Building and yard duties and their assignment in the Compton elementary schools
311 37 3MB
English Pages 88
Polecaj historie
Citation preview
BUILDING AND YARD DUTIES AND THEIR ASSIGNMENT IN THE COMPTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements -of the Degree Master- of Science in Education
by Curtis H. Kennedy June 1950
UMI Number: EP56143
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publ sb*ng
UMI EP56143 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
EA
5
' "®
^ ^
T h is thesis, w r i t t e n u n d e r the d ir e c t io n o f the C h a ir m a n o f th e c a n d id a te ’s G u id a n c e C o m m itte e a n d a p p r o v e d by a l l m em b ers o f the C o m m itte e , has been p re se n te d to a n d accep ted by the F a c u lt y o f the S c h o o l o f E d u c a t io n o f the U n iv e r s it y o f S o u th e rn C a l i f o r n i a in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the r e q u ire m e n ts f o r the degree o f M a s t e r o f Science in E d u c a tio n .
Dean Guidance Committee
Chairman
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER
PAGE
I . - PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM
1
The p r o b l e m .................................. Statement of the problem
.................
1
Need for the s t u d y .......................
3
Importance of the s t u d y ...................
3
.................
5
Definition of terms u s e d ...................
6
Limitations of the study
Routine special duties
...................
6
Yard d u t i e s .................
7
Hal l?r'duties................................
7
Recess d u t i e s ................. . ..........
7
Lunch period duties . . . . .
..........
.
Organization of the s t u d y ............ II.
REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ..................... Nature of routine special duties
...........
S u m m a r y .................................... Principals1 responsibilities
7 7 9 9 14
...............
14
S u m m a r y ....................................
19
Teachers’ responsibilities
III.
1
.................
20
S u m m a r y ....................................
24
METHOD OF P R O C E D U R E ..................... Normative-survey research ................. The questi o n n a i r e ...........................
25 25 28
iii CHAPTER
PAGE Purpose of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .............
28
Principals’ questionnaire .................
28
Personal interviews .......................
30
Teachers' questionnaire ...................
30
Tabulation and interpretation of the data .
32
Summary and conclusion IV.
...................
32
EXISTING PRACTICES IN ASSIGNING BUILDING AND YARD DUTIES TO COMPTON ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
.
36
Building and yard duties in the individual s c h o o l s .................................. Assignment of routine duties
.............
36 39
Principal assignments ......................q
39
Principal-teacher assignments .............
41
Teacher committees
4l
.......................
Instructional value for children
........
42
G a m e s ..................................
44
Rotation of d u t i e s .......................
45
Amount of time required in building and yard d u t i e s ..............................
47
Excusing teachers from building and yard d u t i e s .................................. V.
58
THE RESULTS OP THE QUESTIONNAIRES SENT TO COMPTON ELEMENTARY TEACHERS ................. Building and yard duties participated in
60
.iv CHAPTER
PAGE by Compton Elementary Teachers
........
6l
Special duties in which Compton Elementary Teachers had participated ...............
6l
Choice of d u t y ...........................
63
Teacher participation ...............
64
...
Opportunities for educational instruction .
64
R e c e s s ....................................
66
Cafeteria and sack l u n c h .................
66
Hall d u t y ..................................
66
Instructions to teachers concerning build ing and yard d u t i e s .....................
67
Organization of games . . . ..........
68
Rotation of d u t i e s .......................
68
Releasing teachers from building and yard d u t i e s .................. ................ VI.
68
SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S .......................
71
S u m m a r y ....................................
71
C o n c l u s i o n s ................................
75
BIBLIOGRAPHY
........................................
78
LIST OF TABLES TABLE
PAGE
I. . Number of Teachers Needed in Each Type Duty Per D a y ...................................... II.
The Method by Which Building and Yard Duties Are Assigned to Compton Elementary Teachers .
III.
40
The Rotation of Building and Yard Duties in the Compton Elementary Schools
IV.
37
.................
46
Amount of Time Each Teacher Spends in Building and Yard Duties Per Day, Per Week, and Per Month in the Compton Elementary Schools . . .
V.
48
Percentage of Teachers Assigned to Each Type Building and Yard Duty in the Compton Elementary Schools
VI.
.........................
Teachers’ Choice of Building and Yard Duties Assigned to Compton Elementary Teachers . . .
VII.
62
65
Percentage of Yes-No Answers in Teachers' Questionnaire ................................
70
CHAPTER I
PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM Routine duties constitute an important part of teachers workThese duties consist of administra tive responsibilities which they share in order that the school organization may operate efficiently and smoothly. Instruction is the most important aspect of practically all routine duties, and should be considered so by all pupils and employees.1 Associated with this statement we have the problem of assignments to routine special duties and the important part played by principals and teachers in the determination of the duties in progress in the Compton Elementary Schools. This study does not carry research to the point of study ing all the special duties assigned to teachers-
This is
too broad and does not fall under the scope of this problem.
I.
THE PROBLEM
Statement of the problem.
The purpose of this study
was to survey the building and yard duties assigned to Compton Elementary School Teachers.
Specifically, the
study proposes to answer these questions:
1 George C. Kyte, The Principal at Work (Boston: Ginn and Company, 194l), p. 178.
2 1.
What are the building and yard duties assigned
to the teacher? 2.
What work is involved in the assignments?
3.
To what extent do teachers consider the assign
ments an opportunity for teaching children? A.
How are the assignments made?
5.
To what extent do the teachers participate in
making the assignments? This report is to serve as a means of acquainting both prin cipals and teachers with the practices used in each of the Compton Elementary Schools.
The study also aimed to pro
duce a record available to the Board of Education, admini strators, teachers, and students whose interests concern them with the subject. It was intended to probe into each individual assign ment made in each school under observation; namely the thir teen elementary schools in the Compton City School District: Abraham Lincoln, Augusta A. Mayo, Colin P. Kelly, Francis Willard, General Rosecrans, George Washington, Henry W. Longfellow, Janie P. Abbott, Mark Keppel, Ralph Waldo Emer son, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and Victory Park; to study the building and yard duties required, the educa tional values involved, the number of teachers used in these duties, the rotation of assignments, and the valid condi tions justifiable In releasing a teacher from these duties.
3 The study attempted to determine what relationships * if any, exists between the schools through a systematic study of the existing practices. Need for the study.
Through a survey conducted in
the Compton Elementary Schools a need for the study of build ing and yard duty assignments was indicated.
This survey was
made with the cooperation of 210 teachers, twelve principals, and four supervisors with the hope of obtaining sound sugges tions and ideas for improving the present working conditions of Compton Elementary Teachers. Principals and teachers alike indicated dissatisfaction with portions of the present methods used in the assignment of building and yard duties.
These were:
(l) Lack of uni
formity in the assignment policy among the separate schools; (2) Lack of teacher participation in the making of building and yard duty schedules; and (3) Lack of equal allotments of time on duty for teachers in the individual schools. Importance of the study.
It is the hope that a system
atic study of the practices might reveal to teachers the necessity of routine special duties.
That the study might
reveal to administrators and teachers the responsibility that is theirs in the efficient and smooth operation of the school is another important factor.
People doing research
do not intend to keep the school system in a constant state
4 of turmoil, but are trying to find ways to improve the school for the good of the child.
The person who will serve the
school best is the one who is constantly striving to im prove the existing practices. The intimate dependence of the efficiency of a school on the adequacy and efficiency of its staff is so obvious as scarcely to require mention. Con sideration of the problems that concern dependence is not so common as acknowledgement of the relation ship. These problems are of wide scope, bearing as they do on the working load, inclusive of teaching and other responsibilities of the members of the staff, on their training and experience; on their re lationships to superiors, colleagues, students, and community; on their professional growth after entrance in the profession; and on remuneration. The problems relating to the principalship alone are also of great moment.” Before the school can be said to be even reasonably effective there is much work to be done and many processes of education to be probed. Due to the responsibility that must be assumed by teachers, and administrators who in many states are held legally responsible for the safety and welfare of the child from the time he leaves home until he arrives at school, then arrives back home, it was feasible and desirable to study the picture as it existed in the Compton Elementary Schools. p York:
Leonard V. Koos, The American Secondary School (New Ginn and Company, 1927)* P • ^37.
5 Consequently principal and teachers are respon sible for two functions all the time that the child ren are present at school. The staff must (l) as sume the place and authority of the parents and the state and (2 ) convert all school time into a series of sound educational experiences for every pupil. The responsibilities follow logically the concept that the school exists for the children en rolled in it. Every professional employee at work in the school, therefore, must understand the educa tional implications involved in each routine duty, acquire reasonably proficient skill in performing it, and maintain a disposition to do his share of the work required.3 This statement by Kyte raises the challenge of the greater need on the part of administrators to establish a basis for the assignment of teachers to routine special duties and to help the teachers realize the responsibili ties and opportunities involved in the building and yard duties.
Basic also is the need on the part of administra
tors to develop a co-operative program, one in which the nature of the duties are definitely agreed on and the manner in which they are to be performed.
The administra
tor must help teachers understand that a scheduled assign ment saves their time and contributes to their own welfare and fitness for teaching.
It was hoped that this study
might help along these lines. Limitations of the study.
This study was concerned
only with the practices existing in the Compton Elementary
3 Kyte, loc. cit.
6 Schools.
No other school systems were studied.
The study
was made to ascertain the routine special duties that are separate from the instructional program. ing and yard duties will be studied.
Namely, the build
To try to deal with
such duties as student government, choral clubs, orchestras, dramatic clubs, and safety clubs would make the problem so large that it could not be adequately dealt with in the time allotted for a thesis study.
The supervision of extra
classroom activities of this type, therefore, was not in cluded in the study. The study was primarily concerned with such activities as : 1.
Yard duty before school, after school, and at
2.
Recess duty.
3.
Hall duty.
4.
Lunch period duties.
noon.
It,
DEFINITION OF TERMS USED
To better understand the nature of- thestudy necessary to define the special Routine special duties.
it was
terms used. The building andyard
duties commonly performed in elementary schools that occur during hours not assigned to classroom instruction.
