Js

The Relationship between School Effectiveness and
Teachers Job Satisfaction in North Mississippi Schools
A Dissertation
Presented for the
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree
University of Mississippi - Oxford
Charles Kevin Dodson

May 2005
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3190577
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3190577
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright Charles Kevin Dodson, 2005

All rights reserved
ii
To the Graduate Council:

I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Charles K. Dodson entitled The
Relationship between School Effectiveness and Teachers Job Satisfaction in North
Mississippi Schools. I have examined the final copy o f this dissertation for form and
content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the
degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy, with a major in Educational Leadership.
Dr. Bobbie C. Smothers, Director

Associate Professor o f Educational Leadership
We have read this dissertation

and recommend its acceptance:
Dr. Charles R. Fulton

Associate Professor o f Educational Leadership
Chair ana Professor o f Curriculum and Instruction
Dr. Timothy Let:

Letzrp*g
Associate Professor o f Higher Education
Accepted for the Council:
Dean o f the Graduate School
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to wife Wanda R. Dodson. Thank you for your patience,
support and encouragement. This dissertation is also dedicated to my parents, James and
Arminuar Dodson, who have supported me over the years in my endeavors o f pursuing
excellence. Lastly, but most importantly, I thank God for giving me the mental fortitude
and tenacity to complete this awesome journey.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion o f a dissertation is a challenging and exacting process. Throughout
this process there has been a multitude of people that have shared, supported, and
encouraged me along the way. I am also grateful for the relationships that have been
formed and forged as a result o f this process. I am eternally indebted to each o f you and
without you this would not have come to fruition.
First, I would like to thank my wife Mrs. Wanda Dodson who has made tremendous
sacrifices throughout this endeavor. Her constant encouragement, supportive spirit, selfdenial, and bright smiles have served as the catalyst for completing this process. I would
also like to thank my children, Chauntan, Christopher, Christian, and Charles Jr., who have
reminded me perpetually that not completing my dissertation was not an option. Thank you
all for serving as a beacon of light in this process.
Next, my appreciation goes to my advisor and major professor, Dr. Bobbie
Smothers, for her incessant support, patience, guidance, and unwavering faith in my ability
to complete this process. I am also grateful to Dr. Fulton for sharing his insights,
suggestions, and recommendations during the course o f this process. As a result o f his
honesty, my paper was improved. My appreciation also goes to Dr. Kathleen Sullivan for
her kind spirit and her willingness to provide assistance whenever I needed it. I am also
immensely grateful to the other members on my committee, Dr. Fannye Love and Dr.
Timothy Letzring. Dr. Sam Gordjis interest in my study and guidance, especially in the
area of statistical analysis, gave the impetus to continue.
iv
Thirdly, I would like to extend my gratitude to the superintendents, administrators

and teachers that participated in my study. They gave their support, time and effort to
complete the surveys with no incentive other that their desire and willingness to participate
in a study that might help improve education. Thanks for all that you do for the students
that you encounter each day.
Fourthly, I would like to thank my friends, acquaintances, and colleagues that were
well-wishers throughout the process. Individuals such as Mrs. Evelyn Smith, Mrs. Regina
Black, Mrs. Mary Ann Dillon, Mrs. Annette Sykes, Rev. Robert Fox, Ms. Stephanie
Stewart, and my mentor John Sullivan have assisted, encouraged, and supported me
through this process.
Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, James and Arminuar Dodson, for instilling
the will to always do my best. Especially to my deceased father, James, for always
recognizing my potential and believing in my ability to excel and exceed. Thanks to my
siblings, Rhonda, my favorite sister, Keith, Derek, and Terrance, who have played an
integral role in this process.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine through statistical analysis the correlation
between school effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction in elementary, middle, and high
schools in Northern Mississippi.
A random sample o f 140 teachers; 53 elementary, 44 middle, and 43 high school
teachers from Northern Mississippi participated in the study. Data was collected using two
instruments, one measured teacher job satisfaction and the other measured school
effectiveness level. Teachers job satisfaction was measured using the Teacher Job
Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ). The seven correlates o f effective schools were
measured by the School Effectiveness Characteristics and Indicators Questionnaire
(SECIQ).
Data were analyzed at the .05 level o f significance. A bivariate Pearson correlation
was used to determine relationships between school effectiveness and teachers job
satisfaction among teachers at the various school levels.
Results o f the data analysis showed that there was no significant relationship
between school effectiveness and teachers job satisfaction among teachers at the
elementary, middle and high schools that participated in the study.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem...............................................................................................2
Hypotheses...................................................................................................................... 2
Significance o f the Study...............................................................................................3
Limitations...................................................................................................................... 4
Terms and Definitions.................................................................................................... 4
Organization o f the Study..............................................................................................5
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
.......................................................................... 6
Effective Schools Movement: A Brief Historical Synopsis......................................6

A B rief Review o f the Correlates o f Effective SchoolsResearch............................. 7
Other Factors often Associated with School Effectiveness..................................... 17
Teacher Job Satisfaction..............................................................................................21
Factors Associated with Teacher Job Satisfaction....................................................22
The Relationship Between Teacher Job Satisfaction andSchool Effectiveness...30
3.
METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................34
Research Design............................................................................................................34
Participants.................................................................................................................... 34
Instruments.................................................................................................................... 35
Procedures..................................................................................................................... 40
Data Analysis................................................................................................................41
4.
RESULTS.....................................................................................................................42
5.
CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................... 50

Conclusions................................................................................................................... 50
Discussion o f Results................................................................................................... 51
Recommendations........................................................................................................ 53
LIST OF REFERENCES................................................................................................... 55
vii
66
APPENDIXES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire........................................................... 66

School Effectiveness Characteristics and Indicators Questionnaire............. 70
Institutional Review Board Approval...............................................................74
Cover Letter to Superintendent......................................................................... 76
Personal Letter to Principal/Assistant Principal.............................................. 78
Cover Letter to Teachers....................................................................................81
Reminder Letter to Principals/Assistant Principals.........................................83
Survey Permission Letters................................................................................. 86
VITA....................................................................................................................................89
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1. Recode and Compute Statements for

Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire................................................................ 37
2. Relationship o f School Effectiveness Characteristics to
Indicators on Teacher Questionnaire....................................................................... 39
3. Relationship between School Effectiveness and
Teacher Job Satisfaction at the Elementary School Level..................................... 44
Teacher Job Satisfaction at the Middle School Level.............................................46
Teacher Job Satisfaction at the High School Level.................................................49
ix
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Improving teachers job satisfaction is paramount in an era when approximately
50 percent o f new teachers drop out of the profession in the first five years (Colbert and
Wolff, 1992). According to Shann (1998), teacher satisfaction reduces attrition, enhances
collegiality, improves job performance, and has an impact on student outcomes. Shann
further contends that teacher job satisfaction is a predictor o f teacher retention, a
determinant o f teacher commitment, and, in turn, a contributor to school effectiveness.
Based on the premise that a relationship may exist between teacher job
satisfaction and school effectiveness, understanding what determiners or correlates
influence school effectiveness is essential. Lawrence Lezotte is considered one o f the
foremost authorities in effective schools research. Lezotte (1997) concisely identified and
defined the seven correlates of effective schools, which include: (1) safe and orderly
environment conducive to learning, (2) climate o f high expectations for success, (3)
strong instructional leadership, (4) clear and focused mission, (5) student time on task, (6)
frequent monitoring o f student progress, and (7) authentic home - school relationships.
Research on school effectiveness has underscored the importance o f teachers personal
investment and commitment to education in general and to the school in particular.
According to Zigarelli (1996), teacher satisfaction is a highly significant predictor of
effective schools as measured by the criterion variable student achievement as opposed to
the seven correlates o f effective schools research proposed by Lezotte. Zigarellis study
determined the effect that six different constructs or correlates had on student
achievement. The six correlates examined by Zigarelli include: (1) employment of quality
teachers, (2) teacher participation and satisfaction, (3) principal leadership and
involvement, (4) a culture of academic achievement, (5) positive relations with the
central school administration, (6) and high parental involvement. Zigarelli concluded that
the omission of school environment variables constitutes a limitation in the study and
warrants further research. Shin and Reyes (1995) found that teacher job satisfaction is a
determinant of teacher commitment and urged that school administrators need to work
toward teacher job satisfaction to promote and foster commitment to the organization.
Shann (1998) suggested that further research needs to be conducted in relation to school
effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction due to the paucity o f research on this topic in
literature and the significance o f such a study, as well as the limitation o f the study in an
urban setting. In addition, McClung (1995) also recommended that a study should be
conducted to determine factors that act as satisfactors and dissatisfactors for teachers in
Northeast Mississippi, as well as in a geographical area with a demographic composition
different from Northeast Mississippi.
Statement o f the Problem
The purpose o f this study is to examine the relationship between school
effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction in elementary, middle, and high schools in north
Mississippi.
Hypotheses
1. There is no relationship between school effectiveness and teacher job
satisfaction among elementary school teachers.

satisfaction among middle school teachers.
satisfaction among high school teachers.
Significance o f the Study
Standardized test scores have been the dominant measure o f a schools
educational effectiveness for several decades, as well as, more recently under the No
Child Left Behind legislation and the Mississippi Performance - Based Accreditation
System. This body o f research (e.g., Lamendola, 2002 ; Langford, 2002 ; Allen, 1996)
that focuses on using the results from standardized achievement tests overlooks a variety
of factors that constitute effectiveness (Subbs, 1995). Although standardized tests are still
the most common and primary means of determining accreditation ratings and assessing
how individual school sites and districts are doing, standardized tests when utilized as a
solitary or primary measure, do not take into account and assess many other pertinent
factors that contribute to a schools academic rating and overall effectiveness. For
example, standardized tests do not measure the perceptions of the individuals that work
and learn within the school environment, namely teachers. Secondly, there is a limited
amount o f research that evaluates teachers job satisfaction in relation to school
effectiveness. Finally, since schools operate differently at the elementary, middle and
high school levels, there exists a need to conduct an in depth study o f the perceptions of
individuals closely associated with schools, namely teachers, to identify commonalities
and to help lead researchers and reformers to a better understanding o f factors that may
impact the school reform process.
3
Limitations
The findings in this study can be generalized only to teachers in a rural
educational organization. Although a small percentage o f participants may teach in a
metropolitan area, most o f the participants included in this study taught in rural schools.
This relational study is not designed to yield or identify causal information. There
is no implication o f causal relationships between teacher job satisfaction and school
effectiveness.
Terms and Definitions
Correlate- a sociological characteristic or criteria that researchers have identified
to measure or determine school effectiveness (Subbs, 1995).
Effectiveness- refers to how well a program is accomplishing its purpose and
objectives. It is the degree to which the plans or goals o f an individual or organization are
successfully implemented and are related to producing a desired or intended outcome
(Subbs, 1995).
Effective Schools Research- a collective body o f research that originally suggested
that student background rather than school or teaching process, largely accounted for
variations in the academic achievement o f different schools (Smothers, 1998).
Elementary School- a school established and organized for teaching pupils on any
grade level from Kindergarten through sixth grade (MDE, 2004).
High School- a school established and organized for teaching pupils on any grade
level from ninth through twelfth grade (MDE, 2004).
Middle School- a school established and organized for teaching pupils on any
grade level from fifth through ninth grade (MDE, 2004).
4
School Effectiveness- the general term used to describe the sociological

