The publications in this brief bibliography are a starting point: they introduce new researchers to various facets of federal education policy, with emphasis on the role of states, and to some of the principal authors and publications. (A PDF version is also available.)
The publications are organized below under six topics: General Works; State Advocacy on Federal Education Policy; Economically Disadvantaged Students-Title I; Standards, Assessments, and Accountability; Students with Disabilities; and Bilingual Education.
If you would like to view or print the entries for individual topics, click here, then select your topic.
* Items with an asterisk represent together a basic introduction to each topic.
General Works
Included in this section are works on the history of education in general, school reform, methodology, the federal role in education, and intergovernmental structure and policy.
*Allen, Hollis P. The Federal Government and Education [1785-1950]: The Original and Complete Study of Education for the Hoover Commission Task Force on Public Welfare. New York: McGraw Hill, 1950.
Ambach, Gordon M. "The Essential Federal Role." in Voices From the Field: 30 Expert Opinions on America 2000, The Bush Administration Strategy to "Reinvent" America's Schools. Gordon M. Ambach, and others. Washington, DC: William T. Grant Foundation, 1991.
Berman, Paul, and Milbrey McLaughlin. "Federal Support for Improved Educational Practice." in The Federal Interest in Financing Schooling. ed. Michael Timpane. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1978.
Birman, B., and Alan L. Ginsburg. "The Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education: New Directions and Continuing Concerns." The Urban Lawyer 14, no. 3 (1982): 472-500.
Brademas, John, and Lynne P. Brown. The Politics of Education: Conflict and Consensus on Capitol Hill. Norman, OK: Oklahoma University Press, 1987. Notes: Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture Series.
Center on Education Policy. A Brief History of the Federal Role in Education: Why It Began and Why It's Still Needed. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy, 1999.
Chadima, Steven. Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education: An Examination of Alternate Federal Roles. Washington, DC: United States Congressional Budget Office, 1977.
Congressional Conference Committee Reports. Notes: Available in the Congressional Record and on the Library of Congress Thomas (104 th Congress forward) website.
*Congressional Quarterly Service. Education for a Nation. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1972.
*———. Federal Role in Education. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1967.
Top
*Congressional Research Service. Congressional Research Service Reports. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
*Cross, Christopher T. Political Education: National Policy Comes of Age. New York: Teachers College Press, 2004.
Elmore, Richard F., and Milbrey Wallin McLaughlin. Steady Work: Policy, Practice, and the Reform of American Education. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 1988.
Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE). Toward a Comprehensive Federal Education Policy. Washington, DC: Federal Interagency Committee on Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1977-1978.
*Gaither, Milton. American Educational History Revisited: A Critique of Progress. New York: Teachers College Press, 2003.
Gordon, David T., ed. A Nation Reformed? American Education 20 Years After A Nation At Risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2003.
———. "The Transformation of Federal Education Policy." in Exploring the Johnson Years. ed. Robert A. Devine. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1981.
*Graham, Hugh Davis. The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Years. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1984.
Green, Edith. Federal Government and Education: A Report on the Study of Education Programs in Which the Federal Government Is Involved. Washington, DC: House of Representatives, 1963.
Halperin, Samuel. Essays on Federal Education Policy. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, George Washington University, 1975.
Top
*Halperin, Samuel, and George R. Kaplan, eds. Federalism at the Crossroads: Improving Educational Policymaking. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, George Washington University, 1976.
Jennings, Jack, ed. The Future of the Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy, 2001. Notes: a conference volume, including papers by Carl Kaestle and Margaret Goertz.
*Jennings, Jack, ed. National Issues in Education: The Past Is Prologue. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International, 1993.
Kaestle, Carl F. "Education." in Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. eds. D. C. Bacon, R. H. Davidson, and M. Keller. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
*Kaestle, Carl F., and Marshall S. Smith. "The Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education, 1940-1980." Harvard Educational Review 52, no. 4 (1982): 384-408.
Keppel, Francis. "Perspectives on the Federal Role in Education." Alumni Bulletin, HGSE 32, no. 3 (1988): 1-15.
Kirst, Michael W. Politics of Education at the Local, State, and Federal Levels. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1970.
Levin, Betsy. The Courts As Educational Policymakers and Their Impact on Federal Programs: Prepared for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1977.
Manna, Paul. School's In: Federalism and the National Education Agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2006.
Munger, Frank, and Richard Fenno. National Politics and Federal Aid to Education. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1962.
Nelson, Adam, The Elusive Ideal: Equal Educational Opportunity and the Federal Role in Boston's Public Schools, 1950-1985. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Top
*Quattlebaum, Charles A. Federal Aid to Elementary and Secondary Education: An Analytic Study of the Issue, Its Background and Relevant Legislative Proposals, With a Compilation of Arguments Pro and Con, Statistical Data, and Digests of Pertinent Reports and Surveys [1919-1948]. Chicago, IL: Public Administrative Service, 1948.
Ravitch, Diane. "The National Agenda in Elementary and Secondary Education." in Setting National Priorities: The 2000 Election and Beyond. eds. Henry J. Aaron, and Robert D. Reischauer. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999.
* ———. The Troubled Crusade: American Education 1945-1980. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
Ravitch, Diane, and Maris A. Vinovskis, eds. Learning From the Past: What History Teaches Us About School Reform. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1995.
*Scheiber, Harry N. "Federalism and the States." in Encyclopedia of the United States in the Twentieth Century. ed. Stanley Kutler, and others. Vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1996.
Spring, Joel. The Sorting Machine Revisited: National Educational Policy Since 1945. 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 1989.
Sundquist, James L. Politics and Policy: The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Years. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1968.
Tiedt, Sidney W. Role of the Federal Government in Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.
*Wirt, Frederick M., and Michael W. Kirst. The Political Dynamics of American Education. 3rd ed. Richmond, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 2005.
Top
State Advocacy on Federal Education Policy
Bailey, Stephen. The Office of Education and the Education Act of 1965. New York: Bibbs Merrill Company, 1966.
*Bailey, Stephen Kemp. Education Interest Groups in the Nation's Capital. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1975.
*Campbell, Rould F., Gerald E. Sroufe, and D. H. Layton, eds. Strengthening State Departments of Education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1967.
Clark, David L., and Terry Astuto. "The Significance and Permanence of Changes in Federal Education Policy." Educational Researcher 15 (1986): 4-13.
Conlan, Timothy J. Intergovernmentalizing the Classroom: Federal Involvement in Elementary and Secondary Education. Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1981.
*DeBray, Elizabeth. Politics, Ideology, and Congress: The Formation of Federal Education Policy During the Clinton and Bush Administrations. New York: Teachers College Press, 2006.
Firestone, William A., Susan H. Fuhrman, and Michael W. Kirst. Progress of Reform: An Appraisal of State Education Initiatives. Washington, DC: Center for Policy Research in Education, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center, 1989.
Goertz, Margaret E., Robert E. Floden, and Jennifer O'Day. Studies of Education Reform. Systemic Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination, 1995-1996.
Herrington, Carolyn, and Francis Fowler. "Rethinking the State and Federal Role in Educational Governance." in American Educational Governance on Trial: Change and Challenges, 102nd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. eds. William Lowe Boyd, and Debra Miretzky. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Kantor, Harvey. "Education, Social Reform, and the State: ESEA and Federal Education Policy in the 1960s." American Journal of Education 100, no. 1 (1991): 47-83.
Kimbrough, Jackie, and Paul Hill. The Aggregate Effects of Federal Education Programs. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1981.
Top
Kirst, Michael W. Evaluating State Education Reforms: A Special Legislative Report. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, 1987.
———. "Recent Research on Intergovernmental Relations in Education Policy." Educational Researcher 24 (1995): 18-22.
*Kirst, Michael W., Gail Meister, and Stephen R. Rowley. Policy Issue Networks: Their Influence on State Policymaking. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1984.
Knapp, Michael, and others. "Cumulative Effects at the Local Level." Education and Urban Society 15, no. 4 (1983): 479-499.
Lusi, Susan Follett. The Role of State Departments of Education in Complex School Reform. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1997.
Massell, Diane, Michael W. Kirst, and Margaret Hoppe. Persistence and Change: Standards-Based Reform in Nine States. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center, 1997.
*McDonnell, Lorraine M., and Milbrey W. McLaughlin. Educational Policy and the Role of the States. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1982. Notes: Prepared for the National Institute of Education, R-2755-NIE.
Top
McLaughlin, Milbrey. "States and the New Federalism." Harvard Educational Review 52 (1982): 564-583.
Milstein, Mike M. Impact and Response: Federal Aid and State Education Agencies. New York: Teachers College Press, 1976.
Murphy, Jerome T. Grease the Squeaky Wheel: A Report on the Implementation of Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Grants to Strengthen State Departments of Education. Cambridge, MA: Center for Educational Policy Research, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1973.
National Education Association. Federal-State Relations in Education. Washington, DC: Educational Policies Commission, NEA of the US and the American Association of School Administrators and Problems and Policies Committee, American Council on Education, 1945.
Orland, Martin, and R. J. Goettel. "States and Implementation of Federal Categorical Programs in Education." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2 (1982): 141-154.
Peterson, Paul E., and Barry G. Rabe. "The Role of Interest Groups in the Formation of Educational Policy: Past Practice and Future Trends." Teachers College Record (1983): 708-729.
Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Aaron Wildavsky. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973.
*Timar, Thomas B. "The Institutional Role of State Education Departments: A Historical Perspective." American Journal of Education 105 (1997): 231-260.
Top
Economically Disadvantaged Students-Title I
*Bailey, Stephen K., and Edith K. Mosher. ESEA: The Office of Education Administers a Law. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1968.
*Coleman, James S., and others. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
*Cooper, Bruce S. and Denis P. Doyle, eds. Federal Aid to the Disadvantaged: What Future for Chapter 1?, London: Falmer Press, 1988.
*DeBray, Elizabeth H., Kathryn A. McDermott, and Priscilla Wohlstetter, eds. "Federalism Reconsidered: The Case of the No Child Left Behind Act." Peabody Journal of Education 80, no. 2 (2005): 1-188. Notes: a special issue of Peabody Journal of Education.
Farkas, George L., and L. Shane Hall. "Can Title I Attain Its Goal?" Brookings Papers on Education Policy. ed. Diane Ravitch. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2000.
*Halperin, Samuel. "ESEA Comes of Age: Some Historical Reflections." Educational Leadership 36, no. 5 (1979): 349-353.
Harrington, Michael. The Other America: Poverty in the United States. New York: MacMillan, 1962.
Howard University, and Institute for the Study of Educational Policy. Equal Educational Opportunity: More Promise Than Progress. Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1977.
Howe, Kenneth Ross. Understanding Equal Educational Opportunity: Social Justice, Democracy, and Schooling. New York: Teachers College Press, 1997.
Jeffrey, Julie Roy. Education for Children of the Poor: A Study of the Origins and Implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1978.
Top
*Jennings, John F., ed. National Issues in Education: Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International, 1995.
*Katz, Michael, ed. The "Underclass" Debate: Views From History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Kirst, Michael W., and Richard Jung. "The Utility of a Longitudinal Approach in Assessing Implementation: A Thirteen-Year View of Title I, ESEA." in Studying Implementation: Methodological and Administrative Issues. Walter Williams. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1982.
Kuntz, Kathryn R. "A Lost Legacy: Head Start's Origins in Community Action." in Critical Perspectives on Project Head Start: Revisioning the Hope and Challenge. eds. Jeanne Ellsworth, and Lynda J. Ames. Albany, NY: University of New York Press, 1998.
LeTendre, Mary Jean. "The Continuing Evolution of a Federal Role in Compensatory Education." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 13 (1991): 328-334; 397-415.
Levin, Henry M. "A Decade of Policy Developments in Improving Education and Training for Low-Income Populations." in A Decade of Federal Antipoverty Programs: Achievements, Failures, and Lessons. ed. Robert H. Haveman. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
*Levin, Henry M. The Educationally Disadvantaged: A National Crisis. Stanford, CA: Institute for Education Finance and Governance, Stanford University, 1985.
Levin, Henry M., and Mun C. Tsang. Federal Grants and National Educational Policy. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, 1982.