They
7 include a fixed period in the morning, recess periods, after school, and the noon hour, but exclude the supervision of such activities as clubs, student government, etc., which often
takes place during these hours. Yard duties.
The duties assigned
to teachers before
school, after school, and at the noon hour when they are legally responsible for the child’s welfare while on the playground and outside the classroom. Hall duties. serve
The duties assigned
to teachers to pre
order and quiet in hallways while the
children are
passing to lunch or recreation periods. Recess duties.
Recess duties differ from yard duties
in that recess is an integral part of the school day.
Re
cess duties occur twice a day. Lunch period duties.
The duties in which the teacher
is responsible for supervising the necessary routine of the lunchroom.
These duties may be in the cafeteria or
may be in an area assigned for sack lunches.
III.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The chapters of this study were organized as follows: Chapter I is devoted to the statement of the problem, the
8 importance of the study, the need for the study, the limita tion of the study
,and
the definition of terms.
is a review of the literature.
Chapter II
The methodology used in the
study is presented in Chapter III.
Chapter IV is an analy
sis of the principals' assignment practices.
Tables of
assignments and amount of time involved in the assignments are presented in this section.
In Chapter V the general‘ob
servations of a sampling of the teachers is presented. conclusions of the study are presented in Chapter VI.
The
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE A review of the related literature is presented in three divisions:
(l) investigation concerned with the
nature of routine special duties,
(2) literature discussing
the principal’s responsibility in assigning routine special duties, and (3 ) literature concerned with teacher participa tion in assigning routine special duties.
I.
NATURE OF ROUTINE SPECIAL DUTIES
Routine special duties are made a definite part of the program of every elementary teacher in the State of California.
As stated in the California Administrative Code,
Title 5 , Section 1 8 .^ When playground supervision is not otherwise pro vided, the principal of each school shall provide for the supervision, by teachers, of the conduct and direction of the play of the pupils of the school or on the school grounds during recesses and other intermissions and before and after school. The law has thus established the resultant duties, (l) yard duty before school, at noon and after school,
^ California Administrative Code Title 5., Section 18 (Sacramento: Bureau of Printing, 194-9)* p. 17*
10 (2 ) supervision at recess periods,
(3) supervision of the
cafeteria and sack lunch area, and (4) hall duty. These duties constitute an important part of the teacher’s work and unless equally distributed will result in one teacher having much more "teaching load" than another teacher. In an investigation of teachers1 complaints about routine duties in the Fort Hamilton High School, New York, Kassenbrock^ found that thirty teachers were needed for cafeteria and study hall duties, which were the most dis tasteful, and forty one others were needed in more easily rotated assignments.
The investigation resulted in a Teach
er Interest Committee being appointed to develop a schedule of assignments.
The committee consisted of two administra
tive assistants, three teachers, a grade advisor, two deans, and the chairman of the program advisors.
The committee
set up these rules governing the plan of rotation. 1.
The needs of the pupils in the various departments
must be considered first. 2.
The needs of the school as a whole must be consider
3.
The teachers personal preferences and needs must be
ed.
5 Vincent Kassenbrock. "A Democratic Solution to the Problem of Building Assignments," High Points, 30:31-4, June, 1948.
11 considered. 4.
The special programming of teachers within each
department must be considered. 5*
The system must be sufficiently flexible so that
individual adjustments can be made without throwing the whole mechanism out of kilter. The committee then developed three types of assignments; (l)
mechanically rotatable duties,
(2 ) assignments mechan
ically rotatable for teachers with special or technical skills, and (3 ) assignments not subject to mechanical rota tion.
A master sheet of all duties was drawn up and a copy
given to each teacher.
The teachers indicated their choice
and a schedule was drawn up for a two year period. of the investigation were:
Results
(l) Teachers applauded the
democratic solution of a sore problem, and (2) Teachers re ceived a deeper understanding of administrative problems. In another investigation of five elementary schools' ’Yard Duty Assignments," Kretsinger^ found the following: School A.
No yard duty schedule. No teachers on yard duty before school, recess or noon. Child ren monitors do the supervising.
^ R. w. Kretsinger, "Yard Duty Assignments," Depart ment of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, Ninth Yearbook, pp. 3^7-51-
12 School B.
Over 900 pupils. Yard duty schedule prepared by the principal for semester. Two teachers were on yard duty from 8:40-9:00, at all recesses and from 1 2 :30-1:00 each day.
School C.
Same program as B except that each teach er served during all yard periods for just one day at a time. Committee of teachers makes the schedule for the semester.
School D.
Same type of organization. Each teach er supervises just one yard period a day for one week. After covering all of the periods the teacher has no duty for two weeks.
School E.
The teachers programmed twenty minutes of physical education to run through recess period and the classroom teacher as a rule stayed with the class throughout the activity.
Hirschman^ believes in the organized recess periods with each class in an assigned area and calls the recess periods "veritable laboratories of democracy." C u b b e r l e y S cites the playground rules of the Seattle
Schools as providing good means for civic training. Kyte9
says, "The periods when routine duties occur
yield desirable educational returns if they are conceived as instructional periods.
They furnish excellent opportunities
^ Margaret Hirschman, "The School as a Democratic Institution," Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, Twenty-Second Yearbook, July, 1943* p. 266. Q • Elwood P. Cubberley, The Principal and His School, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company" 1923]* P . 129. ^ Kyte, L o c . cit.
13 for observing and studying children in various situations outside the classroom." Reese and Watkins1*^ stressed the importance of teach ing children to respect the rights and opinions of others through learning experiences in the corridors, during lunch periods and on the playground. The valuable contributions of the lunchroom toward developing good health, character and citizenship are dis cussed by Starr,!1 and Jacobs.1^ C u b b e r l e y 1 ^ speaks of the lunch period in this way:
"There is a phase of building and yard supervision closely connected with the playground, that often is of much im portance, and that is the supervision of the building and grounds during the time that the pupils are eating their lunch at noon." Cubberley1^ sums up the educational values in routine duties:
1(1 Sara M. Reese and Miriam Watkins, "Respecting the Rights and Opinions of Others," Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, TwentySecond Yearbook, 30:331-35, July, 1943. 11 G. G. Starr, "Noon is Fun," School Executive, 57:3^-9-50. April, 1938. IP R. C. T. Jacobs, "Making the Lunchroom an Educa tional Factor," Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, Ninth Yearbook, 1930, pp. 364-
68 .
■*•3 Cubberley, oj>. c i t ., p. 130. Ibid., p. 129.
14 Few other things do as much as these same activities to transform the yard bully into a useful school citizen, bring out the timid and backward pupils,, limit accidents, create good feeling, assist discipline, teach pupil self control, train the muscles and the eye to co ordination or awaken the best spirit of the pupils. Summary.
School ground organizations vary and thus
the nature of routine duties will vary accordingly.
These
duties should be an integral part of the school day and should be developed to provide greater instructional value during regular class periods.
Yard duties provide impor
tant means of education to the children.
Interest and
purposes of children can be recognized during play periods and teachers can make adjustments for them in the classroom. The results should help teachers get a better insight as to the needs of their classes.
II.
PRINCIPALS’ RESPONSIBILITIES
The principal is the head of his school and is held accountable for its success.
He organizes his school and
under his leadership the school becomes an efficient, demo cratic, and cooperative institution, or it becomes a menace to democracy and the educational program.
The principal
must bring the teachers of his school into his planning and scheduling so as to help them develop a better understanding of the program and problems with which he is faced.
One of
15 the responsibilities * with which he is faced,, is that of delegating routine duties to the teaching staff. Stanton1^ made a study of the delegation of extra classroom responsibilities and states:
"The great number of
duties for which the principal is responsible makes it neces sary for him to assign some of them to others.
This leaving
him freer to supervise." Stanton
1 ft
made his report on the findings of one of
the principal's study clubs of Seattle, Washington.
The club
undertook to find the present practice in the delegation of extra-classroom responsibilities among its own members and those of another similar organization.
Questionnaires were
sent out to get three kinds of information,
(l) how some
sixty duties common to most Seattle schools were assigned, (2) who selected the responsible persons (thereby indicating pupil participation in management) and,
(3) the effects upon
teachers and pupils when extra-duties are assumed by them. They received twenty-six replies; fourteen from women prin cipals and twelve from men principals.
Eleven of the schools
involved in the study had platoon organizations, seventeen had eight grades, seven had six, while two had five grades.
e . A. Stanton, "The Delegation of Extra-Classroom Responsibilities," Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, Ninth Yearbook, pp. 3^3-3^6. 1930. 16 Ibid., p. 3^5.
16 The replies received indicated:
(l) some principals were
performing in their schools what children were doing in others,
(2) principals agreed that pupils should be used
whenever possible, (3) older pupils helped a great deal,, and (4) principals believed that participation in the extra classroom responsibilities by teachers promoted growth of those engaged, but in order to assign the load equitably the assignment should be well planned. Concerning this equitable load, Kyte-^7 says:
"The
principal should avoid departures from the equalization of teachers’ loads covering routine duties,
just as he does in
assignment to grades, classes, number of pupils, and the like. This policy applies both in making the schedule of routine duties and in maintaining it." The principal is responsible for his school and any improvement in the accepted methods of administration that he can make will provide a better learning situation for the children.
If he has success in personnel administration,
the staff will be more inclined to "go along" with him in his educational program.
17 Kyte, loc. cit., p. 187.
17 Petersen-^ believes that there are at least four procedures basic to the process of successful personnel administration, which, if consistently applied should prove helpful.