characteristics o f schools that are considered successful. Successful schools have some of
the same characteristics as successful societies or organizations, including a sense of
purpose, security, and leadership that provides a vision o f purpose for the future (Subbs,
1995). School effectiveness will be operationally defined through the use o f the School
Effectiveness Characteristics and Indicators Questionnaire (SECIQ) (Coney, 1990).
Teacher Job Satisfaction- a summation o f many factors contributing to the overall
satisfaction which teachers experience with teaching as a career (Johnston, 1991).
Teacher job satisfaction will be operationally defined through the use o f the Teacher Job
Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) (Lester, 1984).
Organization o f the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the study.
Chapter Two provides a review o f relevant literature. Chapter Three outlines the research
design, participants, instruments, and procedures for data collection and analysis. Chapter
Four will include the results of the study, while Chapter five presents conclusions,
discusses the results of the study and includes recommendations and suggestions for
further research.
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this literature review is to provide information on the possible
relationship between the seven correlates or practices o f effective schools research and
teacher job satisfaction. A correlate o f effective schools may be defined as a sociological
characteristic or criteria that researchers have identified to measure or determine school
effectiveness (Subbs, 1995).
The definition o f a correlate o f effective schools differs from one researcher to the
next. Some researchers have focused on academic achievement in terms o f basic skills in
reading, mathematics, or test results (Goodlad, 1984). Other researchers have provided
research concerning differences in social and affective outcomes such as attendance,
attitudes and student behavior (Mortimore, 1988).
The Effective Schools Movement: A B rief Historical Synopsis
The conception of the effective schools research began in 1966 with a study
known as the Coleman study. Coleman (1966) concluded that student background
characteristics were far more powerful in determining student achievement than any
school- level factors. In essence, Coleman determined that a schools effectiveness was
not the decisive element in determining student achievement.
Later Edmonds (1979) initiated a landmark study that emerged with a set of
general conclusions, which described the characteristics of effective schools. Edmonds
study concluded that schools do matter and make a difference in relation to student
achievement. Edmonds study listed the following five factors that are attributable to
effective schools: (1) strong administrative leadership, (2) school climate conducive to
learning, (3) high expectations for children's achievement, (4) clear instructional
objectives for monitoring student performance, and (5) emphasis on basic skills
instruction.
Following the lead of Ron Edmonds, Lawrence Lezotte, has carefully and
insightfully synthesized the research in such a manner as to capture the essence of the
major concepts o f seven correlates o f effective schools. Lezotte is considered one o f the
foremost authorities in effective schools research.
In one o f his most recent works,
Learning For All (1997), Lezotte concisely defined the seven correlates o f an effective
school which include: (1) a safe and orderly environment, (2) climate o f high
expectations, (3) instructional leadership, (4) clear and focused mission, (5) time on task,
(6) frequent monitoring o f student progress, and (7) authentic and positive relationship
between schools and parents.
A B rief Review o f the Correlates o f Effective Schools Research
Lezottes first correlate o f effective schools is a safe and orderly environment that
is conducive to learning (Lezotte et al, 1997). Every researcher that writes on the topic of
effective schools includes school safety as a major topic. More importantly, parents
expect schools to provide the best possible environment for their children. As press
coverage makes parents more aware o f the potential for violence in schools, parents are
demanding that teachers and administrators take a strong stand on school safety (Kulisch,
1998). Lezotte (1991) argued that a safe and orderly environment can be defined in terms
of the absence o f undesired behaviors (e.g., vandalism, fighting) and the presence of
desired behaviors (e.g., cooperative team learning, peer tutoring). Segiovanni (1996)
7
postulates that schools must become institutions with environments that are pleasant,
non-threatening, and aesthetically appealing in both images and language. Wong (1995)
suggested that an orderly environment is so crucial in terms o f student achievement, that
teachers should spend the first opening days o f school instructing students on rules,
rituals, and routines. Wong further argues that student achievement and desirable
behavior is often predicated on teacher preparation and consistency.
Barth (2002) argued that unhealthy school cultures have the propensity of
producing at - risk students who leave school before or after graduation with little
possibility o f continuing learning. Barth further stated that since learning is often coupled
with punitive measures, this results in the production o f toxic cultures or environments
that are not conducive to lifelong learning. Schools must become a community o f learners
where adults and students care about, look after, encourage one another, and work
cooperatively for the good of the whole in times o f need and in times o f celebration if
they are to become effective. The research in this area shows that not only do schools
become more effective as they become more orderly, but rather an orderly environment is
a prerequisite for learning to take place (Schweitzer, 1984). In short, students will not
leam if they fear for their safety. The environment must not only be safe; it must be
conducive to learning. Learning environments that are too cold, too hot, poorly lit, damp,
or drafty, certainly hamper the teaching-leaming process.
Effective schools include the entire community when developing a safe school
plan. The National School Safety Center insists that school safety must be linked to a
comprehensive school-wide improvement effort. There are six components that effective
schools consider when designing a plan for safer schools: political climate, personal
characteristics o f student and staff, physical environment, social environment, school
climate, and the community will (Stephens, 1999). The research clearly indicated the
importance o f a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning. Schools that are
not safe and orderly are certainly ineffective. These schools cannot expect school
improvement to take place until students feel safe and secure in their learning
environment.
The second correlate o f effective schools is a climate o f high expectations for
success. Positive expectations for student achievement, especially among teachers, must
be present in schools. The faculty and staff demonstrate their high expectations by
insisting that all students master the essential skills. Teachers in effective schools search
for instructional strategies to assure that all students do achieve mastery. These teachers
refuse to allow students to fail. To them, student failure is actually a sign that teachers
really do not believe that students can leam. Effective teachers hold themselves
accountable and they have high expectations for themselves (Lezotte et al, 1997).
Research clearly establishes that teacher expectations do play a significant role
in determining how well and how much students leam (Bramburg, 1994). Teachers
expectations for students, whether high or low, can and often become reality. Generally,
students usually give teachers as little or as much as teachers expect o f them. Effective
teachers hold uniform expectations for all. They do not change their expectations for
students based on a students race, gender, or ethnicity (Omotani & Omotani, 1996).
On the surface, students may appear to enjoy teachers who are lax, laid back, or
those with low standards. However, they ultimately always have more respect for those
9
teachers that care for them enough to demand more o f them. Wasserstein (1997) found
that students yearned for order. The students even stated that they would work harder if
more was expected o f them. According to Bramburg (1994), teacher expectations and
the assumptions that teachers make about students potentials have a tangible effect on
student achievement since students tend to internalize the beliefs teachers have about
them. Highly effective teachers tend to adhere to uniform high expectations for all
students regardless o f the students race, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. Lezotte
(1997) argued that effective schools recognize the following three things: that teachers
must first have high expectations for self, secondly, the school will have to be
restructured to assure that teachers have access to more tools to help them achieve
successful learning for all, and thirdly, schools, as cultural organizations, must be
transformed from institutions designed for instruction to institutions designed to assure
learning. As with most of the correlates o f effective schools, high expectations alone can
do little to enhance effectiveness. High expectations are most likely to have a strong
effect on student achievement when the presence o f other correlates are evident. In
addition, high expectations are more powerful when they are a part o f a culture which
holds everyone accountable (Murphy, 1989). For example, the principal must have high
expectations for himself as well as higher for the performance o f the faculty and staff.
The third correlate that is evident in effective schools is instructional leadership.
This correlate demands that all adults become leaders with the principal serving as the
leader o f leaders (Lezotte et al, 1997). Barth (1991) concluded that the principal is key to
a good school, the most decisive factor in determining teachers growth
and job
satisfaction, and the most potent factor in determining school climate. Barth further
10
postulated that the principal must create a collegial atmosphere where teachers talk about
instructional practices, observe each other, work with each other on the curriculum, and
teach each other. Sergiovanni (1992) suggested that principals must strive to create a
community of learners and leaders consisting o f community norms, coupled with
professional ideas. As the expectations for principals continue to increase, principals
must constantly strive to create learning communities in schools and to engage the
broader school community in creating and achieving a compelling vision for its schools.
Elmore (2000) proposes that instructional leaders are expected to be knowledgeable in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment that can coach, teach, develop, and distribute
leadership to those in their charge. The principal must masterfully communicate the
schools learning mission to teachers, students, and parents.
The role o f the principal as instructional leader is so incredibly large that it
overwhelms the best managers and leaders. Principals, as instructional leaders, must lead
or manage students, faculty and staff, school-community relations, business management,
as well as facility management (Sergiovanni, 1995). One person cannot be effective; one
person cannot create a culture that promotes school improvement. Principals must
involve teachers in the instructional leadership process. Also, principals must lead from a
mentoring or coaching perspective, and this style must be one that encourages teachers to
take risks. Principals as leaders cannot expect to lead the way alone. They must work to
create a culture that will drive the organization. Furthermore, they must build a culture
that fosters instructional leadership culture in the following three ways: (1) hire and
retain teachers who are strong in instruction and in leadership, (2) train teachers in their
11
way of thinking about instruction and leadership, and (3) exemplify the standards
regarding instruction via personal behavior (Schein, 1996).
Teachers definitely play a vital role in contributing to the instructional leadership
o f schools. Teacher leaders are effective when they are willing to take risks in front o f
their peers. Teachers must leam to support one anothers strengths and understand one
anothers weaknesses. Teachers must test new ideas. They must also continuously
inwardly inspect their own abilities and seek self-improvement (Barth, 1991).
Effective principals understand that schools are too large and have too many
complex problems for one leader to deal with effectively. Therefore, principals must be
trained to recognize and develop leadership among all the adults who serve learners.
True instructional leaders must set a general direction and then create environments and
structures that allow and even promote the development o f this leadership (Barth et al,
1991).
The fourth correlate that is present in an effective school is a clear and focused
mission which must be clearly stated and articulated to all stakeholders. Kouzes and
Posner (2002) concluded that leaders must inspire a shared vision by envisioning the
future and enlisting others in the process. Barth (2002) held that the important mission for
any effective school is to create and provide a culture hospitable to human learning and to
develop students and educators that are apt to become and remain lifelong learners.
According to Quinn (1996) principals, as instructional leaders, maintain a focus on the
core learning processes and organizational and structural changes required to produce
high levels o f learning and performance for all students and staff members.
12
Barth (1991) suggested that a schools vision can serve as a prescription for
school reform, bring about personal satisfaction, and focus in on the local school. Barker
(1994) further proposed that a vision should be 1) initiated by the leader, 2) positive and
inspiring, 3) comprehensive and detailed, and 4) shared and supported.
The mission o f a school specifically emphasizes learning rather than teaching.
Furthermore, the mission o f an effective school moves the instructional and learning
focus from mastery o f basic skills to mastery o f higher level skills (Lezotte et al, 1997).
Effective schools utilize the mission to help foster a feeling o f common purpose.
The mission helps schools work through difficult or challenging circumstances. The
mission should be the guiding light that every person focuses on in order to move the
school toward improvement.
The fifth correlate identifiable with an effective school is student time on task.
By understanding that the primary purpose o f schools involves teaching and learning,
teachers should allocate a significant amount o f time to help students master essential
skills (Lezotte et al, 1997). Teachers should ensure that every moment o f allocated time is
engaged time. Mortimore (1998) found that time on task does not necessarily ensure
effectiveness or successful student outcomes. Furthermore, Mortimore added that studies
show that correlations exist between a focused learning and teacher effectiveness. In
conclusion, time on task does not really matter if the teacher is ineffective. The most
effective schools understand that some parts o f the curriculum are more important to
teach that others. In essence, these schools practice organized abandonment by deleting
portions o f the curriculum (Lezotte et al, 1997).
13
According to Bennet (1994) organized abandonment requires that teachers

possess a thorough understanding o f a wide variety o f curriculums which is a prerequisite
to selecting teachable items. Furthermore, effective teachers must clearly comprehend
scope and sequence. The scope o f the curriculum is what should be taught. However, the
sequence o f the curriculum defines when objectives will be taught and the types of
instructional strategies that will be used (Ediger, 1996). To be effective, teachers must
carefully choose the scope for the curriculum. They must work as instructional leaders
with other teacher leaders and the principal. Equally important, teachers must work very
closely with other peers and their principal to develop a sequence that incorporates the
most effective teaching and learning strategies. Schools must audit the curriculum in an
effort to align the intended, the taught, and the tested. Schools must establish clear and
valid learning objectives for students.
In order to maximize student time on task, teachers must be effective classroom
managers. Good classroom managers are excellent planners, particularly managing the
transition o f classroom activities. In addition, they carefully organize their classroom
rules and procedures in a manner that students fully understand their expectations.
Schools must ensure that there is a clear curricular connection between all segments of
the system. Schools must control resources, programs, and personnel in order to
effectively select objectives to be taught and instructional methods to be utilized. Finally,
schools must design and adopt instruments to assess student progress and the
effectiveness and ineffectiveness o f practices (Ediger et al, 1996).
The sixth correlate evident in effective schools is the frequent monitoring of
student progress.
Student progress must be consistently monitored with a variety of