*McLaughlin, Milbrey Wallin. Evaluation and Reform: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Pub. Co., 1975.
———. "Implementation of ESEA Title I: A Problem of Compliance." Teachers College Record 77 (1976): 397-415.
Top
Miech, Edward. "The Necessary Gentleman: Francis Keppel's Leadership in Getting Education's Act Together." Master's thesis, Harvard University, Graduate School of Education, 2000.
*Mosteller, Frederick, and Moynihan, Daniel P., eds. On Equality of Educational Opportunity. 1st ed. New York: Random House, 1972.
Murphy, Jerome T. "Title I of ESEA: The Politics of Implementing Federal Educational Reform." Harvard Educational Review 41 (1971): 35-63.
Natriello, Gary, Edward L. McDill, and Aaron M. Pallas. Schooling Disadvantaged Children: Racing Against Catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press, 1990.
Rotberg, Iris, and James Harvey. Federal Policy Options for Improving Education of Low-Income Students. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1993.
Timar, Thomas. "Federal Education Policy and Practice: Building Organizational Capacity Through Chapter 1." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 16, no. 1 (1994): 51-66.
United States, National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children. Annual Report to the President and the Congress. Washington, DC: United States National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children. Notes: Annual reports available for many years.
*Vinovskis, Maris A. "Do Federal Compensatory Education Programs Really Work? A Brief Historical Analysis of Title I and Head Start." American Journal of Education 107, no. 3 (1999): 187-209.
———. The Birth of Head Start: Preschool Education Policies in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
*Washington Research Project and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Title I of ESEA: Is It Helping Poor Children? Washington, DC: 1969.
Wayson, William. "ESEA: Decennial Views of the Revolution, The Negative Side." Phi Delta Kappan 57 (1975): 151-156.
Welner, Kevin Grant. Legal Rights, Local Wrongs: When Community Control Collides With Educational Equity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001.
*Zigler, Edward, and Susan Muenchow. Head Start: The Inside Story of America's Most Successful Educational Experiment. New York: Basic Books, 1992.
Zigler, Edward, and Sally J. Styfco, eds. Head Start and Beyond: A National Plan for Extended Childhood Intervention. Riverdale, NJ: Yale University Press, 1993.
Top
Standards, Assessments, and Accountability
Adams, Jacob E. and Michael W. Kirst. "New Demands and Concepts for Educational Accountability: Striving for Results in an Era of Excellence." eds. Joseph Murphy, and Karen Seashore Lewis. Handbook of Research on Educational Administration. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
*Atkin, J. Myron, and Ernest R. House. "The Federal Role in Curriculum Development, 1950-1980." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 3, no. 5 (1981): 5-36.
Bracey, Gerald W. Put to the Test: An Educator's and Consumer's Guide to Standardized Testing. Bloomington, IN: Center for Professional Development & Services, Phi Delta Kappa International, 2002. Notes: revised edition.
Bunzel, John H., ed. Challenge to American Schools: The Case for Standards and Values. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Carnoy, Martin, Richard Elmore, and Leslie Santee Siskin, eds. The New Accountability: High Schools and High Stakes Testing. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003.
*Cronbach, Lee J. Toward Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass and Co., 1980.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. "National Standards and Assessments: Will They Improve Education?" Teachers College Record (1994): 478-510.
*Fuhrman, Susan H. and Richard Elmore, eds. Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education. New York: Teachers College Press, 2005.
Top
Glass, Gene V. "Standards and Criteria." Journal of Educational Measurement 15 (1978): 237-261.
*Goertz, Margaret. "The Federal Role in an Era of Standards-Based Reform." in The Future of the Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education: A Collection of Papers. Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy, 2001.
*Goertz, Margaret E., Mark C. Duffy, and Kerstin Carlson Le Floch. Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States, 1999-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center, 2001.
Goslin, David. The Search for Ability: Standardized Testing in Social Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1963.
Haney, Walter, and George Madaus. "Making Sense of the Competency Testing Movement." Harvard Educational Review 48, no. 4 (1978): 462-484.
*Herman, Joan L. and Edward H. Haertel, eds. Uses and Misuses of Data for Educational Accountability and Improvement. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education, 2005.
*Jaeger, Richard M. and Carol K. Tittle, eds. Minimum Competency Achievement Testing: Motives, Models, Measures, and Consequences. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1980.
*Jennings, John F. Why National Standards and Tests?: Politics and the Quest for Better Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998. Notes: ebook, available online.
Jones, M. Gail. The Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Kincheloe, Joe L., and Danny Weil, eds. Standards and Schooling in the United States: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2001. Notes: 3 volumes.
Kirst, Michael W. Accountability: Implications for State and Local Policymakers. Washington, DC: Information Services, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 1990.
Top
*Kohn, Alfie. The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2000.
*Ladd, Helen F., ed. Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1996.
McNeil, Linda M. Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing. New York: Routledge, 2000.
Meier, Deborah, and George Wood, eds. Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act Is Damaging Our Children and Our Schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2004.
*Messick, Samuel, Albert E. Beaton, Frederic Lord. National Assessment of Educational Progress Reconsidered: A New Design for a New Era. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1983. Notes: NAEP report, no. 83-1.
Millman, Jason, ed. Grading Teachers, Grading Schools: Is Student Achievement a Valid Education Measure? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1997.
Murphy, Jerome, and David Cohen. "Accountability in Education: The Michigan Experience." The Public Interest 36 (1974): 53-81.
*National Council on Education Standards and Testing. Raising Standards for American Education: A Report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel, and the American People. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992.
National Research Council, Committee on Title I Testing and Assessment. Testing, Teaching, and Learning: A Guide for States and School Districts. eds. Richard F. Elmore, and Robert Rothman. Washington, DC: National Academy Press: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center, 2000.
National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Achieving High Educational Standards for All: Conference Summary. eds. Timothy Ready, Christopher Edley, Jr., and Catherine E. Snow. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.
*Nettles, Arie L., and Michael T. Nettles, eds. Measuring Up: Challenges Minorities Face in Educational Assessment. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
Top
O'Day, Jennifer A. "Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement." Harvard Educational Review 72, no. 3 (2002): 293-329.
Pellegrino, James W., Lee R. Jones, and Karen J. Mitchell, eds. Grading the Nation's Report Card: Evaluating NAEP and Transforming the Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, ERIC, 1999.
Peterson, Paul E., and Martin R. West, eds. No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practices of School Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
Porter, Andrew C. "Creating a System of School Process Indicators." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 13 (1991): 13-29.
Ravitch, Diane, ed. Debating the Future of American Education: Do We Need National Standards and Assessments?: Report of a Conference Sponsored by the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1995.
* ———. National Standards in American Education: A Citizen's Guide. Washington, DC: Brookings, 1995.
*Schwartz, Robert B., and Marion A. Robinson. "Goals 2000 and the Standards Movement." in Brookings Papers on Education Policy: 2000. ed. Diane Ravitch. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2000.
*Smith, Marshall S., and Jennifer O'Day. "Systemic School Reform." in The Politics of Curriculum and Testing: The 1990 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association. eds. Susan Fuhrman and Betty Malen. New York: Falmer Press, 1991.
Spillane, James P. Standards Deviation: How Schools Misunderstand Education Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Stotsky, Sandra, ed. What's at Stake in the K-12 Standards Wars: A Primer for Educational Policy Makers. New York: P. Lang, 2000.
Top
*Tyler, Ralph. "The Impact of External Testing Programs." in The Impact and Improvement of School Testing Programs. ed. Warren Findley. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1963.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Overview of Testing/Standards and Assessments in the States: Hearing Before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, 105th Congress, Second Session, Hearing Held in Washington, DC, February 23, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. G.P.O., 1999.
*United States. National Education Goals Panel. The National Education Goals Report: Executive Summary: Commonly Asked Questions about Standards and Assessments. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel, 1996.
Wiggins, Grant P. Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993.
*———. Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performances. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Wynne, Edward. Politics of School Accountability: Public Information About Public Schools. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1972.
Top
Students with Disabilities
*Ballard, Joseph, Bruce A. Ramirez, and Frederick J. Weintraub, eds. Special Education in America: Its Legal and Governmental Foundations. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 1982.
Bartlett, Larry. "Disciplining Handicapped Students: Legal Issues in Light of Honig v. Doe." Exceptional Children 55, no. 4 (1989): 357-366.
*Berkowitz, Edward D. "A Historical Preface to the Americans With Disabilities Act." Journal of Policy History 6, no. 1 (1994): 96-119.
*Braddock, David, ed. Disability at the Dawn of the 21st Century: And the State of the States. 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002.
Brauen, Marsha L. Issues and Options in Outcomes-Based Accountability for Students With Disabilities. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc., 1994.
Briggs, Peter G. A Perspective on Change: The Administration of Title I of ESEA. Washington, DC: The Planar Corporation, 1973.
Broadwell, C. A., and J. Walden. "Free and Appropriate Public Education After Rowley: An Analysis of Recent Court Decisions." Journal of Law and Education 17 (1988): 35-51.
Citron, Christiane H. The Rights of Handicapped Students. Denver, CO: Policy Analysis and Research, Education Commission of the States, 1982.
Cremins, James J. Legal and Political Issues in Special Education. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas, 1983.
Gerber, Michael M., and Deborah Levine Donnerstein. "Educating All Children: Tens Years Later." Exceptional Children 56, no. 1 (1989): 17-27.
*Gilhool, Thomas K. "The Right to an Effective Education: From Brown to PL 94-142 and Beyond." in Beyond Separate Education: Quality Education for All. eds. Dorothy Kerzner Lipsky, and Alan Gartner. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co., 1989.
Hargrove, Erwin C. "Regulation and Schools: The Implementation of Equal Education for Handicapped Children." Peabody Journal of Education 60, no. 4 (1983): 1-126.
*Hehir, Thomas, and Thomas Latus, eds. Special Education at the Century's End: Evolution of Theory and Practice Since 1970. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review, 1992. Notes: Reprint series, vol. 23.
Top
*Kauffman, James M. "The Regular Education Initiative As Reagan-Bush Education Policy: A Trickle-Down Theory of Education of the Hard-to-Teach." Journal of Special Education 23, no. 3 (1989): 256-278.
Levin, Betsy. "Equal Educational Opportunity for Special Pupil Populations and the Federal Role." West Virginia Law Review 85 (1982-1983): 159-198.
Lippman, Leopold, and I. Ignacy Goldberg. Right to Education: Anatomy of the Pennsylvania Case and Its Implications for Exceptional Children. New York: Teachers College Press, 1973.
McCarthy, M. "Minimum Competency Testing and Handicapped Students." Exceptional Children 47, no. 3 (1980): 166-173.
McClung, M., and D. Pullin. "Competency Testing and Handicapped Students." Clearinghouse Review 11 (1978): 922-927.
*McDonnell, Lorraine M., Margaret J. McLaughlin, and Patricia Morison, eds. Educating One and All: Students With Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.
*McGuire, C. Kent. State and Federal Programs for Special Student Populations. Denver, CO: Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States, 1982.
Shores, Elizabeth F. "The Arkansas Children's Colony at Conway: A Springboard for Federal Policy on Special Education." Arkansas Historical Quarterly LVII, no. 4 (1998): 408-434.
*Singer, Judith A., and John A. Butler. "The Education for All Handicapped Children Act: Schools As Agents of Social Reform." Harvard Educational Review 57, no. 2 (1987): 125-452.
Smith, Stephen W. "Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) in Special Education--From Intent to Acquiescence." Exceptional Children 57, no. 1 (1990): 6-14.
Strope, John L., and Cathy H. Broadwell. "How P.L. 94-142 Has Fared in the Supreme Court." West's Education Law Reporter 58, no. 1 (1990): 13-28.
*Turnbull, H. Rutherford. Free Appropriate Public Education: The Law and Children With Disabilities. 5th ed. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co., 1998.
*Weintraub, Frederick J., Alan R. Abeson, and David L. Braddock. State Law & Education of Handicapped Children: Issues & Recommendations. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 1971.
Top
Bilingual Education
*August, Diane, and Kenji Hakuta, eds. Improving Schools for Language Minority Children: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.
Baker, Colin. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 4th ed. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters, 2006.
Baron, Dennis. The English-Only Question: An Official Language for Americans. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990.
