A comparison of district school superintendents' and school board chair's attitudes toward...

The stated purposes of including a strong compensation package, often in the form of an incentive program, in the educational reform movement were to attract and to retain quality personnel in education. In their research, Sparkman(2) and Castetter(3) found interaction among money, teacher recruitment

and retention, status, position performance and personnel satisfaction had positive relationships with the retention of quality personnel in local school districts. Researchers have also identified positive relationships between schools participating in incentive programs, student achievement in those schools and teacher productivity. MGT Consultants(4) documented the positive effects incentive programs have on education in a state study in the southeast. Teachers judged "average" before the incentive program received "superior" ratings after their involvement, thus, involvement in incentive programs had positive effects on teacher morale and performance. It is postulated that these positive effects promoted greater teacher job satisfaction which supported teacher retention and had an equally positive effect on the provision of quality education. Mickler(5) and Haas(6) outlined the rationale for merit pay and determined it was simple. If teacher's pay was a direct result of their performance in the classroom, they would work harder and be more effective. The incentive system would reward those who displayed extra effort and would exert pressure on those who did not to leave the system. The possible resulting effect, according to Burns(7) with the retention of qualified personnel, would be that schools would improve. Similar to this business practice, in education, the reform movement has brought to the forefront the concept of paying people for exemplary performance and increased productivity.

Along with a strong compensation package, management theorists, Scanlon and Keys(8), determined that to operate a positive result-producing organization, people and resources must be managed effectively and efficiently. In order to retain quality personnel in education by utilizing incentive programs, this same type of effective and efficient management would be necessary.

Henry Fayol in the late nineteenth century was one of the first management theorist to recognize the need to effectively manage people and resources to achieve organizational success. Fayol identified management functions, which when practiced in organizations, resulted in those organizations achieving success. Scanlon and Keys(9) further developed philosophies from the Fayol school of management by outlining four functions of management, which if used effectively and efficiently, would yield a positive result-producing organization. These management functions were planning, organizing, directing and controlling which combine people and resources to achieve desired organizational objectives.

In order for merit pay to have a positive effect on education, it must be managed efficiently within the local school district. Abrams(10) and Downey(11), determined the major role of both the superintendent and school board chairman is to provide leadership for the school district. Scanlon and Keys(12) agreed with these writers that leadership, or directing as they term it, would be an important function of both offices. They also added three other functions of management that applied. The school board and the superintendent's office plan the implementation of the merit program with the latter administrator organizing the staff to implement the plan. Controlling or evaluating the plan is also the responsibility of both offices. The management theorists postulated that all these management components must be in place if the program achieves its objective and that is to be result-producing.

This study was undertaken to compare demographic data of superintendents and school board chairs to determine whether there were differences between those who favored merit pay and those who did not. Additionally, an analysis between the groups compared whether there were significant differences between the groups related to their opinions of favor or disfavor for merit pay, and determined whether there were significant differences between the groups in their perceptions of whether incentive pay had an effect on the provision of quality education. The study also investigated whether there were significant differences between school board chairs and superintendents' opinions related to the management of the incentive programs in their districts. Specifically, Scanlon's and Keys'(13) four functions of management - planning, organizing, directing and controlling - were examined within this context.

Analyzing the management of the program was a unique approach to studying merit pay because, according to Schneider(14) research has been limited in this area. The information gleaned from this study of incentive pay also provided information related at the attitudes of local administrators - superintendents and school board chairs - toward incentive pay, which Schneider found, has a direct effect on the success or failure of the program within the school district. Additionally, information was gathered that determined whether the components of management were in place within the district which would increase the possibilities that the program would be an enhancement for the provision of quality education.

Methodology

This study surveyed all superintendents and school board chairs in a southeastern state's 91 geographic school districts. From these districts, 83 percent of the superintendents and 77 percent of the school board chairs responded.

The research described the opinions of school board chairs and superintendents related to the management of merit pay programs. The variables examined were: 1. The demographic data - age, race and years of experience with merit pay - of superintendents and school board chairs, and years of experience in education of superintendents; and 2. the opinions of superintendents and school board chairs related to Scanlon's and Keys' four functions of management.

