,a

et

ED 057,727

AUTHOR \,TITLE

INSTITUTION' 4

SPONS AGENCY-.

BUREAU 3IOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTE-

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

ITMerit Pay. Educational Management ReViewNumber 10. iOregon Univ., Eugene. F,RIC ClearinghouseEducational. Management /.. ')National Center for EdU tional /ResearchDevelopment (DHEW/0 a shington I. p . C.BR-8-0353

DOCUMENT RESUME

14

empleton, tarir EA 004 451

Nofr 72OEC-0-8-080,353-3514-10p.

Series'

and

ow // ,4... .

. Acadqmic Achievement; Bibliographies;. Diffe .rentiatedStaffs; Elucatiorial AccoUntability; *LiteratureReci\iew6; Meroi.t Pay; *Merit Rating Programs; *SalaryDifere ials; *Teacher Evaluation; Teachers; reacherSalarie

(0:65 -S 3. 29

,, This reviev i discusses arguments for and against meritpay and prdsents some merit pay progranand proposals.. The,literature cited_ outlihes the controversy surrounding merit pay,identifying its proponents and opponets; links thefrmqrit proposals tot accountability concept; discusses the ploblems of teacher

aluation; and lists alternative merit pay plans. (kuthdr/JF)

F

k

ti

114 ,avter,,,I*esmoomon..,,,roorvor.luak

November 1972

3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION IS WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

HIS \DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-UCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM

T E PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-1 ATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-I ,NS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-

_ckripN POSITION OR POLICY.

Merit Pay

Number 10

Ian Templeton

The ma's eward system of the single-salary schedule, alongwith the sin le ranking category under which all teachers areplaced, inade uately meets the needs of any profession. Financialrewards and r ognition on a level commensurate with individualability, preparation, and effort are long overdue for the publicschool teacher...

Patterson (1969)

tiThe revival of merit pay programs stems in part from intefestin such innovations as team teaching, differentiated staffing,and elective programsall of which recognize differ en, ces inteacher roles, interests, and strengths. Further support for

In simplest terms, merit pay means payiu a teacher6,1.4merit pay results from the current pressure for acco ntability.

according to the quality of his teaching. In practice, however,programs range from vague stateinents allowini school boards

. .,

to exceed regular pay schedules under some conditions toprograms in which" all teachers and adm/inistrators are paid

.as-7according to an evaluation rating. ,.

The literature, written largely by educational administra-tors and professors, strongly supports merit paY. -These

yhors view merit pay as a step toward teacher ndes-sionalism and a means of rewarding outstanding to chers.Opposition to merit pay cofnes,mostly from`teachers d ismore evident in-faculty rooms than 'in- the literature. A gu-,

*rents opposing merit pay center on two claims: merit ay ',will create competition in a profession that requires tea

t

4

2

Y

work, and there are noobjective standards available for teacher rating.Five of the doctinients /are available from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service.

Complete instructions for. Ordering the documents are given at the end of the review.

BACKGROUND

Interest in merit pay appears cyclical.Weissman (1969) ob,serVes that prior to thedepression and World War II, all teacherswere paid merit salaries. When, after aperiod of dormancy, tte idea was revived inthe fifties, the atiogal Education Associa-tion (NEA) passed.arresolution against bas-ing pay on merit ratings. An indication ofthe limited extent' to which merit payprograms have been implemented can begained from a rev'ew of NEA statistics. In1938 about 20 p rcent of salary schedulesin urban schOol districts with 30,000 ormore population had provisions for a su-perior service aximum.- In 1963 only 5petcent of 2,50 of the largest local schoolsystems had m rit pay plans and two-thirdsof those wer in systems with less than6,000 studen . More recently, NEA researchfor the 1967-68 school year indicates that9.6 percent of the 1,080 pay schedulesstudied of ered extra pay for superiorservice.

Only a few of the schedules in the latestsuryey, however, were actual merit payprogram S. Most programs consisted of blan-ket statements that authorized the board of

on to exceed the salary schedule,ing no detailed implementatiOnds. Others allowed the board

erate an outstanding teacher's progressthe regular schedule. A few programs,provide specific, plans whereby merito!.

ous service could prompt. extra pay. Inmost cases a definite dollar amount wasStated,- and the programs usually app red

only to teachers who had been in the sys-tern for' several years. In many cases theschedule could not be exceeded until theregular schedule's maximum had beenreached through normal progression.

