5.255 .970

1.432 1.535 1.884 .027 .051 .002

3.086 1.744 6.145

F

.607

.922

.230 6.176 2.630 5.169 3.770 6.656 5.169 2.945

6.950

2.683 5.365 .013 .041 .048 .037 .838 .014 .014

2.184 1.169 2.399 3.001 2.561 3.234 2.941 3.676 5.415

1.552 1.250 2.043

.027

.055

.002 3.345 1.891 6.661

P

.546

.338

.632

.002***

.106

.022**

.025**

.011***

.024**

.021**

.009***

.071*

.021**

.909

.960

.827

.849

.434

.905

.905

.144

.194

.123

.052**

.111

.073*

.055**

.056**

.021**

.214

.265

.154

.971

.815

.962

.037**

.170

.010***

488

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

TABLE 1 (continued)

Career Ladder

Factor Source df MS F p

5—Stability of promotion Level

Elem. vs. Sec. Jr. vs. Sr.

Experience 1-3 vs. others 4-10 vs. over 10

Participation TL & TS vs. none TL vs. TS

Error TL = teacher leader; TS = teacher specialist. ***p.01. **/?.05. */?.10. t p nearing significance.

• The work of career ladder teachers does not contribute to efforts to improve student achievement in my school.

Examples of peer supervision and observation (Factor 3) questions include:

• Peers should not be involved in the supervision of teachers. • Clinical supervision by teacher leaders in my school emphasizes

performance evaluation more than professional development. • Direct observation of teaching can give an accurate picture of the

important aspects of the teaching observed. Career-long growth in influence and power, Factor 4, addressed career

development issues in the questionnaire. Examples of questions in Factor 4 include:

• If I knew there were opportunities for me to have increasing authority and influence in a school over time I would be more likely to stay in teaching.

• Principals should not give more freedom to make professional deci­sions for the school to experienced teachers who have demonstrated their skill and ability than they give to other teachers.

Promotion stability, Factor 5, the opportunity to keep a position once it is attained captured the trustworthiness of career opportunities. Some questions included in this factor were:

• The teacher leader position should be permanent (except for dismissal for cause).

• The teacher specialists should not have to apply for their jobs every year.

2 .812 1 .819 1 .906 2 1.773 1 2.988 1 .650 2 .403 1 .002 1 .565

227 .999

.812

.820

.907 1.775 2.992

.651

.403

.002

.566

.445

.366

.342

.172f

.085*

.421

.668

.668

.453

489

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

TABLE 2 Responses by source and factor deviation—mean*

Factor

1—Career ladder work effort

2—Impact on schools

3—Peer supervision

Source

Participation leader specialist none

Level Elem. Jr. high Sr. high

Experience 1-3 yrs. 4-10 yrs. over 10 yrs.

Participation leader specialist none

Level Elem. Jr. high Sr. high

Experience 1-3 yrs. 4-10 yrs. over 10 yrs.

Participation leader specialist none

Level Elem. Jr. high Sr. high

Experience 1-3 yrs. 4-10 yrs. over 10 yrs.

TV

35 93

118

133 30 74

73 77 96

35 93

118

133 39 74

73 77 96

35 93

118

133 39 74

73 77 96

Mean

.624 -.070 -.188

.220

.015

.130

.435

.243 -.313

.624

.055 -.149

.225 -.137 -.166

.019 -.030 -.066

-.749 .011 .001

-.102 -.515 -.119

-.576 .089

-.249

SD

.283

.127

.103

.108

.179

.198

.282

.139

.115

.283

.134

.109

.114

.189

.209

.298

.139

.121

.303

.135

.110

.116

.191

.212

.302

.141

.123

490

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

TABLE 2 (continued)

Career Ladder

Factor

4—Career growth in power

5—Stability of promotion

Source

Participation leader specialist none

Level Elem. Jr. high Sr. high

Experience 1-3 yrs. 4-10 yrs. over 10 yrs.

Participation leader specialist none

Level Elem. Jr. high Sr. high

Experience 1-3 yrs. 4-10 yrs. over 10 yrs.

