Prof writing & proposal Devel(DSRT 837)

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Since the launch of Sputnik in the late 1950s, United States politicians, educators, business leaders, and the public in general have been concerned with the issue of education reform. The United States is always in constant competition in the global marketplace (Gettman, 2012). As Daviess (2007) reported, a government report would light the fuse and pave the way for one of the first education reforms lead by Sputnik. Wagner (2006) added that these changes would lead to the passage of the National Defense Education Act. Furthermore, these concerns arose from the growing question of whether American education was strong enough to make the United States a world power and keep up militarily and economically with the rest of the world. Thus, this would place a greater emphasis on American education and what students were doing in their math and science classes (Powell, 2007). Additionally, Montgomery (1994) added, the “wonders of nature” and “science for tomorrow” appeared as common themes on television and in magazines. In order to answer the question of how America could use education to assert itself as world power, lawmakers began evaluating, testing, and disseminating new programs. Johanningmeier (2010) noted in this regard how,

After Sputnik the nation's schools were expected to produce the scientists and engineers the 1955 White House Conference on Education participants, the President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School in 1957, and others had identified as needed. Public schools were to produce the knowledgeable human capital the nation needed to maintain parity with, if not superiority over the Soviet Union in the arms race and then to win the race to the moon (p. 347).

While the initial pressures for education reform came from the outside from countries like the Soviet Union, eventually the United States would decide to have its own barometer for education success and reform.

Soon after Sputnik, the Elementary and Secondary act of 1965 (EASA) would spur another national education reform. Fitzpatrick, Sanders & Worthen (2004) asserted that EASA was the major event that led to the establishment of educational program evaluation requirements and the field of evaluation as a profession. Moreover, EASA offered financial assistance to local education authorities and districts that served areas with concentrations of children from low-income families (Eversley-Gilling, 2011). This change was used to support families and students that were deemed as “At-Risk” and this would begin Title 1 school funding. As education needs of the United States shifted and perceived flaws of the EASA initiative began to shine through, the next education reform, A Nation at Risk, would emerge.

According to Holmes (2012), in 1983, the US government commissioned a study on educational excellence, this study would culminate the report A Nation at Risk. The contents of the report were shocking and surprising for many Americans as the report put it, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war” (A Nation at Risk, 1983). Clearly, the standard of education at the time was in need of attention and reform to protect the American people from falling behind in the global market. While A Nation at Risk would fail to accomplish the entirety of its goals, Hall (2003) remarked about this movement, “There are no children in school today whose education is not shaped by A Nation At Risk” (p. 89). The impact of A Nation at Risk, much like the two prior reforms, revealed improvement in education, but still failed to completely address the problems of making American schooling work.

America would not see its next education reform for nearly another 20 years, until when President George Bush would sign into law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002. Martin (2010) described NCLB as:

Legislation designed to ensure that all children get the best education they can in the least restrictive environment and to ensure that all teachers who work with students meet state standards for ‘highly qualified’ teachers if those states accept education money from the federal government (p. 11).

In her description, she summarized some of the key facets of NCLB whose mission was to bring all students to a standard of proficiency by the year 2014. However, it would later be realized that the bar was set too high in this education reform and some disorganization surrounded the plans, so another education reform would follow in 2009.

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), President Barack Obama allocated 4.35 billion dollars to fuel education efforts as he believed American students were falling behind, or at risk of falling behind the elite status of other countries (Cone-Hernbloom, 2013). This legislature reminded many of the A Nation at Risk legislature from decades before (Neef, 1998). Race to the Top’s intended focus was to ensure the global competitiveness of American students (Korb, 2014). A focal point Americans have heard time and time before. As a matter of fact, “For more than 40 years politicians have cited education as a means to military greatness, social equality, and economic prosperity” (New York Times, 2012).

While constant reform is a trend at the national level, more and more state specific legislatures have begun work in reforming their individual state's education laws. Most notably, the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (KERA) “drastically changed the state's entire educational system in ways of curriculum, governance, and finance” (Hall, 2002, p. iv). Some of the provisions included in KERA (Wright, 2013):

· Increased state sales tax to six percent and approved an additional $1 billion to fund new programs

· Included parent-teacher decision-making councils

· Establishment of preschool programs for disadvantaged children.

· Implementation of family resource and youth services centers in districts with high poverty rates.

· A plan to hold schools directly accountable for student performance.

· Introduced statewide anti-nepotism rules.

