Linking Class Growth and Bureaucratic Administrative

Structure to Teacher Burnout

Todd Davidson

SID: 602-12-9596

Sociology 103 - Winter

Professor Lionel Cantu

Section: Wed. 6-8 p.m.

TA - Jack Fong

March 16, 2001

I. Abstract:

The hypothesis of this study finds that as classes continue to grow, increasingly

bureaucratic administrative systems coincide with decreasing teacher autonomy and increasing

stress which leads to a reduction in teaching effectiveness ultimately culminating in physical and

emotional burnout. The pretest in this study provides an initial idea of the validity in my

hypotheses as well as providing specific direction for further research into teachers’ interactions

and effectiveness. The pretest consisted of a thirty-two item survey instrument distribution to 100

teachers at two school sites. Distribution of the survey at the first site was via the principals

assistant and involved no direct contact with the participants. The distribution at the second site,

however, was done at a staff meeting after an introduction of myself and the study being

conducted. There were only 17 instruments returned, constituting a sample size far below what

was expected. The literary ground work for this study was provided by Schultz et al. (1995)

providing a solid link between job satisfaction and staff burnout. Several other sources also

validated the variables and connections involved with this study.

In the pretest for this study 84% of the sample believed that their overall job satisfaction is

based on their ability to teach effectively. Furthermore, 83% believe that job related stress affects

their ability to teach effectively and I will show that 93% of respondents stress increases with

large classes. This chain of causal linkages is extremely strong at every connection and supports

the stress relation portion of my hypothesis exceptionally well. Concurrently, the data also shows

that 76% of the sample believes that autonomy affects their ability to teach effectively. Following

the aforementioned connection of teaching effectiveness and job satisfaction a similarly strong

causal link can be formed with regards to autonomy. The results concerning bureaucracy were

Davidson 2
not congruent with previously mentioned trends in this study. The effects of bureaucracy on job

satisfaction showed an even distribution along the middle attributes with 30% disagreeing, 30%

finding no connection, and %40 agreeing. The variable of bureaucracy adversely affecting

teaching ability and performance was the only variable that was not supported by the data in the

pretest. The data showed that 77% of the sample population felt that there was only some

bureaucracy in their administration. Also, approximately 70% of the sample also felt that

administrative bureaucracy was not growing or declining and has no effect on their ability to teach

effectively.

II. Introduction:

America’s educational system is experiencing an enormous crisis as the demand for more

quality schools continues to climb and the supply of adequately trained teachers falls further into

recession. According to the Department of Education projection, the state of California alone will

need to fill more than 25,000 teaching jobs in the year 20011. In implementing newly developed

theories designed to alleviate overcrowding in our classrooms, standards for hiring qualified new

teachers have been overrun by insatiable demands to fill classrooms with any able bodied

individual. John Studebaker said that, “Administrators have had their hands full attempting to

keep their schools properly staffed and seeing to it that the quality of instruction did not suffer too

greatly as a result of the high teacher turnover.”(1948:269) The trend of teachers being placed in

American schools with limited education and training in order to fill the demands of a growing

population is a clear indication to me that the American education system is in desperate need of

help. Research into making the U.S. public education system more effective in serving the

1
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/TchHires1.asp

Davidson 2
growing population while still providing an in depth and comprehensive education is an immense

field, however, there are some critical issues that have been explored individually, but not

connected to fundamental problems within the entire institution.

Purpose:

My objective in this study is to show the trend of increasing burnout and decreasing

teacher efficacy as a function of fundamental flaws in the infrastructure of our schools. I hope to

explore the damage that the governing educational policy and reform may have done to teachers

ability to teach, students ability to learn and the effectiveness of the American public education

system in general. As schools continue to grow and administrations struggle to coordinate and

maintain state mandated standards of academic achievement, the school of thought dominating

modern educational policy and reform dictates that more administration and bigger schools will

serve a greater population more efficiently. The downside to this ideology is that the happiness

and welfare of the teachers themselves gets lost in the process. As a result, teachers are often

overburdened and not given ample control over their own classrooms. Schultz et al also

recognizes that, “Theoretical models linking environmental context, organization structure, and

management processes to burnout have seldom been proposed or examined.”(1995:333)

Attempting to herd teachers and students into classrooms under the utilitarian premise of serving

the greatest number of students an education based on efficiency is absurd, but common. If done

at a full scale, this study could hopefully raise awareness and understanding of the teachers’

plight.

Goals:

The studies that have already been conducted relating to this topic have examined all of

Davidson 3
the above aspects of public education independent of a synthesis relating to teacher burnout.

Studies on group organization, teacher efficacy, bureaucratic administrative structure, and stress

in the workplace have all developed more in depth understandings of work satisfaction, but none

of the studies I found tried to link the common denominators of administrative structure and

growth to personal affects and teacher burnout. Susan Rosenholtz, for example, studied

classroom organization relating to student academic achievement in 1981 and workplace

conditions as they relate to teachers’ commitment in 1990, but her studies failed to incorporate

self perceived effectiveness or stress in relation to teachers burning out. Also, some of the studies

like those done by Lee, Dedrick and Smith (1995) directly contradicted the conclusions from the

same author’s earlier article in the same publication. Contradictory and incomplete analyses of

burnout has further validated the need for more conclusive studies of teacher burnout. Drawing a

concise connection between many of the elements studied in the scholarly literature with regards

to the educational system and teacher burnout specifically is a primary goal of this study.

Significance:

The pretest in this study provides an initial idea of the validity in my hypotheses as well as

providing specific direction for further research into teacher’s interactions and effectiveness.

Discovering which variables are supported and which are not will help streamline further research

in this area. Over the longer term, a full scale research design following this pretest may be able

to more accurately and comprehensively show which elements contribute to teacher burnout.

Discovering the causes of teacher’s stress and frustration may help us retain teachers longer while

creating a better learning environment for students as well.

All of the issues surrounding public education are extremely important because public

Davidson 4
schools set the foundation of our society. A democratic society relies solely on its citizens to

make informed decisions in regards to every facet of daily life. If our schools are only giving kids

the most basic educations because they have limited flexibility to move beyond the traditional

structured curriculum, how can we expect those kids to develop the cognitive skills they will need

to function in society. Martha Montero-Sieburth shares that, “like developing countries, America

must learn how to best allocate and utilize existing resources in (school) settings in ways that are

most productive to actual student learning. What goes on in the classroom is significantly related

to the structure of schooling in general.”(1989:343-44) This research, if continued on a full scale,

could potentially help the educational systems at the local, state, and national levels constitute

change that would enable teachers to stay in the profession longer and with more enthusiasm and

motivation. In an ideal setting, these changes would vastly improve our public school systems

which would allow us to provide a substantially more valuable education to the nations youth.