N

35 93

118

133 39 74

73 77 96

35 93

118

133 39 96

73 77 96

Mean

.619 -.203 -.051

.002

.004

.359

.074

.150

.141

-.164 .085

-.031

.064

.037

.222

-.040 .068 .22

SD

.296

.132

.107

.113

.186

.207

.294

.138

.120

.308

.137

.118

.117

.194

.125

.306

.143

.125 11 Mean squares used in the standard deviation have 227 degrees of freedom.

Means expressed as standardized factor scores.

Analysis of Variance

Using standardized factor scores on the five factors as dependent varia­bles, analysis of variance was performed with level, experience, and career ladder as independent variables. The results of the ANOVA can be found in Table 1. Additional analyses of variance were performed for the items to be completed by teacher leaders and probationary teachers using re­sponses on each item as the dependent variable. Elementary and secondary probationary teachers did not differ significantly in their responses, nor did teacher leaders by level, experience, or level by experience interaction. Their work with career ladders has been consistent throughout the district. These responses suggest that early career attitude differences between teachers at different levels may not be pronounced. Additionally, it suggests that the effort expended by teacher leaders in the first 1 lk years of the career ladder was consistent across levels.

491

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

Career ladder teacher effort. Factor 1 reflects the assessment of effort in supervision, curriculum, instructional development, and school discipline activities of career ladder teachers and is closely related to the task dimen­sion identified in classical job redesign research.

Attitudes about the tasks and influence of career ladder teachers in the schools were significantly different by experience and participation in the career ladder. Teachers with more than 10 years of experience were much less positive about career ladder teacher work and saw it occurring less frequently than teachers with less experience. Teachers with 1-3 years of experience were the most positive about career ladder teacher effort and their own likelihood of seeking assistance from career ladder teachers. Statistically significant differences existed between experience groups (p = .002).

Those teachers who have spent less time in teaching were the most involved in working with teacher leaders and specialists; teachers with more than 10 years experience were least involved and paid little attention to the effort expended by career ladder teachers working with novices. However, probationary teachers were also most divergent in their re­sponses, showing a standard deviation of the mean more than twice as large as teachers with more experience (See Table 2). The quality and frequency of their experiences with career ladder teachers varied widely.

Participation in the career ladder had a significant effect on attitudes toward career ladder tasks (p = .025). These differences existed between career ladder teachers and all other teachers (p = .011) and between teacher leaders and teacher specialists (p = .024). Teacher leaders, those most actively involved in career ladders, assessed the frequency and quality of their work most positively. Teachers with no involvement in the ladder had the most negative attitudes.

Career ladder impact on schools. This factor explored attitudes about the influence the redesign of some jobs was having on the work of schools and is also task related. Statistically significant differences on this factor were found only between elementary and secondary teachers (p = .021), with elementary teachers having more positive attitudes toward the effect of the ladder on the school instructional efforts than all secondary teachers. Differences in the mean responses of teacher leaders, teacher specialists, and teachers not on the career ladder exist but were not statistically significant. Experience, the variable having such a strong influence over attitudes toward the work of career ladder teachers, had no effect on attitudes about career ladder impacts on the work of the school.

Peer supervision/observation. Supervision is closely tied to constructs of feedback and autonomy in job redesign. Statistically significant differences in attitudes toward the peer supervision component of the career ladder (p = .052) were found by level of experience. Teachers with 4-10 years of

492

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Career Ladder

experience were more positive toward the supervision and observation of peers than teachers in the other two experience groups.

Attitudes toward peer supervision also differed by participation in the career ladder. Statistically significant differences (p = .021) between teacher leaders and teacher specialists, with teacher leaders (those required to do peer supervision) less positive toward peer supervision than teacher spe­cialists, were found. Teachers not participating in the career ladder and teacher specialists had no strong feelings about peer supervision.

Career growth in influence and power. An autonomy and growth needs factor, career growth yielded only moderately informative results. Only participation in the career ladder affected teachers' attitudes toward the career development opportunities in influence and authority in a school. Significantly higher attitudes toward teacher growth in influence were found among teacher leaders than among teacher specialists (p = .010) and teachers not on the ladder.

