A study of instructional support services and bureaucracy as perceived by teachers in selected school districts in Tennessee

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of the bureaucracy of school systems and the provision of instructional supervisory support services. Teachers from five school systems in East Tennessee were selected for the study. A district was selected to represent each of the following categories: city school district (less than 25,000 total population), city school district (25,000 to 125,000 total population), city school district (greater than 125,000 total population), county school district (rural), and county school district (urban-suburban).

Based upon the median score of the respondent on Part D of the Supervisors' Instructional Supervision Questionnaire, teachers of each district were classified as "usually receive instructional supervisory support services" or "did not usually receive instructional supervisory support services." Respondents' perceptions of the six dimensions of bureaucracy were obtained by using the School Organizational Inventory. Analyses of Variance were made of the responses of the two groups' perceptions of hierarchy of authority, division of labor, presence of rules, procedural specifications, impersonality, and technical competence. Significant differences in group responses at the .05 level were noted. The Scheffe test was used for the post hoc analysis.

Findings of the study were:

1. There was no significant difference between the perceptions held by teachers who "usually receive instructional supervisory support services" and teachers who "did not usually receive iii

iv instructional supervisory support services" regarding hierarchy of authority, division of labor, presence of rules, procedural specifications, impersonality, and technical competence for District A, District B, District C, and District E.

2. There was no significant difference between the perceptions held by teachers who "usually receive instructional supervisory support services" and teachers who "did not usually receive instructional supervisory support services" regarding hierarchy of authority, presence of rules, procedural specifications, impersonality, and technical competence for District D. There was a significant difference between the perceptions held by teachers who "usually receive instructional supervisory support services" and those who "did not" regarding division of labor for District D.

3. Among the school districts there was a significant difference in the perceptions held by teachers who "usually receive instructional supervisory support services" regarding hierarchy of authority, impersonality, and technical competence.

4. Among the school district there was no significant difference in the perceptions held by teachers who "usually receive instructional supervisory support services" regarding division of labor, presence of rules, and procedural specifications.

5. Among the school districts there was no significant difference in the perceptions held by teachers who "did not usually receive instructional supervisory support services" regarding hierarchy of authority, presence of rules, procedural specifications, impersonality,

and technical competence. Among the school districts there was a significant difference in the perceptions held by teachers who "did not usually receive instructional supervisory support services" regarding division of labor.

There was no significant difference between the perceptions held by all the teachers in the study who "usually receive instructional supervisory support services" and all the teachers in the study who "did not usually receive instructional supervisory support services" regarding hierarchy of authority, division of labor, presence of rules, procedural specifications, and impersonality. There was a significant difference between the perceptions held by all the teachers in the study who "usually receive instructional supervisory support services" and all the teachers in the study who "did not usually receive instructional supervisory support services" regarding technical competence.

Based upon the findings of this study the conclusions were:

1. The bureaucratic structure of each school system as perceived by the teachers was not a contributing factor to the teachers' perception of instructional supervisory support services.

2. The size of the school system was not a factor in the teachers' perceptions of the dimensions of bureaucracy.