*Crawford, James. Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services, 1999.
*Cummings, Jim. Empowering Minority Students. Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education, 1989.
Epstein, Noel. Language, Ethnicity, and the Schools: Policy Alternatives for Bilingual-Bicultural Education. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, George Washington University, 1977.
García, Ofelia, and Joshua A. Fishman, eds. The Multilingual Apple: Languages in New York City. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997.
Glenn, Charles L. "What Does The National Research Council Study Tell Us About Educating Language Minority Children?" in READ Perspectives 4, no. 1-2 (1997). Notes: Web page available at http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/167/92/.
Greene, Jay. A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Claremont, CA: Tomás Rivera Center, 1998.
*Hakuta, Kenji. Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books, 1986.
Top
*Krashen, Stephen D. Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates, 1996.
Krashen, Stephen. "Why Bilingual Education? ERIC Digest." Notes: Web page available at http://www.ericdigests.org/1997-3/bilingual.html.
Levin, Betsy. "An Analysis of the Federal Attempt to Regulate Bilingual Education: Protecting Civil Rights or Controlling Curriculum?" Journal of Law and Society 12 (1983).
Moran, Rachel F. "The Politics of Discretion: Federal Intervention in Bilingual Education." California Law Review 76 (1988): 1249-1352.
*Ramirez, J. David, Sandra D. Yuen, and Dena R. Ramey. Final Report: Longitudinal Study of Structured Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit, and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language Minority Children, Vol. 1 and 2. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International, 1991.
Santiago, Isaura Santiago. "Aspira v. Board of Education Revisited." American Journal of Education 95 (1986): 149-199.
*Schneider, Susan Gilbert. Revolution, Reaction, or Reform: The 1974 Bilingual Education Act. New York: Las Americas Publishing Company, 1976.
*United States Commission on Civil Rights. Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students With Limited English Proficiency: Federal Enforcement of Title VI and Lau v. Nichols. Washington, DC: The Commission on Civil Rights, 1997. Notes: Volume 3 of the equal educational opportunity project series.
*Watras, Joseph. "Bilingual Education and the Campaign for Federal Aid." American Educational History Journal 27, no. 1 (2000): 81-87.
*Willig, Ann. "A Meta-Analysis of Selected Studies on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education." Review of Educational Research 55, no. 3 (1985): 269-318.
Sabtu, 03 Juli 2010
Educational Accountability
Moral and Professional Accountability, Bureaucratic Accountability, Political Accountability, Market Accountability, Legal Accountability, Standards and Assessment
Read more: Educational Accountability - Moral and Professional Accountability, Bureaucratic Accountability, Political Accountability, Market Accountability, Legal Accountability, Standards and Assessment http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1931/Educational-Accountability.html#ixzz0sZZ4s7lt
Accountability has been an educational issue for as long as people have had to pay for and govern schools. The term covers a diverse array of means by which some broad entity requires some providers of education to give an account of their work and holds them responsible for their performance. These means include, among others:
* "performance by results" schemes used by the English school system in the nineteenth century, and later variations on the theme of merit pay;
* the American pattern of a school board held accountable through a local election, with the school board in turn holding a superintendent and district staff accountable;
* marketizing education through charter schools, vouchers, and the Dutch practice of using the same system for funding what Americans would call both public and private schools;
* the school inspections used in many European countries; and
* the recent rise of state testing of students in which test results are sometimes, but not always, linked to rewards or punishments for students or school staffs.
According to a 1999 article written by Jacob E. Adams and Michael W. Kirst, what these and other examples have in common is a relationship in which a "principal" holds an "agent" responsible for certain kinds of performance. The agent is expected to provide an "account" to the principal. This account describes the performance for which that agent is held responsible. It may be simply descriptive–such as the percent of children in a school passing a particular test–or it may also include an explanation for and/or a justification of the performance achieved. Often the principal sets standards for what constitutes adequate performance. The principal may reward the agent for performance that exceeds the standard or punish the agent for below standard work.
Many ideas about accountability come from the business world and are developed in the fields of economics and political science. Attention paid to accountability waxes and wanes. While it never disappears, it often receives more attention in periods of conservative ascendance. This article briefly describes six approaches to educational accountability: moral, professional, bureaucratic, political, market, and legal. These are described singly, although in practice they are usually combined. It then examines one legal strategy that has received a great deal of attention in the United States: the use of state standards and assessment to promote student, school, and district accountability. Finally, it comments on the interaction among different accountability approaches.
Moral and Professional Accountability
The principal has the least control with moral accountability where the agent's actions depend largely on an internalized obligation, reinforced with a personal sense of remorse or potential social ostracism if the obligation is not met.
Professional accountability also provides the agent with a high degree of autonomy. This form operates on the assumption that the agent on the spot–typically a teacher–has special knowledge either of general principles or of the specific situation. Either way, it is difficult for the principal to specify actions or outcomes in great detail, so the agent has a great deal of discretion. On the other hand, before taking a position, the agent must demonstrate that he or she has the required competence, values, and knowledge by taking a prescribed course of study and/or passing specialized certification examinations. Thus, the primary point of control is more at entry to the profession or the specific position rather than over performance across time. Newer developments related to professional accountability include stronger state licensure requirements and the introduction of new assessments of initial competence. These, however, are usually introduced using the authority of the state, so professional and legal accountability intertwine. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, with its advanced certification for experienced teachers, tight connections to the field of teaching, and relatively loose ties to government, is closer to the form of professionally guided licensure found in other fields.
In addition, peer review can provide further oversight for the professional. The individual teacher offers evidence of practice that is reviewed by colleagues to ensure that it meets professional standards. These standards usually refer to the use of appropriate procedures and materials, recognizing that the outcome is usually a joint product of both the teacher and the student. The difficulty with peer review is the tendency for professionals to protect their own. This is especially problematic in education where teaching is usually practiced in isolation. Nevertheless, studies of the formation of professional communities in schools have shown that, under special conditions, teachers can band together to enforce shared and challenging standards and help colleagues improve their practice.
Bureaucratic Accountability
Bureaucratic accountability is based on the superior-subordinate relationship and depends upon the formal definition of the responsibilities of positions within an organization. An educational example might be the relationship between a superintendent and a principal. Where bureaucratic accountability dominates, the superior assigns tasks to subordinates. Rules and procedures for doing the work are specified in advance, and criteria for good performance are established. The supervisor then observes the process and evaluates both the process and the results.
Formal authority alone may be used to enforce compliance, but that authority can be reinforced with incentives that are linked to performance as judged by the superior. These incentives might include promotions, salary increases, and removal from a position. Such incentives work best when agents are held accountable for work processes that are relatively easy to specify in procedures–such as teaching certain content that can be specified in a written curriculum–and that are observable by supervisors. Incentives are more difficult to use when the work is unpredictable and uncertain. There have been several efforts to increase bureaucratic authority through various forms of merit pay and related approaches. While such experimentation continues, for the most part American education has stayed with salary systems that reward experience and formal education and provide few means for superiors to reward subordinates. A major reason for the difficulty in adopting such systems has been the inability to design ones that teachers believe fairly reflect their work rather than reflecting the capricious judgments on the part of higher administrators.
Political Accountability
Political accountability in its purest form is between an elected official–such as a school board member–and the voters. As with professional accountability, the performances expected can be quite variable and hard to specify. They may include curriculum taught, the level of spending on education, or special treatment for a constituent's children. They may also change radically over time so that what the voters want at one point, they reject at another. Political accountability facilitates the lobbying of elected officials to ensure that they act on one's preferences, and it may include rewarding them by helping them get reelected. Political accountability extends to officers appointed (more or less directly) by elected representatives, especially superintendents appointed by elected school boards.
Historically, American schools have primarily used a mix of political, bureaucratic, and professional accountability. The elected school board set policy and appointed the superintendent, who held the highest position in the formal bureaucracy. Still, teachers had considerable autonomy to choose instructional methods, even if licensure standards were rarely challenging and peer accountability was the exception, not the rule.
This older system remains in place in the early twenty-first century, although it has undergone changes as some forms of site-based management have shifted the balance between bureaucratic and political accountability as well as accountability to local principals from more central ones. New approaches to teacher licensure have also increased professional accountability. The major developments, however, have been the extension of two forms of accountability that historically played a lesser role in education: market and legal accountability.
Market Accountability
With market accountability, children or parents are customers who choose schools and can shop for the one that best reflects their preferences. The discipline of competition ensures that educators respond to parent and student preferences. Market accountability has become more popular as confidence in government has waned and the public questions the costs of public provision of services. It is especially prescribed where schools have become excessively bureaucratized, politically nonresponsive, and unwilling or unable to improve their performance. American cities appear to be a ripe target for marketization because performance is so poor and improvement so slow.
The United States has always provided a small measure of choice through private and parochial schools operating alongside the public schools as well as through the housing market that allows some Americans to choose their schools. Recently, there has been a strong upsurge in interest in two new developments. One is charter schools, which are state funded but started by individuals or groups outside the public system and which then compete with public schools for students (and funding). The other is vouchers whereby tax receipts go to schools indirectly. Fixed amounts are given to parents who then use state funds (sometimes supplemented with their own money) to select the school their child will attend. In other countries, the public-private distinction is more muted or, as in New Zealand, parents are given total freedom of choice of which public school their children will attend.
Many claims have been made for various privatization approaches. It is said that they will be more efficient, increase variation in the kind of education delivered, raise test scores, increase equity, and, through competition, promote improvement of regular public schools. In most cases, it is difficult to tell what the effects of market accountability are. For instance, there have been few well-designed studies clarifying the effects of choice on achievement, at least in the American context, and those that have been conducted are much disputed. There is little evidence to suggest that competition is changing public schools in the United States, perhaps because competition is still so limited. On the other hand, there is evidence that choice programs are inequitable. The clientele of such programs tends to be more white and better off, and there tend to be fewer children with the more severe handicaps attending such schools. This is true even when schools of choice must use lotteries and other systems that preclude selecting more advantaged students and when whole countries have gone to choice systems.
Legal Accountability
Legal accountability occurs when the principal formulates rules and monitors and enforces the agent's compliance with those rules. It differs from bureaucratic accountability where the rules are formulated within an organization in that the principal is usually one level of government, such as the federal or state government, formulating rules for organizations at a lower level. Rules are usually formulated by legislatures but can be elaborated through executive regulation and formulated de novo (over again) by both the executive branch and the courts. Legal accountability often works in conjunction with professional, political, and bureaucratic accountability by establishing the broad framework within which they operate.
Legal accountability structures the inputs and resources teachers receive through funding formulas and teacher licensure regulations. The former have been highly contested and the source of a great deal of school finance litigation. The latter is a central pillar of professional accountability. Legal accountability also defines the structures and processes through which education is delivered by defining forms of governance–for instance, school boards and local control–attendance policies, desegregation orders, and building codes.
What has been new since the 1970s has been the use of legal accountability to specify, monitor, and improve the outcomes of education. Historically, states have specified outcomes indirectly by defining high school graduation requirements. Beginning in the 1970s and more often since the early 1980s, however, state governments took stronger steps. At first, these focused on testing students and increasing high school graduation requirements. More recently, there has been more emphasis on setting standards and assessing performance in light of those standards. By now, almost every American state and many foreign countries take these two linked steps. Because this approach has become so pervasive, it deserves special attention.
Standards and Assessment
A system of state standards might include the following elements:
* Content standards that set out the knowledge and skills children are expected to develop,
* Tests or assessments aligned with those content standards,
* Student performance standards that define proficient performance in terms of those assessments, and
* Rewards provided to students or schools that meet or exceed the standards and punishments or remediation activities for those that do not.
A strong system would have all four elements. The theory of action behind such a system is that the formal sanctions linked to meeting standards motivate educators and students to learn what is tested. A weak system would certainly not have the last two elements and might not have the first–many states began testing without any guidance from standards. The theory then is that the publication of test scores will motivate improvement either by appealing to professional pride or indirectly to the public, which will use political accountability to promote improvement.