III. Literature Review

Background:

Efforts to restructure American schools as an alternate way to accommodate growth have

only endowed more bureaucratic methods of school administration which will in turn degrade the

purpose and effectiveness of the entire school system. As a result, schools are now faced with the

double-edged sword of massive growth: school structures are becoming more stratified and

hierarchical in an attempt to structure and control their increasing populations while teachers are

being expected to teach effectively with dwindling freedom or creativity within the curriculum.

Weber and Motz (1968) found that, “Instead of seeing the classroom as one wherein students and

staff influence one another through some positive interaction, they saw themselves as dependent

Davidson 5
subordinates in an impersonal, authoritarian organization, which in some broader context, also

occupied a subordinate position.”(p.134) The purpose of my study, is to simply accept the

growing population of American schools as one contribution to the setting of a far greater

developing problem. To examine the problem of teacher burnout we have to look at the

conditions that teachers are working in an why it is so volatile. Anthony Dworkin says that, “The

psychological aspects of burnout, including feelings of exhaustion, depersonalization, and

meaninglessness of work stem from the frequency and intensity of interactions in a teaching

setting.” (1987:68) The setting includes administration, class sizes, and interactions with students

and colleagues.

The debate on what school size, class size, or administrative structure leads to the best

possible working and learning environment is one that becomes more difficult to resolve as

student populations continue to rise. In their study on social organization and teachers’ efficacy

Lee, Dedrick and Smith (1991) state, “It is likely that once such school characteristics are

controlled, larger schools have more of the resources teachers think they need, and teachers thus

feel more efficacious in their working environments.”(p.204) Yet in their study on school

restructuring and academic achievement, Lee and Smith (1995) say that, “Students in small

schools are more engaged in their courses, and engagement is higher and more equitably

distributed.”(p.259) This idea of small interactions being beneficial to both the student and the

teacher is reiterated throughout Emory Bogardus’ article (1928). He says that great social

distance means the teachers’ failure to appreciate the pupils experience which means the teacher is

less likely to connect with the pupils thinking (1928). Although these assertions are from

opposing perspectives (teacher vs. students), both of Lee and Smith’s studies implied that teacher

Davidson 6
efficacy is based on their ability to engage the students with the curriculum which puts these

statements in direct opposition. Bogardus’ article supports the more commonly accepted idea

that smaller classes allow for teachers to be more effective. This assertion that teaching

effectiveness is highly dependent on student learning and engagement that Lee and many others

have made, is one that I will rely on heavily throughout this study.

Conversely, the study by Schulz, Greenley and Brown (1995) provides a concise

explanation of what burnout within a staff is and what some of the associated circumstances are.

According to Schulz, Greenley and Brown, “Staff burnout is a unique type of stress syndrome

characterized by ‘emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal

accomplishment.”(1995:333). Building on a theoretical framework that environmental context

and organization structure directly affect job satisfaction and burnout, Schultz et al. substantiated

a direct link between job satisfaction and staff burnout that will be critical to this study. These

studies as well as others also found that job clarity and work satisfaction contributes heavily to

reducing the incidences of work related burnout. Under this premise, another phenomenon that

Schulz, Greenley and Brown pointed to was that, “The better educated have more participation in

decision-making and more autonomy thereby. These increase work satisfaction and individually

decrease burnout.”(1995:342) Although this article is not the only one to find these patterns

involving autonomy, stress, and burnout, it seems to articulate them in relation to autonomy,

structure and bureaucracy that allows me to draw direct connections to my own subject very

easily.

Richard Rubinson’s study (1986) was heavily influenced by these types of economic and

utilitarian views of education. His argument concludes that the fundamental direction toward

Davidson 7
larger schools and more structured bureaucracy that the public education system is taking is the

most effective method for dealing with modern schools. His study looked closely at class

relationships within the large institutional structure of schools and he concluded, utilizing

economic logic and analogies, that class conflict and struggle do not have significant effects in the

institution of U.S. schooling. In his conclusion Rubinson says, “The American pattern of

schooling has often been described as free market in status: the demand for schooling increases its

supply and the increased supply the lowers the value of schooling, causing individuals to demand

even more schooling to maintain their status positions”(1989:544). My personal feelings and

hypothesis in this project reflect a directly opposing view to Rubinson’s ideology, but through this

opposition I hope to be able to show that my case is more valid.

Eric Cooper (1989) also presents an argument in his article in the Journal of Negro

Education that draws conclusions that are directly opposite to my own views. Cooper’s study is

based on restructuring the classroom setting to remove teaching methods that he believes builds

minimum skills and continues to produce students who are unable to perform comprehension

tasks sufficiently. He finds that the more ‘didactic’ methods of teaching don’t develop enough

cognitive skills to be useful in the real world. He says, “Obstacles such as minimal-competency

tests and instructional materials steeped in lower-order objectives need to be removed. Teachers

and administrators unwilling to maintain high expectations for all students need to be retrained or

removed”(1989:116) Although Cooper’s conclusions are far removed from the ideology of

instating as many teachers as possible, trained or not, his theory is also heavily biased against any

student who may not ‘maintain high expectations’(1989). This typically conservative stance looks

good from a teacher accountability political standpoint, but contains a heavy underlying bias

Davidson 8
against minorities and low income students. For the purpose of my discussion, I will focus on

Cooper’s conclusions about classroom structure and curriculum in relation to teacher autonomy

within a bureaucracy.

Hypotheses:

As schools continue to grow I believe that increasingly structured and bureaucratic

administrative systems coincide with decreasing teacher autonomy in the classroom. Increasing

stress also leads to a reduction of self perceived efficacy and previous research has shown that all

of these factors contribute to physical and emotional burnout. The research has examined all of

these variables in their independent contexts, but I have not found a study to link all of these

aspects, specifically to teacher burnout. My hypothesis states that: As classes continue to grow,

increasingly structured and bureaucratic administrative systems coincide with decreasing teacher

autonomy and increasing stress which leads to a reduction of self perceived efficacy ultimately

culminating in physical and emotional burnout. The dependent variables of teacher autonomy,

work related stress and self perceived efficacy in this hypothesis are all simultaneous but not

mutually exclusive reactions to the independent rising rates of school population and

administrative bureaucracy.