14
instruments. The results received from the use o f the assessment instruments should be
used to improve student performance by improving the teaching-leaming process.
Educators must collect, analyze, and use data to promote academic excellence and
improvement. According to Cross (2001) teachers are motivated by examining students
work and engaging in conversation with other teachers about how that work was
achieved.
In addition to the benefit of students, Stiggins (1999) further argued that the
frequent monitoring o f student progress is also a powerful motivator for teachers.
Formative assessment processes provide evidence that students are progressing and they
give teachers confidence that they are growing professionally. Lezotte (1997) suggested
that assessments must become more authentic in measuring curriculum mastery.
Therefore, teachers must pay specific attention to the alignment that must exist between
the intended, taught, and tested curriculum by using alternative means o f assessing and
monitoring student progress by studying students work samples, portfolios, and projects.
The primary purpose of assessment is to improve student learning. Thus, researchers and
organizations advocate the use o f assessment to fulfill this goal. For example, the United
States Congress has expanded the National Assessment o f Educational Progress in order
to produce results that can be compared to international assessments o f science and math.
The nationally recognized Atlanta-based High Schools that Work Consortium has
endorsed frequent and extensive assessments as part of their commitment to school
improvement (Hoachlander, 1998). Assessment must be linked with curriculum and
instruction. This must be accomplished in order to match the intended, the taught, and
the tested (Lezotte et al, 1997). Over the past few years, there has been a real focus on
15
authentic assessment. Effective teachers understand the classroom linkages and engage
in authentic instruction.
Effective monitoring of student progress requires that teachers fully understand a
variety o f assessment types. These include structured observations, standardized
multiple-choice tests, open-ended constructed response, written essay, performance
events, student essays, and various forms of short-answer testing.
Student assessment has been used in recent years to hold school districts,
administrators and teachers accountable. The purpose o f accountability is to ensure that
schools remain responsible for student achievement and mastery o f certain essential skills
(Smith 1993). This high stakes accountability for schools has forced schools to
strengthen instruction and instructional leadership. It has also forced schools to very
closely link the intended, the taught, and the tested.
The final correlate evident in effective schools is an authentic and positive
relationship between schools and parents. Most schools communicate that they desire
parental involvement. However, only the most effective schools actually solicit parental
involvement and create avenues o f opportunity for their involvement (Lezotte et al,
1997).
Teachers and parents cite numerous barriers to effective parent involvement, such
as time constraints from work and family and a general feeling that they are unwelcome
in the classroom (Siluik, 1997). According to research, parents are important to school
improvement and therefore schools must find ways to destroy the barriers to positive
parental relations. Also, schools must understand that there are numerous methods for
parents to become involved in schools. Parent involvement means more than simply
16
being present at school. Many parents who are unable to be present at school may choose
to take an active role in school-related activities at home such as helping with their
childs homework.
As noted, there are numerous opportunities for parents to become involved in
school. Black (1998) cites six types o f involvement that include both home and schoolbased activities. First, parents can be involved by providing for their childs essential
needs. These needs include: food, safety, shelter, and home conditions that promote
learning. Second, two-way communication between home and school is an excellent and
necessary type o f involvement. Third, parental volunteering o f all types is important.
Fourth, parents should provide learning opportunities at home. Fifth, participation by
parents on various committees is crucial. Finally, schools must use parents as a link to
community resources. The most effective schools openly accept and provide
opportunities for parental involvement. These schools also keep parents informed about
the involvement opportunities.
Other Factors often Associated with School Effectiveness
School effectiveness has been difficult to conceptualize and define primarily
because it is a complex and complicated construct. It consists o f many variables.
Standardized tests, end o f grade assessments, and other indicators o f students
achievement are used most often to measure and determine the effectiveness and
ineffectiveness o f schools. Although beneficial, these measures alone cannot determine
whether a school is effective or ineffective (Rupp 2000).
In 2001 the controversial No Child Left Behind Legislation was passed by the
United States Congress and signed by President George W. Bush. This legislation
17
mandated that all states must design and develop their own standardized tests to be
administered to assess and ascertain adequate yearly progress (AYP), student
achievement, school effectiveness, and identify failing or priority schools. These
mandated assessments are often used to identify successful or effective schools.
In a recent study, Spero (2004) examined data from Effective Schools instruments
that were administered to high school teachers at three high performing schools and three
low performing in the state o f Florida, which assess teacher perceptions o f the
implementation o f the seven correlates o f Effective Schools into the school environment.
Spero concluded from the study that teachers from high performing schools and teachers
from low performing schools perceived their schools to be equally effective based on the
seven correlates o f Effective Schools Research. This finding suggests that there is a
disparity in the identification o f effective schools and that test scores alone are an
insufficient measure for deeming a school as effective or ineffective.
Principal perceptions often differ from those o f teachers in respect to how
effective leadership practices affect the performance o f schools. Balcerek (1999)
conducted a study to determine if there was a significant difference between principals
effective leadership practices between high and inadequately performing schools. The
Leadership Practices Inventory developed by Kouzes and Posner (1997) was used to
collect data on both teacher ratings and principal perceptions o f effective leadership
practice in the principalship. No significant difference was found in comparing principals
to teacher reports in high performing schools, however a significant difference was
found between teachers and principals in low performing schools in respect to effective
leadership practices as identified on the Leadership Practices Inventory.
18
Teacher perceptions also tend to vary relative to factors that impact student
achievement in effective and less effective schools. In a recent study Lee (2001) surveyed
a total o f 389 teachers, 193 were assigned to less effective schools and 196 were assigned
to effective schools. The Survey o f Philadelphia Teachers was used to assess the
following five factors: 1) commitment, 2) adequacy o f resources 3) curriculum capacity,
4) principal leadership, and 5) climate/culture. Teachers in both types o f settings,
effective and ineffective, reported similar perceptions o f adequacy o f resources, principal
leadership and curriculum capacity. Teachers in less effective schools reported higher
levels o f collegiality compared to teachers in effective schools. Teachers in less effective
schools were also more positive in respect to a safe environment, while teachers in
effective schools were more positive in their perceptions relative to positive staff
relations. Lee concluded from the research that teachers formed negative attitudes about
teaching in a large urban setting despite whether they were assigned to teach in an
effective or less effective school. Lapin (2003) also argued that married teachers, veteran
teachers, and emergency certified teachers are more likely to remain teaching in an urban
setting when compared to unmarried, younger, and regular certified teachers. Lapin
further postulated that some of the aspects o f teacher job satisfaction were correlated to
the intention to continue to teach in an urban setting.
The relationship between the role o f the superintendent and the formation of
effective schools and effective school districts has also been a debated topic. The
superintendents role in larger school districts often tends to be more focused on
bureaucratic behaviors and less on instructional strategies, while superintendents from
19
smaller districts tend to be more focused on instructional leadership type behaviors as

opposed to bureaucratic behaviors. McKay (2000) in a recent study found that
superintendents perceived themselves to make efforts in the areas o f instructional
leadership, frequent monitoring o f student progress, clear and focused mission, safe and
orderly environment, and climate of high expectations. However, superintendents were
not found to be the catalyst in providing opportunities for learning and time on task, or
encouraging positive home/school relations.
Efficacy is another factor that is often cited and considered to be related to school
effectiveness. In recent studies (Olivier (2001), Bobbett (2001) efficacy has been
identified to have a linkage to school effectiveness. Olivier found collective efficacy
beliefs o f teachers to be the strongest predictor o f organization or school effectiveness in
a study that included 1444 teachers in 95 elementary schools. Bobbett also postulated that
the strength o f teachers efficacy beliefs were linked to the schools professional culture
and school effectiveness. Bobbetts findings were based on a study that included 555
teachers in 34 schools. To the contrary, research has also suggested that teacher efficacy
is not always a predictor o f school effectiveness. In a recent study that included 1450
teachers from 39 New York public middle schools Scott (2003) found that neither teacher
efficacy or collective efficacy were significant predictors o f school effectiveness.
Input and process factors have also been considered in determining and assessing
school effectiveness levels. Langford (2002) launched a study designed to examine a
possible relationship between student academic achievement and variables associated
with School Effectiveness in the Mississippi public school system. Standardized tests
scores were used to determine schools effectiveness levels. The input factors examined in
20
the study included: socioeconomic status, peer socioeconomic status, family structure and
race. The process factors examined were: class size, per-pupil expenditure and school
size. Langford postulated that o f all o f the input and process factors examined, the
students socioeconomic status, as measured by the percent o f students in the school that
were eligible to participate in the free and reduced-price lunch program, was the best
indicator of school level academic performance or school effectiveness level. Nicholson
(2003) has also argued that socioeconomic status and student achievement are
significantly related. This suggests that schools with a high percentage o f minority
students appeared to be highly correlated with academic achievement. The percentage of
minority students in the school also served to help predict student achievement.
Teacher Job Satisfaction
Today when educators are working to restructure education at all levels, the
concept of job satisfaction is o f major concern. Shann (1998) argued that teacher job
satisfaction is a multifaceted construct that is critical to teacher retention, teacher
commitment, and school effectiveness. Shann further postulates that measuring teacher
job satisfaction may be difficult to estimate due to the fact that teachers often cannot offer
unitary responses to multifaceted, complex issues.
Lester (1984) defined teacher job satisfaction as a summation o f many factors that
contribute to the overall satisfaction that teachers experience with teaching as a career.
According to Lester the following factors are contributors and determiners o f teachers
job satisfaction: (1) supervision, (2) colleagues, (3) working conditions, (4) pay, (5)
responsibility, (6) work itself, (7) advancement, (8) security, and (9) recognition. Kim
and Loadman (1994) identified seven predictors o f teacher job satisfaction which
21
included: interactions with students, interactions with colleagues, professional challenges,

professional autonomy, working conditions, salary, and opportunities for advancement.
Dinham (1994) offered a different perspective on teacher job satisfaction within an
affective approach and concluded that the sources o f satisfaction varied with gender,
experience, and position.
Dinham argued that teacher job dissatisfaction tends to be more associated with
school structure or administration (e.g., large class sizes, lack o f resources, and
educational policies and procedures). Similarly, Shann (1998) contends that studies of
teachers job satisfaction yielded differences in determining the factors that contribute to
job satisfaction according to demographic factors, experience, and position.
Factors Associated with Teacher Job Satisfaction
Whittaker (2003) suggested that the principal is the most crucial factor in
determining whether a school is effective or ineffective, just as the teacher is the
determinant factor in whether instruction is effective or ineffective. Studies have
supported the notion that principals behaviors and leadership styles are linked to teacher
job satisfaction and school effectiveness level.
Teachers and principals perceptions o f teacher job satisfaction often differ.
According to Wessells (2001) principals tend to generally overestimate the level o f job
satisfaction o f teachers. Wessells found in a recent study that teachers and principals
differ significantly in their perceptions primarily in the areas o f administration, student
responsibility and discipline. A marginal difference was found in perceptions in the area
of compensation. No significant differences were found in the areas o f opportunities for
advancement, curriculum and job tasks, co-workers, parents and community, school
22
buildings, supplies, maintenance, and communication. The result o f Wessells study

suggests that principals overestimation o f teacher job satisfaction might contribute to
dissonance and miscommunication within the school environment.
Buford (2001) has also noted that elementary school principals and elementary
school teachers have different perceptions o f the proficiencies o f an effective school
principal. Whittaker (2003) has argued that the primary precursor for an effective school
is an effective principal. Buford indicated that the differences in perceptions was not
based the principals years o f experience in a particular district, gender, degree earned, or
the year the degree was earned. However, a significant difference was found in
principals and teachers perceptions based on job position. The principals role and
position plays a vital role in student achievement and job satisfaction. White (2002)
postulated that there is no significant relationship between teacher job satisfaction,
highest education degree, and years o f teaching experience as reported by certified
teachers in selected middle school settings. Based on the findings o f W hites study,
teachers tend to be satisfied with their teaching jobs regardless o f their years o f highest
education degree or years of teaching experience.
McKenzie (2003) explored if there was a significant relationship between teacher
job satisfaction, school funding, and student achievement as measured by end o f grade
tests in grades 3 and 8. McKenzie concluded that total school funding nor teacher job
satisfaction were highly related to student achievement. To the contrary, Sentovich
(2004) reported having adequate resources such as time and materials is related to teacher
job satisfaction. Teachers also indicate high levels o f satisfaction relative to having
autonomy in their classrooms, and having reasonable class sizes. Terry (2002) argued that
23
teacher job satisfaction is significantly and positively influenced by lower teacher-pupil

ratios and smaller class sizes and Brenner (2003) considered autonomy as a significant
predictor of teacher job satisfaction.
The issue o f adequate compensation, teacher pay raises, and merit pay has been
greeted with debate in the halls o f Congress, as well as, on the steps o f the Capitol.
Studies indicated that there is a high level of satisfaction relative to receiving adequate
compensation. Gary (2002) confirmed in a recent study that although teachers generally
perceive the teaching profession as a rewarding and worthy career; inadequate salary and
benefits, the low professional status o f teaching, state mandates, and the nature and pace
o f educational change have all served as dissatisfactors among teachers.
Fussell (2002) in a recent study investigated the perceptions o f job satisfaction
among teachers to determine if there was a relationship between teacher job satisfaction
and the following factors: teachers experience, number o f years with the principal,
gender, grade level taught, and highest degree attained. Fussell found that teachers with
advanced degrees were more dissatisfied with opportunities for advancement compared
to teachers with Bachelor degrees and that high school teachers were the least satisfied
group o f teachers with respect to encouragement, administrative support, recognition, and
communication with the central office. Junior high and high school teachers indicated
more dissatisfaction with responsibility and student discipline than Kindergarten through
sixth grade, special education, and other teachers. Roman (2004) in a recent study,
postulated that there was no significant relationship between teacher job satisfaction and
the following variables: school location, gender, ethnicity, age, experience, and total
number o f years at current school.
24
In a recent study designed to identify the strategies that were instrumental in