They are:
(l) Carefully studying each teacher’s
problems;
(2) Giving special help to inexperienced teach
ers; (3) Expressing confidence in the staff and giving teach ers recognition for their accomplishment; and (4)
Letting
teachers share in the solution of administrative problems. IQ Cubberley * thoroughly discussed the administrative organization of a school and brings out these points in organization of the playground. 1. A problem that faces the principal the first few days of school, is that of the organization of his playground so as to get a maximum of results with a minimum of difficulties. 2. The arrangement of recess periods, and how the playground is handled depends on the size of the play space and grade distribution of the children in the school. 3. Whatever form of detail is employed, and notice of such given, there should be a few teachers on the playground, for emergency purposes at all times. According to B r i g g s , ^
i ft
±0 Carrie Petersen and others, MAdministrative Practices Which Increase Staff Efficiency and Morale," Department of Elementary School Principals, National Educa tion Association, Twenty-Second Yearbook, October, 1942, pp. 49-51^9 Cubberley, o j d . cit., pp. 93-120. \ PO Thomas H. Briggs, Improving Instruction (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1938), p . 1187
18 The principal should organize and administer the school so as to make good teaching progressively easier . . . These are matters for which he alone is responsible. Failure on his part not only obstructs good teaching but also sets up imitations that weak en the morale of the teachers and lowers their pro fessional ambition. While administration is impor tant , the principal should always look on it merely as facilitating the educational work of the school.' Wilson21 believes the administration of schools or any other enterprise involves two aspects:
The first is
concerned with the discussion, determination, and setting up of the policies, programs and plans which are to be executed.
The second consists in the execution of the
policies, programs, and plans agreed upon. Strayer22 points out that all teachers need the stimulation of real leadership and the administrator is the one to provide this stimulus. OQ Wilson J has this to say concerning the leadership of the principal.
"He conceives his mission to be the
creation of wholesome conditions for work on the part of teachers and pupils, and the bringing to all his anneites
H. B. Wilson, "The Participation of the Teaching Staff in Administration,” Educational Administration and Supervision. 6:63-64, January, 1920. 22 George D. Strayer, ’’Why Teacher Participation in School Administration,,r Teachers College Record, 38:42-43, March, 1921. 23 Wilson,
ojd.
cit ., p. 6 l .
19 breadth of view, greater vision, and stimulating inspira tion. " L e i p o l d ^ 4
cites a survey of one hundred principals
in sixty-five cities to determine which of certain duties are delegated by the principal and what influence of the principal is felt in all the activities of the school.
He
found the principals frequently use committees of teachers to determine school policies and more than half of the principals refer important matters to the teachers before taking action on them. Other books that were used repeatedly under adminis trative responsibility were those by Bolton, Cole, and Jessup,^5 Mort,26 and Reeder.^7 Summary.
The principal’s responsibility in the ad
ministration of his school makes it necessary for him to delegate some of the responsibility to the teachers in the oh ^ L. E. Leipold, nAdministrative Relationships of the Elementary School Principals,1’ Educational Administra tion and Supervision,29: 27-34, 1943. ^ F. E. Bolton, T. R. Cole, and J. H. Jessup, The Beginning Superintendent, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), 613 PP.
(New York:
Paul R. Mort, Principles of School Administration, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1946), 3&6 P P .
(New York:
Ward G. Reeder, Public School Administration, The Macmillan Company” 1941), 798 pp.
20 school.
The principal must plan his organization and
direct others in executing it.
He must be free *to super
vise the other parts of the school program and he can better do this by letting teachers participate in the devel opment and assignment of routine duties.
He can better
stimulate his teaching staff by including teachers in the development of his daily schedules.
Ill.
TEACHERS' RESPONSIBILITIES
Since the routine duties are primarily teaching responsibilities, they should be delegated to and carried on by every teacher. She should recognize that the professional nature of the activity pre cludes any delegation of these duties to the custodian, school secretary., or other nonprofessional em ployee. In fact, every teacher on a full-time basis must be willing and competent to assume her total assignment of d u t i e s . 2o When teachers perform these duties they are given great possibilities of relating the school-ground or playactivities to learning, and thus are given an additional method of developing character. A review of the literature found few studies that had dealt directly with teacher responsibility in the matter of routine duties.
Many studies, have been made in
regard to teaching load and this provided some study of playground supervision.
Kyte, o£. cit., p. l8l.
21 Gibbard2^ in "A Handbook for the Teachers of an Elementary School,” points out that each teacher is asked to share in playground and lunch room duties. Cubberley30
states the need for teachers on duty to
be constantly on the watch to see that all children have an equal opportunity to join in the playground activities. A note of warning is sounded by C u b b e r l e y ^ I in re gard to policing of the playground by the teachers. ciplinary cases are created by policing methods.
Dis
He feels
what is needed instead is: Only so much supervision of the play as is neces sary to teach the pupils the games, organize the activities, start things off well, and keep them running freely and smoothly. Too much organization, like standing in line and marching to commands, tends to defeat its purpose. As much freedom in play as can be used safely and intelligently is the desideratum. Teachers sharing the responsibility of making the yard duty schedule was found by F e r r i s ^ 2 in the survey of
2^ Minnie A. Gibbard, ”A Handbook for the Teachers of an Elementary School,” Educational Method, Vol. 11, March, 1932, pp. 359-364. Cubberley,
ojd.
c i t ., p. 128.
31 Ibid., p. 127. ^2 C . M. Ferris, "A Survey of the Los Cerritos Elementary School, in Clearwater, ” (unpublished Master's thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, January, 1947), 122 pp.
22 Los Cerritos School.
The regular session teachers made up
a playground committee and were in charge of scheduling the playground supervision. of
This committee rotated the areas
supervision so that by the end of the seventh week, a
teacher had supervised
all of the areas.
Many educators have advocated more teacher participa tion in the developing of scheduling duties as means of helping the teacher get a better understanding of the respon sibility of their duties. John Dewey33 asked in 1903: What does Democracy mean save that the individual is to have a share in determining the conditions and the aims of his own work and that on the whole, through the free and mutual harmonizing of different individ uals , the work of the world is better done when plan ned , arranged* and directed by a few* no matter how wise or of how good intent that few? How can we justify our belief in the democratic principle else where and then go back entirely upon it when we come to education? According to Dewey,35 "Absence of participation tends to produce lack of interest and concern on the part of those shut o u t .n Almack35
points out the advantages in teacher parti
cipation as being three in number and that the participation
^3 John Dewey., "Democracy and Educational Administra tion, " Official Report, New Orleans Convention, February 20 to 25, 1937, p. 557 35 LQC • cit. 35 J. D. Almack and A. R. Lang, Problems of the Teaching Profession, (New York: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1925), p. 121.
23 increases:
(l) The educational knowledge of the teachers;
(2) The satisfaction of the teachers in their work; and (3) The efficiency of the schools. B u r k e 3 6
believes that teacher participation encourages
intelligent cooperation: It stimulates teachers and administrators alike * thus bringing into the public service valuable assets which might otherwise be dormant. It lends a new dignity to the teaching profession. It trains administrators from the teaching ranks and should result in promotion by merit. Koopman^T finds a readiness and willingness to assume varied responsibilities when people are given the right to participate in the planning. B r i g g s ^ states,
’’Every teacher likes to feel that he
has a share in the responsibility for formulating policies and for devising means of carrying them out.” Peterson39 suggests that teachers be allowed to share equally., and in rotation, the responsibility for such
36 Gertrude Burke, "Teacher Participation in Adminis tration," National Education Association, Proceedings, 67:350-351/ 1929. 37 George R. Koopman, et al., Democracy in School Administration, (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 19^3 ), p. 6 7 . 38 Briggs, o£. c i t ., p. 7 1 . 3^ Petersen, o£. cit., p. 51«
24 duties as playground supervision* lunchroom supervision* and general oversight of the building when the principal is away. K o o p m a n ^ stresses the idea of teacher participation and concludes: When teachers share in making plans, accepted routines are critically, re-examined and useless red tape is often cut. Not only is red tape re duced but teachers find an almost automatic mo tivation in carrying out their own plans. Summary.
Teachers must learn that routine duties
are primarily teaching responsibilities.
If this is learn
ed, they will then be more willing to participate in them. Teachers may get an insight into the educational needs of their classes by assuming yard duties. Better teacher cooperation may be secured if teach ers have a part in the planning and scheduling of routine duties.
Teachers also get an insight into the many prob
lems of administration when they help plan and execute the assignments of routine duties..
iiQ
^
Koopman, Q£. c_it., p. 6 7 .
CHAPTER III
METHOD OP PROCEDURE Research involves many patterns of inquiry through which students may arrive at truths.
The pattern select
ed should be one that is appropriate to the particular problem. The scientific method of inquiry may take on a number of forms: (l) normative-survey research; (2 ) comparative-causal research; (3 ) experimental research; (4) specific application of the fore going: (a) laboratory research, (b) genetic method, and (c) case studies; and (5 ) statistical research.^1 Normative-survey research.
The normative-survey method
is a means of ascertaining the prevailing conditions.
The
nromative-survey seeks to find truths as to existing con ditions.
This method of research has been applied to schools
in many forms.
It has been used in the investigation of a
single problem of a school, a district, a county, or a state.
It has even been applied to schools on a nation
wide basis.
^ A. S. Barr and others, Supervision, (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1938)"* P * 901.
26 Kyte believes the chief method of study to be used by the principal in determining local school conditions should be that of the survey. This procedure is used to describe accurately and objectively the total situation. Quantitative data are accumulated by careful observation, ac curate recordkeeping, and similar means of obtain ing essential facts. Next, the assembled data are classified, tabulated, and submitted to sound statistical treatment. Comparable data from simi lar situations are utilized extensively for pur poses of comparison. Finally, the organized data are interpreted critically and carefully. The in terpretation consists of diagnosis and appraisal. Strengths and weaknesses are noted; policies and procedures are devised for meeting the ascertained problems and determined conditions.42 It offers a means of acquainting administrators with prevailing practices in one school as compared to another school.
According to Good,^3 nThe normative-survey ap
proach is appropriate whenever the objects of any class vary among themselves and one is interested in knowing the extent to which different conditions obtain among these objects.n The techniques most commonly used in surveys, as analyzed by Caswell1^
in one of his studies, were:
(l)
Kyte, oj). c i t ., p. 33. 43
C. V. Good, A. S. Barr, and D. E. Scates, The Methodology of Educational Research, (New York: AppletonCentury Company, 1936), p. 289. ^
Hollis Caswell, "Survey Techniques," Educational and Supervision, September, 1933, p p . 431-
Administration "PT-
27 analysis of available basic data, scale,
(3) standard tests,
procedure, tion.