While the theory is clear enough at a general level, states face difficult design issues with both technical and political dimensions related to each element of the accountability system. In practice, the politics of state standards and assessment has led to rapid, dramatic changes in state tests and related policies. Each element listed above has been problematic in some instances. For instance, content standards have become a source of frequent disputes. In science, whether or not to teach evolution has been an issue from the Scopes trial to the 1999 deliberations of the Kansas school board. Even more seemingly neutral subjects have been cause for great debate. For instance, while the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has urged states to develop standards that focus on exploring mathematical ideas, logical reasoning, and the ability to solve non-routine problems, many people still want state standards to require memorizing mathematical facts and procedures.
The design of tests has created other problems. In the 1970s states relied primarily on multiple-choice tests, which were familiar (thereby ensuring a certain legitimacy), inexpensive, and could obtain reliable scores relatively inexpensively. During the 1990s there was a push for portfolios and performance assessments where students constructed the responses. Such assessments were viewed as more valid measures of higher standards and better guidance, and were believed to encourage teachers to adopt more challenging instructional approaches. It now appears that while performance assessments have many advantages for improving instruction, they often lack the economy and reliability required for public accountability.
Other issues relate to performance standards, including whether and how to take into account the well-known correlation between family background and performance when measuring school performance, whether to develop standards for absolute performance or improvement and–if the latter–how to measure improvement, and whether to use norm-referenced (comparison to some larger group) or criterion-referenced (comparison to an absolute level of performance) standards of performance. Developing criterion-referenced standards has been the subject of much research, but a great deal of art is still involved.
Another major issue concerns the usefulness of rewards and punishments. The theory of action behind accountability systems is that the challenge for the principal is to motivate the agent to perform in ways the principal prefers. A criticism of this theory as it applies to state assessment systems is that strong sanctions, also referred to as high stakes, will lead to "teaching to the test." This term refers to a wide range of behaviors from adjusting the curriculum to ensure that topics tested are taught before the test is given, to cheating. The term implies that something is done to raise test scores without necessarily increasing students' knowledge of the subject tested. Moreover, critics argue that more challenging forms of instruction are less likely to be adopted in high-stakes settings.
An alternative theory for improving teaching and learning in schools is that the major problem is a lack of capacity–that is, the knowledge, skills, funding, and other resources needed to perform in effective ways. Numerous capacities are needed to raise test scores by improving student knowledge. These include understanding the content taught and effective ways to teach it, the ability to analyze tests and know what performances are really called for, and the collective capacity of members of the target school in question to work together to improve itself. Even a weak accountability system can make teachers aware of the need to change practice and provide general guidance about the kinds of changes preferred. Without appropriate internal capacity or capacity-building efforts, however, movement toward more challenging instruction is not likely.
A number of studies have recently pointed to the need to align internal and external accountability. These studies suggest that schools with reasonably strong cultures develop their own internal accountability often based on peer professional accountability. Such cultures can provide strong support for improvement because they combine motivational and capacity-building efforts. Where internal and external accountability are mutually reinforcing, it appears that change is powerfully supported. Where the two are not aligned, internal accountability is likely to overwhelm external accountability or external accountability may undermine local capacity.
Coordinating Accountability Mechanisms
For all of the difficulty in designing and implementing individual accountability mechanisms, policy analysts recognize that educators face a variety of interacting mechanisms. The American educational system is highly fragmented, with authority dispersed between political and professional organizations and across local, state, and federal levels of government. Consensus on what constitutes effective education and who should be educated are difficult to achieve.
Moreover, educators are accountable to multiple constituencies. The research on internal accountability illustrates how professional accountability may reinforce or work against state assessment systems. Other work suggests that the public may not understand or support state standards and assessment. When they do not, they may protest at the state level, or local school boards may not give top priority to achieving high standards, thus undermining efforts to achieve them.
In sum, educators and policy analysts will always be concerned about educational accountability. It is hard to imagine an educational system where educators are not accountable to multiple constituencies through a variety of mechanisms. This means that educators will be accountable to different people for different things. It is becoming more and more important to design accountability mechanisms that encourage schools to provide a more effective education for all children and to orchestrate these mechanisms so that they send as consistent a message to educators as possible.
See also: CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING AMERICAN EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL POLICY; PRINCIPAL, SCHOOL; SCHOOL BOARDS; SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAMS, JACOB E., and KIRST, MICHAEL W. 1999. "New Demands and Concepts for Educational Accountability: Striving for Results in an Era of Excellence." In Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, 2nd edition, ed. Joseph Murphy and Karen Seashore Louis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
FAIRMAN, JANET, and FIRESTONE, WILLIAM A. 2001. "The District Role in State Assessment Policy: An Exploratory Study." In From the Capitol to the Classroom: Standards-Based Reform in the States, ed. Susan H. Fuhrman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
FIRESTONE, WILLIAM A. 1994. "Redesigning Teacher Salary Systems for Educational Reform." American Educational Research Journal 31:549–574.
FIRESTONE, WILLIAM A., and MAYROWETZ, DAVID. 2000. "Rethinking 'High Stakes': Lessons from the United States and England and Wales." Teachers College Record 102:724–749.
FULLER, BRUCE, and ELMORE, RICHARD F. 1996. Who Chooses? Who Loses? Culture, Institutions, and the Unequal Effects of School Choice. New York: Teachers College Press.
LEITHWOOD, KENNETH; EDGE, KAREN; and JANTZI, DORIS. 1999. Educational Accountability: The State of the Art. Gütersloh, Germany: Bertels-mann Foundation Publishers.
LINN, ROBERT L. 2001. Reporting School Quality in Standards-Based Accountability Systems. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
LINN, ROBERT L., and BAKER, EVA L. 1996. "Can Performance-Based Student Assessments Be Psychometrically Sound?" In Performance-Based Student Assessment: Challenges and Possibilities, ed. Joan B. Baron and Dennis P. Wolf. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MURPHY, JOSEPH. 1996. The Privatization of Schooling: Problems and Possibilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
NEWMANN, FRED M.; KING, M. BRUCE; and RIGDON, MARL. 1997. "Accountability and School Performance: Implications from Restructuring Schools." Harvard Education Review 61:41–69.
SMITH, MARY LEE. 1991. "Meanings of Test Preparation." American Educational Research Journal 28:521–542.
SMITH, MARY LEE; HEINECKE, WALTER; and NOBLE, AUDREY J. 1999. "Assessment Policy and Political Spectacle." Teachers College Record 101:157–191.
WIRT, FRED, and KIRST, MICHAEL W. 1997. The Political Dynamics of American Education. Berkeley: MacCutchan Press.
WILLIAM FIRESTONE
Read more: Educational Accountability - Moral and Professional Accountability, Bureaucratic Accountability, Political Accountability, Market Accountability, Legal Accountability, Standards and Assessment http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1931/Educational-Accountability.html#ixzz0sZZwe3IP
Read more: Educational Accountability - Moral and Professional Accountability, Bureaucratic Accountability, Political Accountability, Market Accountability, Legal Accountability, Standards and Assessment http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1931/Educational-Accountability.html#ixzz0sZZ4s7lt
Accountability has been an educational issue for as long as people have had to pay for and govern schools. The term covers a diverse array of means by which some broad entity requires some providers of education to give an account of their work and holds them responsible for their performance. These means include, among others:
* "performance by results" schemes used by the English school system in the nineteenth century, and later variations on the theme of merit pay;
* the American pattern of a school board held accountable through a local election, with the school board in turn holding a superintendent and district staff accountable;
* marketizing education through charter schools, vouchers, and the Dutch practice of using the same system for funding what Americans would call both public and private schools;
* the school inspections used in many European countries; and
* the recent rise of state testing of students in which test results are sometimes, but not always, linked to rewards or punishments for students or school staffs.
According to a 1999 article written by Jacob E. Adams and Michael W. Kirst, what these and other examples have in common is a relationship in which a "principal" holds an "agent" responsible for certain kinds of performance. The agent is expected to provide an "account" to the principal. This account describes the performance for which that agent is held responsible. It may be simply descriptive–such as the percent of children in a school passing a particular test–or it may also include an explanation for and/or a justification of the performance achieved. Often the principal sets standards for what constitutes adequate performance. The principal may reward the agent for performance that exceeds the standard or punish the agent for below standard work.
Many ideas about accountability come from the business world and are developed in the fields of economics and political science. Attention paid to accountability waxes and wanes. While it never disappears, it often receives more attention in periods of conservative ascendance. This article briefly describes six approaches to educational accountability: moral, professional, bureaucratic, political, market, and legal. These are described singly, although in practice they are usually combined. It then examines one legal strategy that has received a great deal of attention in the United States: the use of state standards and assessment to promote student, school, and district accountability. Finally, it comments on the interaction among different accountability approaches.
Moral and Professional Accountability
The principal has the least control with moral accountability where the agent's actions depend largely on an internalized obligation, reinforced with a personal sense of remorse or potential social ostracism if the obligation is not met.
Professional accountability also provides the agent with a high degree of autonomy. This form operates on the assumption that the agent on the spot–typically a teacher–has special knowledge either of general principles or of the specific situation. Either way, it is difficult for the principal to specify actions or outcomes in great detail, so the agent has a great deal of discretion. On the other hand, before taking a position, the agent must demonstrate that he or she has the required competence, values, and knowledge by taking a prescribed course of study and/or passing specialized certification examinations. Thus, the primary point of control is more at entry to the profession or the specific position rather than over performance across time. Newer developments related to professional accountability include stronger state licensure requirements and the introduction of new assessments of initial competence. These, however, are usually introduced using the authority of the state, so professional and legal accountability intertwine. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, with its advanced certification for experienced teachers, tight connections to the field of teaching, and relatively loose ties to government, is closer to the form of professionally guided licensure found in other fields.
In addition, peer review can provide further oversight for the professional. The individual teacher offers evidence of practice that is reviewed by colleagues to ensure that it meets professional standards. These standards usually refer to the use of appropriate procedures and materials, recognizing that the outcome is usually a joint product of both the teacher and the student. The difficulty with peer review is the tendency for professionals to protect their own. This is especially problematic in education where teaching is usually practiced in isolation. Nevertheless, studies of the formation of professional communities in schools have shown that, under special conditions, teachers can band together to enforce shared and challenging standards and help colleagues improve their practice.
Bureaucratic Accountability
Bureaucratic accountability is based on the superior-subordinate relationship and depends upon the formal definition of the responsibilities of positions within an organization. An educational example might be the relationship between a superintendent and a principal. Where bureaucratic accountability dominates, the superior assigns tasks to subordinates. Rules and procedures for doing the work are specified in advance, and criteria for good performance are established. The supervisor then observes the process and evaluates both the process and the results.
Formal authority alone may be used to enforce compliance, but that authority can be reinforced with incentives that are linked to performance as judged by the superior. These incentives might include promotions, salary increases, and removal from a position. Such incentives work best when agents are held accountable for work processes that are relatively easy to specify in procedures–such as teaching certain content that can be specified in a written curriculum–and that are observable by supervisors. Incentives are more difficult to use when the work is unpredictable and uncertain. There have been several efforts to increase bureaucratic authority through various forms of merit pay and related approaches. While such experimentation continues, for the most part American education has stayed with salary systems that reward experience and formal education and provide few means for superiors to reward subordinates. A major reason for the difficulty in adopting such systems has been the inability to design ones that teachers believe fairly reflect their work rather than reflecting the capricious judgments on the part of higher administrators.
Political Accountability
Political accountability in its purest form is between an elected official–such as a school board member–and the voters. As with professional accountability, the performances expected can be quite variable and hard to specify. They may include curriculum taught, the level of spending on education, or special treatment for a constituent's children. They may also change radically over time so that what the voters want at one point, they reject at another. Political accountability facilitates the lobbying of elected officials to ensure that they act on one's preferences, and it may include rewarding them by helping them get reelected. Political accountability extends to officers appointed (more or less directly) by elected representatives, especially superintendents appointed by elected school boards.
Historically, American schools have primarily used a mix of political, bureaucratic, and professional accountability. The elected school board set policy and appointed the superintendent, who held the highest position in the formal bureaucracy. Still, teachers had considerable autonomy to choose instructional methods, even if licensure standards were rarely challenging and peer accountability was the exception, not the rule.