THE CONTROVERSY

Merit pay plans, Weissman (1969) ob-serves, are not often successful. A 1960survey of officials from thirty large schooldistricts disclosed a number of reasons forthe abandonment of merit plans.

The plans had been poorly inauguratedwithout teacher consent and created lowmorale, a sense of injustice, misunder-standing, dissension, suspicions of dis-crimination among teachers, oppositionby teacher 'organizations, extra record-keeping, and dissatisfaction with the in-strument used for evaluation (primarilysubjective evaluation without sufficientaccompanying data). (pp. 17-18)

Mandeiian'(1970) presents arguments forthe standard lockstep teacher pay scale.From his point of view, most school dis-tricts and teachers are happy with thepresent system, and it works. Merit pro-grams would complicate the salary nego-tiation process and add to the cost ofinstruction in most schocil districts.

Wagoner (1969) acknowledges the threemost common arguments against merit pay:experience indicates it is unworkable, cur-

' rent evaluation criteria are ,too inaccurateto be used as a basis fora merit pay, andthe .method 'produces undesirable relations

schools s coun erargurnen e

erit Pay 3

4 PRO'S

1. Teachers differ in their 'ability and ef-ficiency; their salaries should -be re-lated to these differences.

2. Merit increments. provide an incen-tive and a reward for superior service.

3. If we can rate for promotion andtenure we can rate for salaries.

4. Industry uses merit rating; educationcan do the same.

5. The public is willing to pay high sala-ries only to those who deserve them.

6. Only through merit rating canteachers attain professional status.

CON'S

1. Differences in teaching efficiencycannot at present be measured withsufficient accuracy for determiningsalaries.

2. Merit rating destroys cooperative staffteamwork.

3. Our rating methods are too crude todistinguiSh among fine gradations ofteaching efficiency.

4. Industry and education are notanalogous; teaching is an art.

5. The public will reject a plan in whichonly a fraction of its children aretaught by superior teachers.

/6. We should seek to improve allteachers, not merely to reward thosewho appear to excel.

7. Merit rating may improve the effi-ciency of some teachers, but will havean adverse effect on many others.

8. Merit rating will cause bitterness anddisillusionment.

7. Merit rating will improve instruction.

3

8. Merit rating will reward thosedeserve recognition.

9. Merit rating will stimulate admjnistra-tors to be more concerned with theefficiency of 'their teachers.

9. Merit rating will hinder effectivesupervision.

10. Merit rating will be well ,Zvorth theadditional cost, for it will ensure thatmoney is being wisely spent.

10. The additional cost of merit ratingcan be more profitably used in *-proving the efficiency of the entirestaff.

McDowell (1971) p. 2

points out that merit pay sterns succeedmore often than they fail, eachers are continually involved in evalu tion and oppose'',it only when it ' applies t them perSohally,

and the present undifferentiated salaryschedulels inherently unfair and discrimina-tory.. WagoXier stresses that merit pay re-waidi -teaCheis judged to be superior

4

according to established criteria. He believesthat excellence in teaching can be attainedthrough competition and-that opposition tothis position will perpetuate mediocrity.

Education is undergoing serious scrutinyfrom critics both inside and outside' thesystem. Rasmussen and Holobinko (1971)note teachers are gaining increased visibilitybecause of collective negotiations and thepublic's interest in holding school personnelaccountable. The authors argue that underthe present undifferentiated salary scheduleteachers have little incentive to improvetheir teaching. Teacher incentive is furtherreduced because administrators now makemost of the important decisions in selectingeducational objectives and choosing curricu-lum materials. If teachers are to gain so-ciety's and be considered leaders ineducation, they must assume more respon-sibility in developing educational objectivesfor students and adopt salary increases basedon the achievement of these objectives.

'Noting that tke problem of evaluatingteachers hinders the implementation of bothmerit pay and differentiated staffing, Engel(1971) reviews the role evaluation plays inthe education, training, placement, and in-structional methods- of teachers. He con-cludes that teachers object to evaluationonly when it relates to their pay. If teacherswere challenged to do so, Engel contendsthat they could devise an acceptable methodfor evaluating one anosuch a program wouldinstruction, rewards f

her. The benefits ofediverseimprovemeritorious service,-

perplexities, and morale crises in the schools,as well as a method of meeting public-criti-cism of the single salary schedule.