improving scores on the Iowa Test o f Basic Skills (ITBS) by a first year principal, Epps
(2002) concluded that the following nine strategies, when employed by a first year
principal, improved teacher job satisfaction and student achievement as measured by
standardized tests: (1) gradually implementing change, (2) improving the school climate,
(3) building trust, (4) allowing teachers to select the instructional materials that they
wanted to use, (5) purchasing up-to-date instructional materials, (6) open communication
with stakeholders, (7) being highly visible, (8) encouraging collaboration among staff,
and (9) soliciting teachers opinions. Epps further contended that the nine factors when
employed, had a tremendous effect on teachers performance, attendance, and their
overall job satisfaction. The study also indicated that student achievement improved in
proportion to teacher job satisfaction and school climate.
The leadership behaviors and characteristics o f the principal are critical to teacher
job satisfaction, teacher job performance and school effectiveness. Myers (2001)
postulated that teacher perceptions o f leader behavior affects teachers job satisfaction.
These perceptions also affect teachers job performance and serve to construct their sense
of reality. Since the principal is the key factor in determining teachers job satisfaction,
principals must make vigilant efforts to identify and implement behaviors that will make
the climate and school environment a more satisfying place for teachers. Myers further
argued that principals could help improve teacher job by becoming more cognizant and
aware o f what teachers want from them, as well as, by providing specific examples in the
day-to-day operations.
25
Rice (2003) found in a recent study that teachers level o f job satisfaction was
significantly affected by their perceived level o f school effectiveness and their
relationship with their supervisor, identified as the principal. Sentovich (2004) also
suggested that the relationship with others is a key factor to be considered in respect to
teacher job satisfaction. In these identified key relationships, teachers rely on principals
o f schools for administrative support and leadership, teachers and support staff for
cooperative environment and collegiality, parents for parental support, and students in
terms o f appropriate behavior and respect.
The principals level of authority has also been found to have a significant impact
on teacher job satisfaction. In a recent study Madison (2002) found that teachers prefer
working with supervisors and principals with formal or line authority. The study also
indicated that teachers did not feel differently about their work or colleagues no matter
who their supervisor was. The transformational leadership style was also noted to
influence collegial leadership positively and to improve teacher overall job satisfaction.
Algaier (2003) also suggested in a recent study that teachers seemingly prefer
transformational leadership styles to transactional styles. In a study that investigated
teachers perceptions o f principals transformational leadership behaviors and the
relationship o f these perceptions to teacher commitment and teacher job satisfaction,
Amoroso (2002) found that the transformational leadership behaviors had a significant
impact on teacher job satisfaction and teacher commitment. Amoroso also argued that
there was a significant relationship between principals implementation o f the
transformational leadership style and staff morale. Martino (2003) postulated in a similar
study designed to investigate the relationship between leadership style, teacher
26
empowerment, and job satisfaction, that there was a significant correlation between
teacher job satisfaction and transformational leadership. Martino further argued that there
was a significant relationship between teacher job satisfaction and teacher empowerment.
Strong school leadership and specially designed professional development are not
only critical components for teacher job satisfaction; they also affect teacher retention,
development, and support. As instructional leaders, principals must continually endeavor
to identify and meet the needs o f teachers. Principals must find ways to form supportive
relationships with new teachers, work to improve the difficult challenges and working
conditions that teachers often face, and nurture a work environment that provides
extrinsic and intrinsic rewards for teachers. Mentoring, teacher induction programs, and
teacher-based advisory programs are among many o f the efforts explored to assist and
retain new teachers in the teaching profession. Caswell (2003) argued that school teacherbased advisory programs have been found to have a significant impact on teacher job
satisfaction at the middle school level. Conrey (2004) suggested that induction programs
may be effective in improving teachers satisfaction and lowering teacher burnout rates
especially among special education teachers.
Kardos (2004) concluded from a recent study that explored the impact o f
professional culture and mentoring on new teachers, that new teachers are not often likely
to experience the benefits o f working in an integrated professional culture with a suitable
mentor. The study found that although many new teachers are matched with mentors,
many are not paired or matched with mentors who teach the same subjects or gradelevels, and many seldom discuss with their mentor relevant and important topics such as
discipline, effective classroom management techniques, lesson planning, and pedagogy.
27
Kardos further suggested that there is a significantly strong and positive effect of
integrated professional culture on new teachers job satisfaction and that the mere
presence o f a mentor was not related to new teachers job satisfaction, even when an
integrated professional culture was present.
Peck (2002) investigated how new high school teacher perceptions o f the
variables related to teacher retention influenced their level of satisfaction and desire to
remain in the teaching profession. Peck found that work reward (extrinsic and intrinsic),
school environment, and work assignment, administrative support and community
atmosphere were significantly correlated with teacher job satisfaction and desire to
remain in the teaching profession. Taylor (1997) in an attempt to identify the reasons why
teachers leave the teaching profession found that teachers consider leaving the profession
for basically the same reasons former teachers actually left the profession. Current and
former teachers identified extrinsic factors as the primary reason that prompted their
leaving or considering leaving the profession. Both groups of teachers cited unsupportive
administrators as the primary reason for leaving or considering leaving the profession.
Student discipline problems were identified as the secondary reason for leaving the
teaching profession. Teachers cited intrinsic factors as the primary reason for continuing
to stay in the profession. Achievement, advancement, and factors o f work itself were
identified as the specific intrinsic factors responsible for teachers remaining in the
profession. Taylor concluded that teachers leave or consider leaving the teaching
profession for reasons which are related more to the conditions o f the work (extrinsic
factors) than to the nature o f the work (intrinsic factors). White (2003) argued that
teacher turnover is moderately negatively related to student achievement at a statistically
28
significant level. White further contended that this negative relationship between student
achievement and teacher turnover is still a factor even when teachers choose to leave due
to retirement, family relocation, childcare, and death were factored out o f the turnover
rate.
Attempts have also been made to identify and determine what factors contribute
to job satisfaction at the middle school level. Interdisciplinary teaming and block
scheduling are two o f the components o f Middle Level Research that are believed to
contribute to the job satisfaction o f middle school teachers. In a recent study designed to
explore the effects o f blocking scheduling and specific demographic characteristics on
teacher job satisfaction, Holder (2003) concluded that there were no significant
differences in the levels of teacher job satisfaction between teachers in schools with the
block schedule and schools with the traditional schedule.
Teaming has been considered to be especially beneficial for new teachers who
often find the first year o f teaching extremely challenging. The middle school team
provides teachers with the opportunity to work and plan together on a daily basis. This
integrated approach to scheduling also allows teachers the opportunity to receive the
encouragement, guidance, counsel, consistent support, and relation needed at the middle
level. Clouse (2000) conducted a study to examine the relationship between effective
middle school teams and beginning teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Clouse
found that no significant relationship existed between the perceived effectiveness o f the
middle school team and a first-year teachers self-efficacy, however a significant
relationship existed between the perceived effectiveness o f the middle school team and a
29
first-year teachers job satisfaction. Ranta (2001) also contended that the implementation
o f interdisciplinary teaming is a significant factor in effective middle schools.
The Relationship Between Teacher Job Satisfaction and School Effectiveness
Multiple studies have identified teacher job satisfaction as an indicator o f school
effectiveness in predominantly urban settings. School effectiveness in these studies was
accessed primarily by student achievement or school climate. Shann (1998) conducted a
three-year study that included interview questionnaires from 92 teachers in 4 urban
middle schools. In this research, Shann concluded that teacher job satisfaction is a
contributor to school effectiveness in an urban setting. Shann assessed student
achievement using standardized test scores and concluded that teachers in the lower
achieving schools were more dissatisfied with teacher - teacher relationships and their
schools curriculum than those in the higher achieving schools. Additionally, they
reported a greater discrepancy in student achievement.
In an eight year study Zigarelli (1996) identified six contructs derived from
several literature reviews and the independent effect o f each construct was tested on
student achievement level as opposed to teacher job satisfaction. Zigarelli used the
National Educational Longitudinal Study o f 1988 (NELS 88) to assess the effects of six
effective schools variables on student achievement. The six constructs were: (1)
employment o f quality teachers, (2) teacher participation and satisfaction, (3) principal
leadership and involvement, (4) a culture o f academic achievement, (5) positive relations
with the central school administration, (6) and high parental involvement. Survey
questionnaires were constructed and administered to a panel o f students who were 8th
grade students in 1988 (base year), 10th graders in 1990 (first follow-up), and 12th
30
graders in 1992 (second follow-up) to measure student achievement. A total o f 24,599

students participated in the base year survey; however, information for only 16,842
students is available across all three waves o f NELS 88. Zigarellis study included 1,100
public schools. In the data analysis, 1,296 public and private high schools participated in
the first follow-up in 1990. Survey questionnaires were also constructed and administered
to the schools principal or headmaster. Surveys were completed by 97% o f the
participating schools. The questionnaire administered to the principals or headmasters
were designed to collect information about school, student, and teacher characteristics;
school policies and practices; the school grading and testing structure; school programs
and facilities; parental involvement in the school; and school climate. Principals and
headmasters completed questionnaires again in 1992. Zigarelli concluded from the study
using linear regression that the effective school is one in which mastery o f the course
material is the cultural norm, students place a high priority on learning, and there is
plenty o f classroom time to learn. The results from the coefficient on morale in the study
also suggested that an effective school is a place where teachers get along with one
another and are satisfied with their work environment. Principals are empowered to hire
and fire teachers unencumbered by contractual handcuffs or by administrative
bureaucracy. Additionally, perhaps, parents generously volunteer their time and teachers
are afforded much time to prepare their classes. Based on the premises that the study was
conducted in an urban area, results are limited to generalization in urban settings. Zigarell
concluded the following:
It is intriguing that so few effective schools variables appear to significantly
influence achievement. Given the literature, there is now little doubt that a school
31
effect on achievement exists. In this study, I pursued the estimation o f this school
effect by including measures o f school demographics, school culture, principal,
teacher and parent influence in the school, teacher quality and satisfaction, and
quality o f relations within and outside the school. However, the omission o f
school environment variables not available in these data may contribute to the
inference that few school variables seem to matter. Insofar as this is the case, this
constitutes a limitation o f this study and warrants further research (p. 6)
Tilin (1997) conducted further research to examine the relationship between
faculty groups or teams o f teachers and school effectiveness. The study included faculties
and principals from two middle schools (6-8th grade); three elementary schools (K-6
grade); two combined elementary and middle schools (grade K-8) and three charter high
schools. All o f the schools in the study were classified as urban or suburban. The research
sample consisted of a total of 10 groups that contained from 13 to 64 members. There
were a total of 292 participants. Schools performance or effectiveness level was
measured through available data on student academic performance, attendance and
responses to parent questionnaires from each school. Schools in the study were ranked
high performing or low performing based on the available data. The results from the
study suggested that faculty groups in high performing or effective schools perceived
themselves as having significantly less conflict, more trust and work characteristics, as
well as, more parental involvement. To the contrary, faculty groups in low performing
schools had significantly more conflict, and had less trust and work characteristics. Hart
(1990) contends that an important aspect o f effective school characteristics is that they
are not basely solely on individual performance, but rather on unity, common purpose,
32
ease o f communication, problem solving, high but achievable standards, and frequent
assessment o f progress.
Shin and Reyes (1995) notes that research on school effectiveness has highlighted
the importance o f teachers' commitment and personal investment. In addition, it is
imperative that school administrators consider the issue o f teacher satisfaction.
33
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This relational study examined singular and multiple predictors o f teacher job
satisfaction utilizing bivariate correlation and multiple correlation. Two different groups
o f teachers in each school will be asked to complete those instruments listed on page 35.
Each group will consist o f five teachers, and one group will respond to the School
Effectiveness Characteristics and Indicators Questionnaire instrument. The other group
will respond to the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire instrument to ensure
independence between teacher satisfaction ratings and school effectiveness ratings.
Participants
Thirty schools were invited to participate in the study. Each o f the sixteen schools
that elected to participate was sent surveys to distribute to ten teachers. A total of 140
teachers responded to the surveys. Inclusion o f all schools, regardless o f size, allowed
every teacher in north Mississippi possible participation. For each school that elected to
participate, principals/assistant principals were asked to mail or fax a roster containing a
list o f each teachers name, address, and telephone number to the researcher. Upon
receipt o f the rosters the researcher randomly selected and mailed each o f the selected
participants from each school a survey packet. The participants shared demographic
characteristics similar to those o f the general population o f teachers in Mississippi and
represented predominantly rural schools.
34
There were 29,166 teachers in Mississippi with an average o f 13.59 years of