This older system remains in place in the early twenty-first century, although it has undergone changes as some forms of site-based management have shifted the balance between bureaucratic and political accountability as well as accountability to local principals from more central ones. New approaches to teacher licensure have also increased professional accountability. The major developments, however, have been the extension of two forms of accountability that historically played a lesser role in education: market and legal accountability.
Market Accountability
With market accountability, children or parents are customers who choose schools and can shop for the one that best reflects their preferences. The discipline of competition ensures that educators respond to parent and student preferences. Market accountability has become more popular as confidence in government has waned and the public questions the costs of public provision of services. It is especially prescribed where schools have become excessively bureaucratized, politically nonresponsive, and unwilling or unable to improve their performance. American cities appear to be a ripe target for marketization because performance is so poor and improvement so slow.
The United States has always provided a small measure of choice through private and parochial schools operating alongside the public schools as well as through the housing market that allows some Americans to choose their schools. Recently, there has been a strong upsurge in interest in two new developments. One is charter schools, which are state funded but started by individuals or groups outside the public system and which then compete with public schools for students (and funding). The other is vouchers whereby tax receipts go to schools indirectly. Fixed amounts are given to parents who then use state funds (sometimes supplemented with their own money) to select the school their child will attend. In other countries, the public-private distinction is more muted or, as in New Zealand, parents are given total freedom of choice of which public school their children will attend.
Many claims have been made for various privatization approaches. It is said that they will be more efficient, increase variation in the kind of education delivered, raise test scores, increase equity, and, through competition, promote improvement of regular public schools. In most cases, it is difficult to tell what the effects of market accountability are. For instance, there have been few well-designed studies clarifying the effects of choice on achievement, at least in the American context, and those that have been conducted are much disputed. There is little evidence to suggest that competition is changing public schools in the United States, perhaps because competition is still so limited. On the other hand, there is evidence that choice programs are inequitable. The clientele of such programs tends to be more white and better off, and there tend to be fewer children with the more severe handicaps attending such schools. This is true even when schools of choice must use lotteries and other systems that preclude selecting more advantaged students and when whole countries have gone to choice systems.
Legal Accountability
Legal accountability occurs when the principal formulates rules and monitors and enforces the agent's compliance with those rules. It differs from bureaucratic accountability where the rules are formulated within an organization in that the principal is usually one level of government, such as the federal or state government, formulating rules for organizations at a lower level. Rules are usually formulated by legislatures but can be elaborated through executive regulation and formulated de novo (over again) by both the executive branch and the courts. Legal accountability often works in conjunction with professional, political, and bureaucratic accountability by establishing the broad framework within which they operate.
Legal accountability structures the inputs and resources teachers receive through funding formulas and teacher licensure regulations. The former have been highly contested and the source of a great deal of school finance litigation. The latter is a central pillar of professional accountability. Legal accountability also defines the structures and processes through which education is delivered by defining forms of governance–for instance, school boards and local control–attendance policies, desegregation orders, and building codes.
What has been new since the 1970s has been the use of legal accountability to specify, monitor, and improve the outcomes of education. Historically, states have specified outcomes indirectly by defining high school graduation requirements. Beginning in the 1970s and more often since the early 1980s, however, state governments took stronger steps. At first, these focused on testing students and increasing high school graduation requirements. More recently, there has been more emphasis on setting standards and assessing performance in light of those standards. By now, almost every American state and many foreign countries take these two linked steps. Because this approach has become so pervasive, it deserves special attention.
Standards and Assessment
A system of state standards might include the following elements:
* Content standards that set out the knowledge and skills children are expected to develop,
* Tests or assessments aligned with those content standards,
* Student performance standards that define proficient performance in terms of those assessments, and
* Rewards provided to students or schools that meet or exceed the standards and punishments or remediation activities for those that do not.
A strong system would have all four elements. The theory of action behind such a system is that the formal sanctions linked to meeting standards motivate educators and students to learn what is tested. A weak system would certainly not have the last two elements and might not have the first–many states began testing without any guidance from standards. The theory then is that the publication of test scores will motivate improvement either by appealing to professional pride or indirectly to the public, which will use political accountability to promote improvement.
While the theory is clear enough at a general level, states face difficult design issues with both technical and political dimensions related to each element of the accountability system. In practice, the politics of state standards and assessment has led to rapid, dramatic changes in state tests and related policies. Each element listed above has been problematic in some instances. For instance, content standards have become a source of frequent disputes. In science, whether or not to teach evolution has been an issue from the Scopes trial to the 1999 deliberations of the Kansas school board. Even more seemingly neutral subjects have been cause for great debate. For instance, while the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has urged states to develop standards that focus on exploring mathematical ideas, logical reasoning, and the ability to solve non-routine problems, many people still want state standards to require memorizing mathematical facts and procedures.
The design of tests has created other problems. In the 1970s states relied primarily on multiple-choice tests, which were familiar (thereby ensuring a certain legitimacy), inexpensive, and could obtain reliable scores relatively inexpensively. During the 1990s there was a push for portfolios and performance assessments where students constructed the responses. Such assessments were viewed as more valid measures of higher standards and better guidance, and were believed to encourage teachers to adopt more challenging instructional approaches. It now appears that while performance assessments have many advantages for improving instruction, they often lack the economy and reliability required for public accountability.
Other issues relate to performance standards, including whether and how to take into account the well-known correlation between family background and performance when measuring school performance, whether to develop standards for absolute performance or improvement and–if the latter–how to measure improvement, and whether to use norm-referenced (comparison to some larger group) or criterion-referenced (comparison to an absolute level of performance) standards of performance. Developing criterion-referenced standards has been the subject of much research, but a great deal of art is still involved.
Another major issue concerns the usefulness of rewards and punishments. The theory of action behind accountability systems is that the challenge for the principal is to motivate the agent to perform in ways the principal prefers. A criticism of this theory as it applies to state assessment systems is that strong sanctions, also referred to as high stakes, will lead to "teaching to the test." This term refers to a wide range of behaviors from adjusting the curriculum to ensure that topics tested are taught before the test is given, to cheating. The term implies that something is done to raise test scores without necessarily increasing students' knowledge of the subject tested. Moreover, critics argue that more challenging forms of instruction are less likely to be adopted in high-stakes settings.
An alternative theory for improving teaching and learning in schools is that the major problem is a lack of capacity–that is, the knowledge, skills, funding, and other resources needed to perform in effective ways. Numerous capacities are needed to raise test scores by improving student knowledge. These include understanding the content taught and effective ways to teach it, the ability to analyze tests and know what performances are really called for, and the collective capacity of members of the target school in question to work together to improve itself. Even a weak accountability system can make teachers aware of the need to change practice and provide general guidance about the kinds of changes preferred. Without appropriate internal capacity or capacity-building efforts, however, movement toward more challenging instruction is not likely.
A number of studies have recently pointed to the need to align internal and external accountability. These studies suggest that schools with reasonably strong cultures develop their own internal accountability often based on peer professional accountability. Such cultures can provide strong support for improvement because they combine motivational and capacity-building efforts. Where internal and external accountability are mutually reinforcing, it appears that change is powerfully supported. Where the two are not aligned, internal accountability is likely to overwhelm external accountability or external accountability may undermine local capacity.
Coordinating Accountability Mechanisms
For all of the difficulty in designing and implementing individual accountability mechanisms, policy analysts recognize that educators face a variety of interacting mechanisms. The American educational system is highly fragmented, with authority dispersed between political and professional organizations and across local, state, and federal levels of government. Consensus on what constitutes effective education and who should be educated are difficult to achieve.
Moreover, educators are accountable to multiple constituencies. The research on internal accountability illustrates how professional accountability may reinforce or work against state assessment systems. Other work suggests that the public may not understand or support state standards and assessment. When they do not, they may protest at the state level, or local school boards may not give top priority to achieving high standards, thus undermining efforts to achieve them.
In sum, educators and policy analysts will always be concerned about educational accountability. It is hard to imagine an educational system where educators are not accountable to multiple constituencies through a variety of mechanisms. This means that educators will be accountable to different people for different things. It is becoming more and more important to design accountability mechanisms that encourage schools to provide a more effective education for all children and to orchestrate these mechanisms so that they send as consistent a message to educators as possible.
See also: CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING AMERICAN EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL POLICY; PRINCIPAL, SCHOOL; SCHOOL BOARDS; SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAMS, JACOB E., and KIRST, MICHAEL W. 1999. "New Demands and Concepts for Educational Accountability: Striving for Results in an Era of Excellence." In Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, 2nd edition, ed. Joseph Murphy and Karen Seashore Louis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
FAIRMAN, JANET, and FIRESTONE, WILLIAM A. 2001. "The District Role in State Assessment Policy: An Exploratory Study." In From the Capitol to the Classroom: Standards-Based Reform in the States, ed. Susan H. Fuhrman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
FIRESTONE, WILLIAM A. 1994. "Redesigning Teacher Salary Systems for Educational Reform." American Educational Research Journal 31:549–574.
FIRESTONE, WILLIAM A., and MAYROWETZ, DAVID. 2000. "Rethinking 'High Stakes': Lessons from the United States and England and Wales." Teachers College Record 102:724–749.
FULLER, BRUCE, and ELMORE, RICHARD F. 1996. Who Chooses? Who Loses? Culture, Institutions, and the Unequal Effects of School Choice. New York: Teachers College Press.
LEITHWOOD, KENNETH; EDGE, KAREN; and JANTZI, DORIS. 1999. Educational Accountability: The State of the Art. Gütersloh, Germany: Bertels-mann Foundation Publishers.
LINN, ROBERT L. 2001. Reporting School Quality in Standards-Based Accountability Systems. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
LINN, ROBERT L., and BAKER, EVA L. 1996. "Can Performance-Based Student Assessments Be Psychometrically Sound?" In Performance-Based Student Assessment: Challenges and Possibilities, ed. Joan B. Baron and Dennis P. Wolf. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MURPHY, JOSEPH. 1996. The Privatization of Schooling: Problems and Possibilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
NEWMANN, FRED M.; KING, M. BRUCE; and RIGDON, MARL. 1997. "Accountability and School Performance: Implications from Restructuring Schools." Harvard Education Review 61:41–69.
SMITH, MARY LEE. 1991. "Meanings of Test Preparation." American Educational Research Journal 28:521–542.
SMITH, MARY LEE; HEINECKE, WALTER; and NOBLE, AUDREY J. 1999. "Assessment Policy and Political Spectacle." Teachers College Record 101:157–191.
WIRT, FRED, and KIRST, MICHAEL W. 1997. The Political Dynamics of American Education. Berkeley: MacCutchan Press.
WILLIAM FIRESTONE
Read more: Educational Accountability - Moral and Professional Accountability, Bureaucratic Accountability, Political Accountability, Market Accountability, Legal Accountability, Standards and Assessment http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1931/Educational-Accountability.html#ixzz0sZZwe3IP
Jumat, 02 Juli 2010
EMPLOYEE MORALE PROGRAMS
EMPLOYEE MORALE (esprit-de-corps) PROGRAMS
"You can't buy your employee's enthusiasm, loyalty, hearts, minds, or souls. You must earn these."
Morale (or the esprit-de-corps principle) is one of the oldest ideas in administrative science, going back to the management practices of ancient civilizations, like the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Venetians. Yet, "morale" is a difficult word to define. Let's take a look at the definitional/theoretical problem.
DEFINING MORALE
It's easier to describe it as a "state of mind, a mood, a mental condition" (Bennet & Hess 1998), when these things are all positive and upbeat. It's the idea that work is not really work, it's enjoyable, a source of pride. But, this is a perhaps too mentalistic of a definition. A more theoretical definition would be "positive affective orientation towards membership" (Price 1972), which is the equivalent of the sociological concept of "group cohesion". In this sense, morale is the behavior of employees wanting to belong to the organization and who are being happy with their organization. But, there are many other reasons for this kind of behaving in this behavioral definition.
It's easier to define morale by what it is NOT. It's not the same as effort, efficiency, or productivity. In fact, there is often a dialectic between morale and productivity. The two are not necessarily causally related (March & Simon 1958; Perrow 1986), although commonsense would seem to indicate that as one goes up, the other goes up. For example, we often hear that low morale in a police agency is causing a low level of productivity, but that is simply not true (Stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas 1998). What is true is that there are basic organizational problems creating both low productivity and low morale. Two basic problems that have this effect are: (1) employee lack of certainty about their jobs; and (2) failure of employees to buy into the mission statement and goals; but there are many possible problem factors other than these two.