Patterson (1969) argues that the singlesalary schedule inadequately meets the needsof any profession and that rewards based onability, preparation, and effort are overduin the teaching profession. He suggeststeacher-ranking for recognition, privile s,

and pay as a remedy for several mala lesin education. These maladies includeteacher turnover, equal pay for un qualperformance, minimal salaries that re It inmoonlighting, and low teacher statu . Theprom on of teacher pro fessionalis , Pat-terson aintains, requires both in reased ,

financial incentives and added rec itionof individual teacher skills. As gui elines,Patterson describes five suggested teacherranks with their related pay lev is andincrements.

After conducting research to resole someof the confusion surrounding the uestionof merit pay, Conte and Mason (1972)synthesize information and pro ssionalopinion about teacher compensatio . Theirreport is presented in two major se tionsone on the concept of merit pay, th otheron alternative methods of rewardi out-standing teachers. The merit pay s ctionfocuses on:

three major additional compensation o-visionsmerit provisions in historical perspecti eprinciples of merit pay plansprocedures for merit rating and/or evalutionpro and con argumentspay programssome successes and failures of merit payplans

Their study- reports that careful teacherpreparationan training (implying improve

healthy and benefici competition, and.increased professionalism. ngel suggests :44"that teacher evaluation Of other teachersfor merit pay might lead to the acceptance::of differentiated staffing. Further, differen-tiated staffing could be a step towardsolving, staff assignment, :problems, pay,

r.

regarding merit

21

Ift

'1

/ .ft_. . .

- ... .1

f 4 t

/

'I

4 j-..

Merit Pay 5

ments in the college programs for training gram is based on the belief that, in acceptingnew teachers) are necessary before a school authority for program modification' andcan handle the technical and human relation- student evaluation, the teacher is also under-ship problems inherent in a thoroughgoing. taking the responsibility to defend what hemerit program. Other findings reveal that is doing and why he is doing it.a merit salary program is feasible only in Two two-year colleges, one with and oneschool systems having objective evaluation without a merit incentive system for salaryprocedures and that teacher morale is not and status advancement,were compared forprimarily determined by the salary system, faculty participation in the achievement ofwhether merit or nontherit.. Two modelS institutional goals Wallin 1966). Exceptsalary schedules, one proposed salary sched- for their advancemnt system, the two col-ule, and a 19-item bibliography are included. leges were similar in every repect. The merit

college (MC) used academic titles an pro-

PROGRAMS AND PROPOSALSmoted faculty on higher ecIçlon recorn-mendations based on the individual s

Positing that merit ay is an attempt performance of duty. The nonmerit coijegeto make teachers accout.ab to society, (NMC) labeled everyone "instnictor,'"usedMcDowell (1971) offers two definitions of automatic annual salary increments, and hadaccountability. The narrow one bases a no formally institutionalized allocation ofteacher's salary entirely On instructional rewards and penalties. Both c'blleges hadcompetency, and the broad defiption re- two basic institutional objectives other thanlates salary only partially to c5impetency instruction: counseling students and provid-measurements. After summarizi/Ig the con- ing cultural and educational .programs fortroversy over merit rating, )Ie describes the community. The results of the studyrequirements for a successfu'l plan. These, showed that:include the rerequisite conditions of ac-ceptance,. mutual confidence, participation,

67 percent of the MC staff participatedin community activities, whereas only

and research; a validated and continuous 54 percent of the NMC staff did soevaluation system; and a basic scale of 46 percent of the MC staff moonlighted,salaries adequately reflecting the impoitance compared with 75 percent of theNMCof teaching. He notes that the probable cOst staff

of ,such a program has been estimated at an S 41 percent of the MC staff named student

additional 18 Dercent of payroll, counseling as a regular weekly activity,

According to McDowell, the philosophi- whereas only 10 percent of the NMC stáf

cal prçblem raised by merit rating resultsfrom conflictingviews of the school system, In general, it was concluded that the inceh-which can be considered as a bureucracy tive for faculty pursuit d! institutionalr as a profession. A teacher cannot retain goals is greater iil\colleges w'hh a nrit ad-

professional autonmy if he is to be rated vancement system.by someone else. As a step toward ensuring Chaplin (1969) reports óna prOgramprofessionalism,theSaskatchewanTeachers' designed to represent a merit approachtoFeIeration has devefoped a program of saIary considerations. Under this plan,teacher accreditation by subject. The pro-. operating in the Hartford (Wisconsin) Upion

.......................................................:.