(2 ) score card and rating
(4) case study,
(5) experimental
(6 ) interview or questionnaire, and (7 ) observa
A different list of survey techniques included:
survey testing,
(2 ) questionnaire inquiries,
frequency studies,
(4) interview studies,
studies, and (6 ) appraisal procedures.
(3 ) documentary
(5) observational
The latter group
was complied by Good, Barr, and Scates who expressed the idea that: The normative-survey method or research finds expression through a variety of techniques. Just as there are different kinds of facts which one may wish to gather and different kinds of sources for these facts, so there are many procedures which have been developed to meet the needs of these different purposes and conditions.^5 The nature of this study indicated that the best approach was through questionnaire inquiries to teachers and personal interviews with the principals.
From the
questionnaires, the writer recorded the prevailing con ditions which may present suggestions for improving the assignment of building and yard duties.
^5 Good,
ojd
.
cit., p. 295*
(1)
28 I.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Purpose of the questionnaire. questionnaire was twofold.
The purpose of the
First, an effort was made to
determine the building and yard duties existing in each of the schools at the present time.
Who makes the assign
ment of building and yard duties to the teachers?
How does
the time spent by teachers in building and yard duties in one school compare to the time spent by teachers in another school?
How much do the teachers participate in the assign
ing of building and yard duties in each of the schools? Secondly, the questions were designed to determine the attitude of the teachers toward the practices that existed. Principals1 questionnaire.
The first question to
principals was to determine the building and yard duties that existed in the individual school.
Question two was
to determine who made the assignments and how the assign ments were made known to teachers.. The attitude of prin cipals was sought, by question three, as to the education al value of building and yard duties.
Question four was
to seek the means by which principals encourage the prac tice of educational instruction in building and yard duties. Question five was to determine if principals felt that teachers should organize the games or let the children have
29 BUILDING AND YARD DUTIES AND THEIR ASSIGNMENT IN THE COMPTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS From:
Curtis H. Kennedy
To: Check the building and yard duties in which teachers in your school participate: Recess duty_____________________________________ _________ Hall duty_______________________________________ _________ Noon yard duty___________________________________________ Cafeteria duty___________________________________________ Sack lunch duty__________________________________________ Before school yard duty________________________ _________ After school yard duty(Such as, bus, bicycles,______' etc. How and who determines the assignment of building and yard duties to teachers?
Do building and yard duties as mentioned provide opportunities for educational instruction to children? YES
NO
To what extent do you encourage this instruction?
Are the games during recess, before' school, after school, and noon yard duties organized or of a free type? Organized^ Free How often are teachers rotated in these duties? How much time does the individual teach er average per day on building and yard duties?
______ MIN
Is a teacher in charge of the glee club or some other organization such as, chairman of Red Cross, UNESCO, Safety, or Teacher club representa tive, excused from these duties? YES
NO
30 free play time during building and yard duties.
How often
teachers were rotated in the duties was sought by question six and question seven sought to determine the amount of time each teacher averaged per day in building and yard duties.
Question eight sought to determine if teachers who
had other special duties as glee club* teacher club repre sentative, and chairmen of different organizations in the school were released from building and yard duties. Personal interviews.
The personal interview was
conducted with each principal in the Compton Elementary District.
Those questioned were informed tbd; the study was
being made to determine the procedure of assigning building and yard duties to teachers.
Who made the assignment?
was the assignment made known to the teachers?
How
How much
time did the teachers spend per day performing these duties? Did building and yard duties provide opportunities for ed ucational instruction to the children?
The principals pro
vided for the writer the building and yard duty schedule of each school. The questions were asked in a conversational manner, the same form being used with each principal.
The principals
were glad to cooperate and expressed a definite interest in the study. Teachers1 questionnaire.
Questionnaires were sent to
31 one hundred teachers In the Compton Elementary Schools stat ing that the study was being made to determine the assign ment of teachers to building and yard duties, who made the assignments, and the amount of time involved in the individ ual assignment.
The questionnaire was presented to the
teacher individually and there was no opportunity for dis cussion of the questions with another teacher.
One hundred
questionnaires were returned to the writer with the name of the teacher answering the questionnaire and the name of the school in which he or she taught. The first question to teachers was to determine the grade that each taught.
The building and yard duties that
each teacher had participated in and the extra-curricula duties that each had supervised was sought by question two. Question three sought to determine the amount of teacher participation in the assignment of building and yard duties; and question four was to determine whether teachers felt that they should participate in the assignment.
Question
five sought to determine if there were any special choice of duties among the teachers.
Question
six was to determine
if the teachers felt that any of the duties were unneces sary and if so which ones.
The opportunities that these
duties provided for educational instruction was sought by question seven.
Questions eight, nine and ten sought to
determine the means by which each teacher had been instructed
32 in the educational values of building and yard duties. Question eleven was to determine if teachers felt that games should be organized or free during any of yard duties.
How often each teacher was rotated in the build
ing and yard duties was sought by question twelve.
The
average amount of time per day each teacher spent in build ing and yard duties was determined by question thirteen. Question fourteen was to determine if the teachers felt that teachers who had other equally important duties to per form should be released from building and yard duties. Tabulation and interpretation of the data.
The steps
used in the tabulation and interpretation of the data w er e : (1) determination from the yard duty schedules the exact number of building and yard duties required in each school; (2) recording the frequency of the !?yesn and "no" answers of the questionnaire;
(3) analyzing the amount of time in
volved in the carrying out of the building and yard duties in each school;
(4) interpreting the statements of the prin
cipals as to who makes the assignments and how the assignments are made; and (3 ) interpreting the yard duty schedules. Summary and conclusion.
The significance of the
analysis of the assignments of building and yard duties is pointed out in the summary and conclusions of this study.
33 BUILDING AND YARD DUTIES AND THEIR ASSIGNMENT IN THE COMPTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS The following study is being made to determine the assignment of teachers to building and yard duties; who makes the assignment; and the amount of time involved in the individ ual assignment. What grade do you teach?____________________ __________ If Kindergarten, 1 or 2 sessions?__________ __________ Check the building and yard duties that you have participated in this year: Recess duty____________________________________________ Hall duty____________________________________ __________ Cafeteria duty______________________________ __________ Sack lunch duty_____________________________ __________ Noon yard duty______________________________ __________ Before school yard duty_____________________ __________ After school yard duty (such as, bus, bicycles,)_______ __________ List any other extra-curricular duties that you have had.
Do you participate in the assignment of these duties?________________________________________ YES__NO_ Should teachers participate in the assignment of these duties?
YES__NO_
If you had your choice of duty, which one would you choose?___________________________________ __________
34 Do you consider any of these building and yard duties as unnecessary?_________________________YES_N0_ If so, which ones?
Do you feel that any of these duties provide opportunities for educational instruction to children?____________________________________________ YES_N0_ In your opinion, which ones provide opportunities for educational instruction?
Which ones do not?
Have you discussed the educational value of building and yard duties in faculty meetings?
YES_N0_
Have you received mimeographed instruc tions as to the nature of these duties?
YES_NO
Are they discussed as part of your instructional period in the classroom?
YES_NO
How often are you rotated in your build ing and yard duties?________________________________________ How much time do you average per day in these duties?
________
Do you feel that teachers who have other special duties as, glee club, chairmen of Red Cross, UNESCO, Safety, or Teacher club representatives
35 should be released from these special duties?
Signed School
YES__NO
CHAPTER IV
EXISTING PRACTICES IN ASSIGNING BUILDING AND YARD DUTIES TO COMPTON ELEMENTARY TEACHERS The preceding chapter has reviewed the literature pertaining to the nature of building and yard duties; the principal's responsibility in assigning these duties; and the teacher's responsibility and participation in the assignment of building and yard duties. The purpose of this chapter is to present the exist ing practices in assigning building and yard duties to Compton Elementary Teachers. In Chapter I It was stated that this study would include the thirteen elementary schools in Compton; Abraham Lincoln, Augusta Mayo, Colin Kelly, Francis Willard, General Rosecrans, George Washington, Henry Longfellow, Janie Abbott, Mark Keppel, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and Victory Park. With the exception of Victory Park, which had Kinder garten through the fourth grade, the schools used in this study had kindergartens through the sixth grade. Building and yard duties in the individual schools. Table I presents a record of the duties that were assigned to the teachers and the number of teachers needed in each
37 TABLE I NUMBER OF TEACHERS NEEDED IN EACH TYPE DUTY PER DAY
School
Recess
6 Lincoln 8 Mayo 6 Kelly 4 Willard 10 Rosecrans Washington 11 Longfellow 8 8 Abbott 8 Keppel Emerson 6 6 Roosevelt Jefferson 2 Victory Park 3 Totals
86
Hall
Noon yard
Cafeteria
0 2 0 1 8 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0
2 3 3 1 6 3 4 6 3 5 2 1 2
2 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
15
41
9
Before school
After school
2 2 2 1 2 1 *16 *19 2 1 *10 1 3
2 2 3 2 6 6 4 7 1 1 2 1 2
1 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
62
39
7
Sack lunch
* These teachers ate lunch with their own children.
38 type duty.
All thirteen of the schools had recess, noon
yard, sack lunch, and before school yard duties.
Only six
of the schools, Mayo, Willard, Rosecrans, Longfellow, Emerson, and Jefferson had hall duties.
Lincoln, Mayo,
Kelly, Rosecrans, Washington, and Roosevelt were the only schools having cafeterias, therefore, were the only schools which had cafeteria duties.
Four of the schools had
individual problems which created the need for assignment of teachers to after school yard duties: (1) The Lincoln school had children who rode to and from school in taxis and teachers were needed to supervise the loading of the taxis. (2) The Mayo school had a large number of children who rode bicycles, and teachers were needed to supervise the children leaving the playground with bicycles. (3) The Longfellow school also had a large number of bicycle riders, and teachers were needed to supervise the children leaving the playground. (4) The Washington school had a number of children who rode school buses and teachers were needed to supervise the loading of the buses. A further breakdown of the individual yard duty schedules showed that throughout the district: (l)
A total of eighty-six teachers was needed to
supervise recesses.