A questionnaire was developed to survey these two groups. The instrument included demographic data to be studied. It also included the management functions described by Scanlon and Keys(15) with each function broken into its subsequent tasks. Each subject was asked to rank their opinions using a likert scale from 1 - the individual strongly disagrees the function was present to 4 - the individual strongly agrees the function was present. There were no neutral choices which would force an opinion from the respondent. Validity and reliability was statistically established. The consistency of the instrument items was assessed by a preliminary study utilizing 20 subjects. The reliability coefficient r, was used to determine whether the items of the instrument were reliable and consistent. The r was equal to .78. This was considered to be a moderately reliable score.

Since the length of the instrument is considered to be a variable in determining reliability, the resulting r was analyzed by applying it to the Spearman-Brown formula. This formula permitted the examination of the survey instrument to determine its estimated reliability if the instrument had been twice the length since the assumption is that when the length is changed, the nature of the content is the same. The split-half method was utilized and the resulting r2 was .878. This score represented a moderately high score for the theoretically lengthened instrument.

Descriptive and comparative statistical procedures were used to analyze the data from the questions examined. The mean, median, mode and standard deviation were computed to describe certain characteristics of the sample. The statistical applications - t-test and Chi square - were used to compare the significance of the results between the groups. Chi square [Mathematical Expression Omitted], was used to examine favor or disfavor of incentive pay based on the demographic data gathered. The t-test was used to analyze the data that examined the management of the programs as perceived by superintendents and school board chairs. For both statistical applications significance was determined at the .05 level.

Results

This study investigated superintendents' and school board chairs' opinions of the management of merit pay programs. It included selected demographic data of these administrators to determine whether there were significant variables that related to favor or disfavor of merit pay programs. Also addressed, were the opinions of these two groups related to Scanlon's and Keys'(16) four functions of management. Both groups were surveyed to determine their opinions of the criteria for use in awarding merit pay.

Demographic data

Years in education. For superintendents with 0-35+ years in education no significant difference was found among this population related to favor or disfavor of merit pay programs. The Chi square data, 2.211, at the .05 level was not considered significant.

Years of experience with merit pay. School board chairs with one year of experience with incentive programs generally did not favor merit pay. Sixty percent of those who responded did so negatively. The X2 data was 4.370 and did not result in significant differences of opinion between these two administrators.

Age and race. Fifty-seven percent of superintendents favored merit pay while 43 percent did not. The age most favoring merit pay were superintendents between the ages 31-40 years of age, while the group who were the least in favor of it were 51 and older. From the respondents, a larger percentage of black superintendents favored merit pay than did their white counterparts.

Fifty-four percent of school board chairs responding favored merit pay. The group most favoring the concept were above the age of 51. A greater percentage of black school board chairs favored merit pay than did their white counterparts. Among the white school board chairs, there were only four percentage points separating those for and against merit pay. When applying the Chi square statistic, 1.974 at the .05 level, race was not significant enough to be considered a variable.

Merit pay/quality education. Both school board chairs and superintendents responded negatively to the question, "Does merit pay improve the quality of education?" Sixty-nine percent of the superintendents responding did not support the contention that merit pay enhanced the delivery of quality educational services. The group of school board chairs responded more positively to this question, but the negative responses were in the majority. Fifty-seven percent of this group did not link merit pay with quality services. These differences were not enough to be considered significant based on Chi square (1.232) analysis at the .05 level. Functions of management.

Data from the instrument related the superintendent's and the school board chairman's opinion of the management of the district's incentive program. Specifically, whether the functions of planning, organizing, directing and controlling as described by Scanlon and Keys(17) were present.

Planning. Superintendents and school board chairs did not differ significantly in their opinions related to this function of management. Superintendents were slightly more positive than school board chairs regarding the presence of this function in the implementation phase of the local incentive program. The range of scores was less for superintendents (2.250) than for school board chairs (3.000).

From the comparison of mean responses, superintendents were more positive than school board chairs to the last two items in the planning function. This group generally agreed policies and procedures were in place to manage the local incentive program. School board chairs were more positive to the first two items presence - adequate time and presence of long and short range objectives.