66,

High School District, a teacher earns salaryincreases by accumulating additional col-.lege credits. The individual teacher decide.swhether to take more credits; he can remainat the highest step in his category (B.A.,B.A. plus eight hours, and so forth) or hecan darn an increment each year if he con-tinues his educational training. Credits ac-cumulated through individual initiative areevidence of meritorious attainment, and thesystem becomes self-administered to a great*extent. The school district encourages'teachers to take additional credits by paying$50 per credit, up to $300 each summer.Project LEAP (Leadership in VlucationalAdvancement Program) is an incentive pro-gram that consists of merit awards, rangingfrom $200 to $400, for M.A. teachers whocomplete projects enhancing the educationalprogram. No limit is placed on the numberof consecutive annual projects a teachermay, propose, and the increment becomes aperinanent part of the teacher's pay.

In the .Barrington (Illinois) school dis-tricts, the teachers and all administrators,including the superintendent, are paid on amerit plan ("Teacher Evaluation" 1968).At the b inning of the school year, eachteacher i assigned a number knOwn onlyto himsel and this principal. All evaluationforms are identified only by a teacher'snumber. Teachers in the elementary schoolsare evaluated by their principals, and in themiddle-school by the principal with the helpof the directors of instruction and pupilpersonnel. In the high school,*departmentheads evaluate teachers, and the principalevaluates the department headS. Thesuperintendent thluates the principals andcentral staff and, in turn, is judged by theboard of education. Teachers are rated on: 'asubjective scale ranging frbm zero ("reject")to 10 ("outstanding"). In February the

ratings are sent to the superintendent's of-fice for collation. The money budgeted formerit increases is balanced against thecollated ratings, which roughly determinesthe dollar amounts of merit increases. Noteacher's salary is ever cut and most getincreases that have averaged around $700during the life Of the program. There is atendency for thOr who do not receive in-creases to leave thesystem after a yeaor so.

TEACHER E`IALUATION

The difficulty of deV loping an equitableand acceptable teacher evaluation systemis often the main obstacl to the implemen-tation of merit pay plans\ The documentsdiscussed below do not represent a compre-hensive survey of the literat re on teacher

' evaluation, but they do provi ck-ground on evaluation in gene 1 and somesuggestions for evaluation met ods to beused specifically with.merit pay pans.

According to a publication of t Educa-tional Service Bureau, Inc. (1967), schooldistricts should strive for a teacher valua-tion system that supports teachers' profes-sional growth.

onlya system sh uld

provide not only quantitative ratings oradministrative purposes, but also feedbaCkthat will enhance teacher improvement anddevelopment. A successful teacher evalua-tion system requires:

full support of the school board and thesuperintendent

acceptance and involvement of teachersystemwide coordifttion

a clear and comprehensive statement ofthe purposes and ail bas of evaluatiOn

well-defined, evaluation procedures

Case studies exa me comprehensive teacher,

evaluation progr s in several cities. The

*7' :VI r 1 't 4.1. - . -

document includes sample evaluation formsand instructions.

In the introduction to an 86-item bibliog-raphy on teacher evaluation (McKenna andothers 197 ,), McKenna discusses his viewson teacher evaluation and presents his im-pressions of the documents cited. 1-4 ob-serves that most researchers continue tobelieve that student achieveineht is the mostreliable measure of...a-teacher's effectivenessg-

Rasmussen and Holobinko (1971) be-lieve that the resistance of some teacheisto merit Pay is understandable because theyfear administrators may show favoritism intheir judgments. Seeking to eliminate thisfear, the authors propose a new method of

,evaluation. They strongly suggest:

that further salary increases be tied to theteache 's ability to design, create, analimAtme meaningful educational objec-tives. Let t achers write their own objec-tives for students to achieve and set forththe criteria they will accept,as evidence ofthe achievement of those objectives.Teachers, along with admini r tive staffand competent outside author i , wouldthen determine wheth a jectiveswere -valid and realistic f r tho studentswho would be expected to ac ieve them..Teachers' salaries would t n be basedupon the achievement ese objectivesby students. (p. 209)

Merit Pai) 7.

measurable criteria for their et,' aluation:level of preparation, hours extended perweek in behalf of ducation, year-roundgrowth -and service-,' unique contributionsand accomplishments, and membership;attendance, and participation -in professionalorganizations.