39 (2) Fifteen teachers were needed to supervise hall duties-per day. (3) Forty-one teachers per day were needed to super vise noon yard duties. (4) Nine teachers per day were needed to supervise the cafeteria duties. (5) Sixty-two teachers per day were needed to super vise sack lunch duties. (6) Thirty-nine teachers per day were needed to super vise the yard before school. (7) Seven teachers were needed on after school yard duties. Assignment of routine duties.
Table II presents the
means by which teachers were assigned to building and yard duties.
In eight of the schools, Mayo, Kelly, Rosecrans,
Abbott, Keppel, Emerson, Roosevelt, and Victory Park the duties were assigned by the principal.
In three, Willard,
Washington, and Jefferson the assignment of duties was decided by the principal and teachers together.
In two of
the schools, Lincoln, and Longfellow, the duties were sched uled and assigned by teacher committees. Principal assignments.
In the schools where the
yard duty schedule was drawn up by the principal, the duties were set up at the beginning of the year, based on the needs
40 TABLE II THE METHOD BY WHICH BUILDING AND YARD DUTIES ARE ASSIGNED TO COMPTON ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
School
Lincoln Mayo Kelly Willard Rosecrans Washington Longfellow Abbott Keppel Emerson Roosevelt Jefferson Victory Park
Principal Principal and assigned teachers assigned
Teacher committee assigned X
X X X X X X X X X X .X X
41 and routines of former years.
The principal spent much
time in planning the assignment, to make sure that all teachers had an equalization of yard duties.
The principal
felt that an equalization of duties helped to equalize the teaching load.
The principal considered the assignment,
a primary administrative responsibility, and had given much thought and care to the schedule of building and yard duties. Principal-teacher assignments.
Teachers were brought
into the scheduling of assignments by helping the principal decide what duties were essential.
The principal and
teachers determined through discussion the duties that were required to take care of the complete supervision of the playground.
After the requirements were decided, the prin
cipal made up several different schedules which were pre sented to the teachers.
The teachers then discussed the
schedules and selected the plan for assignment that they thought best. Teacher committees.
The teachers in these schools
decided the duties and made out the schedule.
The teachers
indicated their choice of duties and the committee tried to assign the duties according to choice.
The principal
entered into this phase of the work by approving the adopted schedule.
The principal left the responsibility of yard
duties up to the committee and any problem encountered was
42 met and solved by the teacher committee.
The principals
in these schools felt that the teachers were better satis fied with the assignments when they had full responsibility for the fulfillment of these duties.
The principals felt
that the teachers were able to get a better view of the administrator’s problems, and thus developed a better in sight into the assignment of building and yard duties. Instructional value for children.
All of the prin
cipals interviewed indicated that yard duties provided opportunities for educational instruction to the children. Excellent educational opportunities were conceived for ob serving and studying children outside of the classroom. principals mentioned frequently in the interviews: safety education; manners;
(2) health habits;
The
(l)
(3) citizenship;
(4)
(5) co-operation; and (6) the interest and specific
needs in various age levels. Instruction in safety education was indicated through out all types of yard duties.
The feeling was that through
safety instruction many accidents had been eliminated in the school.
The students were made conscious of the safety pro
gram b y isafety committees in each school.
A teacher in each
class elected representatives to this group. Opportunities for instruction in health habits and manners were related to the cafeteria and sack lunch duties.
43 These included, cleanliness, carefulness, courtesy, good manners, and information about wholesome balanced diets. Citizenship and co-operation were stressed as basic instruction in all the duties.
The teachers could instruct
the children how to play together, to respect the rights of others, and to respect public property.
The teachers could
continue this instruction in the classroom, relating it to the activity unit of any unit of learning. The principals also brought out that a teacher might also be guided as to the educational needs of the children in the classroom by observation of the children on the play ground.
The principals felt that the playground provided
a natural situation in which the teacher might observe the children; that the supervision of the playground by teachers provided an "experience program” for the teaching unit. The principals encouraged teachers to instruct child ren while on yard duties through discussions: faculty meetings; and teacher; (5)
(l) in
(2) in individual conferences of principal
(-3) in safety meetings;
as the direct opportunity arose.
(4) by bulletins; and Through this encourage
ment the teachers arrived at a common understanding of the purposes, standards, and procedures related to building and yard duties.
The principal, in some cases, appeared as
another person on yard duties and helped teachers develop a better understanding of the opportunities for educational
44 instruction for the children.
This was found true essential
ly in the case of new teachers. Games.
Games during recess and noon yard duties
should be of a free type was the opinion of eight principals. It was indicated in these cases that the organization of games during physical education was ample organized play for the children.
During the times that they were out for recess
and at noon they had a free choice of the activity into which they might enter.
Another factor involved was the amount of
play area available to the students in these school plants. Both organized and free games were indicated by the replies of the other five principals.
The games were or
ganized to the extent that diamonds and play areas were as signed, but the children had a choice of the activity in which they wanted to participate.
Another practice involved
was that of organized games for the upper grades and free play for the children in the lower grades.
The assignment
of each grade to a special area, with free play in the assigned area was practiced in one school.
Where there was
ample play area the games were more Inclined to be of a free type.
Where the play area was not ample the games had
to be organized to some extent. tion was the Mayo School.
An example of this situa
The total area for the school
plant was about three and one half acres.
The upper play
ground area was a little over one acre and two hundred
^5 children were on the playground at recesses.
Therefore,
the diamonds and play areas were assigned to the individual grades, but the children had a free choice of activity in the assigned areas. Rotation of duties.
Table III presents the frequency
with which teachers were rotated in the assignment of build ing and yard duties in the individual schools. The rotation of duties varied in the individual schools. In only one school was the schedule set up for the full year without any rotation of the building and yard duties.
In
this school the teachers were allowed to exchange duties at any time during
the year, if they so desired.
Mayo,
Kelly, and Keppel had monthly rotation and at the beginning of each new school month the teachers were assigned to a new duty.
In nine of the schools, Lincoln, Willard, Washington,
Longfellow, Abbott, Emerson, Roosevelt, Jefferson, and Victory Park the schedule was set up on a weekly rotation basis.
The teachers were assigned to a new duty each week.
By the end of the first semester a teacher had served one week in all of the duties.
The teachers started over again
on the schedule at the beginning of the second semester. The kindergarten teachers in all the schools had two sessions and were not involved in the rotation of the yard duties, but each teacher had supervision of her own class.
The kindergarten teachers in the Roosevelt school
46 TABLE III THE ROTATION OF BUILDING AND YARD DUTIES IN THE COMPTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
School plant Lincoln Mayo Kelly Willard Rosecrans Washington Longfellow Abbott Keppel Emerson
Yearly
Monthly
X X X X X X X X X X
Roosevelt Jefferson Victory Park Totals
Weekly
X X X 1
3
Permanent
^Kindergarten teachers *Kindergarten teachers ^Kindergarten teachers ^Kindergarten teachers ^Kindergarten teachers *Kindergarten teachers ^Kindergarten teachers ^Kindergarten teachers ^Kindergarten teachers *Kindergarten teachers **Two men teachers on rece ***Kindergarten teachers *Kindergarten teachers *Kindergarten teachers
8
* Kindergarten teachers had two sessions and remained with their own children while on yard duties. ** Assigned to permanent duty during recesses to help with athletic events. *** Rotated every third day.
47 rotated the duties so that each teacher had yard duty every third day. Amount of time required in building and yard duties. Table IV presents the amount of time that teachers in the Compton Elementary Schools spent in building and yard duties.
The variance of time spent by the teachers
in building and yard duties was controlled by two factors; (l) the number of teachers assigned to the school * and (2) the size of the play area. An analysis of the individual yard duty schedules showed the following: school;
(l) the number of teachers in each
(2) the total hours per month of duty involving
yard duties;
(3) the average hours per month that each teach
er spent in building and yard duties;
(4) the total hours
per week that teachers spent in yard duty assignments;
(5 )
the average hours per week that teachers had spent in build ing and yard duties;
(6) the total minutes per week assigned
to building and yard duties; and (7 ) the average minutes per day that teachers spent in these assignments.
The results
according to the individual school were: (l)
The Lincoln school had sixteen teachers assigned
to building and yard duties.
A total of eighty-one and
sixty-four hundredths hours per month was needed to supervise all the building and yard duties.
The average time per
48 TABLE IV AMOUNT OP TIME EACH TEACHER SPENDS IN BUILDING AND YARD DUTIES PER DAY, PER WEEK, AND PER MONTH IN THE COMPTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
School
Lincoln Mayo Kelly Willard Rosecrans Washington Longfellow Abbott Keppel Emerson Roosevelt Jefferson Victory Park
Number of Total hours teachers of building in school and yard duties per month
16 18 24 9 21 34 16 19 14 17 30 5 12
81.64 108.00 75.00 45.00 86.00 110.00 46.00 60.00 46.00 83.33 66.68 26.68 53.32
Average hours of building and yard duties each month per teacher 7.50 7.60 8.33 5.00 10.00 5.67 3.33 10.00 5.00 6.00 11.68 5.00 6.6 7
Total hours of building and yard duties per week
20.41 27.00 18.75 11.25 21.50 27.50 11.50 15.00 11.50 20.83 16.67 6.67 13.33
49 TABLE IV (Continued)
School
Lincoln Mayo Kelly Willard Rosecrans Washington Longfellow Abbott Keppel Emerson Roosevelt Jefferson Victory Park
Average hours of building and yard duties each week per teacher
1.88 1.90 2.08 1.25 2.50 1.46 2.08 2.50 1.25 1.50 2.92 1.25 1.67
Total minutes building and yard duties per day per school 245 325 225 135 270 330 170 180 170 250 200 80 170
Average minutes of building and yard duties per day per teacher
22.50 22.80 25.00 15.00 30.00 17.50 25.00 30.00 15.00 18.00 35.00 15.00 20.00
50 month that each teacher spent in building and yard duties was seven and fifty hundredths hours.