Organizing. The data from the organizing function of management, which included developing an operational plan with clear lines of authority, with a t score of 0.826 at the .05 level did not differ significantly for superintendents and school board chairs. The mean score for superintendents was slightly higher than for school board chairs, again indicating a more positive response from the group of superintendents than from the school board chairs. Both school board chairs and superintendents agreed an organizational chart was present in the local program, but disagreed as to whether clear lines of authority were established and job functions were defined. On the former, superintendents were more positive and on the latter, as is indicated by the data, school board chairs were more positive.

Figure 1 Scanlon's and Keys' Functions and Tasks of Management

Function         Tasks

1. Planning      a. adequate time
                 b. long and short range objectives
                 c. policies and procedures
                 d. a plan to carry out the objectives

2. Organizing    a. an organization chart
                 b. job functions defined and clear
                 c. established clear lines of authority in the plan

3. Directing     a. a positive attitude about people
                 b. a motivating climate
                 c. authority delegated
                 d. responsibility assigned

4. Controlling   a. standards for achievement
                 b. measurable criteria based on standards
                 c. a system to report information

Directing. Both superintendents and school board chairs responded more positively to this function of management as is indicated by their mean scores. These scores were 3.178 for superintendents and 3.129 for school board chairs. Both groups generally agreed that the management of the local incentive program reflected a positive attitude about people in a motivating climate. Delegation of authority and assignment of responsibility were also present although, the mean scores for school board chairs were lower than those for superintendents. Between the two groups the resulting t score of .0543 was not significant at the .05 level.

Controlling. Superintendents tended to rate the controlling or evaluative function more positively as is indicated by a mean score of 3.205. The mean score for school board chairs was 3.056. Both groups agreed the controlling function was present in the management of the local incentive program. The greatest differences between the means in this function was reflected in the item "measurable criteria based on standards". Superintendents generally were more positive toward this item in the study than were school board chairs. Again, the differences [Mathematical Expression Omitted] were not enough to be statistically significant at the .05 level. Criteria for awarding merit pay.

Figure 2 reflects the items superintendents and school board chairs determined should be included as criteria for allocating merit pay.

Figure 2 Criteria For Awarding Merit Pay

                                             Percentages
Items                         Superintendents   School Board chairs

Student Achievement                   94                   84
Classroom Performance                 87                   63
Attendance                            82                   73
Supervisor Evaluation                 81                   74
Professional Development              57                   37
Extra Curricular Activity             47                   29
Peer Performance Evaluation           42                   50
Classroom Performance Only             1                    0

Discussion

Of Scanlon's and Keys' four functions of management, superintendents agreed more consistently that the controlling or evaluative function was present in the local management of the district's incentive pay program. It can be postulated the reason for these results was in this state, as in many states, the development was top down with the Department of Education and the Governor requiring its inclusion in the development of the state's educational reform package. More responsibility for planning and organizing the programs was retained at the centralized state office level. From this perspective, the superintendents' role related to management of the incentive program and to providing the leadership that directs and controls local programs.

School board chairs ranked the presence of Scanlon's and Keys' functions of management in the local incentive program lower than did superintendents. This can be attributed in part to the role and responsibility of the school board chairman within the organization. This position provides the leadership for policy development which guides the local education program. School board chairs, generally, are not involved in the day-to-day management of this program. The greatest difference of opinion between the two groups was related to the controlling or evaluating function of the management theory. Superintendents were more positive (57%) related to its presence in the management schema than were school board chairs (54%). Neither group found merit pay related to quality education. Race was an interesting variable in this southern study in that more blacks favored merit pay than did their white counterparts.

Superintendents were generally student-centered in their rankings of the criteria for awarding incentive pay, while school board chairs ranked administrative criteria higher. This difference can be attributed in part to the function of these two positions in the organization. The superintendent's job performance is directly tied to student achievement, while the school board chairs' function is administrative in nature and not directly tied to student performance. This is consistent with the research of Hunter and Usdon.(18)

Summary

Both school board chairs and superintendents supported the concept of incentive programs in the local school district. According to these administrators, Scanlon's and Keys'(19) four functions - planning, organizing, directing and controlling - were apart of the local management system. This supported the finding by MGT Consultants(20), that the management of these programs tended to have an overall positive effect on teacher behaviors which are necessary for the provision of quality educational programs. This was evidenced by increases in student achievement and more positive staff morale from the teachers involved in the program.