Recognizing that a .major source ofteacher opposition to merit rating, is thelack of agreement on what ari effectiveteaeher is or does, Anthony (1968) sug-gests a new approach to merit rating forteachersmeasuring the quality of tlieirmanipulation of classroom environments.He cites a study showing' that the teacher,through environmental manipulation, doesinfluence the _achievement of his pupils,whereas years of teaching experience do notsignificantly relate to,, pupil achievement.Anthony notes that his approach wouldprobably be acceptable- to teachers becausethey. could be given -precise informationabout needejl and controllable changes, andthey could receive better ratings and higherpay for making such changes. Additionally,merit rating wdstld be based on factors overwhich the teacher has control..

The authors list ten advantages and fivedisadvantages of their suggested programsoutine, six implementation steps, and pro-vide twtiexamples of suitable objectives..

Believing that the single-salary schedule,alohg with the single ranking category forall teachers, inadequately meets the needs ofany profession, Patterson 1969) proposesthe establishment of five teaching ranksTeacher Aide, Assistant Teacher, RegularTeacher, Senior Teacher, and MasterTeacher. He provides% list' of quantitatively

ALTERNATIVE PLANS

After discussing the current practices inteacher compensation and the merit payconcept, Conte and Mason (194'72) discussthe following alternatives for rewarding out-standing teachers:

differentiated staffing

teacher incentive plan

apprOvedstudy plan

the school improvement plan

the teacher executive plan

district consultant program

Pdaition classification.IPersonal rank plan ..,

8

Rhodes\ and Kaplan (1972) suggest pos-sibilities open to school boards that are.interested in improving compensationmethods. They. present' some newof exploration atid study that include -ac-countability, differentiated staffing,' merit

-pay plans, performance contracting, andI negotiating plans. An appendix contains a

selection of salary plans based either onperformance or role differentiation.

REFERENCES

Abstracts of the following documents can be la-cated in Research in Education. The completetexts are available from -,the ERIC Document Re-.production Service IEDRS), commercial channels,or both. Publications can be ordered in either fac-simile paper copy form or microfiche.

For each order, indicate the ED numbers of t e de-sired publications, the type of reproduction esired(paper. or microfiche), and the number of copiesbeing ordered.

Payment must accompany orders under $10.00.Postage, at book rate or- library rate, is in luded in

Canadian Teach ers' -Federation. Merir Rating. Bib-liographies in Education No. 21. Ottawa, Ontario:1971. 14 pages. ED 05-7 433' ME. $0.65 HC $3.29.

Chaplin, Wayne. "Merit Pay is Alive and' Well andThriving in Hartford, Wis." American School BoardJournal, 157,1 (July 1969), 1-3:14, 32. EJ 00f 129;

Conte, -Anthony E., and Mason, Piugede R. MeritPay: Problems and Alternatives. Persp ctive SeriesNo. 2. Trenton; New Jersey: Division f Research,Planning, and Evaluation, New Jersey S ate Depart-ment of-Education., 1972. 33 pages., ED numbernot yet assigned.)

Educational Service Bureau, Inc., Tectcher Evalua-tion. Washington, D.C.: Administrative LeadershipService, 1967. 54 pages. ED -030 2

the price of the document. If first class ailing isdesired or if shipment is outside the c ntinentalUnited States, the difference between b ok rate orlibrary rate and first Class or foreign po tage will bebilled at cost. All orders must-be in weting.

Journal articles cited with EJ numbe s are indexedin Current index to Journals in Education, amonthly companion index to Research in Educa-tion. Reproductions of these jou al articles arenot available from EDRS.

4 Documentnot available from EDRS. (Avails le from Edi-torial Offices, Educational Service Bureau, Inc.,610 Madison Street, Alexandria, V rginia 22314,$3.95.) ,rEngel, Ross A. "Teacher Evaluates eacher for PayDifferentials." The Clearing House 45, 7 (March1971), 407-409. EJ 036 489.

4'

441

Mandesian, Zav M; "But What's So Bad aboutthe Old Lockstep Sched at Treat Every-body 'Alike? A Traditiona ist Ge s a Word in."American School Board Journal,/ 157,' 11 (May1970), 24. EJ 021 445.