The teachers spent
twenty and forty-one hundredths hours per week in building and yard duty assignments/
Each teacher averaged one and
eighty-eight hundredths hours per week in these assignments. According to the yard duty schedule 245 minutes of the day were needed to supervise building and yard duty assignments. Each teacher at the Lincoln school averaged twenty-two and fifty hundredths minutes per day in building and yard duty assignments. (2) The Mayo school with a teaching staff of eighteen teachers needed twenty teachers per day to supervise the building and yard duties.
A total of 10.8 hours per month
was needed to supervise building and yard duties.
The aver
age time per month that each teacher spent in building and yard duties was seven and sixty hundredths hours.
The
teachers spent twenty-seven hours per week in building and yard duty assignments.
Each teacher averaged one and ninety
hundredths hours per week in these assignments.
According
to the yard duty schedule 325 minutes per day were needed to supervise building and yard duties.
Each teacher at the
Mayo school averaged twenty-two and eighty hundredths minutes per day in building and yard duty assignments. (3) The Kelly school had twenty-four teachers and sixteen teachers per day were needed to supervise building
51 and yard duty assignments.
A total of seventy-five hours
per month was needed to supervise building and yard duties. The average time per month that each teacher spent in these assignments was eight and thirty-three hundredths hours. The teachers spent eighteen and seventy-five hundredths hours per week in building and yard duty assignments.
Each
teacher averaged two and eight hundredths hours per week in the supervision of these duties.
According to the yard
duty schedule 225 minutes per day were needed to supervise building and yard duties.
Each teacher at the Kelly school
averaged twenty-five minutes per day in building and yard duty assignments. (4)
The Willard school with a teaching staff of nine
teachers needed nine teachers per day to supervise the building and yard duties.
A total of forty-five hours per
month was needed to supervise building and yard duties. The average time per month that each teacher spent in build ing and yard duties was five hours.
The teachers spent
eleven and twenty-five hundredths hours per week in build ing and yard duty assignments.
Each teacher averaged one
and twenty-five hundredths hours per week in these assign ments.
According to the yard duty schedule 135 minutes per
day were needed to supervise building and yard duties. Each teacher at the Willard School averaged fifteen minutes per day in building and yard duty assignments.
52 (5) The Rosecrans School with a teaching staff of twenty-one teachers needed thirty-three teachers per day to supervise building and yard duties,
A total of eighty-
six hours per month was needed to supervise building and yard duties.
The average time per month that each teacher
spent in building and yard duties was ten hours.
The teach
ers spent twenty-one and fifty hundredths hours per week in building and yard duty assignments.
Each teacher aver
aged two and fifty hundredths hours per week in these as signments.
-According to the yard duty schedule 270 minutes
per day were needed to supervise building and yard duties. Each teacher at the Rosecrans School averaged thirty minutes per day in building and yard duty assignments. (6 ) The Washington School with a teaching staff of thirty-four teachers needed twenty-five teachers per day to supervise building and yard duties.
A total of 110
hours per month was needed to supervise building and yard duties.
The average time per month that each teacher spent
in building and yard duties was five and sixty-seven hun dredths hours.
The teachers spent twenty-seven and fifth
hundredths hours per week in building and yard duty assign ments.
Each teacher averaged one and forty-six hundredths
hours per week in these assignments.
According to the yard
duty schedule 330 minutes per day were needed to supervise building and yard duties.
Each teacher at the Washington
53 School averaged seventeen and fifty hundredths minutes per day in building and yard duty assignments. (7) The Longfellow School with a teaching staff of sixteen teachers needed thirty-five teachers per day to supervise the building and yard diities.
A total of forty-
six hours per month was needed to supervise building and yard duties.
The average time per month that each teacher
spent in building and yard duties was eight and thirtythree hundredths hours.
The teachers spent eleven and fifty
hundredths hours per week in building and yard duty assign ments.
Each teacher averaged two and eight hundredths hours
per week in these assignments.
According to the yard duty
schedule 170 minutes per day were needed to supervise build ing and yard duties.
Each teacher at the Longfellow School
averaged twenty-five minutes per day in building and yard duty assignments. (8 )
The Abbott School with a teaching staff of nine
teen teachers needed forty teachers per day to supervise the building and yard duties.
A total of sixty hours per
month was needed to supervise building and yard duties. The average time that each teacher spent in building and yard duties was ten hours per month.
The teachers spent
fifteen hours per week in building and yard duty assignments. Each teacher averaged two and fifty hundredths hours per week in building and yard duty assignments.
According to the
54 yard duty schedule 180 minutes per day were needed to supervise building and yard duties.
Each teacher at the
Abbott School averaged thirty minutes per day in building and yard duty assignments. (9) The Keppel School with a teaching staff of four teen teachers needed fourteen teachers per day to supervise the building and yard duties.
A total of forty-six hours
per month was needed to supervise building and yard duties. The average time that each teacher spent in the assigned duties was five hours per month.
The teachers spent eleven
and fifty hundredths hours per week in building and yard duty assignments.
Each teacher averaged one and twenty-five
hundredths hours per week in these assignments.
According
to the yard duty schedule 170 minutes per day were needed to supervise the building and yard duties.
Each teacher in
the Keppel School averaged fifteen minutes per day in the assignment of these duties. (10) The Emerson School with a teaching staff of seven teen teachers needed fourteen teachers per day to supervise the building and yard duties.
A total of eighty-three and
thirty-three hundredths hours per month was needed to super vise building and yard duties.
The average time that each
teacher spent in building and yard duties was six hours per month.
The teachers spent eighteen hours per week in
these duties with each teacher averaging one and fifty
55 hundredths hours per week in the assignments.
According
to the yard duty schedule 250 minutes per day were needed to supervise building and yard duties and each teacher at the Emerson School averaged eighteen minutes per day in building and yard duty assignments. (11) The Roosevelt School with a teaching staff of thirty teachers needed thirty-one teachers per day to super vise the building and yard duties.
A total of sixty-six
and sixty-eight hundredths hours per month was needed to supervise building and yard duties.
The average time that
each teacher spent in building and yard duties was eleven and sixty-eight hundredths hours per month.
The teachers
spent sixteen and sixty-seven hundredths hours per week in building and yard duty assignments with each teacher averag ing two and ninety-two hundredths hours per week in these assignments.
According to the yard duty schedule two hundred
minutes per day were needed to supervise building and yard duties and each teacher in the Roosevelt School averaged thirty-five minutes per week in these duties. (12) The Jefferson School with a teaching staff of five teachers needed six teachers per day to supervise the building and yard duties.
A total of twenty-six and sixty-
eight hundredths hours per month was needed to supervise the assigned duties.
The average time that each teacher
spent in building and yard duties was five hours per month.
56 The teachers spent six and sixty-seven hundredths hours per week in building and yard duties with each teacher averag ing one and twenty-five hundredths hours per week in these assignments.
According to the yard duty schedule eighty
minutes per day were needed to supervise building and yard duties and each teacher in the Jefferson School averaged fifteen minutes per week in these duties. (13)
The Victory Park School with a teaching staff
of twelve teachers needed ten teachers per day to supervise the building and yard duties.
A total of fifty-three and
thrity-two hundredths hours per month was needed to super vise building and yard duties.
The average time that each
teacher spent in building and yard duties was six and sixtyseven hundredths hours per month.
The teachers spent thir
teen and thirty-three hundredths hours per week in building and yard duty assignments with each teacher averaging one and sixty-seven hundredths hours per week in these duties. According to the yard duty schedule 160 minutes per day were needed to supervise the building and yard duties and each teacher in the Victory Park School averaged twenty minutes per week in these duties. A further study was made of the time involved in building and yard duty assignments according to the method of assignment as presented in Table I I * page 40. Schools in which the principal made the assignments
57 and schedules., the total hours of building and yard duties ranged from forty-six hours per month to one hundred eight hours per month, showing a variance of sixty-two hours in the time spent in supervising the building and yard duties in the individual schools.
In these schools the average
minutes that a teacher spent in building and yard duties ranged from fifteen minutes per day to thirty-five minutes per day, showing a variance of twenty minutes among the individual schools. Washington, Willard, and Jefferson the schools in which the yard duty schedule was made by principal and teachers, the total hours of building and yard duties rang ed from twenty-six and sixty-eight hundredths hours per month in a five teacher school to one hundred ten hours per month in a thirty-four teacher school.
There was a vari
ance of eighty-three and thirty-two hundredths hours per month for the individual schools.
In these schools the
average minutes that a teacher spent in building and yard duties ranged from fifteen minutes per day to seventeen and fifty hundredths minutes per day, showing a variance of two and fifty hundredths minutes among the individual schools. In Lincoln and Longfellow, the schools in which the building and yard duties were assigned by a teacher com mittee, the total hours of building and yard duties rang ed from forty-six hours per month in a sixteen teacher
58 school to eighty-one and sixty-four hundredths hours per month in another sixteen teacher school.
There was a
variance of thirty-five and sixty-four hundredths hours per month between the two schools.
In these schools the average
minutes that teacher spent in building and yard duties rang ed from twenty-two and fifty hundredths minutes per day to twenty-five minutes per day, showing a variance of two and fifty hundredths minutes between the individual schools. Excusing teachers from building and yard duties. Eleven of the principals interviewed felt that teachers should not be released from building and yard duties when they were also assigned to other special duties.
The prin
cipals considered the rotation of all assignments as being essential to the equalization of building and yard duty loads.
Arrangements were made for the teacher to change
yard duty with another teacher if the special duty took place at the same time the teacher was assigned to building and yard duties. Only one principal felt that teachers should be re leased from building and yard duty when they were assigned to some other special duty.
This statement was limited in
that the other special duty should involve a teacher in structing the glee club or a teacher who was representing the school in the teachers’ club. This chapter has presented the existing practices of
59 assigning building and yard duty assignments to Compton Elementary Teachers.