IV. Research Design

Methods:

The purpose of this research design is to deconstruct the phenomenon of teacher burnout

as it relates to class size and structure. These variables also have key derivatives in stress,

autonomy and self perception of efficacy that will be examined to suggest a link between the

social forces of size and structure to the individual teachers job satisfaction. Examining these

Davidson 9
subjects through the effects of the social institution as well as internalized personal responses of

the teachers will allow me to draw sufficient evidence to support my hypothesis.

The data gathered through the course of this study will help construct a nomothetic model

of teacher burnout, but the scope and nature of this issue dictates an infinitely large causation

which eliminates the possibility of an idiographic conclusion. This is also why my goal is not also

to find necessary evidence indicating an exhaustive causality which, in the case of generalizations

based on human emotions, is impossible. These inherent traits of the subject as well as the syntax

of my hypothesis also confirms the appropriateness of an deductive and explanatory approach to

this research. Implementing the method of survey instrumentation to draw conclusions about

larger scale social phenomena is in itself an deductive endeavor. Likewise, this study would be

classified as explanatory simply due to its cause and effect progression through multiple variables

unlike an exploratory study which works in more general terms. This study will also include

elements of description as I must first define the setting in which teacher burnout is occurring as

well as the relationships of all the variables to the result.

In implementing my research design I will utilize a participant observation based

instrument grouped into six sections. Each section of the instrument corresponds with the

aforementioned variables of growth, structure, bureaucracy, stress, autonomy and self perception

of efficacy. The division of the instrument into sections specific to a single variable in the study

will promote reliability in the responses and allow for more accurate replicability in further

studies. Within each section of the instrument 4-6 questions will be asked most of which will

contain five measures (appendix A). Consistency in the number and type of measures throughout

the instrument will ensure accurate analysis of the data and will aid in cross referencing responses

Davidson 10
for validity. Although this research design recognizes the longitudinal nature of school growth

and changing structures within the school, this study will implement a cross-sectional

instrumentation and analysis..

Instrumentation and Operationalization:

As previously mentioned, the variables included in this research design follow a causal

relationship and must be defined in there appropriate independent or dependent roles. The

independent variables in this study are actually grouped into two linear subgroups with only one

dependent variable. The first subgroup contains the schools administrative structure, bureaucracy,

and class size growth. In my hypothesis, increases in these socio-structural variables establishes a

linkage to the development of the second, more interpersonal subgroup. Warren (1968) validated

this bi-level analysis saying that, “It is clear that any power equation must take into account both

the structural conditions of social control exercise and the social-psychological foundation on

which compliance rests.”(p.968) The interpersonal or emotional secondary variables include:

stress, autonomy, and self perceived efficacy. The transition from the socio-structural elements to

the interpersonal is to validate a link to teacher burnout, which is based on personal and emotional

motives. The variables are divided three ways because the first set of independent variables are

linked partially to the causality of the second independent subgroup. Likewise, in my hypothesis,

the second subgroup has a more direct causal link to the dependent variable. This stratification

creates a pyramid structure in visualizing the connections between variables throughout the

development of teacher burnout.(appendix B) Within the variable structure there will hopefully

develop multiple links connecting many or all of the variables to each other and to the resulting

Davidson 11
dependent variable.

The first four questions of the research instrument are designed to gather data about the

sample unit that may enable me to extrapolate more in depth analyses from the data. All of the

measures in this portion of the instrument are nominal and thus have no set indicators. These

measures are designed to establish categories of respondents whose data I may be able to

compare and contrast. The measures in this section are as follows:

1) What Subject(s) do you teach?

2) How many years have you been teaching?

3) What degrees and/or credentials do you hold?

4) What is the approximate enrolment at your school?

Measures five through ten mark the first of the six variable sections of the instrument.

These measures attempt to validate the connection between increasing class sizes and an increase

in teacher’s stress and decrease in efficacy. In this section I can operationalize class sizes as well

as the upper and lower bounds of this variable within the study using interval measures.

Questions five and six also include a measurement for years so I may be able to establish a growth

trend of class sizes over a teacher’s career. Once I establish a given data set for the class size

variable, I can utilize questions 8-10 to indicate attributes for that variable. I concluded this

section with an open ended question so the observant may include additional input to attribute to

class size.

5) What are the smallest class sizes you have encountered as a teacher? What year? ________
a) below 10, b) 10-20, c) 20-30, d) 30-40, e) above 40

6) What are the largest class sizes you have encountered as a teacher? What year? ________

Davidson 12
 a) below 10, b) 10-20, c) 20-30, d) 30-40, e) above 40

7)What do you feel the ideal class size is?

a) below 10, b) 10-20, c) 20-30, d) 30-40, e) above 40

8) Rate how you believe that class size affects students’ academic performance.
a) Not Influential, b) Slightly Influential, c) Some Influence, d) Very Influential, e)
Extremely Influential

9) What is the size of your class in relation to your ideal class size.
a) Far Below the ideal, b) Somewhat below the ideal size, c) Ideal size, d) Somewhat
above the ideal, e) Far Below the ideal size

10)How have changes in class sizes effected the structure of your classroom? (Narrative)

The next section of the instrument is designed to provide a data set validating the structure

variable of the study. This section, containing measures 11-15, also utilizes interval measures, all

of which have five indicators to allow for simple cross referencing. The logic of operationalizing

structure relies on narrowing the effects of structural requirements down to the narrowest

confines possible. To do this my measures become more and more specific to the sample unit as

they progress through the measures. Once it has been established that the structure variable

pertains directly to the teacher (sample unit) then in measures 13-15, I am establishing attributes

of structure that are also linked to class size, autonomy, and teacher efficacy.