McDowell, Stirling. "Accountabi ity of TeacherPerformance through Merit Sal ies and OtherDevices." Speech, given at the estern CanadaEducational' Administrators' Co lerence, Banff,Saskatchewan; Canada, October 9; 1971. 11 pages.ED 89 My $0.65 HC $3.29.

Address requests to ERIC Docume t ReproductioService, P.O. Drawer,0Bethesda, aryland 2001

Anthony, Bobbie tit: "A NewRating of Teachers." Chicago:'tration, University of ChicagNotebook, 17, 1 (September027 627 .14F $0.65 HC.$3from Midwest AdniinistrationChicago, 5835 Kimbark Ave60637, $0.26.) .

pproach to riiidWest A inis-

. Adms trator'spages.. ED.

(Also availableter, University ofChicago, Illinois

O

11

Alb

McKenna, Bernard H., and others. Teacher Evalua-tion: An Annotated Bibliography. Washington,D:C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education,1971. 29 pages. ED 05549 8 8 MF $0.65 HC.$3.29.

Patterson, Wade 'N. "Teacher-Ranking: A Steptoward Professionalism." The Educatibnal Forum,33, 2 (January 1969), 169-1 7 3. EJ 000 644.

Rasmussen, Frederick A., and Holobinko, Paul."A New Idea for Merit Pay :,Teachers Rate Them- '

selves." The Clearing House; 46, 4 (December1 9 71), 2.07 -21 1. EJ 050 303.

Rhodes, Eric, and Kaplan, Harold. New Ideas InEducational Compensation. Washington, D.C.: Edu-cational Service Bureau, Inc.,-1972. 106 pages. (EDnumber not yet assigned;) (Available from Educa-tional Service Bureau, Inc., 610 Madison Street,Alexandria, Virginia 22314, $5.95.)

"Teac to Evaluation." Education Digest. $3, 8(April 9 8), 15-17. Reported by permission fromEducation Age, 4 (September-October 1967),11 -12.

Wagoner, RoderiC L. "The Case for Competition."The Clearing House, 44, 2 (October 1969), 110-114. EJ 010 638.

Wallin, Herman Arnold. 'Providing Incentives forProfessionals in Two-Year Colleges." Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting or the PacificSociological - Association, Vancouver, Canada,April 8, 1966. 20 pagesED 012 509 MF $0.65HC $,.29.

Weis man, Rozanne. "Merit PayWhat Merit?"Education Digest,.._34, 9 (May 1969), 16-19. EJ004 514.

Merit Pay 9

ESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS ,

(lyeers were paid:on merit salaries.

.program is estimated:at an.additional 48 percent41e*Ist:ofalneritof paYioll.: au:411197

Most researc at student achievement as the most reliable measurea teae er'seffectivenelis. McKen others

Tents a nst merit .pay-are that experience indicatesriiiiiin:-Criteria'are,inaccurate, and the method dis-

eat errfor meritay may lead the wdyto.

Clearinghouse Accession Number: EA 004 451

The' Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) is a national information system operated by theUnited States Office of Education: ERIC serves the educational c lenity by disseminating educational.research results and other. resource information that can be used in developing more effective educationalprograms.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, one of twenty such units in the system, 'wasestablished at the University'of Oregon in 1966. The Clearinghouse and'its'nine teen companion units processresearch reports and journal articles for announcement in ER1,C's index and abstract bulletins.

Research reports are announced in Research in Education (RIE), available in many libraries and bysubscriptiOn for $21 a year from the United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Journal articles are annQunced in Current Index to Journals in Education. CIJE is also available in manylibraries and can be ordered for $39 a year from CCM Information Corporation, 866 Third Avenue,Room 1126, New York, New York 10022. ..

'Besides processing documents and journal articles, the Clearinghouse has another major functioninformation analysis and synthesis. The Clearinghouse prepares bibliographies, literature reviews, state- of -the-knowledge papers, and other interpretive research studies on topics in its educational area. .

The ERIC Clearingho-use on Education-al Management Operates under cons ict with the OffiCe of Educationof the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This review was prepared pursuantto that contract. Contractors undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are encouragedto express freely their judgnient in professional and technical matters. Points of view or opinions do not,therefore, necessarily represent official Office.of Educ'ation position or policYli

M.-4WsinlEd