It's NOT a motivational problem. Motivation is just the willingness of employees to work, and you've bought that from them. You can't increase morale by training your supervisors to be better motivators, not matter what the consultants tell you. Parsons (1951), the great functionalist thinker, was one of the first to point out that morale is a collective, systemic phenomenon. It must arise sui generis (seemingly out of nothing). You can't motivate morale, and you probably shouldn't measure it by employee turnover, although this is a common trap.
It's NOT the same as job satisfaction, but morale is the collective counterpart of job satisfaction. Individual needs and preferences determine job satisfaction. You can't simply add up or aggregate all the individual job satisfaction scores of each employee and call that average figure "morale". You need to eliminate or control for individual differences. Yet, as we shall see, morale is often inferred from job satisfaction surveys, but you need to make the important distinction between individual and organizational morale. The results of your survey may lead you to believe that organizational morale is high, when in fact, it's only individual morale that's high.
MEASURING MORALE
There are essentially three ways to measure morale:
(1) the Job Satisfaction Survey (averaging up individual responses from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Over the years, there have been a bewildering variety of job satisfaction surveys created, but most analysis of such items have revealed the following core dimensions or salient factors:
* This is a good place to work
* My supervisor understands me
* My supervisor listens to my concerns
* I have the training I need to do a good job
* I have the equipment I need to do a good job
* I am proud to be a member of this organization
Surveys are used in two ways: (a) as a means of appeasement, where management is trying to make it look like they care about employee morale; and (b) as a way to follow through with some action, and the most important actions that can be taken are salary equity studies, benefits recalculation, and changing for innovation.
(2) the Great American Buy-In (getting the employees to buy into the mission statement). I'm not sure who invented the phrase "buy-in" (maybe Dilbert), but it seems to be going on everywhere these days in organizations. You already know that mission statements should contain no more than 5 values (words like "Trustworthy", "Honesty", "Value", "Quality", etc.), and that mission statements serve as a useful tool in deflecting outside criticism, cultivating constituencies, building coalitions, etc. The basic idea of a buy-in is that you allow some work time for the employees to personally think about, reflect upon, get together with others if they want to, and write down all the various ways they "implement" the values in the mission statement in their daily work lives. The danger of this approach is that it seems to force morale to happen, but if done in such a way that there are no associated task demands, I guess it could work, but the method has been largely untested.
The success of buy-ins may be largely a determinant of the degree of professionalism. The higher the prestige of the occupation and the greater the concentration of specialists, the higher the level of collective morale as bridging the micro-macro gap (Hage 1980). This normally means there must be job autonomy, skilled workers, and as few repetitive tasks as possible. The channels of communication and surveillance may also be important in the success of buy-ins. Mechanisms that create the impression of being watched (surveillance on employees) will lower collective morale (Blau & Scott 1962). It is important to decrease visibility of task supervision, but at the same time, increase the level of communication. One of specific problems that impede employee buy-ins is the fear that management is monitoring e-mail and the contents of employee desktop computers.
TIPS FOR MANAGERS
A general rule of thumb, assuming you are able to make the distinction, is that whenever you have low levels of individual morale, you should try intrinsic rewards such as employee self-evaluations or proficiency training programs. If you have low levels of collective morale, you should try extrinsic methods of reward such as pay equity, new equipment, more benefits. These, of course, are oversimplified shortcuts, but it appears that managers will not stop thinking you can motivate morale, so you might as well have rules of thumb. Here's a more specific list of things management can do to build morale:
MORALE BUILDING EXERCISES
* Be positive & upbeat (accentuate the positive). Turn "Don't" statements into "Do" statements
* Set meaningful goals (with "meaningful" meaning with employee input)
* Set fair goals (with "fair" meaning at a level where almost everybody succeeds)
* Be even-handed in praise and criticism (strive for a even 50-50 split even if you have to force it)
* Make no promises that can't be kept (avoid use of the phrase "I might be able to do that for you")
* Improve appearances (in dress, logo redesign, insignia, signs, banners, colors)
* Create awards programs (competitions, recognitions, certificates of appreciation)
* Establish teams (best in budget crunches, and tend to produce employee giveaways via groupthink)
* Start using nicknames (or firstnames; give everyone a nickname based on some talent they have)
* Learn the art of bulletin board decoration (a combination of aesthetic appeal and functionality)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE MORALE BUILDING PROJECTS
(1) the SUGGESTION BOX. One of the oldest methods with some empirical support. Collective morale is increased when workers are consulted in advance and allowed to make suggestions, even if anonymously (Coch & French 1948).
(2) the EMPLOYEE INTERVIEW. These are 20-minute ventilation sessions where the employees, one-by-one, get to spill out all their thoughts and feelings to a manager, uninterrupted and unrecorded. However, there is usually a final report summarizing management's perception of the organization's collective morale. (Hamilton, NJ PD)
(3) the EMPLOYEE COUNCIL. These are teams put together by elected, rotated-every-quarter, representatives from each division of the organization. (West Bend, WI SO) Usually, the teams focus on 1-2 specific problems during the 3-month period, and produce a report with the following sections:
* Introduction
* Problem statement
* Alternative solutions
* Cost analysis
* Method of implementation
* Summary
(4) EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. There are a variety of these, and a partial list would include:
* Fast promotion track (leapfrogging) - a good FTO report leads to early sergeant exam eligibility
* Extra bonus vacation or sick days
* Tuition reimbursements
* Stock options/pension contributions
Note: it is probably important to do a benefits survey to have employees rank which benefits are most important.
(5) the MASTER PATROL OFFICER (MPO) Program. This is a program for boosting the morale of veteran officers (Thrash 1992). It is basically a point system for various accomplishments throughout the police patrol career that lead to a special status, insignia, or designation within rank. (Pierce Co. SO, Tacoma WA) handout
INTERNET RESOURCES
When You Have Employee Morale
How to Turn Negative Workers into Positive Performers
How to Create Flexible Reward Systems
How to Run an Incentive Program
The Meaningful Workplace website
Brightly Colored Uniforms Boost Morale (parody site)
PRINTED RESOURCES
Bennett, W. & K. Hess. (1998). Management and Supervision in Law Enforcement. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.
Blau, P. & R. Scott. (1962). Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler.
Coch, L. & J. French. (1948). "Overcoming Resistance to Change" Human Relations 1:512-33.
Hage, J. (1980). Theories of Organizations. New York: Wiley.
March, J. & H. Simon. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Perrow, C. (1988). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. New York: Random House.
Price, J. (1972). Handbook of Organizational Measurement. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Price, J. (1977). A Study of Organizational Turnover. Ames, IA: Univ. Press.
Stojkovic, S., D. Kalinich & J. Klofas. (1998). Criminal Justice Organizations Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.
Thrash, P. (1992). "An Incentive Program: Boosting Morale of Veteran Officers" Law Enforcement Technology Oct:51-7.
Last updated: Sept. 29, 2006
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T. (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date
Source:
http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/4000/4000lect04.htm
"You can't buy your employee's enthusiasm, loyalty, hearts, minds, or souls. You must earn these."
Morale (or the esprit-de-corps principle) is one of the oldest ideas in administrative science, going back to the management practices of ancient civilizations, like the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Venetians. Yet, "morale" is a difficult word to define. Let's take a look at the definitional/theoretical problem.
DEFINING MORALE
It's easier to describe it as a "state of mind, a mood, a mental condition" (Bennet & Hess 1998), when these things are all positive and upbeat. It's the idea that work is not really work, it's enjoyable, a source of pride. But, this is a perhaps too mentalistic of a definition. A more theoretical definition would be "positive affective orientation towards membership" (Price 1972), which is the equivalent of the sociological concept of "group cohesion". In this sense, morale is the behavior of employees wanting to belong to the organization and who are being happy with their organization. But, there are many other reasons for this kind of behaving in this behavioral definition.
It's easier to define morale by what it is NOT. It's not the same as effort, efficiency, or productivity. In fact, there is often a dialectic between morale and productivity. The two are not necessarily causally related (March & Simon 1958; Perrow 1986), although commonsense would seem to indicate that as one goes up, the other goes up. For example, we often hear that low morale in a police agency is causing a low level of productivity, but that is simply not true (Stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas 1998). What is true is that there are basic organizational problems creating both low productivity and low morale. Two basic problems that have this effect are: (1) employee lack of certainty about their jobs; and (2) failure of employees to buy into the mission statement and goals; but there are many possible problem factors other than these two.
It's NOT a motivational problem. Motivation is just the willingness of employees to work, and you've bought that from them. You can't increase morale by training your supervisors to be better motivators, not matter what the consultants tell you. Parsons (1951), the great functionalist thinker, was one of the first to point out that morale is a collective, systemic phenomenon. It must arise sui generis (seemingly out of nothing). You can't motivate morale, and you probably shouldn't measure it by employee turnover, although this is a common trap.
It's NOT the same as job satisfaction, but morale is the collective counterpart of job satisfaction. Individual needs and preferences determine job satisfaction. You can't simply add up or aggregate all the individual job satisfaction scores of each employee and call that average figure "morale". You need to eliminate or control for individual differences. Yet, as we shall see, morale is often inferred from job satisfaction surveys, but you need to make the important distinction between individual and organizational morale. The results of your survey may lead you to believe that organizational morale is high, when in fact, it's only individual morale that's high.
MEASURING MORALE
There are essentially three ways to measure morale:
(1) the Job Satisfaction Survey (averaging up individual responses from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Over the years, there have been a bewildering variety of job satisfaction surveys created, but most analysis of such items have revealed the following core dimensions or salient factors:
* This is a good place to work
* My supervisor understands me
* My supervisor listens to my concerns
* I have the training I need to do a good job
* I have the equipment I need to do a good job
* I am proud to be a member of this organization
Surveys are used in two ways: (a) as a means of appeasement, where management is trying to make it look like they care about employee morale; and (b) as a way to follow through with some action, and the most important actions that can be taken are salary equity studies, benefits recalculation, and changing for innovation.
(2) the Great American Buy-In (getting the employees to buy into the mission statement). I'm not sure who invented the phrase "buy-in" (maybe Dilbert), but it seems to be going on everywhere these days in organizations. You already know that mission statements should contain no more than 5 values (words like "Trustworthy", "Honesty", "Value", "Quality", etc.), and that mission statements serve as a useful tool in deflecting outside criticism, cultivating constituencies, building coalitions, etc. The basic idea of a buy-in is that you allow some work time for the employees to personally think about, reflect upon, get together with others if they want to, and write down all the various ways they "implement" the values in the mission statement in their daily work lives. The danger of this approach is that it seems to force morale to happen, but if done in such a way that there are no associated task demands, I guess it could work, but the method has been largely untested.
The success of buy-ins may be largely a determinant of the degree of professionalism. The higher the prestige of the occupation and the greater the concentration of specialists, the higher the level of collective morale as bridging the micro-macro gap (Hage 1980). This normally means there must be job autonomy, skilled workers, and as few repetitive tasks as possible. The channels of communication and surveillance may also be important in the success of buy-ins. Mechanisms that create the impression of being watched (surveillance on employees) will lower collective morale (Blau & Scott 1962). It is important to decrease visibility of task supervision, but at the same time, increase the level of communication. One of specific problems that impede employee buy-ins is the fear that management is monitoring e-mail and the contents of employee desktop computers.