experience. O f this number 5,119 were males and 7,470 were minorities. The average
salary for a teacher was $31,954. Average salary for the four teacher certification levels
in Mississippi was AAAA- $49,477.00, AAA- $45,319.00, AA- $39,331, and
A- $30,469 (MDE, 2003).
Instruments
Data was collected using two instruments, both were related to the constructs
examined. Teachers job satisfaction was measured using the Teacher Job Satisfaction
Questionnaire (TJSQ) (Appendix A). The seven correlates o f effective schools were
measured by the School Effectiveness Characteristics and Indicators Questionnaire
(SECIQ) (Appendix B).
Teacher Job Satisfaction Instrument
The Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) is a 66 item instrument that
was developed by Lester (1984) to measure teacher job satisfaction. The (TSJQ) yields a
total score, as well as, a sub score on nine job satisfaction factors, which include:
Supervision (14 items), Colleagues (10 items), Work Itself (9 items), Responsibility (8
items), Working Conditions (7 items), Pay (7 items), Advancement (5 items), Security (3
items), and Recognition (3 items). The corresponding v s in Table 1 are representative
of the item numbers on the (TJSQ). The values for the recode items were transposed into
the values indicated in Table 1. The remaining items were computed at their actual
reported values. The (TJSQ) is designed with a 5- point Likert scale with anchors from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Content validation for the (TJSQ) was
accomplished through the modified Q- sort procedure and construct validation was
35
examined and accomplished through factor analysis procedures. Reliability for the
(TJSQ) was determined through the computation o f Cronbach Alpha reliability
coefficients. The total scale Alpha for the (TJSQ) was .93 (Johnston 1991).
36
Table 1
Recode and Compute Statements for Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ')
TJSQ
RECODE
V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, V I 1, V16, V21, V23, V24, V26,
V27, V29, V30, V35, V37, V41, V43, V44, V45, V47,
V48, V49, V52, V56, V57, V63, V66 (5 = 1) (4 = 2)
(3 = 3) (2 = 4) (1 = 5)
COMPUTE
SUPERV
COMPUTE
COLLEAG
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
WORK CON =
PAY
RESPONS =
COMPUTE
WORK
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
ADVANCE =
SECURITY =
RECOGN
V5 + V10 + V12 + V17 + V24 + V31 + V 40 +

V43 + V47 + V53 + V56 + V59 + V60 + V62
V15 + V20 + V32 + V37 + V39 + V41 +
V48 + V51 + V 54 + V66
V9 + V16 + V18 + V26 + V28 +V35 + V55
V2 + V4 + V36 + V44 + V57 + V61 + V65
V19 + V22 + V34 + V38 + V52 + V58 + V63 +
V64
V3 + V7 + V11 +V 25 + V27 + V30 + V42 +
V45 + V46
V I + V 8 + V21 +V 33 + V50
V13 + V23 + V29
V6 + V14 + V49
37
School Effectiveness Instrument

The seven correlates of effective schools were measured by the School
Effectiveness Characteristics and Indicators Questionnaire (SECIQ). The (SECIQ) is an
67 item instrument that was developed by Coney (1990). The (SECIQ) was pilot tested
on 770 teachers and found to have a Cronbachs Alpha coefficient o f .984. Reliability
coefficients for the characteristics were found to be at least .81. The (SECIQ) is designed
with a 5- point Likert scale with anchors from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
The questionnaire contains 67 indicators that address 11 school effectiveness
characteristics, which include the following: (a) Instructional Leadership 8 items, (b)
Clear and Focused Mission 7 items, (c) Safe and Orderly Environment 5 items, (d)
Positive School Climate 7 items, (e) High Expectations 5 items, (f) Frequent Assessment
Monitoring of Student Achievement 6 items, (g) Emphasis on Basis Skills 5 items,
Maximum Opportunities for Learning 6 items, (h) Parent Community Involvement 6
items, (i) Strong Professional Development 7 items, and (j) Teacher Involvement in
Decision Making 5 items. For the purpose o f this study the following seven
characteristics or correlates will be examined: Instructional Leadership, Clear and
Focused Mission, Safe and Orderly Environment, High Expectations, Frequent
Assessment Monitoring o f Student Achievement, Maximum Opportunities for Learning,
and Parent/Community Involvement (Subbs 1995).
38
Table 2
Relationship o f School Effectiveness Characteristics to Indicators on Teacher
Questionnaire (SECIOl
Effective School Characteristics
1. Instructional Leadership
Item Numbers on Teacher Questionnaire

1-8
2. Clear and Focused Mission
9-15
3. Safe and Orderly Environment
16-20
4. High Expectations
21-25
5. Frequent Assessment Monitoring o f Student Achievement
26-31
6. Maximum Opportunities for Learning (Time on Task)
32-37
7. Parent/Community Involvement
38-43
39
Procedures
The researcher obtained permission from the Institutional Review Board for
Human Subjects Research at the University o f Mississippi to conduct this study
(Appendix C). After district superintendents were contacted and notified (Appendix D),
school principals and assistant principals were contacted and mailed personal letters
requesting a roster o f all o f teachers at their site. The researcher requested that the roster
include: teachers names, addresses, and telephone numbers. (Appendix E). Ten teacher
packets, five containing teacher job satisfaction surveys and five containing effective
schools surveys were then mailed to ten randomly selected teachers at each site. Packets
and their contents were coded to identify which teachers elected to participate. The letter
to the teachers requested that when the packets were completed, that they return them to
the researcher in the provided selfaddressed, stamped envelope within two weeks. Five
teacher packets included a cover letter (Appendix F) requesting the teachers
participation in this study, one copy each o f the TJSQ teacher survey. Five teacher
packets included a cover letter (Appendix F) requesting the teachers participation in this
study, one copy each o f the SECIQ survey and the demographic questionnaire. Each
teacher packet also included a secure return self-addressed stamped envelope. As the
researcher received returned packets they were logged in on a checklist and checked for
completeness for inclusion in this study. The researcher mailed a reminder letter
(Appendix G) to each teacher whose packet had not been returned within the two-week
period requesting that the packet be returned as soon as possible. A final contact was
40
made one week later to any school that had not responded. The researcher then proceeded
with data compilation and analysis.
Data Analysis
Factor analysis procedures were utilized to reduce the 9 factors o f the predictor
variable to a smaller set o f superordinate variables to define constructs. Bivariate and
multivariate correlational analyses were utilized to examine the relationships between
predictor variables and the criterion variable. Regression was used to predict the criterion
variable outcome based on singular and multiple predictor variables identified as the
seven correlates. Regression, as a term, was replaced with the term correlation to
suggest that the researcher was interested in testing the strength o f the relationship
between predictor variables and one criterion variable. Therefore, the bivariate and
multivariate procedures used to test the hypotheses o f this relational study were referred
to as bivariate correlation and multiple correlation.
41
Chapter 4
RESULTS
This chapter contains the results o f the study. Results are presented for three
hypotheses. An alpha level o f .05 was used for all statistical tests.
Mississippi. Three hypotheses were proposed and tested in this study. The first
hypothesis indicated that there is no relationship between school effectiveness and
teacher job satisfaction among elementary school teachers. The second hypothesis stated
that there is no relationship between school effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction
among middle school teachers. The final hypothesis postulated that there is no
relationship between school effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction among high school
teachers.
Sixteen schools in the North Mississippi Education Consortium responded to the
request for participation. A total o f 140 represented 87% o f the 160 possible returns from
teachers. Six elementary schools, five middle and five high schools were represented in
the data.
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 stated that there would be no relationship between school
effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction among elementary school teachers (n = 53).
Results o f the bivariate Pearson correlation (r = - .017) were not significant (p = .933) at
the .05 alpha level between school effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction among
elementary school teachers. Therefore the null hypothesis was accepted.
42
The findings of the study showed a statistically significant positive relationship

between eight out o f the nine subscales o f the TJSQ (supervision, colleagues, work itself,
responsibility, working conditions, pay, advancement, and recognition) and the overall
teacher job satisfaction rating among elementary teachers. Security was not significantly
related to teacher job satisfaction among elementary teachers. In addition, the study
revealed that there was not a significant relationship between overall teacher job
satisfaction and any of the seven school effectiveness factors (instructional leadership,
clear & focused mission, safe & orderly environment, high expectations, frequent
assessment and monitoring o f student achievement, maximum opportunities for learning,
and parent community involvement) as indicated in Table 3.
The study also indicated that there was a statistically significant positive
relationship between all seven factors associated with school effectiveness (instructional
leadership, clear & focused mission, safe & orderly environment, high expectations,
frequent assessment and monitoring o f student achievement, maximum opportunities for
learning, and parent community involvement) and the overall school effectiveness rating
among elementary school teachers. None o f the nine subscales o f the TJSQ were
significantly related to the overall school effectiveness rating among elementary school
teachers.
43
Table 3
Relationship Between School Effectiveness and Teacher Job Satisfaction at the
Elementary School Level______________________________________________
Subscale
Instructional Leadership
Clear & Focused Mission
Safe & Orderly Environment
High Expectations
Frequent Monitoring
Maximum Opportunities
Parent Community Involvement
Supervision
Colleagues
Work Itself
Responsibility
Working Conditions
Pay
Advancement
Security
Recognition
School Effectiveness
-.017
-.026
-.017
-.153
.162
- .0 1 0
.0 0 2
.851**
.531**
.694**
.417*
.787**
.590**
.725**
-.301
.839**
1
.887**
.912**
.891**
9 1
.878**
.817**
.877**
-.184
.153
.139
.255
-.016
.039
.143
.158
-.134
.017
.017
** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

*Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
44
Hypothesis 2
effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction among middle school teachers (n = 44). Results
o f the bivariate Pearson correlation (r = -.094) were not significant (p = .677) at the .05
alpha level between school effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction among middle
school teachers. Therefore the null hypothesis was accepted.
The findings o f the study showed a statistically significant positive relationship
between five out o f the nine subscales o f the TJSQ (work itself, responsibility, working
conditions, pay, and security) and the overall teacher job satisfaction rating among
middle school teachers. Supervision, colleagues, advancement, and recognition were not
significantly related to teacher job satisfaction among middle school teachers as indicated
in Table 4. In addition, the study revealed that there was not a significant a relationship
between overall teacher job satisfaction and any o f the seven school effectiveness factors
(instructional leadership, clear & focused mission, safe & orderly environment, high
expectations, frequent assessment and monitoring o f student achievement, maximum
opportunities for learning, and parent community involvement) among middle school
teachers.
The study also indicated that there was a statistically significant positive
relationship between all seven factors associated with school effectiveness (instructional
leadership, clear & focused mission, safe & orderly environment, high expectations,
frequent assessment and monitoring o f student achievement, maximum opportunities for
learning, and parent community involvement) and the overall school effectiveness rating
among middle school teachers.
45
Table 4
Middle School Level_________________________________________________
Subscale
High Expectations
Frequent Monitoring
Supervision
Colleagues
Work Itself
Responsibility
Working Conditions
Pay
Advancement
Security
Recognition
.018
.062
-.060
-.068
.270
-.138
-.394
.319
.176
.437*
.778**
.431*
.561**
-.414
.582**
.401
1
-.094
.877**
.932**
.871**
7 9 4 **
.652**
.915**
.655**
-.269
-.428*
-.392
- .0 2 2
.066
-.024
.206
-.225
.031
-.094
1
**Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

46
Hypothesis 3
effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction among high school teachers (n = 43). Results of
the bivariate Pearson correlation (r = -.180) were not significant (p = .435) at the .05
alpha level between school effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction among high school
teachers. Therefore the null hypothesis was accepted.
The findings o f the study showed a statistically significant positive relationship
between seven out of the nine subscales o f the TJSQ (supervision, colleagues, work itself,
working conditions, pay, advancement, and recognition) and the overall teacher job
satisfaction rating among high school teachers as indicated in Table 5. Responsibility and
recognition were not significantly related to teacher job satisfaction among high school
teachers. In addition, the study revealed that there was not a significant a relationship
between overall teacher job satisfaction and any o f the seven school effectiveness factors
opportunities for learning, and parent community involvement) among high school
teachers.
The study also indicated that there was a statistically significantly high positive
relationship between the all seven factors associated with school effectiveness
opportunities for learning, and parent community involvement) and the overall school
effectiveness rating among high school teachers. None o f the nine subscales o f the TJSQ
47
were significantly related to the overall school effectiveness rating among high school
teachers.
48
Table 5
High School Level___________________________________________________
Subscale
High Expectations
Frequent Monitoring
Supervision
Colleagues
Work Itself
Responsibility
Working Conditions
Pay
Advancement
Security
Recognition
.142
-.011
.075
.275
.350
.250
-.011
.896**
.542*
.611**
.298
.781**
.548*
.577**
-.419
.692**
1
.180
.996**
.811**
.850**
.921**
.826**
.838**
.924**
.256
- .0 2 0
-.016
-.416
.003
.338
.157
-.051
.123
.180
**Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