11) Rate the percentage that you believe each of the following contributes to the way your
classroom is structured.
a) National requirement guidelines, b) State requirement guidelines, c) District
requirement guidelines, d) School Site requirement guidelines, e) Your personal interests
and goals

12) Rate how the school site administration affects your ability to teach effectively in the
classroom.
a) very negatively, b) somewhat negatively, c) no effect, d) somewhat positively, e) very
positively

Davidson 13
13) Rate your ability influence change at your school.
a) no influence, b) little influence, c) some influence, d) significant influence, e) very
strong influence

14) Rate the school site administrations ability to maintain the best possible learning
environment for students.
a) very poor, b) poor, c) average, d) good, e) very good

15) Rate the school site administrations ability to maintain the best possible working
environment for teachers.
a) very poor, b) poor, c) average, d) good, e) very good

The section of the instrument containing measures 16-19 is drawing attributes for the

variable of administrative bureaucracy. As with the previous sections all of the measures

concerning bureaucracy have five indicators labeled “a” thru “e” to allow for consistency in the

data analysis. Also continuing from previous sections, the logical order of the measures moves

from the general to the specific allowing me to narrow the scope of the attributes and maintain

validity. The term bureaucracy is best defined operationally by the indicators for measure 16. For

the purpose of this research design, the attributes of administrative control of curriculum, inability

for teachers to make changes, non-curriculum based paperwork, separation of departments, and

inequality of departmental funding best describe the type of bureaucracy that most directly effects

teacher job satisfaction. After measure 16, the instrument defines the prevalence and

pervasiveness of bureaucracy as it pertains to my subject.

16) Rate the percentage of your job related frustration that you would attribute to each of the
following bureaucratic elements.
a) Administrative control of curriculum _______%
b) Inability for teachers to make changes _______%
c) Non-curriculum based paperwork _______%
d) Separation of departments _______%
e) Inequality of departmental funding_______%

Davidson 14
17) How would you categorize the level of bureaucracy within your school’s administration?
a) complete bureaucracy, b) large bureaucracy, c) some bureaucracy, d) largely
unstructured, e) completely unstructured

18) Rate the level of change in bureaucracy in your school’s administration during your tenure.
a) dramatically decreased, b) somewhat decreased, c) no change, d) somewhat increased,
e) dramatically increased

19) Rate the affects of bureaucracy in your school’s administration on your ability to teach
effectively.
a) very negatively, b) somewhat negatively, c) no effect, d) somewhat positively, e) very
positively

In measures 20-32 I am reducing the focus of the instrument from the socio-structural

emphasis to the second subgroup of variables dealing with personal and emotional attributes.

Measures 20-24 are exploring stress as it relates to class size, structure, and administrative

bureaucracy. Being an emotionally based variable, this section of the instrument requires ordinal

measures. However, I will continue to use five indicators per measure allowing me to cross

reference the attributes of stress to those of the other variables. In this section I am utilizing the

same reduction based logic in the order of the measures, moving from the larger scale to the

smaller. This section narrows the stress variable from the scope of the entire workplace to the

classroom and eventually to personal views of job satisfaction. This reduction of stress leads to a

definition specific to this study that finds stress to be: The resulting distress caused by frustration,

,fatigue, or overburden that leads to a reduced ability to teach effectively.

20) On average, how stressful do you view your job as being?

a) completely stressful, b) very stressful, c) somewhat stressful, d) not very stressful, e) no
stress at all

21) Do you _____ that large class sizes increase stress for teachers?
a) strongly disagree, b) disagree, c) no effect, d) agree, e) strongly agree

22) Do you ______ that stress affects your ability to teach effectively?

Davidson 15
 a) strongly disagree, b) disagree, c) no effect, d) agree, e) strongly agree

23) What portion of your job related stress do you attribute to administrative bureaucracy?
a) none, b) very little, c) half, d) the majority, e) all

24) How important is stress in determining your overall job satisfaction?

a) no relationship, b) not important, c) somewhat important, d) very important, e) critical

The next grouping of measures 25-28 finds the attributes for teacher autonomy in the classroom.

This variable is probably the most abstract of the study so operationalizing it is more difficult. Since

autonomy is a highly personalized value I could not follow the reductionist logic in my presentation of

the measures. Instead, I simply tried to connect the idea of autonomy to both the structural and personal

variables. Through these connections I found an operational definition was one that simply connected all

of the variables (administrative bureaucracy, structure, stress and self perceived efficacy) in the research

to autonomy. By doing this I can restrict the meaning of autonomy to stay within the bounds of my

research. The continuity that I was able to maintain was the form of ordinal measures with five stratified

indicators.
25) Rate the amount of freedom that you have to chose your own curriculum.
a) no freedom at all, b) limited freedom, c) some freedom, d) substantial freedom, e) complete
freedom

26) Rate the involvement of your school’s administration in determining the outcomes for your classes.
a) no control of outcomes, b) little control of outcomes, c)some control of outcomes, d) most of
the control of outcomes, e) total control of outcomes

27) Rate the importance of having autonomy in how you structure your classes in teaching effectively.
a) no importance, b) little importance, c) some importance, d) significant importance, e) most
important aspect

28) Rate the change in your autonomy in the classroom as class sizes increase.
a) greatly increases, b) somewhat increases, c) no change, d) somewhat decreases, e) greatly
decreases

The final section of the instrument for my research design looks at the sample units self

perceptions as well as attempting to draw final connections from all of the independent variables

to the dependent variable of teacher burnout. Throughout the course of this research instrument,

Davidson 16
I have developed a theme that shows job satisfaction to be the common thread connecting all of

the variables in the study to teacher burnout. In this final section of the instrument, I am

attempting to show that school growth and administrative bureaucracy ultimately leads to a

reduced ability to teach effectively. I believe that this self perception of efficacy has the greatest

effect on job satisfaction and ultimately, teacher burnout.

29) Is your overall job satisfaction based on your ability to teach effectively?
a) totally disagree, b) somewhat disagree, c) no connection, d) somewhat agree, e) totally agree

30) Does job related stress affect your ability to teach effectively?
a) strongly disagree, b) somewhat disagree, c) no connection, d) somewhat agree, e) strongly
agree

31) Do you ______ that administrative bureaucracy affects your ability to teach effectively?
a) strongly disagree, b) somewhat disagree, c) no connection, d) somewhat agree, e) strongly
agree

32) Do you ______ that having autonomy in structuring your classroom affect your ability to
teach effectively?
a) strongly disagree, b) somewhat disagree, c) no connection, d) somewhat agree, e) strongly
agree

If there are any aspects of this subject matter that you feel I have omitted and/or you wish to
expand on please do so. Any comments or suggestions about the survey are also welcome.
Thank you for your time.