Promotion stability. Though closely related to growth needs and auton­omy, identified as important in other job redesign research, promotion stability yielded no statistically significant differences by level, experience, or career ladder participation. The need for opportunities to plan career maps and advancement is one rationale for career ladders (Murphy, 1985). Though these issues may affect the trustworthiness of career opportunities offered by the career ladder, teachers on the ladder did not differ signifi­cantly from other groups, nor did experience or level influence attitudes. Mean responses on these items indicated that teacher attitudes about long-term or permanent appointments were negative.

Other data from the factor analysis yielded differences among groups of teachers in the district. High school teachers had a broader divergence of opinion; elementary teachers were more homogenous. Inexperienced teachers, those with 1-3 years experience, were the most heterogeneous group by experience, while those with more than 10 years of experience demonstrated the most agreement on all factors. Finally, teacher leaders tended to diverge most in their responses, whereas teachers not on the career ladder were in the greatest agreement. Additionally, scattergrams of the residuals indicated that high school teachers with long experience were an identifiably negative group, though their attitudes were not sufficiently variant to stand tests of statistical significance.

Interaction. The only significant interaction effects are shown in the Appendix. Those teachers in mid-career (4-10 years) at the elementary level were significantly more positive about career ladder work and their level of effort (p = .009).

Discussion

Data examining the quality of the teaching force and predicting serious shortages of teachers in the future led to calls for reform in the structure

493

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

of teaching (Carnegie, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986; Schlechty & Vance, 1981). The target population, those still in early career who are at greatest risk of leaving teaching, are most positive toward the tasks and effort of career ladder teachers in the subject district's job redesign career ladder. Those in early mid-career were significantly more positive toward both career ladder tasks and the value and legitimacy of peer supervision and observation. Those holding leadership positions were most favorable to­ward career growth opportunities in power and decisionmaking in schools.

The results of this study suggest that a job redesign career ladder can be used to structure activities that promote school effectiveness, enhance collegial interaction, and provide career growth for teachers. The following discussion will specifically address the research questions guiding the study.

What Factors Are Important Elements of Teacher Responses to the Career Ladder?

The factor analysis indicates that teachers' responses to this job redesign effort cluster as discernible work and career concepts. Responses centered around the frequency and quality of career ladder teachers' interactions with other teachers (feedback and task), the effect of job redesign on the instructional performance of schools (task), the efficacy and appropriate­ness of peer supervision (feedback and autonomy), increasing opportunities throughout a career for growth in influence over schoolwide issues (growth needs), and the stability of career growth or promotional opportunities (growth needs). These work (effort, school performance, and supervision) and career (stability and availability of growth opportunities) factors are central to the assumptions and focus of the current reform movement in education—school improvement and teacher career improvement.

In their open-ended responses, teachers chose to mention a variety of important instructional activities related directly to task. Teacher involve­ment with others as mentors, in promoting professional development among teachers, in curriculum and instructional improvement, and in schoolwide improvement and problem-solving were the most frequently mentioned important activities of career ladder teachers. These data reveal that teachers value efforts directed toward instruction and schools in job redesign efforts. Given the importance of teacher professional growth, schoolwide emphasis, and focus on instruction identified as central in much of the effective schools literature (Bossert, 1985; Little, 1982; Purkey & Smith, 1983), these responses are a sanguine outcome. Teachers specif­ically identified collegiality (a component of professional autonomy) as a focus of career ladder teacher efforts.

Do Participants and Nonparticipants Differ in Their Attitudes About the Career Ladder?

Participation had a direct impact on teacher attitudes. Teachers partici­pating in the career ladder were more positive in their assessment of career

494

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Career Ladder

ladder teacher effort. This outcome is consistent with management job redesign literature. The more intense and extended the participation in the job redesign, the more positive the response. Teacher leaders were also more involved in discussions about and participation in the evaluation and revision of the ladder (Hart, 1986), a factor that would also predict more positive assessment.