The fuel behind these changes came from the landmark Kentucky Supreme Court case Rose v. Council for Better Education that ruled the funding system for Kentucky schools was unconstitutional and was to blame for low education rates in the state (Wright, 2013). This ruling led to the aforementioned reforms provisions, and KERA itself began to serve as somewhat of blueprint for other states and their education reform legislation in later years (Hall, 2002).

KERA’s reign would continue to place a strong hold on Kentucky’s education systems for many years to come, but in 2009 the passage of Senate Bill 1 in the Kentucky state legislature would bring a whole new reform. In order to meet the demands set by the Race to the Top Grant, the state of Kentucky would make complete revisions to their accountability systems. First and foremost, unbridled learning for all launched and completely changed how school report cards would be issued (Senate Bill 1, 2009). Per Senate Bill 1, new testing provisions would be added that would further hold schools accountable for student achievement and student growth (2009). Additionally, Senate Bill 1 called for a revamped teacher evaluation system that would produce the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES) that is based on the Danielson Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2010). This evaluation system would be coupled with new expectations for content standards as the Kentucky Department of Education would roll out the Kentucky Core Academic Standards (2012). As could most likely be predicted, change in education legislature is difficult to swallow for most and much like KERA, many teachers would feel the pressure (Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning Survey, 2016).

With plenty of focus and attention by the nation’s lawmakers on what is not working in today’s schools and reform efforts, little attention is given to the effects on those individuals left to carry out those laws, the teachers. At the end of the day, the teachers in classrooms were the ones responsible for the education of the child; however, they are expected to be in strict compliance with local, state, and federal legislature on the best way to educate (Küçükoğlu, 2013). The issue that arose from this was the lacks of control teachers had on their own work and the exhaustion they experienced from constant education reform laws made by individuals that had never set foot inside a classroom. It was easy to see where the problems were in this vicious cycle.

Burnout studies have been conducted on numerous professions, some including teachers. Lambert, O’Donnell, Kusherman, & McCarthy (2006) explained that teaching is a profession that is emotionally taxing and has the potential to be frustrating. Additionally, non-teaching professions have a turnover rate of 11%; however, 16% of teachers “throw in the towel” every year (Ingersoll, 2002). McCarthy, Lambert, O’Donnell, & Melendres (2009) asserted that teacher study after study repeatedly shows that teaching is a stressful career that often leads to burnout. Additionally, 50 percent of teachers will leave the field by year six due to burnout related symptoms (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004). A frequent theme in burnout research is that the level of burnout of a person experiences in their profession is tied to the level of client they work with (Bousquet, 2012). In teaching, the primary clients are the children present in the classroom, but there are many other factors that can increase teacher burnout rates as Bousquet (2012) explained:

1. The number of hours one works per week contributes to stress

2. Having to work from home in the evenings

3. Time demands that are in addition to the original work agreement are known as “extra role activities.”

4. Poor student achievement

5. Inappropriate student behavior

6. Not having the facilities they need to assist students

7. Spending their own money purchasing supplies for lesson

8. Having no “down time” during the work day and being expected to alert physically and cognitively

9. The No Child Left Behind Act decreased teacher morale by placing “undue emphasis….on state-moderated testing” and neglecting to acknowledge the importance of other aspects of the curriculum

10. Being expected to provide social services to students as many families are failing in parenthood.

The factors listed above should be taken seriously as potential detrimental causes of teacher burnout. Bousquet (2012) also added, not all burnout is preventable and once a teacher starts to show burnout symptoms is not much that can be done to heal. While teacher burnout has been analyzed through the lenses of social environments, personality traits, stress, external factors, and other similar descriptors. It must be considered what is the root of these issues? Has the constant legislature and education reform caused great teachers to leave the teaching profession? As Huk (2011) stated, the current climate of high stakes testing and increased teacher accountability and scrutiny makes it possible for teacher to show stress and burnout symptoms. Ingersoll (2001) and Chermiss (1988) reported many of the causes of teacher burnout are related to student discipline, organizational problems, perceived low teacher pay, and lack of principal support. Finally, Lombardi (1995) asserted, “Teacher burnout has most likely been a contributing factor to teacher turnover, early detection of teacher burnout will help in combating this pervasive problem in education.”