Subjects of the Study:

The instrument was distributed among a sample population of high school teachers in the

Santa Cruz area who constitute the sample units of my study. During the pretest of this research

design, 100 survey’s were distributed at each of two high schools. I distributed 60 survey’s at

one Santa Cruz target school and 40 at the other. The first 60 instruments were distributed via

the school’s principal and were returned through the same means. I expected this method to yield

a small return because I had no contact with the actual participants. This approach limited my

Davidson 17
opportunity to validate and explain my research to the participants, but was done at the request of

the principal. At the second site, I was able to participate in a staff meeting and was given time to

explain my research and distribute the instrument in person.

The total instrument distribution being 100 units, I expected attrition rates should give the

pretest of my study adequate representativeness within the sample population without

overextending my resources. However, an instrument return of only 14 was far lower than I had

hoped or expected. All 14 survey’s that were returned were from the first site where I had no

contact with the participants which was unexpected. Expecting an instrument return attrition rate

of about 70%, I felt that the scope of this pretest could have yielded enough data for analysis, but

would not have be suited for making generalizations beyond the scope of the sample population.

Since the return was far lower than expected, the conclusions and analysis that I will be able to

make in this pretest will be more limited than I had hoped. The sample size is, however, still

useful in gaining a preliminary view into the subject. In order to determine the proper sample size

needed to draw conclusions concerning a greater population a statistical analysis would need to be

implemented, but is beyond the scope of my resources. In my estimation, a sample population

ranging from several hundred participants to over a thousand would be necessary to construct a

full size research design that would yield any valid conclusions.

Ethical Considerations:

Now that the methods, instrumentation, logistics and operationalization of my study have

been defined the ethical considerations must now be mentioned. Since this study does not in any

way involve subjects below the legal adult age the ethical considerations are minimal, but no less

important. I have completed and attached the appropriate forms regarding the research of Human

Davidson 18
Subjects as requested by the University of California.(see Appendix C) I believe the subject

matters that this study and instrumentation contain are not inflammatory and the data collection is

based completely optional participation and complete confidentiality. These considerations as

well as the purpose and use of the study was presented to all potential subjects in the form of a

cover letter to the survey instrument (see Appendix D) before they were asked to participate.

V. Pretest

Design:

The design of the pretest was modeled around a sample of 100 teachers who were asked

to participate in a thirty-two item survey. The teaching staff at two school sites , regardless of

their level of education, experience, or teaching subjects, constituted the study population. The

first school site has a medium to large student population of approximately 1600 students. The

second site was smaller, with a student population of only 1000. This differentiation of school

size was sought out intentionally to diversify the responses in the data for generalizability.

Accounting for expected instrument return attrition, I estimated that the data would be collected

from approximately 25-40 participants. I believe that this approach allowed me to sample from a

cross section of teachers that closely mirrored the demographics of teachers state and nation wide.

The identifiers of experience, level of education and subjects being taught did not limit who could

participate in the study, however, this information was recorded to allow me to verify the diversity

of my sample population.

The instrument distribution method was different at each school site following the request

of the principal at that site. At the first school I met with the principal, first by phone then in

person, and introduced myself and the subject of my study. After gaining his permission to survey

Davidson 19
the staff, I delivered 60 instruments to his assistant to then be distributed to the individual teachers

mailboxes. Every teacher was given a survey accompanied by a cover letter introducing myself

and the study as well as informing the participants of the optional and confidential nature of the

study.(see Appendix D) Using this method, however, meant that I had no direct contact with the

participants from this school site, which I expected would yield a smaller return rate.

Surprisingly, the vast majority of the surveys returned were from this first site.

Distribution of the survey at the second school site involved a much more personal and, I

believe, more professional method. I contacted the principal by phone and was invited to

introduce and distribute my survey at a staff meeting. After meeting briefly with the principal in

person, I was introduced first on the meeting agenda. I was able to describe why and for what I

was doing my survey as well as answering any questions the participants had before delivering the

instrument. This face to face personal approach was more fulfilling as the researcher and I believe,

created a more informed sample. However, against my expectations the returns from the second

site were extremely low which was disappointing. Overall, as previously mentioned, the survey

returns for the pretest were very low only yielding 17% of the distributed instruments.

The aim of this pretest was to gain an initial sense of direction for research combining

multiple variables from previous studies within this subject. The phenomenon of teacher burnout

is well recognized and documented, but I believe that research into the causality of burnout is

scattered and incomprehensive. Multiple studies have pointed to single factors as the primary

cause for burnout and many were in the context of business staff or a broad range of social work.

My design hopes to combine many of the elements of previous research into a more inclusive view

of teacher interactions with their surroundings. Narrowing the focus to only the educational

Davidson 20
context will help maintain external validity by focusing on specific elements of a specific

profession.

The aims of my pretest were met successfully despite the low sample number. I was able

to discount administrative bureaucracy as a significant causal factor in teacher’s stress and work

satisfaction which was an initial premise of my hypothesis. The pretest did, however, support all

of the other elements and variable connections in my hypothesis which opens an exciting

opportunity for further research. With the limited scope of my sample, it would be irresponsible

to generalize my results to apply far beyond the individual school sites involved in my study, but

given the diverse makeup of my sample population, the data collected could be given serious

consideration.

Results:

When the data is grouped into specific variable we can start to see some of the patterns

that evolve . The data in this case has been organized into six groups corresponding with each

variable and the items that pertain to them in the instrument. Tables shown beyond the raw data

for each variable are connecting the variables into a coherent causality related to job satisfaction

and burnout. In each of the tables the item number from the survey along with an abbreviated

description of the question is followed by each of the attributes. The number of responses to each

question are above the corresponding percentage which is in bold with the total number and

percentage of responses in the total column on the right side.

In order for this study to be valid at all I had to first establish that class sizes are in fact

growing and that teachers are being directly affected by this growth. Items five through nine of

the instrument corresponded with finding the trend in class size growth and its affect on students.

Davidson 21
The data indicates that 54% of the teachers who responded have seen class sizes as small as 10-20

and 72% have experienced class sizes of 30-40 (see Table 1). This indicates a rate of change in

class sizes from 50-400%, but in order to distinguish growth from decline you must determine

temporal continuity.

Table 1.