Participation in the ladder predicted teachers' attitudes about opportu­nities for involvement in decisionmaking and for increased scope of influence in schools over time. An argument advanced for career ladders is the need to provide expanded scope of influence and power in order to entice teachers to stay in the profession and assure ambitious and talented young people that teaching will afford them advancement opportunities (Hall, 1976; Kanter, 1977). Previous research on teacher career anchors indicates that differences exist in teachers' career motivators (DeLong, 1983). Those whose influence and authority had increased as a result of the ladder and those who were more likely, because of predisposed orien­tations and growth needs, to seek ladder positions, did assess teacher power over the course of a career more positively.

Teacher leaders, however, appeared to have widely differing experiences in the ladder. Though their responses were predictive, they were highly divergent. The quality or appeal of their experiences may have been quite variable. This finding suggests that further in-depth field study is necessary to identify the factors at the school level that make experiences favorable for promoted teachers. Teacher leaders and nonparticipants did not, how­ever, differ in their attitudes about permanent promotion. This feature may so fundamentally violate firmly established equality-autonomy-civility norms in teaching (Malen, Murphy, & Hart, in press) that respondents were unable to deal with it.

Participation in the ladder did affect teachers' responses to peer super­vision. Those required to supervise and observe others found themselves discomfited by the experience. However, in the portion of the instrument aimed exclusively at teacher leader experiences, they judged the accuracy and fairness of their observations very positively. Teacher leaders may be caught in a transition period in which they are both acquiring skills of observation and supervision of which they are proud and suffering qualms about the new responsibility these skills place on them.

Although job redesign research indicates that involvement, positive attitudes, and satisfaction improve with job redesign, it often records a drop in satisfaction and production immediately after implementation and before the new structures of work and supervisory relationships are firmly established (Buchanan, 1979; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). The results of this study support the observation that those involved in and, therefore, familiar with the new processes and relationships give the most positive assessment of their potential impact on schools and the teaching career.

495

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

Do Teachers in Various Career Stages Differ in Attitudes About the Career Ladder?

Experience affected teachers' responses to the job redesign effort. In this district, highly experienced teachers (more than 10 years) not only did not involve themselves in the interaction with career ladder teachers but also did not assess the career ladder teachers' efforts as positively.

This effect could be related to a number of influences. Experienced teachers may need, or think they need, less professional interaction or assistance and so may separate themselves from the collegial work more prevalent among career ladder teachers and inexperienced teachers. The experienced teachers also may be more isolated. The work of career ladder teachers was either less visible to them or they chose to judge it more harshly.

The only other factor affected by experience in the study was the legitimacy and accuracy of peer supervision. Teachers in mid-career, those with 4-10 years of experience, were more likely to see supervision as legitimate, useful, and nonthreatening. Consequently, teachers who are experienced enough to have confidence in their work and are still flexible enough to engage comfortably in peer interaction on instructional issues favored peer supervision. The research on careers and the needs of young workers suggests that this outcome bodes well for the job redesign impact on teacher satisfaction at mid-career (Hall, 1976). An important feature of professional work is a gradually evolving supervision structure that changes as professional growth is demonstrated (Mitchell & Kerchner, 1983). Mid-career teachers may be the group most receptive to this change in job structure.

Though the decision was made to define the level of significance at .05, experience approaches significance (p = .085) in its influence on teacher stability of promotion. Teachers with a greater investment of time in the teaching career may value the dependability of promotions more than others. Further research in this area might affirm the positive potential of promotions for enticing experienced teachers to remain in the profession and should be pursued.

Does Level of Teaching Influence Teacher Attitudes About the Career Ladder?

Elementary school teachers differed significantly in their assessment of the influence of the career ladder on the central work of their schools. Even though teachers did not differ by level over the other career and work factors that emerged in the study, junior and senior high teachers were far less convinced that all this effort improved their schools than were elemen­tary school teachers.