49
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents conclusions related to the study. A discussion o f the results
and recommendations for further research are also presented. Additionally, conclusions
are rendered based on the results from the findings o f the study.
Mississippi. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between school
Mississippi. Three hypotheses were proposed and tested in this study. The first
hypothesis indicated that there is no relationship between school effectiveness and
teacher job satisfaction among elementary school teachers. The second hypothesis stated
that there is no relationship between school effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction
among middle school teachers. The final hypothesis postulated that there is no
relationship between school effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction among high school
teachers.
Conclusions
The findings o f this research revealed that school effectiveness was not
significantly related to teachers job satisfaction among teachers in elementary, middle,
and high schools examined in this study. Statistical tests, factor analysis and multivariate
correlational analyses procedures, were not utilized to test the significance levels o f the
three stated hypotheses. Bivariate analyses, namely Pearson r correlations, were the only
50
statistical analysis required to test the relationship between the two variables examined in
the three hypotheses o f the study.
Discussion o f Results
Three hypotheses were examined in this study. The criterion variable for all three
hypotheses was school effectiveness. All three null hypotheses failed to be rejected. The
following paragraphs provide a discussion o f the findings based on each hypothesis.
The first hypothesis examined the relationship between school effectiveness and
teacher job satisfaction among elementary school teachers. The results o f this study found
no significant relationship between school effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction
among elementary school teachers. Chase (1997) in a study designed to examine if
differences existed in sources o f support between beginning elementary teachers in more
and less effective schools, found statistically significant differences between levels of
support for teachers in the more effective schools as compared to the less effective
schools. Based on these findings, consideration should be given to examine the effect that
levels o f perceived support among elementary teachers have on teachers job satisfaction
and school effectiveness levels at the elementary level.
The second hypothesis examined the relationship between school effectiveness
and teacher job satisfaction among middle school teachers. The results o f this study found
no significant relationship between school effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction
among middle school teachers. Subbs (1995) conducted a recent study that examined
differences in perceptions o f school effectiveness among teachers at the middle and high
school levels. Subbs noted in the study that statistical differences were found on two of
the seven correlates o f Effective Schools Research; instructional leadership and
51
parent/community involvement. Knox (1995) also contended in a study that middle

school teachers show more satisfaction with parent/community relationships, satisfying
relationships between principal, students and teachers, physical surroundings, and their
salaries and benefits than senior high school teachers. These noted differences and
commonalities indirectly affect teachers perceptions o f school effectiveness; therefore,
this analysis might lead one to suggest that in future studies teacher and school
characteristics should be considered in relation to the constructs; school effectiveness and
teacher job satisfaction.
The third and final hypothesis examined the relationship between school
effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction among high school teachers. The results o f this
study found no significant relationship between school effectiveness and teacher job
satisfaction among high school teachers. Knox (1995) concluded that as senior high
schools become increasingly specialized and departmentalized, principals may be viewed
as having less expert power. Knox further postulated that in schools where up to
66%
of
high school teachers are considered specialists in their fields o f certification, principals
need more specific knowledge to be considered expert. While teacher satisfaction and job
satisfaction may or may not hinge solely on a teachers perception o f the level of
expertise on the part o f the administrator, the relationship between the principal and
faculty has been linked to school effectiveness. Taff (1997) also argued that perceptions
o f a principals role behavior affect a schools level o f effectiveness or perceived level of
effectiveness. Based on these findings, the researcher suggests that further study of
principals leadership behavior/communication style be considered and examined in
52
concert with the constructs o f school effectiveness and teachers job satisfaction at the
high school level.
Recommendations
The researcher encourages future study o f school effectiveness within the school
setting by providing five recommendations. The five areas of interest resulting from this
study are discussed in this section.
1.
Studies that examine school effectiveness as measured by the correlates of
Effective Schools Research are few in number to date (Lezotte, et al, 1997). Standardized
test scores have been the dominant measure o f a schools educational effectiveness for
several decades, as well as, more recently under the No Child Left Behind legislation and
the Mississippi Performance - Based Accreditation System. This body o f research (e.g.,
Lamendola, 2002 ; Langford, 2002 ; Allen, 1996) that originally and currently focuses on
using the results from standardized achievement tests overlooks a variety o f factors that
constitute effectiveness (Subbs, 1995). The researcher proposes that the variable
administrators satisfaction be examined in concert with school effectiveness.
2.
Secondly, there is a limited amount of research that evaluates teachers job
satisfaction in relation to school effectiveness as measured by the correlates o f effective

schools research. Zigarella (1996) has postulated that further research is needed to
examine teachers job satisfaction in relation to school effectiveness especially in rural
educational settings.
3.
The findings in this study can be generalized only to teachers in a rural
educational organization in northern Mississippi. Therefore, it is recommended that the

study be replicated in various geographical regions o f Mississippi that include the
53
metropolitan areas and perhaps other southern states as well. In, addition, McClung
(1995) recommended that a study should be conducted to determine factors that act as
satisfactors and dissatisfactors for teachers in Northeast Mississippi, as well as in a
geographical area with a demographic composition different from Northeast Mississippi.
4.
A study to examine the relationship between administrators effectiveness and
school effectiveness may be warranted. Barth (1991,2002) concluded that the principal is
key to a good school, the most decisive factor in determining whether teachers grow and
are satisfied on the job, and the most potent factor in determining school climate. Subbs
(1995) has argued that the educational leadership o f the principal is, perhaps, the most
notable characteristic of school effectiveness. Subbs further argued that more work is
needed in this area to enhance the original indicators o f school effectiveness.
5.
A future study could be conducted to examine the possible effects and
relationships that school and teacher characteristic data has on the teachers perceptions
o f job satisfaction and school effectiveness at the various levels being; elementary,
middle and high schools.
54
References
Algaier, C.J. (2003). Job satisfaction, leadership styles, and teaching practices
among CNMI public elementary school teachers (Commonwealth o f the
Northern Mariana Islands). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
o f San Diego.
Allen, R.W. (1996). A comparison o f school effectiveness and student
achievement fo r schools in Arkansas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University o f Arkansas.
Amoroso, P.F. (2002). The impact o f principals transformational leadership
behaviors on teacher commitment and teacher jo b satisfaction.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seton Hall University.
Balcerek, E.B. (1999). Principals effective leadership practice in highperforming and inadequately performing schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University o f Tennessee.
Barker, Joel (1991). The power o f vision (Videocassette recording)
JoelBarker.com (2005).
Barth, R. (1991). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barth, R. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barth, R. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 1-6.
Bennett, N. (1992). Managing learning in the primary classroom. (ASPE Paper
No. 1, Stroke), Trentham Books.
Black, S. (1998). Parent Support. School Board Journal, 85.
55
Bobbett, J.J. (2001). School culture, teacher efficacy, and decision-making in

demonstrably effective and ineffective schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Louisiana State University.
Bramburg, J. (1994). Raising expectations to improve student learning. Oak
Brook, Illinois: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Brenner, D.B. (2003). Teacher jo b satisfaction in a reform environment: The
influence o f job dimensions, psychological states, school characteristics,
and teacher characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
o f Louisville.
Burford, M.E. (2001). Leadership proficiencies fo r effective elementary school
principals: Perceptions o f principals and teachers in St. Louis County
Schools (Missouri). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis
University.
Caswell, C.J. (2003). Personalizing the school environment: Teacher-based
advisory programs that support student adjustment and academic
outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University o f Rhode Island.
Chase, D. (1997). A comparison o f sources o f support fo r beginning teachers in
more and less effective schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University o f Maryland.
Clouse, S. (1999). Influence o f middle school teaming on new teachers efficacy
and jo b satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Colorado at Denver
Colbert, J. & Wolfe, D. (1992). Surviving in urban schools. Journal o f Teacher

Education, 43, 193-199.
Coleman, J.S. (1966). Equality o f educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US
Department o f Health Education and Welfare, US Government Printing
Office.
Coney, F. (1990). School Effectiveness Characteristics and Indicators
Questionnaire.
Coney, J.L. (2004). Satisfaction in workplace domains and burnout o f special
education teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Denver.
Davidson, J.J. (2000). The relationship between teacher perceptions o f high
school climate and selected characteristics o f effective schools as defined
by the state o f Oklahoma. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oral Roberts
University.
Dinham, S. (1994). Enhancing the quality o f teacher satisfaction. Paper presented
at the National Conference o f the Australian College o f Education,
Launceston, Tasmania, Australia, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
NO. ED380409).
Ediger, M. (1996). Sequence and Scope in the Curriculum. Education. 116(5$).
Edmonds, R. R., (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational
Leadership, 37(2), 15-24.
Epps, C.D. (2002). Examining the leadership impact o f a principal on student
achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Roosevelt University.
57
Fussell, H.H. (2002). The relationship between teachers demographic and their
perceptions o f job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Tennessee State University.
Gary, K.E. (2002). Teacher retention: An analysis o f selected altruistic and
practical motivators as contributors to teacher jo b satisfaction.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University o f Central Florida.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A Place Called School. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hart, A. (1990). Managing school development: The role o f the administrator. In
Reyes, P. (ed.), Teachers and their workplace: Commitment, performance
and productivity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hoachlander, G. (1998). Techniques: Making Education and Career Connections,
Assessing Assessment, 72( 14).
Holder, B.J. (2003). Effects o f block scheduling and specific demographic factors
on teacher jo b satisfaction among small secondary schools in Arkansas.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Louisiana Tech University.
Johnston, R.H. (1991). The relationship between jo b satisfaction o f Colorado
middle school teachers and selected school and teacher characteristics.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Southern Mississippi.
Kardos, S.M. (2004). Supporting and sustaining new teachers in schools: The
importance o f professional culture and mentoring. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Harvard University.
Kim, I. & Loadman, W. (1994). Predicting teacher jo b satisfaction. Columbus,
OH: Ohio State University Press.
58
Knox, K.A. (1995). Teacher satisfaction: Consideration o f career stage, gender,

and school setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State
University.
Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kulisch, A. & Whittenbury, E. (1998). Creating harassment free schools.
Thrust fo r Educational Leadership, 85.
Lamendola, B. (2002). Effective school correlates in high performing, high
poverty elementary schools in a large urban district in New York state.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Rochester.
Langford, L.R. (2002). The relationship between student academic achievement
and variables associated with school effectiveness in the Mississippi
public school system (Doctoral dissertation, University o f Mississippi,
2002). Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3058209)
Lapin, T. (2003). Job satisfaction and intention to remain in the profession among
elementary teachers in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania). Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Saint Josephs University.
Lester, P.E. (1984). Development o f an instrument to measure teacher jo b
satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1984).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3592A.
Lezotte, L. (1997). Learning fo r all. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products,
Ltd.
59
Lezotte, L. (1991). Correlates o f effective schools: The first and second

generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd.
Madison, LA. (2002). The effect o f supervisor level o f authority and leadership
style on elementary school climate and teacher jo b satisfaction.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers State University.
Martino, A.M. (2003). Leadership style, teacher empowerment, and jo b
satisfaction in public elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Saint Johns University.
McClung, J. D. (1995). School organization, school climate, and student
outcomes: A study o f middle schools in Northeast Mississippi.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Mississippi.
McKay, W.P. (2000). Nationally recognized superintendents: Perceptions on
how they lead in relation to the characteristics o f effective schools
research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Nevada at
Las Vegas.
McKenzie, M.N. (2003). An examination o f the relationship among and
between teacher satisfaction, school funding, and student achievement in
North Carolina. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f North
Carolina at Charlotte.
Mississippi Department o f Education (2004). Selected statistics on Mississippi
public education. Jackson, MS: MDOE.
60
Mitchell-Lee, C. (2001). Teacher perceptions o f factors impacting on student