Changes in Class Size as Perceived by Teachers Total

5: Smallest A: Below 10 1 B: 10-20 7 C: 20-30 4 D: 30-40 0 E: Above 40 1 n=13

Classes
8 54 31 0 8 93%

6: Largest A: Below 10 0 B: 10-20 1 C: 20-30 0 D: 30-40 10 E: Above 40 3 n=14

Classes
0 7 0 72 21 100%

7: Ideal Class A: Below 10 1 B: 10-20 6 C: 20-30 5 D: 30-40 1 E: Above 40 1 n=14

Sizes
7 43 36 7 7 100%

8: Affects on A: No 0 B: Slight 0 C: Some 5 D: Very 4 E: Extreme 4 n=13

Students Influence Influence Influence Influential Influence
0 0 38 31 31 93%

9: Relation to A: Far 0 B: Below 1 C: Ideal 3 D: Above 5 E: Far Above 4 n=13

Ideal Below Ideal Ideal Ideal Ideal
0 8 23 38 31 93%

The second part of items five and six as mentioned earlier in the instrumentation section,

asked for the year corresponding with these class sizes. The mode for the largest experienced

class sizes was the year 2000 with 43% of the respondents reporting that year. There was not a

mode for the smallest class sizes, but the responses varied from 1985 to 1998 which is still

representative of a growth pattern.

Now that I have established a pattern of class growth the other socio-structural aspect of

this study is the affect of bureaucracy on teachers ability, stress and satisfaction. This variable is

covered by items 17-19 in the instrument. The variable of bureaucracy adversely affecting

teaching ability and performance was the only variable that was not supported by the data in the

Davidson 22
pretest. The data showed that school site requirements at 37.5% (see Table 2a), contributed the

most to the way classrooms are structured, but 77% of the sample population felt that there was

only some bureaucracy in their administration. Also, approximately 70% of the sample also felt

that administrative bureaucracy was not growing or declining and has no affect on their ability to

teach effectively (see Table 2). This belief that the administration has little affect on teachers is

reiterated in item 12 (see Table 3), where 77% of respondents feel that the administration has

either no affect or a positive affect on their work environment, and item 23 (see Table 4), where

79% believed that very little job related stress comes from bureaucracy.

Table 2.

Affects of Bureaucracy on Teaching Total

17: Level of A: Complete 0 B: Large 2 C: Some 10 D: Largely 0 E: Complete 1 n=13

Bureaucracy Bureaucracy Bureaucracy Bureaucracy Unstructured Unstructured
0 15 77 0 8 93%

18:Change in A: Drastic 0 B: Some 1 C: No 7 D: Some 2 E: Dramatic 0 n=10

Bureaucracy Decrease Decrease Change Increase Increase
0 10 70 20 0 71%

19: Effects A: Very 0 B:Somewhat 3 C: No Effect 10 D:Somewhat 0 E: Very 1 n=14

on Teaching Negatively Negatively Positively Positively
0 21 71 0 7 100%

Table 2a.

Percentage Factors Contributing to Classroom Structure (Question #11) (n=10)

A) National Requirement Guidelines 0 12 0 0 0 30 10 0 0 0 5.2%

B) State Requirement Guidelines 0 25 25 0 0 20 100 20 0 75 26.5%

C) District Requirement Guidelines 0 25 25 10 30 20 100 0 20 20 25.0%

Davidson 23
 Percentage Factors Contributing to Classroom Structure (Question #11) (n=10)

D) School Site Requirement Guidelines 20 25 0 0 50 30 100 50 80 20 37.5%

E) Personal Goals and Interests 80 13 75 90 20 0 25 30 0 5 33.8%

If bureaucracy has little to no affect on teachers ability to teach, then my next question is

how does the school’s administration affect the teachers working environment in other ways.

According to the pretest sample, 72% of teachers felt they only have little to some ability to

influence change in their work environment and 75% believe that their administration is doing a

poor to average job maintaining the best possible teaching environment (see Table 3). However,

91% of the respondents believe that the administration is doing an average to good job of

maintaining the best possible learning environment for students.

Table 3.

Administrative Influence on Work Environment Total

12: Admin. A: Very 0 B: 1 C: No Effect 6 D: Positively 4 E: Very 2 n=13

Affects Negatively Negatively Positively
0 8 46 31 15 93%

13: Influence A: No 1 B: Little 4 C: Some 6 D: Notable 1 E: Strong 2 n=14

Change Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence
7 29 43 7 14 100%

14: Learning A: Very Poor 0 B: Poor 0 C: Average 7 D: Good 4 E: Very 1 n=12

Environment Good
0 0 58 33 8 85%

15: Teaching A: Very Poor 0 B: Poor 3 C: Average 6 D: Good 2 E: Very 1 n=12

Environment Good
0 25 50 16 8 85%

So, although administrative bureaucracy was shown to have minimal affect on teachers’

effectiveness, teachers’ inability to make change shows the structure of the school working

environment seems to be concurrent with Weber and Motz analysis. The stifling and subordinate

position for teachers that Weber and Motz described in the literature review was highly correlated

with autonomy and recognition in the workplace (1968). The inability for teachers to make

Davidson 24
change in their own working environment seems to me to be an indication of an unhealthy

employee, administration and environment interaction.

The literature indicates that work related stress is another good measure for determining

employee job satisfaction. Anthony Dworkin’s book Teacher Burnout in the Public Schools,

indicates that “The essential link between stress and burnout is unproblematic.” In this pretest

50% of respondents find teaching to be a very or completely stressful occupation. Furthermore,

93% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that job related stress increases with larger class

sizes and that stress directly affects their ability to teach effectively. Over 40% of the job related

frustration in the sample was attributed to non-curriculum based paperwork which can be

correlated with administrative bureaucracy. However, non-curriculum based paperwork includes

many important tasks like attendance which is the schools only source of income and must be

done. Another aspect of work related stress that will play an considerable role in this study is that

78% of the sample believed that stress is important or very important in determining overall job

satisfaction (see Table 4). This is a crucial finding because, as I found in the literature review, job

satisfaction has been indelibly linked to staff burnout.

Table 4.