The next chapter will present the
findings of the questionnaires sent to Compton Elementary Teachers.
CHAPTER V THE RESULTS OP THE QUESTIONNAIRES SENT TO COMPTON ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
The preceding chapter has presented the existing practices in assigning building and yard duties to Compton Elementary Teachers.
This chapter will present the results
of the questionnaires that were sent to Compton Elementary Teachers.
The results of the questionnaires presented ans
wers to these questions:
(l) What were the different;,
of duty in which the teachers had participated?
types
(2) What
other special duties had been assigned to the teachers? (3) What were the choices of duty among the teachers?
(A)
What duties did the teachers consider as unnecessary?
(5 )
To what extent did the teachers participate in the scheduling of building and yard duties?
(6) Did the teachers feel that
they should participate in the assignment?
(7 ) What types
of duty provided opportunities for educational instruction to the children?
(8) By what means had the teachers been
helped to better understand their responsibilities concern ing building and yard duties?
(9) Did the teachers feel
that games should be free, organized or both while they were on building and yard duties?
(10) Did the teachers
feel that they should be released from building and yard duties when they had other special duties as, glee club,
*61 chairmen of Red Cross, UNESCO, safety committees, or act ing as
representative to
the teachers' club.
Building and yard duties participated inby Compton Elementary Teachers.
The kindergarten teachers were re
leased
from building and
garten
teacher was on double sessions and spent the day
with her own classes.
yard duty schedules.
Each kinder
Therefore, the kindergarten teacher's
name did not appear on the yard duty schedules. The teachers in grades one through six were sched uled on a rotation basis.
The tabulation of the question
naires showed that all teachers' had not participated in all scheduled building and yard duties.
Table V gives the per
centage of teachers, primary through the sixth grade, who had participated in each type duty.
The range was from
twenty-nine or thirty-two and two tenths per cent of the teachers who had participated in after school duty to ninety of one hundred per cent of the teachers who had par ticipated in recess duty.
Fifteen of the teachers survey
ed were not included in the cafeteria due to the fact that the school to which they were assigned had no cafeteria. Special duties in which Compton Elementary Teachers had participated.
The teachers surveyed were asked to
list the duties other than building and yard duties they had had this year.
Each teacher had participated in at
62
TABLE V PERCENTAGE OP TEACHERS ASSIGNED TO EACH TYPE BUILDING AND YARD DUTY IN THE COMPTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Type of duty
Recess Hall Cafeteria Sack lunch Noon yard Before school After school
Number of teachers surveyed (primary-sixth) 90 90 *75 90 90 90 90
Number that had had duty
90 37 40 76 59 82 29
Percentage
100.00 41.11 53.33 84.44 65.56 91.11 32.22
* Fifteen teachers not included - no cafeteria in the school.
63 least one special assignment.
The special assignments were
numerous and were as follows:
Teacher club representative *
glee club instructor, Red Cross chairman, safety chairman, testing program, duty at school carnival, distributing and counting milk for first and second grades, bank chairman for the school, physical education chairman, salary club com mittee, art chairman, courtesy chairman, verse choir in structor, UNESCO chairman, Junior Red Cross, chairman of lost and found, classroom teacher representative to C.T.A., treasurer for building teachers' fund, coordinator for cof fee club, social chairman, glee club accompanist, student teacher conferences, chairman of March of Dimes, secretary of teachers' club, hospitality committee, and curriculum supply committee. The tabulation of the questionnaires indicated that the time spent in special assignments, other than building and yard duties, had been fairly equalized among the teach ers . Choice of duty.
According to the questionnaires of
the teachers surveyed, recess was the most popular of the duties that are assigned.
The second choice that appealed
to the teachers was before school duty. mentioned were:
Choices of duty also
noon yard duty, hall duty, sack lunch duty,
cafeteria duty, and after school duty.
The choice of duty
was indicated by the frequency with which teachers chose a
64 certain type duty.
Table VI gives the frequency and per
centage of the teachers' choices in building and yard duties. Teacher participation.
The replies to the question,
Do you participate in the assignment of building and yard duties, indicated:
(l) fifty-six and sixty-seven hundredths
per cent of the teachers had not participated in the assign ment of building and yard duties,
(2) forty-three and thirty-
three hundredths per cent of the teachers had participated in the assignments. A majority or seventy per cent of the teachers in dicated that teachers should participate in the assignment of building and yard duties, while thirty per cent of the teachers felt that teachers should not participate in the assignment. Opportunities for educational instruction.
That
opportunities for educational instruction to children are unlimited in building and yard duties was indicated by eighty-three and thirty-three hundredths per cent of the teachers.
Opportunities for teaching safety, fair play,
sharing and good health were mentioned quite frequently. Other teachers felt that the instruction should be a follow-up procedure in the classroom; that a teacher could not watch the playground and teach at the same time.
The
65
TABLE VI TEACHERS' CHOICE OF BUILDING AND YARD DUTIES ASSIGNED TO COMPTON ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
Duty Recess Before school Noon yard Hall Sack lunch Cafeteria After school
Number choosing duty 37 33 8 5 3 2 2
Percentage 41.11 36.67 8.89 5.56 3.33 ‘2.22 2.22
66 educational values presented in each type duty were: Recess.
The teacher might instruct the children in
safety and good citizenship.
Through instruction during
all yard duties the teacher might help children learn to utilize their time.
The teacher might help the children
learn to work and play together in a socially acceptable way. Cafeteria and sack lunch.
The children may be in
structed in manners and cleanliness.
The children may be
instructed in the values of a wholesome balanced diet. Hall duty.
The teacher may help children to learn
to proceed in an orderly and quiet manner.
Children may be
instructed in respecting the rights of others. The opinion that all or some of the duties does not provide opportunities for educational instruction to children was indicated by sixteen and sixty-seven hundredths per cent of the teachers.
Duties that did not provide
opportunities for educational instruction were; before school, noon yard, and after school.
The specific reason
given was that there were too many children on the play ground at one time for any learning situation to take place. An added comment was that the teacher on yard duty was merely a !?policemann to blow a whistle when someone was doing wrong.
67 Instructions to teachers concerning building and yard duties.
To determine the means by which teachers are
instructed in the educational values of building and yard duties the questionnaire contained these two questions, (l) Have you discussed the educational value of building and yard duties in your faculty meetings; and (2) Have you received mimeographed instructions as to the nature of building and yard duties?
The replies indicated that the
principals had assumed the responsibility of acquainting teachers with the educational values of building and yard duties.
Eighty-three and thirty-three hundredths per cent
of the teachers indicated that they had discussed the educa tional values of building and yard duties in faculty meet ings, while sixteen and sixty-seven hundredths per cent of the teachers indicated that they had not had them discussed in their faculty meetings.
Mimeographed instructions as
to the nature of building and yard duties had been re ceived by seventy-six and sixty-seven hundredths per cent of the teachers.
The other twenty-three and thirty-three
hundredths per cent of the teachers indicated that they had not received mimeographed instructions regarding building and yard duties. The replies to the question, are building and yard duties discussed as a part of your instructional period in the classroom, indicated that eighty-eight and eighty-nine
68 hundredths per cent of the teachers had conducted such discussions * while eleven and one tenth per cent had not discussed them as a part of the instruction period in the classroom. Ninety-two per cent of the teachers questioned felt that all the assigned duties were essential.
The other
eight per cent felt that all duties were unnecessary for classroom teachers.
They expressed written opinions for
special yard duty teachers to be assigned to all building and yard duties. Organization of game s .
According to the replies
eighty-five and fifty-five hundredths per cent of the teach ers preferred free games during yard duties and the child ren should be allowed to participate in a game of their own choice.
Eleven and eleven hundredths per cent or the
teachers preferred a combination of organized and free games.
The games being organized for the upper grades and
free for the lower grades.
Three and thirty-three hundredths
per cent of the teachers preferred games of the organized type for all the grades. Rotation of duties.
The rotation of duties has been
discussed in the findings of Chapter IV. Releasing teachers from building and yard duties. The results indicated:
(l) Thirty and forty-four hundredths
69 per cent of the teachers surveyed felt teachers who had other special duties should be released from building and yard duties.
The teachers placed limits on these answers
and stated the teachers should be released if the special duty involved part of the teaching day.
(2) Sixty-nine
and fifty-five hundredths per cent of the teachers felt teachers should not be released from building and yard duties even though they had other special duties to per form.
These teachers felt the special duties were rotated
regularly and all teachers would eventually participate in the special duties. Table VII presents the percentage of yes-no answers in the teachers1 questionnaire. This chapter has presented the results of the find ings in the teachers questionnaires regarding the assign ment and nature of building and yard duties.
The next
chapter will present the summary and conclusions of the study.
70 TABLE VII PERCENTAGE OF YES-NO ANSWERS IN TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE
Question
Percentage Yes No
Do you participate in the assignment of building and yard duties?
43.33
56.67
Should teachers participate in the assignment of building and yard duties?
70.00
30.00
8.00
92.00
Do you feel that any of these buildings and yard duties provide opportunities for educational instruction to children?
83.33
16.67
Have you discussed the educational value of building and yard duties in your faculty meetings?
83.33
16.67
Have you received mimeographed instruc tions as to the nature of building and yard duties?
76.67
23-33
Are they discussed as part of your instructional period in the classroom?
88.89
11.11
Do you feel that teachers who have other special duties should be released from building and yard duties?
30.44
69.56
Do you consider any of these building and yard duties as unnecessary?
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the study. The more important findings of the study will be restated in this chapter and the final conclusions of the writer as brought out by the study will be presented. Summary. 1.
These findings were brought out in the study
Building and yard duties constituted an important
part of the school program in the Compton Elementary Schools. 2.
School ground organizations varied and the result
ant duties varied according to the organization of the school 3.
Principals in eight of the schools set up the
schedules for building and yard duties and assigned the teachers to the schedule.
In two of the schools, the duties
needed were decided and assigned by teacher committees.
The
principal and teachers together set up the schedules in three of the schools. 4.