achievement in effective and less effective urban elementary schools.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.
Mortimore, P., Simmons, P., & Stoll, L. (1998). School matters: The junior
years. Wells: Open Books.
Murphy, J. (1989). The principal and instructional leadership: Advances in
instructional leadership. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Myers, S.E. (2001). The principal as a key factor in teacher jo b satisfaction:
Elementary teachers perceptions o f leadership behaviors and their effect
on teacher jo b satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia
State University.
Nicholson, J.L. (2003). An exploration o f the ability to predict student
achievement from leadership behaviors, teacher jo b satisfaction, and
socioeconomic status. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. George
Washington University.
Olivier, D. F. (2001). Teacher personal and school culture characteristics in
effective schools: Toward a model o f a professional learning community.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.
Omatani, B. & Omatani, L. (1996). Expect the best: How your teachers can
help all students learn. The Executive Educator, 18(8 ).
Peck, B.J. (2002). A high school principals challenge: Toward work
environments that enhance new teacher satisfaction and retention.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Wisconsin - Madison.
61
Ranta, R.S. (2001). Implementation levels of, supports and barriers to, and
influence o f the essential characteristics o f effective middle schools in New
Jersey Blue Ribbon middle schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Seton Hall University.
Rice, J.K. (2003). A causal, dispositional model o f common personal
characteristics associated with teacher job satisfaction. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University o f Southern California.
Roman-Oertwig, S. (2004). Teacher resilience and jo b satisfaction. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University o f North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Rupp, M.S. (2000). Expanding the concept o f effective schools: Measuring the
instructional environment fo r learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University o f Kentucky.
Schein, E. (1996). Leadership and organizational culture. In The Drucker
Foundation (Ed.), The Leader o f the Future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schweitzer, J. (1984). Characteristics o f effective schools. Paper presented at
the American Educational Association Conference.
Scott, C. (2003). Organizational effectiveness: Its relationship to teacher efficacy
and school climate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. Johns
University.
Sentovich, C. (2004). Teacher satisfaction in public, private, and charter schools:
A multi-level analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
South Florida.
62
Sergiovanni, T. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice. Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart o f school
improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shann, M. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in
urban middle schools. Journal o f Education Research, 92(2).
Shinn, H. & Reyes, P. (1995). Teacher commitment and job satisfaction: A causal
analysis. Journal o f School Leadership, 5(1), 22-39.
Siluik, M. (1997). What do parents and teachers think about educational
reform. The Journal o f Educational Relations, 18(2).
Smith, M. (1993). The role o f high-stakes testing in school reform. National
Education Association. 8-9.
Smothers, B. (1998). Effective school research. Class lecture at the University of
Mississippi.
Spero, S.D. (2004). An examination o f teacher perceptions o f school effectiveness
in relation to the state o f Floridas school improvement and accountability
system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Southern
Mississippi.
Stephens, R. (1999). School safety leadership curriculum guide. Westlake
Village: National School Safety Center Publication.
Stiggins, R. J. Assessment, student confidence, and school success.
Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 191-198.
Subbs, J. (1995). Differences in perceptions o f school effectiveness at the middle

and high school levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida.
Taff, B.C. (1997). Teacher perceptions o f principal role behavior and school
effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 1984).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3592A.
Taylor, A.W. (1997). Factors affecting retention o f teachers in the teaching
profession. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
Terry, E. (2002). The relationship between teacher jo b satisfaction and class size
in early elementary classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Eastern Michigan University
Tilin, F.J. (1997). The relationship between faculty groups and school
effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.
Wasserstein, P. (1995). What middle schoolers say about their school work.
Educational Leadership, 5 3 ,41-43.
Wessells, P.T. (2001). A study o f teacher jo b satisfaction as indicated by teachers
and their principals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George
Washington University.
Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that
matter most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
White, J.V. (2002). Teacher jo b satisfaction in middle-level schools. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University o f Southern Mississippi.
64
Wong, H. & Wong, R. (1991). The first days o f school. Sunnyvale, CA: Harry K.
Wong Publications.
Zigarelli, M. (1996). An empirical test o f conclusions from effective schools
research. Journal o f Educational Research, 90(2).
65
APPENDIX A
TEACHER JOB SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
66
__________ Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire__________

Directions: The following statements refer to organizational factors that can influence
the way a teacher feels about his/her job. These factors are related to teaching and to the
individuals perception of the job situation. When answering the following statements,
fill in the circle which represents the degree to which you agree or disagree with the
statement.
On a scale o f 1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree, fill in the circle o f the number
that best describes your answer. _________ _________ _________ ___________________
Strongly
Disagree
1. Teaching provides me with an
opportunity to advance
professionally.
2. Teacher income is adequate for
normal expenses.
3. Teaching provides an opportunity
to use a variety of skills.
4. Insufficient income keeps me from
living the way I want to live.
5. My immediate supervisor turns
one teacher against another.
6. No one tells me that I am a good
teacher.
7. The work of a teacher consists of
routine activities.
8 .1 am not getting ahead in my
present teaching position.
9. Working conditions in my school
can be improved.
10.1 receive recognition from my
immediate supervisor.
11.1 do not have the freedom to
make my own decisions.
12. My immediate supervisor offers
suggestions to improve my teaching.
13. Teaching provides for a secure
future.
14.1 receive full recognition for my
successful teaching.
15.1 get along well with my
colleagues.
16. The administration in my school
does not clearly define its policies.
17. My immediate supervisor gives
me assistance when I need help.
are comfortable.
19. Teaching provides me the
opportunity to help my students
learn.
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
67
Strongly
Disagree
2 0 .1 like the people with whom I
work.
21. Teaching provides limited
opportunities for advancement.
22. My students respect me as a
teacher.
2 3 .1 am afraid of losing my teaching
job.
24. My immediate supervisor does
not back me up.
25. Teaching is very interesting
work.
could not be worse.
27. Teaching discourages originality.
28. The administration in my school
communicates its policies well.
2 9 .1 never feel secure in my teaching
job.
30. Teaching does not provide me the
chance to develop new methods.
31. My immediate supervisor treats
everyone equitably.
32. My colleagues stimulate me to do
better work.
33.Teaching provides an opportunity
for promotion.
3 4 .1 am responsible for planning my
daily lessons.
35. Physical surroundings in my
school are unpleasant.
3 6 .1 am well paid in proportion to
my ability.
37. My colleagues are highly critical
of one another.
3 8 .1 do have responsibility for my
teaching.
39. My colleagues provide me with
suggestions or feedback about my
teaching.
40. My immediate supervisor
provides assistance for improving
instruction.
4 1 .1 do not get cooperation from the
people I work with.
42. Teaching encourages me to be
creative.
43. My immediate supervisor is not
willing to listen to suggestions.
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
68
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
44. Teacher income is barely enough

to live on.
4 5 .1 am indifferent toward teaching.
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
46. The work of a teacher is very

pleasant.
4 7 .1 receive too many meaningless
instructions from my immediate
supervisor.
4 8 .1 dislike the people with whom I
work.
4 9 .1 receive too little recognition.
50. Teaching provides a good

opportunity for advancement.
51. My interests are similar to those
of my colleagues.
5 2 .1 am not responsible for my
actions.
53. My immediate supervisor makes
available the material I need to do
my best.
5 4 .1 have made lasting friendships
among my colleagues.
are good.
56. My immediate supervisor makes
me feel uncomfortable.
57. Teacher income is less than I
deserve.
5 8 .1 try to be aware of the policies of
my school.
59. When I teach a good lesson, my
immediate supervisor notices.
60. My immediate supervisor
explains what is expected of me.
61. Teaching provides me with
financial security.
62. My immediate supervisor praises
good teaching.
6 3 .1 am not interested in the policies
of my school.
6 4 .1 get along well with my students.
ffi
65. Pay compares with similar jobs in

other school districts.
66. My colleagues seem
unreasonable to me.
Agree
69
Strongly
Agree
A P P E N D IX B
SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS CHARACTERISTICS AND INDICATORS

QUESTIONNAIRE
70
________________School Effectiveness Survey______________

Directions: The following questionnaire is designed to give teachers the opportunity to
provide information about how they perceive their school in relation to characteristics
that describe effective schools. When answering the following statements, fill in the
circle which represents the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement.
On a scale of 1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree, fill in the circle o f the number
that best describes your answer.
_________ _________ _________ ______ ___________
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1. Administrators are knowledgeable of
the school and district curriculum.
2. Frequent communication occurs
between faculty and administration.
3. Instructional decisions for the school
are based on community, teacher, and
central administration input.
4. The principal is involved in the
instructional process.
5. The principal and teachers make
instructional effectiveness the highest
priority in the school.
6. The principal assumes leadership for
improving the instructional program.
7. Administrators complete fair and
meaningful evaluations of each
employee.
8. The principal encourages teachers to
participate in leadership roles.
9. A school plan for the year exists
which includes goals and objectives.
10. The school plan is developed with
teachers and community members.
11. Important social trends are
considered in the school planning.
12. Teachers and students are aware of
school purposes and goals.
13. The goals o f teachers are consistent
with the school and district goals.
14. Teachers communicate instructional
goals to students.
15. The school plan is revised,
monitored, and reviewed periodically.
16. School conduct rules and
procedures are taught along with other
skills.
17. Disciplinary procedures are
implemented in a fair and consistent
manner.
18. Parents are involved in and support
school discipline practices.
Disagree
Agree
71
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
19. The physical plant is clean and well
maintained.
20. Appropriate safety principles are
taught and practiced.
21. Expectations are high, appropriate,
and achievable.
22. Expectations are communicated to
faculty, support staff, students, and
parents.
23. Success is expected of all students
regardless of social or cultural
differences.
24. Expectations for students are based
on knowledge o f students and their
previous performance.
25. High expectations are consistently
maintained over time.
26. Student performance is regularly
monitored.
27. Student performance is monitored
in a variety of ways.
28. Assessment data are used to
improve the schools program.
29. Student progress is regularly
reported to parents.
30. Student assessment data are
monitored to modify instruction to
promote student learning.
31. Students are regularly informed of
their progress.
32. Appropriate instructional time is
maximized.
33. Disruptions to instruction are
minimized
34. Transitions are effectively
managed.
35. Extracurricular and supplemental
activities support instruction.
36. The curriculum is varied to
accommodate needs, interests, and
abilities of students.
37. Cooperative learning opportunities
are provided.
38. Parents actively participate in
establishing school policies and
procedures.
39. Parents actively participate in
school activities.
40. Effective and frequent
communication occurs with parents.
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
72
Strongly
Disagree
41. Community resources are used to
support the schools program.
42. Social services from available
outside agencies are effectively
utilized.
43. Parents are encouraged to support
the instructional activities of the school.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
73
APPENDIX C
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
74
O ffice of Research
and Sponsored Programs
125 Old Chemistry
Post Office Box 907
University, MS 38677-0907
(662) 915-7482
Fax: (662) 915-7577
The
University of Mississippi
Oxford Jackson Tupelo Southaven
June 8, 2004
Mr. Charles Dodson
7419 Parks Place Road
Como, MS 38619
Dr. Bobbie Smothers

Educational Leadership
University, MS 38677
Dear Mr. Dodson and Dr. Smothers:

This is to inform you that your application to conduct research with human subjects, The Relationship
between School Effectiveness and Teachers Job Satisfaction in North Mississippi Schools (Protocol No.
04-159), has been approved under the Exempt category.
Please send the IRB a signed M ultiple Project Assurance Form from a school before you recruit
from that school.
If you have not already done so, please read the Multiple Project Assurance o f Compliance with DHHS
Regulations fo r Protection o f Human Research Subjects which outlines the universitys policies and
procedures regarding human subject research and explains your responsibilities as a research
investigator (http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/research/irb/assurance.htm). The following sections are
especially relevant:
Research investigators acknowledge and accept their responsibility fo r protecting the rights
and welfare o f human research subjects an dfor complying with all applicable provisions o f
this Assurance.
Research investigators will prom ptly report proposed changes in previously approved human
subject research activities to the IRB. The proposed changes will not be initiated without IRB
review and approval, except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the
subjects.
Research investigators will prom ptly report to the IRB any injuries or other unanticipated
problems involving risks to subjects or others.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call Diane Lindley, IRB Coordinator, at (662) 915-6534.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Lombardo, Ph.D.