Contributors to Job Related Stress Total

20: Avg. Level A: Complete 1 B: Very 6 C: Some 5 D: Little 2 E: No Stress 0 n=14

of Stress Stress Stressful Stress Stress
7 43 36 14 0 100%

Davidson 25
 Contributors to Job Related Stress Total

21: Stress in A: Strongly 0 B: Disagree 0 C: No Affect 1 D: Agree 6 E: Strongly 7 n=14

Large Classes Disagree Agree
0 0 7 43 50 100%

22: Stress & A: Strongly 0 B: Disagree 0 C: No Affect 1 D: Agree 8 E: Strongly 5 n=14

Teach Ability Disagree Agree
0 0 7 57 36 100%

23:Stress from A: None 2 B: Very 11 C: Half 0 D: The 1 E: All 0 n=14

Bureaucracy Little Majority
14 79 0 7 0 100%

24: Stress & A: No 1 B: Not 2 C: Some 9 D: Very 2 E: Critical 0 n=14

Satisfaction Relationship Important Importance Important
7 14 64 14 0 100%

Table 4a.

Percentage Causes of Job Related Frustration (Question #16) (n=11)

A) Administrative Control of Curriculum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 5 5.0

B) Inability for Teachers to Make Change 20 0 10 20 0 60 5 20 0 85 35 23.1%

C) Non-Curriculum Base Paperwork 0 0 70 50 90 0 20 30 100 70 15 40.4%

D) Separation of Departments 0 0 10 0 100 0 0 40 0 40 5 17.7%

E) Inequality of Departmental Funding 0 0 10 30 0 0 0 10 0 99 0 13.5%

Issues of autonomy in the classroom tie in directly with stress, the ability to make change,

and the ability to teach effectively. In items 25-28, teachers were asked to rate these variables as

they relate to autonomy. I found that 64% of the sample believe that having autonomy has

significant or the most importance in being able to teach effectively which establishes a direct

connection to the efficacy variable and indirectly to teacher burnout as a whole. Over half of the

teachers also believe that their autonomy is decreasing which corresponds with and further

validates the importance of growing class sizes (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Davidson 26
 Teachers Perception of Autonomy in the Classroom Total

25:Freedom A: No 1 B: Limited 1 C: Some 2 D: Notable 8 E: Complete 1 n=13

To Choose Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom
Curriculum 8 8 15 62 8 93%

26: Admin. A: No Control 2 B: Little 7 C: Some 4 D: Much 1 E: All of the 0 n=14

Control of Control Control Control Control
Outcomes 14 50 29 7 0 100%

27:Autonomy A: No 0 B: Little 2 C: Some 3 D: Notable 7 E: Most 2 n=14

and Teaching Importance Importance Importance Importance Important
Effectively 0 14 21 50 14 100%

28: Changes A: Greatly 0 B: Some 1 C: No 5 D: Some 7 E: Greatly 1 n=14

in Autonomy Increases Increases Change Decreases Decreases
0 7 36 50 7 100%

The last element of the pretest is arguably the most important because it describes the

closest direct link to teacher burnout. Schultz et al. (1995) set the ground work for this study

providing a solid link between job satisfaction and staff burnout and I am relying heavily on their

findings to make these final assertions. In my pretest 84% of the sample believed that their overall

job satisfaction is based on their ability to teach effectively. Furthermore, 83% believe that job

related stress affects their ability to teach effectively (Table 6) and I have already shown in Tables

4 and 4a that 93% of respondents stress increases with large classes. This chain of causal linkages

is extremely strong at every connection and supports the stress relation portion of my hypothesis

exceptionally well. Concurrently, table 6 also shows that 76% of the sample believes that

autonomy affects their ability to teach effectively. Following the aforementioned connection of

teaching effectiveness and job satisfaction a similarly strong causal link can be formed with

regards to autonomy. The results concerning bureaucracy were also congruent with previously

mentioned trends in this study. The affects of bureaucracy on job satisfaction showed an even

distribution along the middle attributes with 30% disagreeing, 30% finding no connection, and

%40 agreeing. Although the sample size and scope of this pretest doesn’t allow for

Davidson 27
generalizations beyond the sample itself, as a final note, I believe that this study has given

sufficient evidence to further investigate the relationships of these variables to teacher burnout.

With further investigation into the causality of teacher burnout, a more comprehensive

understanding may emerge and allow us to explore constructive solutions.

Table 6.

Job Satisfaction and the Perception of Teaching Effectively Total

29:Effectivne A: Totally 0 B: Disagree 0 C: No 2 D: Agree 6 E: Totally 5 n=13

ss determines Disagree Connection Agree
Satisfaction 0 0 15 46 38 93%

30: Stress A: Strongly 0 B: Disagree 1 C: No 1 D: Agree 4 E: Strongly 6 n=12

Affects Disagree Connection Agree
Effectiveness 0 8 8 33 50 85%

31: Affects of A: Strongly 0 B: Disagree 3 C: No 3 D: Agree 4 E: Strongly 0 n=10

Bureaucracy Disagree Connection Agree
0 30 30 40 0 71%

32: Affects of A: Strongly 0 B: Disagree 1 C: No 2 D: Agree 4 E: Strongly 6 n=13

Autonomy Disagree Connection Agree
0 7 15 30 46 93%

Davidson 28
 References

Bogardus, Emory S. 1928. “Teaching and Social Distance.” Journal of Educational Sociology. 1:10:

595-598.

Cooper, Eric . 1989. “Toward a New Mainstream of Instruction for American Schools.” Journal of

Negro Education. 58:1: 102-116.

Dworkin, Anthony Gary.1987. Teacher Burnout in the Public Schools. Albany, NY: State University

of New York Press.

Farber, Barry A. 1991. Crisis in Education: Stress and Burnout in the American Teacher. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Huberman, Michael A. and Roland Vandenberghe. ed. 1999. Understanding and Preventing Teacher

Burnout. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, Valerie E. and Robert F. Dedrick and Julia B. Smith. 1991. “The Effect of the Social

Organization of Schools on Teachers’ Efficacy and Satisfaction.” Sociology of Education.

64:3: 190-208.

Lee, Valerie E. and Julia B. Smith. 1995. “Effects of High School Restructuring and Size on Early

Gains in Achievement and Engagement.” Sociology of Education. 68:4: 241-270.

Montero-Sieburth, Martha. 1989. “Restructuring Teachers’ Knowledge for Urban Settings.”

Journal of Negro Education. 58:3: 332-344.

Rosenholtz, Susan J. and Carl Simpson. 1990. “Workplace Conditions and the Rise and Fall of

Teachers’ Commitment.” Sociology of Education. 63:4: 241-257.