In the schools where the principal set up the
schedule there was a variance of twenty minutes per day among the schools in the time that teachers averaged on duty.
In the schools where the principal and teachers to
gether and teacher committees made the assignment there was a variance of only two and one-half minutes per day among
72 the schools in the time that teachers averaged on duty. 5.
In the Compton Elementary Schools 259 teachers
per day were needed to supervise building and yard duties. The number of teachers needed per day according to the type of duty was:
(l) recess duty* 86 teachers;
duty, 15 teachers;
(3) noon yard duty, 41 teachers;
cafeteria duty, 9 teachers; ers;
(2) hall (4)
(5 ) sack lunch duty, 62 teach
(6 ) before school duty, 39 teachers; and (7 ) after
school duty, 7 teachers. 6.
Compton Elementary Teachers spent a total of
913.65 hours per month in building and yard duties.
Based
on a ten month school year this totals 9 *136.50 hours per ye ar. 7-
The average minutes of building and yard duties
per teacher throughout the Compton Elementary Schools was 22.35 minutes per day. 8.
Principals and teachers alike agreed that building
and yard duties provided excellent opportunities in educa tional instruction for the children in the school. 9.
The principals encouraged teachers to instruct
children while on yard duties through discussions in facul ty meetings, in individual conferences of principal and teach ers, in safety meetings, as the direct opportunity arose and by presenting written bulletins to the teachers. 10.
Games in which the children participated in the
73 individual school were both free and organized, according to the size of the playground. 11.
Kindergarten teachers were not assigned to build
ing and yard duty schedules.
Other teachers were rotated
on a weekly, monthly, or yearly basis. 12.
The assignment to special duties such as, glee
club, teachers’ club representative, and chairmen of differ ent organizations, was rotated equally among the teachers in the individual schools.
Due to the equally rotated
assignments in other special duties, principals did not feel that a teacher should be released from building and yard duties. 13.
The Compton Elementary Teachers had participated
in twenty-six special duties other than building and yard duties. 14.
Even though the yard duty schedules were set up
so- that teachers rotated through every type duty during the course of one semester, some teachers had not participated in each type duty assigned to the schedule. 15-
The teachers indicated that recess was the most
popular duty assigned to teachers,* 41.11 per cent indicated recess as their first choice of duty.
Before school duty
was the choice of 36.67 per cent of the teachers. 16.
The findings showed that 43*33 per cent of the
teachers had participated in scheduling the assignments for
74 building and yard duties while 56-67 per cent of the teach ers had not participated in the scheduling of the assign ments . 17.
The findings showed that 70 per cent of the
teachers felt that they should be allowed to participate in the assigning of building and yard duties, while 30 per cent of the teachers had no desire to participate in the scheduling of these duties. 18.
Opportunities for educational instructional to
children were unlimited in building and yard duties was the opinion of 83.33 per cent of the t e a c h e r s w h i l e 16.67 per cent of the teachers felt that building and yard duties did not provide opportunities for educational instruction. 19-
The educational values of building and yard duties
had been discussed in faculty meetings by 83.33 per cent of the teachers, while 16.67 per cent of the teachers had not discussed them in faculty meetings. 20.
Mimeographed instructions as to the nature of
building and yard duties had been received by 76.67 per cent of the teachers, while 23*33 per cent of the teachers had not received mimeographed instructions. 21.
The opinion of 88.89 per cent of the teachers
was that building and yard duties should be integrated with their instructional periods in the classroom, while 11.11 per cent of the teachers did not mention building and yard
75 duties as being discussed in the classroom with boys and girls. 22.
The opinion of 92.00 per cent of the teachers
was that all yard duties were essential to the organiza tion of the school and that all teachers should, participate in the supervision of the duties.
The other 8.00 per cent
felt that the duties were unnecessary and that special teachers should be assigned to supervise the building and yard duties. 23-
Even though they had some other special duty to
perform, 69-55 per cent of the teachers felt that they should not be released from building and yard duties.
The
other 3^-44 per cent of the teachers felt that teachers should be released from building and yard duties if the special duty involved part of the school day. Conelusions. 1.
Building and yard duties may or may not be neces
sary to the organization of the school, but due to the legal responsibility placed upon the school the principals and teachers alike must assume the responsibilities for them. 2.
If a principal desires to share or give up some
of the authority delegated to him by the school board so the teachers can share on a democratic basis in deciding build ing and yard duties in the school and the teachers accept
76 that opportunity, then they have morally obligated them selves to assume their share of the responsibility for the successful operation of the yard duty schedule. 3.
Yard duty is an important means for the educa
tion of children.
Therefore, it is the duty of the prin
cipal to see that all his teachers are acquainted with their responsibility in connection with yard duties. 4.
Compton Elementary Teachers were fortunate in
that they had administrators whorecognized the working load involved in building and yard duty assignments and who gave much thought and care to the development of a schedule that provided equal allotments of time for all the teachers in the individual schools. 5-
The teachers in the Compton Elementary Schools
expressed a desire to participate in the assigning of teach ers to building, and yard duty schedules. 6..
The variance of time in the yard duty schedules
was in accordance with the number of teachers available for assignment to yard duties, the number of pupils in the school, and the size of the playground. 7.
Due to the equalization of the working load,
assignment to other special duties did not justify a teach er being released from building and yard duties. 8.
Building and yard duties provide unlimited
opportunities for educational instruction to children.
77 Normal play Interests and activities could be observed by the teacher on building and yard duties, thus the teacher gained a better understanding of the specific needs of the individual child. Two questions raised in the mind of the writer which required research beyond the scope of this study were: 1.
To what extent, if any, do the teachers who
participated in the assigning of building and yard duties better understand the value of these duties than do the teachers who had not participated in making the assignments? 2.
How does the time spent in building and yard
duties by Compton Elementary Teachers compare with the time spent by teachers in other districts of comparable size?
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
78 A.
BOOKS
Almack, J. C., and A. R. Lang, Problems of the Teaching Profession. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1925. P O pp. Barr, A. S., W. H. Burton, and L. J. Brueckner, Supervision. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1 9 3 8 . 9 0 1 pp. Bolton, P. E., T. R. Cole, and J. H. Jessup, The Beginning Superintendent. New York: The Macmillan Company, 193T . 613 pp. Briggs, Thomas H . , Improving Instruction. Macmillan Company, 19387 587 P P •
New York:
The
California Administrative Code Title Department of Educa tion, Sacramento: Bureau of Printing, 1949* PP. Cubberley, Elwood P., The Principal and His School. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1923571 pp. Dewey, John, Reconstruction in Philosophy. Holt and Company, 1931* *~46l p p .
Boston:
New York:
H.
Good, C. V., A. S. Barr, and D. E. Scates, The Methodology of Educational Research.New York: D. Appleton- Cen tury, Company, 1938.890 pp. Koopman, G. R., A. Miel, and P. J. Misner, Democracy in School Administration. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1934323 PP* Koos, Leonard V., The Questionnaire in Education. Company, 1928. 178 pp.
New York:
_______ , The American Secondary School. Company, 1927. 878 P P *
New York:
Ginn and
Kyte, George C., The Principal at Work. Company, 1941. 495 PP*
New York:
Ginn and
Mort, Paul R . , Principles of School Administration. York: The Macmillan Company, 1941. 38O p p .
New
Reeder, Ward G . , The Fundamentals of Public School Administra tion. New York: The Macmillan Company, 19^-1* 798 p p .
79 B.
PERIODICAL ARTICLES
Burke, Gertrude, "Teacher Participation in Administration/' National Education Association, Proceedings, 67:350-351* Caswell, Hollis, "Survey Techniques," Educational Administra tion and-Supervision, September,.1933• P P . 431-441. Dewey, John, "Democracy and Educational Administration," Official Report, New Orleans Convention, February 20 to 25, 1937 s of the American Association of School Admin istrators, (Washington, D. C., National Education Association), pp. 51-56. Gibbard, Minnie A., "A Handbook for the Teachers of an Elem entary School," Educational Method, Vol. 11, March, 1932. pp. 359-3 W I HIrschman, Margaret, "The School as a Democratic Institu tion," in Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, Twenty-Second Yearbook, July, 1943. PP. 264-267. Jacobs, R. C. T . , "Making the Lunchroom an Educating Factor," in Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, Ninth Yearbook, 1930. pp. 364369. Kassenbrock, Vincent, "A Democratic Solution to the Problem of Building Assignments," High Points, Vol. 30, No. 6, June, 1948. pp. Kretsinger, R. W., "Yard Duty Assignments,” in Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, Ninth Yearbook, 1930. pp. 347-351. Leipold, L. E., "Administrative Relationship of the Elemen tary School Principal," Educational Administration and Supervision, 29:27-34,.January, 1943. Petersen, Carrie, and others, "Administrative Practices Which Increase Staff Efficiency and Morale," in Elem entary School Principals, National Education Associa tion, Twenty-Second Yearbook, October, 1942. pp. 49-51. Peterson, Anna L., "Teacher Participation in the Determina tion of Policies From the Viewpoint of the Classroom Teacher," National Education Association, Proceedings, 63:94-98. 1925.
80 Reese., Sara M. , and M. Watkins, "Respecting the Rights and Opinions of Others," in Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, TwentySecond Yearbook, July, 1943PP- 331-335Stanton, E. A., "The Delegation of Extra-Classroom Respon sibilities,1' . ^ Department of Elementary School Prin cipals, National Education Association, Ninth Yearbook, 1930. pp. 343-346. Starr, G. G. , f!,Noon Hour* is Fun," School Executive, Vol. 57, April, 1938. pp. 349-350. Strayer, George D . , "Why Teacher Participation in School Administration," Teachers College Record, 38:457-464, March, 1937Wilson, H. B., "The Participation of the Teaching Staff in Administration," Educational Administration and Super vision, 7:63-64, January, 1920.
C.
UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Ferris, Charlotte M . , "A Survey of the Los Cerritos Elem entary School in Clearwater, California," unpublished Master's thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1947. 122 pp.
University of Southern C alifornia Library