This finding confirms the literature on secondary schools that describes them as entrepreneurial and isolated and as more intransigent work places

496

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Career Ladder

than elementary schools (Cusick, 1983; Sizer, 1984). It may also suggest that secondary school teachers do not believe that increased attention to curriculum, instructional methods, or professional development will sub­stantially improve the quality of schools. The additional finding that high school teachers with long experience judged all aspects of the career ladder most negatively affirms the difficulties that may be faced by job redesign in the secondary schools. Not only were highly experienced teachers less able to adjust to new ways of organizing work, but high school teachers may be more entrenched in their view of schools and schooling. Negative responses of high school teachers to career ladders were also observed in data from a recent opinion survey in one state. Nelson (1986) found significant differences between high school teachers and other groups.

Do All Teachers Describe the Reform as Discomfiting?

The open-ended questions gave teachers the best opportunity to reveal their feelings about the ladder without prompting. Not all teachers chose to respond to these questions, however, so the interpretation of the discom­fiture may be more speculative and less reliable. However, 15% of all respondents chose to mention that they felt their feelings had not been given sufficient airing in the course of the first year and a half of the program. The survey did not allay these feelings and may have exacerbated them. Apparently, a substantial minority of teachers felt out of balance as a result of the career ladder.

Additionally, 64 of the 389 respondents expressed dissatisfaction with some feature of the career ladder or with the implementation process. This frustration ranged from anger about lack of access to positions because of the way job descriptions were written to a fundamental opposition to the concept.

Although the ladder was obviously disruptive, the overall means and standard deviations to responses suggest that teachers were neither over­whelmingly opposed to the ladder nor transformed into true believers. Across groups, they had mildly positive attitudes about the usefulness and promise of the reform in its early stages and were willing to continue to work with the district to develop and revise the ladder. These data confirm both the predicted discomfort and the potential revealed in the general literature on job redesign (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).

How Are Authority and Supervision Relationships Affected by the Career Ladder?

Teachers who competed for and obtained career ladder positions sup­ported the new opportunities for growth in influence in their schools. Their responses indicated that principals were usually willing to share power and supported the legitimacy of power sharing. These changes in the overall balance of power in a school may have considerable potential for changing

497

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

the career development opportunities of teaching (Hart & Murphy, 1986). Teacher leaders, the most influential group, were most positive about the right of teachers to demonstrate their prowess and then obtain more power over decisions affecting both instruction and schoolwide problem-solving. This finding affirms the plausibility of some reform commissions' recom­mendations (Carnegie, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986).

Teachers' decisionmaking authority in the school, developing across time with demonstrated skill and ability, was affirmed by the positive responses of teachers in all groups. Teaching can be structured differently; the impact on the school, principal leadership, and supervision structures cannot be overstated (Mitchell & Kerchner, 1983; Murphy & Hart, 1985; Stein, 1977).

Responses to the open-ended questions also yielded evidence that teach­ers interpreted the new structure's impact on teacher/principal relation­ships favorably. Of respondents who chose to comment, 62% indicated that their working relationships with principals had improved; 34% felt there had been no change. Consequently, 96% of teachers did not feel the career ladder had affected principal/teacher interaction negatively.

This outcome is particularly interesting in light of the configuration of teachers who chose to comment: Only 41% were career ladder teachers, those working directly with the principal under the new structure. Many teachers not on the ladder apparently felt that the reform had improved the relationship between teachers and principals. This may reflect increased interaction, more attention paid to instruction, a sense that life at work had improved, or simply the Hawthorne effect, a result of the attention people received. More data collected in a variety of settings over time will be necessary to determine what factors influenced this finding.

Conclusions

The results of the survey indicate that teachers in the district generally accepted the potential of a job redesign career ladder and were willing to suspend judgment while the ladder was developed and revised. Their attitudes were normally distributed on all five factors identified in the survey; they felt basically, though not overwhelmingly, positive about most aspects of career ladders. Neither a groundswell of support for career ladders nor a wholesale rejection of the concept was apparent. The survey results also indicated that groups of teachers differ significantly in their attitudes about career ladder job redesign features. A finding with consid­erable importance to job redesign career ladders, that teachers in mid-career who have substantial opportunities for increased power and inter­action respond most favorably to the reform, should be investigated further.