Member, Institutional Review Board
Director, Office o f Research Integrity & Compliance
75
A Great American Public University
w w w .olem iss.edu
h ttp :// w w w .o lem iss.ed u /d ep ts/research
APPENDIX D
COVER LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS
76
December 2004
Dear Superintendent,
My name is Charles Dodson and I am the principal at Oxford Middle School and a doctoral
candidate in the Educational Leadership program at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS.
I am seeking your assistance to help me gather necessary data for my research study from
teachers in north Mississippi. The specific area of interest to me is examining a possible
relationship between teachers job satisfaction and school effectiveness in Mississippi schools.
My study requires ten participants from one school in your school district. Upon your approval, I
will request that the principal mail or fax me a roster that includes the name of each teacher
employed at the school selected from your district. Upon receipt of the roster of teachers, ten
teachers from the selected school will be randomly selected to participate in the study. Five
teachers will be asked to complete the school effectiveness questionnaire and the other five will
be asked to complete the teacher job satisfaction questionnaire.
This study presents no risk to you or any staff member in the district. The teachers responses will
be kept confidential as no names are used and no schools will be identified by name in the
dissertation. Returned surveys will only be reviewed and utilized by me in a secured location and
will be destroyed after the study is completed. Upon completion of the study, a copy of the study
findings will be mailed to you for your review of the results of collective perceptions of the
participants.
Thank you in advance for your assistance and participation in this research project, which may
provide administrators with valuable and timely information as we work toward organizational
and school improvement. If questions shall arise relative to this project, please feel free to
contact:
Charles Dodson
501 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: (662) 234 -2288
Fax:
(662) 234 - 0235
Email: ckdodso 1@olemiss.edu
Dr. Bobbie Smothers, Ed.D.

Educational Leadership Department
Guyton Hall
Telephone: (662) 915-7069
Email: smothers@olemiss.edu
or
Sincerely,
Charles Dodson
Principal, Oxford Middle School
Doctoral Student, University of Mississippi
77
A P P E N D IX E
PERSONAL LETTERS TO PRINCIPALS/ASSISTANT PRINICIPALS
78
January 2005
Dear Administrator,
candidate in the Educational Leadership program at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS.
teachers in north Mississippi. The specific area of interest to me is examining a possible
relationship between teachers job satisfaction and school effectiveness in Mississippi schools.
My study requires ten participants from your school. I am requesting a roster of the teachers
employed at your school; the roster should include each teachers name. I ask that you fax the
following items: (1) a roster that includes the names of the teachers at your school and (2) a
signed and dated copy of the Single Project Assurance form. Upon receipt of the roster of
teachers and the Single Project Assurance form, ten teachers from your school will be selected to
participate in the study. Five teachers will be asked to complete the school effectiveness
questionnaire and the other five will be asked to complete the teacher job satisfaction
questionnaire.
Participation in this study has been approved by your superintendents office. It presents no risk
to you or your staff. The teachers names, responses and school identification will be kept
confidential. Returned surveys will only be reviewed and utilized by me in a secured location
and will be destroyed after the study is completed. Upon completion of the study, a copy of the
study findings will be mailed to you for your review.
Thank you in advance for your assistance and participation in this research project, which may
provide administrators with valuable and timely information as we work toward organizational
and school improvement. If questions shall arise relative to this project, please feel free to
contact:
Charles Dodson
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: (662) 234 -2288
Fax:
(662) 234 - 0235
Email: ckdodsol@olemiss.edu

Guyton Hall
Telephone: (662) 915-7069
or
Sincerely,
Charles Dodson
Doctoral Student, University of Mississippi
79
January 2005
Dear School Administrator,

candidate in the Educational Leadership program at the University o f Mississippi in Oxford, MS.
teachers state-wide. The specific area o f interest to me is examining a possible relationship
between teachers job satisfaction and school effectiveness in Mississippi schools.
My study requires ten participants from your school. I have included ten teacher packets in this
mailing. Five packets contain surveys that will assess teacher job satisfaction and the other five
packets contain surveys that will assess school effectiveness. Please consider m y request that you
give these ten packets to ten teachers in your school. The teacher packets are self-explanatory and
easy to complete. Upon the teachers completion o f the surveys, I ask that you will collect the ten
teacher packets, enclose the packets in the selfaddressed envelope provided and drop the ten
completed packets in the mail within a few days.
Also included in this mailing is an Assurance o f Compliance document, which is stapled, and
an extra page 5 from that document. If you will allow your teachers to participate in the study and
plan on handing out the enclosed packets for me, please sign by the X on the enclosed
individual page five o f the Assurance document. Please place the signed page five in the
enclosed self - addressed stamped envelope and drop it in the mail. I will fill out all the other
blanks for you. Only return the enclosed extra page five; the stapled document is yours to keep.
The Assurance document does not obligate you or your teachers in any way. I will only be able
to include any completed packet from your teachers i f the Assurance document is on file with
the IRB office on the campus o f the University o f Mississippi. I questions should arise, please do
not hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance for assisting me in my research, which may
provide us administrators with valuable information as w e work toward organizational and school
improvement.
Charles Dodson
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: (662) 234 -2288
Email: ckdodsol@ olemiss.edu

Guyton Hall
Telephone: (662) 915-7069
or
Sincerely,
Charles Dodson
Doctoral Student, University o f Mississippi
80
APPENDIX F
COVER LETTER TO TEACHERS
81
February 2005
Dear Teacher,
candidate in the Educational Leadership program at the University o f Mississippi in Oxford, MS.
teachers in north Mississippi. The specific area o f interest to me is examining a possible
relationship between teachers job satisfaction and school effectiveness in north Mississippi
schools.
You have been selected as one o f the participants in this study. Please consider my request that
you take a few minutes to complete the two instruments enclosed in this packet. Upon the
completion o f the surveys, I ask that you enclose the completed surveys in the secure selfaddressed envelope provided and turn it in to the office.
Participation in this study is strictly voluntary and presents no risk to you. Thank you in advance
for assisting me in my research, which may provide administrators with valuable information as
they work toward organizational and school improvement. Please feel free to contact me if any
questions should arise relative to this project.
Charles Dodson
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: (662) 234 -2288
Email: ckdodsol@ olemiss.edu

Guyton Hall
Telephone: (662) 915-7069
or
Sincerely,
Charles Dodson
82
APPENDIX G
REMINDER LETTERS TO PRINCIPALS/ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS
83
February 2005

I wanted to thank you for considering my request to hand out the ten teacher packets that I mailed
to you a few weeks ago. At this time, I have not received any o f the packets from your school. If
you plan to hand out the teacher packets on my behalf, I would greatly appreciate you doing so
within the next few days. I will begin compiling the information soon as I proceed through the
dissertation process. If you have handed out the packets and they crossed this letter in the mail I
would appreciate your timely attention to my request. Again, I want to thank you for your
assistance in helping me to achieve my goal.
Charles Dodson
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: (662) 234 -2288

Guyton Hall
Telephone: (662) 915-7069
or
Sincerely,
Charles Dodson
84
February 2005

I wanted to thank you for considering my request to hand out the ten teacher packets that I mailed
to you a few weeks ago. I have received the packets from your school but I have not received the
IRB signature form from you. I am enclosing another form for your convenience. If you would
please sign the form and return it to me, I would greatly appreciate your assistance. I cannot use
the packets returned to me by your teachers with your signature on the enclosed form. If you
would prefer to fax the form to me please fax it to (662) 234 - 0235, attention Charles Dodson. If
questions should arise relative to this please feel free to contact me. Again, I want to thank you
for your timely attention to my request and for helping me to achieve my goal.
Charles Dodson
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: (662) 234 -2288

Guyton Hall
Telephone: (662) 915-7069
or
Sincerely,
Charles Dodson
85
APPENDIX H
SURVEY PERMISSION LETTERS
86
Long Island University

C.W. Post Campus
Department of Educational Administration and Leadership
720 Northern Boulevard
Brookville, NY 11548
April 23,2004
Charles K. Dodson
7419 Parks Place Road
Como, MS 38619
Dear Charles:
Thank you very much for your interest in the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire that I
developed and validated. Your research sounds very interesting and I think that it will make a real
contribution to the field.
You have my written permission to use the TJSQ in your study and to make as many copies of the
TJSQ as needed for your study. When you complete your research, please send me a copy of your
results.
If I may be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Paula E. Lester, Ph.D.

Professor
87
ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

P.O. Box 271
32802-0271
Orlando, Florida
407.317.3200
445 W. Amelia Street

32801-1127
May 6, 2004
Mr. Charles K. Dodson

Oxford Middle School Principal
501 Martin Luther King Drive
Oxford, Mississippi 38655
Dear Mr. Dodson:
Please fell free to use the School Effectiveness surveys in your dissertation. I have enclosed a
copy of each version for your information. I hope they will meet your needs. I did check and we
have an old review guide for the surveys, but we have not used it recently. Our schools that use
the surveys feel pretty comfortable with the results. I have included a copy for you for any use it
may be to you.
Best wishes in your research. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
(407)317-3201.
Sincerely,
2_ -
j<
Lee Baldwin, Ph.D.

Senior Director
Accountability, Research, and Assessment
T h e Orange County School Board is an equal opportunity agency
VITA
Charles Kevin Dodson was bom in Marks, Mississippi on July 27,1968. He
graduated from North Panola High School in May 1986. Upon graduation Charles
entered Northwest Community College and received the Associate o f Arts degree in May
1988. In August 1994 he entered Mississippi Valley State University and in May 1997 he
received a Bachelor o f Science degree in Elementary Education. In June 1998 he entered
the University o f Mississippi and received a Master o f Education degree in Educational
Leadership in December 1999. In June 2000 he reentered the University o f Mississippi
and received a Specialist Degree in Educational Leadership in December 2001. In June
2002 he reentered the University of Mississippi and in May 2005 he received a Doctor of
Philosophy degree.
Charles is presently employed as a Principal in the Oxford School District at the
Oxford Middle School. Prior to his present employment, he worked as a high school
assistant principal and elementary school teacher.
Charles lives in Como, Mississippi with his wife, Wanda, and their two sons,
Christopher and Chauntan.
89

Js

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Js

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relationship between School Effectiveness and

Teachers Job Satisfaction in North Mississippi Schools

Charles Kevin Dodson

UMI Number: 3190577

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright Charles Kevin Dodson, 2005

To the Graduate Council:

Dr. Bobbie C. Smothers, Director

We have read this dissertation

Dr. Charles R. Fulton

Chair ana Professor o f Curriculum and Instruction

Dr. Timothy Let:

Accepted for the Council:

Dean o f the Graduate School

Thirdly, I would like to extend my gratitude to the superintendents, administrators

Effective Schools Movement: A Brief Historical Synopsis......................................6

CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................... 50

Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire........................................................... 66

1. Recode and Compute Statements for

2. There is no relationship between school effectiveness and teacher job

School Effectiveness- the general term used to describe the sociological

In one o f his most recent works,

According to Bennet (1994) organized abandonment requires that teachers

Student progress must be consistently monitored with a variety of

smaller districts tend to be more focused on instructional leadership type behaviors as

included: interactions with students, interactions with colleagues, professional challenges,

buildings, supplies, maintenance, and communication. The result o f Wessells study

teacher job satisfaction is significantly and positively influenced by lower teacher-pupil

In a recent study designed to identify the strategies that were instrumental in

graders in 1992 (second follow-up) to measure student achievement. A total o f 24,599

There were 29,166 teachers in Mississippi with an average o f 13.59 years of

V5 + V10 + V12 + V17 + V24 + V31 + V 40 +

School Effectiveness Instrument

Item Numbers on Teacher Questionnaire

2. Clear and Focused Mission

3. Safe and Orderly Environment

5. Frequent Assessment Monitoring o f Student Achievement

6. Maximum Opportunities for Learning (Time on Task)

The findings of the study showed a statistically significant positive relationship

Teacher Job Satisfaction

** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

Teacher Job Satisfaction

**Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

Teacher Job Satisfaction

**Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

parent/community involvement. Knox (1995) also contended in a study that middle

Studies that examine school effectiveness as measured by the correlates of

Secondly, there is a limited amount of research that evaluates teachers job

satisfaction in relation to school effectiveness as measured by the correlates o f effective

The findings in this study can be generalized only to teachers in a rural

educational organization in northern Mississippi. Therefore, it is recommended that the

A study to examine the relationship between administrators effectiveness and

A future study could be conducted to examine the possible effects and

Bobbett, J.J. (2001). School culture, teacher efficacy, and decision-making in

Colbert, J. & Wolfe, D. (1992). Surviving in urban schools. Journal o f Teacher

Knox, K.A. (1995). Teacher satisfaction: Consideration o f career stage, gender,

Lezotte, L. (1991). Correlates o f effective schools: The first and second

Mitchell-Lee, C. (2001). Teacher perceptions o f factors impacting on student

Sergiovanni, T. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice. Boston: Allyn

Subbs, J. (1995). Differences in perceptions o f school effectiveness at the middle

__________ Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire__________

44. Teacher income is barely enough

46. The work of a teacher is very

50. Teaching provides a good

Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

__School Effectiveness Survey