TIPS FOR MANAGERS
A general rule of thumb, assuming you are able to make the distinction, is that whenever you have low levels of individual morale, you should try intrinsic rewards such as employee self-evaluations or proficiency training programs. If you have low levels of collective morale, you should try extrinsic methods of reward such as pay equity, new equipment, more benefits. These, of course, are oversimplified shortcuts, but it appears that managers will not stop thinking you can motivate morale, so you might as well have rules of thumb. Here's a more specific list of things management can do to build morale:
MORALE BUILDING EXERCISES
* Be positive & upbeat (accentuate the positive). Turn "Don't" statements into "Do" statements
* Set meaningful goals (with "meaningful" meaning with employee input)
* Set fair goals (with "fair" meaning at a level where almost everybody succeeds)
* Be even-handed in praise and criticism (strive for a even 50-50 split even if you have to force it)
* Make no promises that can't be kept (avoid use of the phrase "I might be able to do that for you")
* Improve appearances (in dress, logo redesign, insignia, signs, banners, colors)
* Create awards programs (competitions, recognitions, certificates of appreciation)
* Establish teams (best in budget crunches, and tend to produce employee giveaways via groupthink)
* Start using nicknames (or firstnames; give everyone a nickname based on some talent they have)
* Learn the art of bulletin board decoration (a combination of aesthetic appeal and functionality)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE MORALE BUILDING PROJECTS
(1) the SUGGESTION BOX. One of the oldest methods with some empirical support. Collective morale is increased when workers are consulted in advance and allowed to make suggestions, even if anonymously (Coch & French 1948).
(2) the EMPLOYEE INTERVIEW. These are 20-minute ventilation sessions where the employees, one-by-one, get to spill out all their thoughts and feelings to a manager, uninterrupted and unrecorded. However, there is usually a final report summarizing management's perception of the organization's collective morale. (Hamilton, NJ PD)
(3) the EMPLOYEE COUNCIL. These are teams put together by elected, rotated-every-quarter, representatives from each division of the organization. (West Bend, WI SO) Usually, the teams focus on 1-2 specific problems during the 3-month period, and produce a report with the following sections:
* Introduction
* Problem statement
* Alternative solutions
* Cost analysis
* Method of implementation
* Summary
(4) EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. There are a variety of these, and a partial list would include:
* Fast promotion track (leapfrogging) - a good FTO report leads to early sergeant exam eligibility
* Extra bonus vacation or sick days
* Tuition reimbursements
* Stock options/pension contributions
Note: it is probably important to do a benefits survey to have employees rank which benefits are most important.
(5) the MASTER PATROL OFFICER (MPO) Program. This is a program for boosting the morale of veteran officers (Thrash 1992). It is basically a point system for various accomplishments throughout the police patrol career that lead to a special status, insignia, or designation within rank. (Pierce Co. SO, Tacoma WA) handout
INTERNET RESOURCES
When You Have Employee Morale
How to Turn Negative Workers into Positive Performers
How to Create Flexible Reward Systems
How to Run an Incentive Program
The Meaningful Workplace website
Brightly Colored Uniforms Boost Morale (parody site)
PRINTED RESOURCES
Bennett, W. & K. Hess. (1998). Management and Supervision in Law Enforcement. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.
Blau, P. & R. Scott. (1962). Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler.
Coch, L. & J. French. (1948). "Overcoming Resistance to Change" Human Relations 1:512-33.
Hage, J. (1980). Theories of Organizations. New York: Wiley.
March, J. & H. Simon. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Perrow, C. (1988). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. New York: Random House.
Price, J. (1972). Handbook of Organizational Measurement. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Price, J. (1977). A Study of Organizational Turnover. Ames, IA: Univ. Press.
Stojkovic, S., D. Kalinich & J. Klofas. (1998). Criminal Justice Organizations Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.
Thrash, P. (1992). "An Incentive Program: Boosting Morale of Veteran Officers" Law Enforcement Technology Oct:51-7.
Last updated: Sept. 29, 2006
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T. (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date
Source:
http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/4000/4000lect04.htm
Changes in attitude after diversity training.(Opposite Sector).
Abstract:
Diversity training is one of the strategies used by companies with multicultural workforces to bolster employee morale, retain productive workers and promote harmony and understanding within the organization. An effective diversity training program seeks to debunk the myths of diversity, explores the realities of diversity and identifies means by which employees can meet the challenges of multiculturalism in the workplace. The University of Oklahoma has teamed up with the Federal Aviation Administration to develop an experimental diversity training model. The model seeks to investigate the primary dimensions of diversity, determine the readiness of employees to accept and value diversity, identify barriers to cultural change and determine ways of preventing sexual harassment at work. Application of this model shows that it helps in increasing trainers' knowledge of diversity issues, cultural barriers, and stereotypes and prejudices.
Full Text :
COPYRIGHT 1996 American Society for Training and Development Inc.
THE CHANGING demographics of the United States are having a significant impact on communities, organizations, society, and the nation.
For organizations in particular, it will never be business as usual again. Employee morale, productivity, and success will depend on the way organizations manage the changing demographics of their current and future workers.
But shifting from a homogenous to a more diverse workforce won't be easy. The most widely taught theories of management and motivation usually assume that the workforce is homogeneous. In many countries, such theories are not applicable. In the United States, they may be counterproductive when applied to women, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans.
To help organizations retain productive workers, maintain high employee morale, and foster understanding and harmony among culturally diverse workers, diversity training has become one solution, with widely different results.
To be effective, diversity training must be designed to change the myths of diversity (such as, it's just a code name for affirmative action), to educate participants about the realities of diversity, and to offer ways to respond to the challenges of valuing and managing diversity in the workplace.
Organizations must realize that they can no longer implement a principle of elective homogeneity. In other words, they cannot consistently recruit and promote only people who are similar in race, ethnic background, religious preference, or gender, without jeopardizing productivity and employee morale.
Keys to effective diversity training
Changing the mindset of an unreceptive audience is an enormous task. In our experience, there is no such thing as a universal diversity-training program. An effective program considers the characteristics of the audience and the uniqueness of the organization in which audience members work. Effectiveness is measured by how much participants change in several designated categories.
Before any diversity program begins, you should assess the group's current needs and attitudes. Then, develop objectives that will provide the bases for the curriculum's design.
In addition, participants should be allowed to establish their own ground rules. That encourages them to "own" the training and to take responsibility for their behavior.
You or the facilitator should encourage participants to speak for themselves, to refrain from personal attacks on others, to be open to new or different ideas, and to express themselves freely in all discussions and activities. Also assure them that their expressed opinions will be held confidential and not recorded or repeated. Trainers should communicate that they have no axes to grind and that their primary responsibility is to facilitate achieving the program's objectives.
A diversity-training model
Working closely with the Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region, the University of Oklahoma developed an experiential training model (built around real incidents at the FAA) using simulations, case scenarios, videos, instrumentation, and discussions appropriate to the managers' divisional responsibilities. Program developers created seven objectives that the FAA Southwest Region and the University of Oklahoma considered essential in preparing FAA managers and supervisors to handle the increasing diversity of FAA's workforce.
The objectives were to
* explore the primary dimensions of diversity
* analyze the effect of assimilation (socialization) on the ability of others to succeed
* explore participants' personal values, stereotypes, and prejudices
* examine the effect of destructive "isms" on others
* assess employees' readiness to value diversity
* identify current barriers that could impede cultural change
* analyze ways to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
These objectives formed the bases for parts of the program's curriculum--including an interactive cross-cultural simulation; an exercise for increasing awareness of the ways that people are discriminated against, judged, and isolated; a presentation showing what happens when people are confronted with people from different cultures; an exercise identifying current barriers to change; an intercultural learning activity; case scenarios; a gender-discrimination exercise; and a sexual-harassment module.
Not all 13 segments were offered in each workshop.
A total of 739 FAA managers and supervisors participated in a series of 40 workshops in several states, including Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Arkansas.
Experienced trainers from the University of Oklahoma administered the three-day workshops. A male trainer and a female trainer facilitated most of the workshops. At the end of each workshop, the trainer asked respondents to evaluate the program and the trainers.
Based on the evaluation data from all 40 workshops, consistent evidence showed that the training was effective. Most participants said that the training program was informative, was personally enriching, and provided practical work applications.
Next, the University of Oklahoma conducted a study to see whether the training made a difference in participants' attitudes, awareness, and knowledge about diversity in the workplace.
The results
Participants from the final 12 of the 40 workshops completed a supplemental evaluation asking them to rate their levels of awareness, knowledge, readiness, and experience in nine measurable outcomes before and after the workshops.
The outcomes were:
* knowledge of diversity issues
* readiness to value diversity in the workplace
* knowledge of the effect of assimilation on people's ability to succeed in the workplace
* knowledge of barriers impeding change in the workplace
* awareness of their personal stereotypes and prejudices
* knowledge of the effect of stereotypes and prejudices in the workplace
* knowledge on identifying and preventing stereotypes and prejudices in the workplace
* knowledge of the effect of sexual harassment in the workplace
* knowledge on identifying and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.
These outcomes were direct translations of the program's seven objectives. Respondents used a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (outstanding) to rate themselves on the outcomes.
Paired T-test procedures used to compare participants' levels of awareness, knowledge, readiness, and experience before and after the workshops showed appreciable increases in their awareness, knowledge, readiness, or experience in all outcomes. The differences were statistically significant at the .001 level.
The largest increases were participants'
* knowledge of diversity issues
* knowledge of barriers to change
* knowledge of the effect of stereotypes and prejudices in the workplace
* readiness to value diversity
* knowledge on identifying and preventing stereotypes and prejudices in the workplace.
The overall results showed that the training made a significant difference in changing participants' attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge.
Implications
Diversity training is a sensitive, difficult topic to introduce. The difficulty is compounded by the need to walk a fine line between creating a climate of honesty and still injecting humor and scholarship. For any diversity program to succeed, there must be an appropriate balance between those two needs.
Some personalization is needed, but not at the expense of making participants feel uncomfortable expressing their viewpoints for fear of guilt or rejection. Role plays, simulations, innovative videos, and relevant discussions enabled us to accomplish our objectives. And the trainers were flexible in reacting to and accommodating the unique circumstances of each group.
Before entering the training program, most participants had strong reservations and didn't know what to expect. In their evaluations, many said that the activities helped them understand why they often viewed other cultures as threatening or why they often described other cultures negatively. After the training, many participants also understood why they sometimes resorted to stereotyping people and engaging in prejudicial behavior when dealing with people of a different culture or gender. Many appreciated the opportunity to assess their own attitudes and values for the first time and to understand how their attitudes had contributed toward a propensity to discriminate against, judge, or isolate others.
Participants did not have to reveal their personal assessments unless they felt comfortable. But they had many opportunities to discuss strategies for managing diversity in the workplace. Overall, most participants appreciated learning about diversity concepts in a nonthreatening, interactive way.
We feel that training is only the first phase in addressing issues related to diversity in the workplace. In fact, FAA managers expressed that frequently. They wanted a follow-up to the training program. The next logical phase will be to address issues related to behavioral and organizational change.
Clearly, it is critical that managers and supervisors transform their attitudes into actual behavioral changes --and that the organization promote and accommodate new attitudes and behavior. We are now proposing a second-phase diversity training program focusing on the application of diversity ideas in the workplace and on developing an environment that is conducive to conflict resolution, teambuilding, and positive change.
David L. Tan is an assistant professor of higher education, department of educational leadership and policy studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019. Phone 405/325-5986; e-mail dtan@uaknor.edu. Lee Morris is director of education and aerospace programs, Oklahoma Center for Continuing Education, University of Oklahoma. Phone 405/325-1964; e-mail lmorris@cce.occe.ucknor.edu. Jim Romero is director of the office of continuing medical education, College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 800 N.E. 15th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73190. Phone 405/271-2350; e-mail JimRomero@uakhsc.edu.
To purchase reprints of this article, call ASTD Customer Service at 703/683-8100. Use priority code 291.
Source Citation
Tan, David L., Lee Morris, and Jim Romero. "Changes in attitude after diversity training." Training & Development 50.9 (1996): 54+. Gale Arts, Humanities and Education Standard Package. Web. 2 July 2010.
Source:
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale(en%2C%2C)%3AFQE%3D(K0%2CNone%2C26)dimensions+morale+employee%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=BasicSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&searchId=R1¤tPosition=1&userGroupName=ptn071&docId=A18740068&docType=IAC&contentSet=IAC-Documents
Diversity training is one of the strategies used by companies with multicultural workforces to bolster employee morale, retain productive workers and promote harmony and understanding within the organization. An effective diversity training program seeks to debunk the myths of diversity, explores the realities of diversity and identifies means by which employees can meet the challenges of multiculturalism in the workplace. The University of Oklahoma has teamed up with the Federal Aviation Administration to develop an experimental diversity training model. The model seeks to investigate the primary dimensions of diversity, determine the readiness of employees to accept and value diversity, identify barriers to cultural change and determine ways of preventing sexual harassment at work. Application of this model shows that it helps in increasing trainers' knowledge of diversity issues, cultural barriers, and stereotypes and prejudices.