Statement of the Problem

As noted, prior research has indicated that education reform is a constant factor in America’s schools. With each reform, expectations become higher and higher. Moreover, states have begun to initiate their own education reform acts that the legislatures feel are needed to improve upon the individual states education needs. Meanwhile, as these reforms continue to roll out and new demands for 21st century education are emerging, teachers are bearing the brunt of legislators’ legwork. Furthermore, in the past, the state of Kentucky has been seen as a flagship state in the area of education reform beginning with the inception of KERA. While the state continues to make gains in their education ranks, recently being labeled the 17th best in the nation, little has been done to determine if these changes have come at any cost to the state’s education programs and teachers (Bernardo, 2016). Furthermore, while research has been conducted on different facets of Kentucky education reform and its affects on testing, learning, scores, college and career readiness, there has been little to no scholarship of its effects on Kentucky teachers. Therefore, it is necessary to determine to what degree, if any Kentucky’s education reform efforts are leading to burnout for teachers of Kentucky schools.

The Purpose of the Study

This study sought to find out if Kentucky education reform laws have lead to Kentucky teacher burnout and to determine what facets have specifically lead to teacher burnout. In order to discover if a correlation existed between the demands of Kentucky education reform and teacher burnout, a survey instrument was developed and administered among participants in the Daviess County Public Schools district. The areas addressed by the survey were as follows:

· Percentage of teachers who are firm in their career choice of teaching.

· Percentage of teachers who feel the demands of lesson planning and school preparation have given them burnout symptoms.

· Percentage of teachers who feel the demands of the new teacher evaluation system (PGES) has given them burnout symptoms.

· Percentage of teachers who feel the demands standardized testing (K-PREP) have given them burnout symptoms.

· Percentage of teachers who are frustrated by the increasing demands in the area of reading and mathematics

· Percentage of teachers who feel the demands of the new common core and other standards have given them burnout symptoms.

· Percentage of teachers who feel the lack of parent involvement in their child's education have given them burnout symptoms.

· Percentage of teachers who feel the demands of technology integration have given them burnout symptoms.

· Percentage of teachers who feel the demands of administrative and simple tasks have given them burnout symptoms.

· Percentage of teachers that self identify as burned out.

In determining if the areas mentioned previously are burn out areas, 51 percent of the participants must identify the category as an area for burnout symptoms for it to be considered a burnout area caused by Kentucky education reform. Teachers are expected to use a 1-7 Likert Scale response to strong statements from the categories listed above.

Significance of the Problem

It is important for school superintendents, school principals, lawmakers, members of the state board of education, and researchers of psychology and social sciences to know the causes of teacher burnout as a result of ever-changing education policy. Furthermore, this information is very useful when a teacher shortage occurs, and many would argue there is one right now. The issues that arise during teacher shortages create havoc on the learning available for students and create potential competition issues among parents to ensure their child has the best possible educators to learn from. Consequently, when poorly skilled educators are employed in school districts, everyone pays the price. As President Barack Obama asserted, “Bad teachers cost our nation's students millions every year” (2010). With this in mind, it is necessary to protect those who do their just diligence to the profession and work hard to ensure all children are successful. Therefore, the information yielded from a teacher burnout study would likely be used to fuel further teacher burnout studies as minimal scholarship is available. Moreover, the knowledge gained from this study could be used to impact future education legislation and policy making.

Limitations

This study was limited by the non-standardized nature of the survey. The sample size was limited to the amount of teachers in the district that took the time to complete the emailed survey. The survey window was left open for a total of seven days for teachers of the Daviess County Public Schools district to respond. After the seven days expired the survey window closed.

Delimitations

This study was limited in its scope to the Daviess County Public Schools district teachers in Daviess County, KY. The district is home to 11,746 students, 2200 school district employees, and 33 national board certified teachers. Daviess County has a total human population of 98,218. Of that population, 91.7% is caucasian, 5.0% is African American, and 2.9% hispanic. There is a 15% poverty rate among citizens in Daviess County; however, 87.9% of residents hold a high school diploma or higher.

Assumptions

The study assumes that the teacher participants will be honest in their responses to the survey and they will represent themselves and their opinions and views in the survey. Furthermore, the researcher will provide the participants with directions for completing the survey honestly and effectively.

Definition of Terms

Educational Reform- changes to the operation of education practice based on federal or state legislature.

KERA- Kentucky Education Reform Act a 1990 piece of Kentucky legislature that enacted portfolios and accountability for student learning. This reform would also be considered a landmark.

Burnout- Tiredness or frustration of a task, job, or career.