Debates about the appropriateness of quality of work life policies in the culture as a whole have raged for some time (Work in America Institute Studies in Productivity, 1980; Ginzberg, 1975). However, the teachers in

498

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Career Ladder

the study responded to career ladder effects on their work with relative calm. Responses to features of work, career, and authority currently affected by the career ladder reform in the district were moderate. However, the form of the research, an opinion survey under structured circumstances, may have promoted a more moderate response, making it critical that in-depth case study data be collected and compared with survey data for a richer view of teacher responses.

The teacher career ladder reform movements must be prepared to respond with assessments of the effectiveness of their various structures in achieving stated goals, with rich school-level data about their impact on the working relationships and tasks of teachers and principals, with evi­dence of their differential impact on various groups, and with substantive alternative structures and modifications as the implementation process proceeds. Studies examining the impact of a job redesign career ladder on career choices and attitudes of early career stage teachers identified by their academic records, ACT scores on entering college, and principal reports as having high potential are currently being undertaken by the author and a colleague to further assess the reform's impact on the target population. Studies of the long-term effect of the reform (if it can survive the vicissitudes of public policy) on young people's career choices should also be begun. Such data are required to combat temptations to assess the outcome of career ladder job redesign efforts with inappropriate measures lacking descriptive and explanatory value. Longitudinal system and group level measures along with detailed descriptions of work life in schools under career ladder structures should be developed.

APPENDIX Summary of open-ended responses

Percentage3

N of those commenting

Influence of teacher leaders on other teachers and school program professional development and mentor 225 54 curriculum development 48 12 instructional improvement 58 14 school improvement 48 12 administration and organization 28 7 negative 10 2

Percentage of teachers responding by career ladder participation teacher 42 district teacher leader 5 school teacher leader 17 teacher specialist 36

1 Percentage of total rounded to nearest percent.

499

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

APPENDIX (Continued)

Summary of open-ended responses

Percentage3

N of those commenting

Teacher leader activities in the school program and curriculum development and

coordination 109 professional development/mentor 116 school improvement 101 administration & organization 75 their own thing 3

Percentage of teachers responding by career ladder participation teacher district teacher leader school teacher leader teacher specialist

Teacher specialist activities in the school professional development & assistance 551 program and curriculum development 91 administration & organization 40 diagnosis & research 8 collegiality 4

Percentage of teachers responding by career ladder participation teacher district teacher leader school teacher leader teacher specialist

Career ladder effect on teacher/principal relationships improved 147 no effect 81 deteriorated 8

Other reactions or comments desire to offer different feedback on the

career ladder 59 negative (teacher leaders not the best, anger) 3 support for teacher leader capabilities 14 discontent with access to ladder positions 8 work load for teacher leaders

too light 5 too heavy 5 no accountability for what they do 2 more help for probationary & floundering teachers 3

more extra days 10 prefer specialists to career ladders 2

24 26 22 17 1

37 5

19 39

77 13 6 2 1

22 6

19 52

62 34 3

41 2

10 6

4 4 1

2 7 1

500

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Career Ladder

ions

W

4 3 1 6 6

11

Percentage3

of those commenting

3 2 1 4 4

8

APPENDIX {Continued)

Summary of open-ended responses

praise for career ladder concept praise for teacher leader in-service lack of questions about job descriptions concern of teacher leader training communication gap teacher leaders doing too much

administrative work

Adler, S., Skov, R. B., & Salvemini, N. J. (1985). Job characteristics and job satisfaction: When cause becomes consequence. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 35, 266-278.

Bacharach, S. B., Conley, S., & Shedd, J. (1986). Beyond career ladders: Structuring teacher career development systems. Teachers College Record, 87, 563-574.

Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VIII. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Blau, P. M. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bossert, S. T. (1985). Effective elementary schools. In R. M. J. Kyle (Ed.), Reaching for excellence: An effective schools sourcebook (pp. 39-54). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row.

Buchanan, D. A. (1979). The development of job design theories and techniques. Westmead, England: Saxon House.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Hyattsville, MD: Author.

Changing course: A 50-state survey of reform measures. (1985). Education Week, 4(20), 11-30.