Full Text :
COPYRIGHT 1996 American Society for Training and Development Inc.
THE CHANGING demographics of the United States are having a significant impact on communities, organizations, society, and the nation.
For organizations in particular, it will never be business as usual again. Employee morale, productivity, and success will depend on the way organizations manage the changing demographics of their current and future workers.
But shifting from a homogenous to a more diverse workforce won't be easy. The most widely taught theories of management and motivation usually assume that the workforce is homogeneous. In many countries, such theories are not applicable. In the United States, they may be counterproductive when applied to women, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans.
To help organizations retain productive workers, maintain high employee morale, and foster understanding and harmony among culturally diverse workers, diversity training has become one solution, with widely different results.
To be effective, diversity training must be designed to change the myths of diversity (such as, it's just a code name for affirmative action), to educate participants about the realities of diversity, and to offer ways to respond to the challenges of valuing and managing diversity in the workplace.
Organizations must realize that they can no longer implement a principle of elective homogeneity. In other words, they cannot consistently recruit and promote only people who are similar in race, ethnic background, religious preference, or gender, without jeopardizing productivity and employee morale.
Keys to effective diversity training
Changing the mindset of an unreceptive audience is an enormous task. In our experience, there is no such thing as a universal diversity-training program. An effective program considers the characteristics of the audience and the uniqueness of the organization in which audience members work. Effectiveness is measured by how much participants change in several designated categories.
Before any diversity program begins, you should assess the group's current needs and attitudes. Then, develop objectives that will provide the bases for the curriculum's design.
In addition, participants should be allowed to establish their own ground rules. That encourages them to "own" the training and to take responsibility for their behavior.
You or the facilitator should encourage participants to speak for themselves, to refrain from personal attacks on others, to be open to new or different ideas, and to express themselves freely in all discussions and activities. Also assure them that their expressed opinions will be held confidential and not recorded or repeated. Trainers should communicate that they have no axes to grind and that their primary responsibility is to facilitate achieving the program's objectives.
A diversity-training model
Working closely with the Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region, the University of Oklahoma developed an experiential training model (built around real incidents at the FAA) using simulations, case scenarios, videos, instrumentation, and discussions appropriate to the managers' divisional responsibilities. Program developers created seven objectives that the FAA Southwest Region and the University of Oklahoma considered essential in preparing FAA managers and supervisors to handle the increasing diversity of FAA's workforce.
The objectives were to
* explore the primary dimensions of diversity
* analyze the effect of assimilation (socialization) on the ability of others to succeed
* explore participants' personal values, stereotypes, and prejudices
* examine the effect of destructive "isms" on others
* assess employees' readiness to value diversity
* identify current barriers that could impede cultural change
* analyze ways to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
These objectives formed the bases for parts of the program's curriculum--including an interactive cross-cultural simulation; an exercise for increasing awareness of the ways that people are discriminated against, judged, and isolated; a presentation showing what happens when people are confronted with people from different cultures; an exercise identifying current barriers to change; an intercultural learning activity; case scenarios; a gender-discrimination exercise; and a sexual-harassment module.
Not all 13 segments were offered in each workshop.
A total of 739 FAA managers and supervisors participated in a series of 40 workshops in several states, including Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Arkansas.
Experienced trainers from the University of Oklahoma administered the three-day workshops. A male trainer and a female trainer facilitated most of the workshops. At the end of each workshop, the trainer asked respondents to evaluate the program and the trainers.
Based on the evaluation data from all 40 workshops, consistent evidence showed that the training was effective. Most participants said that the training program was informative, was personally enriching, and provided practical work applications.
Next, the University of Oklahoma conducted a study to see whether the training made a difference in participants' attitudes, awareness, and knowledge about diversity in the workplace.
The results
Participants from the final 12 of the 40 workshops completed a supplemental evaluation asking them to rate their levels of awareness, knowledge, readiness, and experience in nine measurable outcomes before and after the workshops.
The outcomes were:
* knowledge of diversity issues
* readiness to value diversity in the workplace
* knowledge of the effect of assimilation on people's ability to succeed in the workplace
* knowledge of barriers impeding change in the workplace
* awareness of their personal stereotypes and prejudices
* knowledge of the effect of stereotypes and prejudices in the workplace
* knowledge on identifying and preventing stereotypes and prejudices in the workplace
* knowledge of the effect of sexual harassment in the workplace
* knowledge on identifying and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.
These outcomes were direct translations of the program's seven objectives. Respondents used a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (outstanding) to rate themselves on the outcomes.
Paired T-test procedures used to compare participants' levels of awareness, knowledge, readiness, and experience before and after the workshops showed appreciable increases in their awareness, knowledge, readiness, or experience in all outcomes. The differences were statistically significant at the .001 level.
The largest increases were participants'
* knowledge of diversity issues
* knowledge of barriers to change
* knowledge of the effect of stereotypes and prejudices in the workplace
* readiness to value diversity
* knowledge on identifying and preventing stereotypes and prejudices in the workplace.
The overall results showed that the training made a significant difference in changing participants' attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge.
Implications
Diversity training is a sensitive, difficult topic to introduce. The difficulty is compounded by the need to walk a fine line between creating a climate of honesty and still injecting humor and scholarship. For any diversity program to succeed, there must be an appropriate balance between those two needs.
Some personalization is needed, but not at the expense of making participants feel uncomfortable expressing their viewpoints for fear of guilt or rejection. Role plays, simulations, innovative videos, and relevant discussions enabled us to accomplish our objectives. And the trainers were flexible in reacting to and accommodating the unique circumstances of each group.
Before entering the training program, most participants had strong reservations and didn't know what to expect. In their evaluations, many said that the activities helped them understand why they often viewed other cultures as threatening or why they often described other cultures negatively. After the training, many participants also understood why they sometimes resorted to stereotyping people and engaging in prejudicial behavior when dealing with people of a different culture or gender. Many appreciated the opportunity to assess their own attitudes and values for the first time and to understand how their attitudes had contributed toward a propensity to discriminate against, judge, or isolate others.
Participants did not have to reveal their personal assessments unless they felt comfortable. But they had many opportunities to discuss strategies for managing diversity in the workplace. Overall, most participants appreciated learning about diversity concepts in a nonthreatening, interactive way.
We feel that training is only the first phase in addressing issues related to diversity in the workplace. In fact, FAA managers expressed that frequently. They wanted a follow-up to the training program. The next logical phase will be to address issues related to behavioral and organizational change.
Clearly, it is critical that managers and supervisors transform their attitudes into actual behavioral changes --and that the organization promote and accommodate new attitudes and behavior. We are now proposing a second-phase diversity training program focusing on the application of diversity ideas in the workplace and on developing an environment that is conducive to conflict resolution, teambuilding, and positive change.
David L. Tan is an assistant professor of higher education, department of educational leadership and policy studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019. Phone 405/325-5986; e-mail dtan@uaknor.edu. Lee Morris is director of education and aerospace programs, Oklahoma Center for Continuing Education, University of Oklahoma. Phone 405/325-1964; e-mail lmorris@cce.occe.ucknor.edu. Jim Romero is director of the office of continuing medical education, College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 800 N.E. 15th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73190. Phone 405/271-2350; e-mail JimRomero@uakhsc.edu.
To purchase reprints of this article, call ASTD Customer Service at 703/683-8100. Use priority code 291.
Source Citation
Tan, David L., Lee Morris, and Jim Romero. "Changes in attitude after diversity training." Training & Development 50.9 (1996): 54+. Gale Arts, Humanities and Education Standard Package. Web. 2 July 2010.
Source:
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale(en%2C%2C)%3AFQE%3D(K0%2CNone%2C26)dimensions+morale+employee%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=BasicSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&searchId=R1¤tPosition=1&userGroupName=ptn071&docId=A18740068&docType=IAC&contentSet=IAC-Documents
How can I Improve Employee Morale?
Improving employee morale benefits everyone involved in a work place. Boosting employee morale means that people will take more pride in their work, call in sick less often and be more productive. Happier employees mean happier employers, since the employer will not lose money due to inefficiency and lost time. Improving employee morale can be accomplished fairly easily.
Most people thrive on feeling appreciated. You can improve employee morale by showing your appreciation in simple ways, such as rewarding an employee by saying, "job well done," or, "thank you for the good work." It is a grave mistake on the part of employers to only interact with their workers when there is a problem.
Another way to show appreciation and boost employee morale is by being friendly and interested in your employees. A warm smile and a sincere query about how one is doing will in turn motivate employees. Knowing people’s names and personalizing the work environment inspires employees to want to help you.
Encouraging social interaction between employees and immediately resolving conflict is another way to improve employee morale. Social events such as office picnics and softball games create a sense of camaraderie between employees. Social interaction positively influences cooperation and a general enthusiasm about coming to work everyday. Isolation, on the other hand, causes depression and a lack of motivation.
Another way to improve employee morale is by offering reward incentives. A job well done might be rewarded with a gift card or a cash bonus. This reward can come as a surprise to the employees who earn it, or it can be announced as a sort of game or contest. Having a goal to work towards that directly benefits the employee can help create enthusiasm, which tends to be contagious.
A very important factor in improving employee morale is the work environment. Psychological research shows that atmosphere greatly and directly affects the motivation level and feeling of well being of the employees in a workplace. When possible, providing comfortable and aesthetically pleasing furniture is one way that researchers suggest to motivate people. Lighting, flowers and artwork can also help improve employee morale.
Obviously, providing a pleasant atmosphere is not always possible, for instance in factories or repair shops. In these types of environments, offering a pleasant break room or relaxation area helps to improve morale. In any work environment, safe and comfortable conditions improve employee morale by giving workers a reasonable sense of security.
Source:
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-can-i-improve-employee-morale.htm
Most people thrive on feeling appreciated. You can improve employee morale by showing your appreciation in simple ways, such as rewarding an employee by saying, "job well done," or, "thank you for the good work." It is a grave mistake on the part of employers to only interact with their workers when there is a problem.
Another way to show appreciation and boost employee morale is by being friendly and interested in your employees. A warm smile and a sincere query about how one is doing will in turn motivate employees. Knowing people’s names and personalizing the work environment inspires employees to want to help you.
Encouraging social interaction between employees and immediately resolving conflict is another way to improve employee morale. Social events such as office picnics and softball games create a sense of camaraderie between employees. Social interaction positively influences cooperation and a general enthusiasm about coming to work everyday. Isolation, on the other hand, causes depression and a lack of motivation.
Another way to improve employee morale is by offering reward incentives. A job well done might be rewarded with a gift card or a cash bonus. This reward can come as a surprise to the employees who earn it, or it can be announced as a sort of game or contest. Having a goal to work towards that directly benefits the employee can help create enthusiasm, which tends to be contagious.
A very important factor in improving employee morale is the work environment. Psychological research shows that atmosphere greatly and directly affects the motivation level and feeling of well being of the employees in a workplace. When possible, providing comfortable and aesthetically pleasing furniture is one way that researchers suggest to motivate people. Lighting, flowers and artwork can also help improve employee morale.
Obviously, providing a pleasant atmosphere is not always possible, for instance in factories or repair shops. In these types of environments, offering a pleasant break room or relaxation area helps to improve morale. In any work environment, safe and comfortable conditions improve employee morale by giving workers a reasonable sense of security.
Source:
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-can-i-improve-employee-morale.htm
LK II HMI Cabang Cianjur 16 Juni 2010
Menjadi Pemateri di kegiatan Intermediate Training HMI Cabang Cianjur
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
-
We all share the same destination We all work together as one In this place there’s only one vision And that’s to be the NUMBER ONE We all h...
-
Identitas Pribadi N a m a : Dr. H. Mulyawan Safwandy Nugraha, M.Ag., M.Pd. Tempat Tanggal Lahir : Sukabumi, ... -
A. Pendahuluan Di antara sekian banyak agenda pembangunan bangsa, pendidikan merupakan salah satu agenda penting dan strategis yang menuntut...