Since superintendents and school board chairs did not support the proposition that incentive programs were an enhancement for the provision of quality educational services, but did support the concept of merit pay in the local school district, further research is indicated to determine what effect these two groups believe merit pay has on the local educational system. Additionally, race as a variable should be studied to determine its impact on favor or disfavor of merit pay after the districts have had experience with incentive programs.

Notes

1 Burt Scanlon and Bernard Keys, Management and Organizational Behavior (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1984), chap. 1-4 passim.

2 William E. Sparkman, "Educational Reform and Changing Compensation Practices," Journal of Educational Finance 33, no. 1 (1988): 155-159.

3 William B. Castetter, "Educational Reform and the Compensation Factor," National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal 6, no. 2 (1989): 6-21.

4 Management Consultants of America, An Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Program: 1987-1988, vol. 1, (Columbia, SC: SC Department of Education, 1988).

5 Mary Louise Mickler, "Merit Pay: Boon or Boondoggle," The Clearing House 61, no. 3 (1987): 137-141.

6 John Haas, "School Reform Advocates and Professional Education - Stand on Common Ground," NASSP Bulletin 73, no. 514 (1989): 23-28.

7 Kevin Burns, "Restructuring Schools and Curriculum for a Global, Technological Society," NASSP Bulletin 73, no. 514 (1989): 29-36.

8 Scanlon and Keys, Management and Organizational Behavior, ch 1-4.

9 Ibid.

10 Joan Abrams, "How Superintendents Can Work Better With Others," Education Digest 52, no. 2 (1987): 26-28.

11 Gregg Downey, "Leadership," American School Board Journal 174, no. 10 (1989): 46-48.

12 Scanlon and Keys, Management and Organizational Behavior, ch. 14.

13 Ibid.

14 Gail Schneider, "Schools and Merit - An Empirical Study of Attitudes of School Board members and AdminIstrators Toward Merit Pay," Planning and Changing 15, no. 2 (1984): 89-105.

15 Scanlon and Keys, Management and Organizational Behavior, ch. 1-4.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Bruce Hunter and Jane Usdon, "The Attitudes of School Superintendents Toward Merit Pay for Teachers," Spectrum 2, no. 1 (1984): 15-20.

19 Scanlon and Keys, Management and Organizational Behavior, ch. 1-4.

20 Management Consultants of America, An Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Program: 1987-1988, vol. 1.

References

Abrams, J. 1987. How superintendents can work better with others. Education Digest, 52: 26-28.

Burns, K. 1989. Restructuring schools and curriculum for a global, technological society. NASSP Bulletin, 73: 29-36.

Castetter, W. 1989. Educational reform and the compensation factor. National Forum of EAS Journal, 6: 6-21.

Downey, G. 1989. Leadership. American School Board Journal, 174: 46-48.

Haas, J. 1989. School reform advocates and professional education - stand on common ground. NASSP Bulletin, 73: 23-28.

Hunter, B. & Usdon, J. 1984. The attitude of school superintendents toward merit pay for teachers. Spectrum, 2: 15-20.

Management Consultants of America. 1988. "An evaluation of the teacher incentive programs - 1987-1988". Columbia, SC.: South Carolina Department of Education.

Mickler, M. 1987. Merit pay: boon or boondoggle. The Clearing House, 61: 137-141.

Scanlon, B. & Keys, M. 1984. Management and organizational behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Schneider, G. 1984. Schools and merit - an empirical study of attitudes of school board members and administrators toward merit pay. Planning and Changing, 15:89-105. 18 19

Sparkman, W. 1988. Education reform and changing compensation practices. Journal of Educational Finance, 3: 155-159.

Dr. Tish Hennly Seay received her doctorate in Educational Administration at South Carolina University. She has been in public administration for 25 years and is currently coordinating the Educational Administration and Supervision Program at Georgia College.

Dr. Craig Smith received his doctorate in Special Education from the University of Florida. He has been in the field for 23 years and is currently department chairman for the Department of Special Education and Educational Administration at Georgia College.

Dr. W. Bee Crews received his doctorate in Special Education from the University of Florida. He has been in the field for 23 years and is currently graduate coordinator for the School of Education at Georgia College.