Cornett, L. (1986). Implementing plans: Success and change. Atlanta, GA: Career Ladder Clearinghouse.

Cornett, L., & Weeks, K. (1985a). Career ladder plans: Trends and emerging issues-1985. Atlanta, GA: Career Ladder Clearinghouse.

Cornett, L., & Weeks, K. (1985b). Planning career ladders: Lessons from the states. Atlanta, GA: Career Ladder Clearinghouse.

Cusick, P. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the American high school. New York: Longman.

DeLong, T. J. (1983, Winter). Career orientations of rural educators: An investi­gation. The Rural Educator, 12-16.

Derr, C. B. (1980). More about career anchors. In C. B. Derr (Ed.), Work, family and the career: New frontiers in theory and research (pp. 166-187). New York: Praeger.

501

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Ann Weaver Hart

Derr, C. B. (1986). Managing the new careerist. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Derr, C. B., & Chilton, S. K. (1983). The career directionality of high school

principals. The High School Journal, 67, 11-19. Dornbush, S. M., & Scott, W. R. (1975). Evaluation and the exercise of authority.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ginzberg, E. (1975). Work structuring and manpower realities. In L. E. David &

A. B. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life, (Vol. 1, pp. 368-377). New York: Free Press.

Green, G., & Novak, M. A. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.

Greenhaus, J. H., Seidel, C, & Marinis, M. (1983). The impact of expectations and values on job attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31 394-417.

Griffeth, R. W. (1985). Moderation of the effects of job enrichment by participation: A longitudinal field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 73-93.

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259-286.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Hart, A. W. (1985, April). Formal teacher supervision by teachers in a career

ladder. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Hart, A. W. (1986, April). Redesigning a career: Two comparative case studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Hart, A. W., Kauchak, D., & Stevens, D. (1986, April). Teacher career ladder effects on the work of the principal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Hart, A. W., & Murphy, M. J. (1986). Career ladders and performance appraisal. The National Forum, 66, 23-26.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kanter, R. M. (1983). Changemasters. New York: Simon and Schuster. Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145-172. Latack, J. C. (1984). Career transitions within organizations: An exploratory study

of work, nonwork, and coping strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 296-322.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace condi­tions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 324-340.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Making teaching more rewarding [special issue]. (1985). Educational Leadership, 43(3).

502

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

Career Ladder

Malen, B., & Hart, A. W. (1987). Career ladder reform: A multi-level analysis of initial efforts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 9-23.

Malen, B., Murphy, M. J., & Hart, A. W. (in press). Restructuring teacher compensation systems: An analysis of three incentive strategies. In K. Alexander (Ed.), American Educational Finance Association Yearbook, 1987. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Mitchell, D. E., & Kerchner, C. T. (1983). Labor relations and teacher policy. In L. S. Schulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 214-238). New York: Longman.

Murphy, M. J., & Hart, A. W. (1985). Career ladder reforms. Paper prepared for the California Commission on the Teaching Professions.

Nelson, D. (1986). A statewide survey of teacher opinions concerning Utah's career ladder program. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Office of Education.

Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Purkey, S. C, & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452.

Schlechty, P. C, & Vance, V. S. (1981). Do academically able teachers leave education? The North Carolina case. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 106-112.

Scott, D. T., Carter, M. W., & Bryce, G. R. (1981). Rummage II. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Seybolt, J. W. (1980). The impact of work role design on career satisfaction. In C. B. Derr (Ed.), Work, family, and the career: New frontiers in theory and research (pp. 51-74). New York: Praeger.

Sizer, T. R. (1985). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Stein, L. (Ed.). (1977). Work or labor. New York: Arno Press. Vance, R. J., & Biddle, T. F. (1985). Task experience and social cues: Interactive

effects on attitudinal reactions. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 252-265.

Wolcott, H. F. (1973). The man in the principal's office. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Work in America Institute Studies in Productivity. (1980). Participative manage­ment. New York: Pergamon.

Author

ANN WEAVER HART, Assistant Professor, University of Utah, 339 MBH, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. Specializations: organizations, job redesign in schools, principalship.

503

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on November 24, 2013http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from