Davidson 29
Rosenholtz, Susan J. and Stephen H. Rosenholtz. 1981. “Classroom Organization and the

Perception of Ability.” Sociology of Education. 54:2: 132-140.

Rubinson, Richard. 1986. “Class Formation, Politics, and Institutions: Schooling in the United

States.” American Journal of Sociology. 92:3: 519-548.

Schulz, Rockwell and James R. Greenley and Roger Brown. 1995. “Organization, Management,

and Client Effects on Staff Burnout.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 36:4: 333-

345.

Studebaker, John W. 1948. “Why Not a Year-Round Educational Program?” Journal of

Educational Sociology. 21:5: 269-275.

Warren, Donald I. 1968. “Power, Visibility, and Conformity in Formal Organizations.”

American Sociological Review. 33:6: 951-970.

Weber, George H and Annabelle B. Motz. 1968. “School as Perceived by the Dropout.” Journal

of Negro Education. 37:2: 127-134.

Davidson 30
APPENDICES

Davidson 31
 Appendix A

Methods Instrument: Todd

Davidson
University of California at Santa Cruz
Sociology 103 - Winter 2001
1) What Subject(s) do you teach?

2) How many years have you been teaching?

3) What degrees and/or credentials do you hold?

4) What is the approximate enrolment at your school?

5) What are the smallest class sizes you have encountered as a teacher? What year? ________
a) below 10
b) 10-20
c) 20-30
d) 30-40
e) above 40

6) What are the largest class sizes you have encountered as a teacher? What year? ________
a) below 10
b) 10-20
c) 20-30
d) 30-40
e) above 40

7)What do you feel the ideal class size is?

a) below 10
b) 10-20
c) 20-30
d) 30-40
e) above 40

8) Rate how you believe that class size affects students’ academic performance.
a) Not Influential
b) Slightly Influential
c) Some Influence
d) Very Influential
e) Extremely Influential

9) What is the size of your class in relation to your ideal class size?

Davidson 32
 a) Far Below the ideal
b) Somewhat below the ideal size
c) Ideal size
d) Somewhat above the ideal
e) Far Above the ideal size
10)How have changes in class sizes effected the structure of your classroom? (Expand)

11) Rate the percentage that you believe each of the following contributes to the way your
classroom is structured.
a) National requirement guidelines
b) State requirement guidelines
c) District requirement guidelines
d) School Site requirement guidelines
e) Your personal interests and goals

12) Rate how the school site administration affects your ability to teach effectively in the
classroom.
a) very negatively
b) somewhat negatively
c) no affect
d) somewhat positively
e) very positively

13) Rate your ability influence change at your school.

a) no influence
b) little influence
c) some influence
d) significant influence
e) very strong influence

14) Rate the school site administrations ability to maintain the best possible learning environment
for students.
a) very poor
b) poor
c) average
d) good
e) very good

Davidson 33
15) Rate the school site administrations ability to maintain the best possible working environment
for teachers.
a) very poor
b) poor
c) average
d) good
e) very good

16) Rate the percentage of your job related frustration that you would attribute to each of the
following bureaucratic elements.
a) Administrative control of curriculum ________%
b) Inability for teachers to make changes ________%
c) Non-curriculum based paperwork ________%
d) Separation of departments ________%
e) Inequality of departmental funding________%

17) How would you categorize the level of bureaucracy within your school’s administration?
a) complete bureaucracy
b) large bureaucracy
c) some bureaucracy
d) largely unstructured
e) completely unstructured

18) Rate the level of change in bureaucracy in your school’s administration during your tenure.
a) dramatically decreased
b) somewhat decreased
c) no change
d) somewhat increased
e) dramatically increased

19) Rate the affects of bureaucracy in your school’s administration on your ability to teach
effectively.
a) very negatively
b) somewhat negatively
c) no effect
d) somewhat positively
e) very positively

20) On average, how stressful do you view your job as being?

a) completely stressful
b) very stressful
c) somewhat stressful
d) not very stressful

Davidson 34
 e) no stress at all

21) Do you ______ that large class sizes increase stress for teachers?
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) no effect
d) agree
e) strongly agree

22) Do you _______ that stress affect your ability to teach effectively?
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) no effect
d) agree
e) strongly agree

23) What portion of your job related stress do you attribute to administrative bureaucracy?
a) none
b) very little
c) half
d) the majority
e) all

24) How important is stress in determining your overall job satisfaction?

a) no relationship
b) not important
c) somewhat important
d) very important
e) critical

25)Rate the amount of freedom that you have to chose your own curriculum.
a) no freedom at all
b) limited freedom
c) some freedom
d) substantial freedom
e) complete freedom

26) Rate the involvement of your school’s administration in determining the outcomes for your classes.
a) no control of outcomes
b) little control of outcomes
c)some control of outcomes
d) most of the control of outcomes
e) total control of outcomes

27) Rate the importance of having autonomy in how you structure your classes in teaching effectively.
a) no importance
b) little importance

Davidson 35
 c) some importance
d) significant importance
e) most important aspect

28) Rate the change in your autonomy in the classroom as class sizes increase.
a) greatly increases
b) somewhat increases
c) no change
d) somewhat decreases
e) greatly decreases

29) Is your overall job satisfaction is based on your ability to teach effectively?
a) totally disagree
b) somewhat disagree
c) no connection
d) somewhat agree
e) totally agree

30) Does job related stress effect your ability to teach effectively?
a) strongly disagree
b) somewhat disagree
c) no connection
d) somewhat agree
e) strongly agree

31) Do you ______ that administrative bureaucracy affects your ability to teach effectively?
a) strongly disagree
b) somewhat disagree
c) no connection
d) somewhat agree
e) strongly agree

32) Do you ______ that having autonomy in structuring your classroom affects your ability to
teach effectively?
a) strongly disagree
b) somewhat disagree
c) no connection
d) somewhat agree
e) strongly agree

If there are any aspects of this subject matter that you feel I have omitted and/or you wish to
expand on please do so. Any comments or suggestions about the survey are also welcome.
Thank you for your time.

Davidson 36
 Appendix B

Original Variable Structure

Davidson 37
Variable Correlations According to Pretest Data

Davidson 38
Appendix C

Davidson 39
Appendix D

Dear Teachers,

My name is Todd Davidson and I am a third year student at the University of California at

Santa Cruz. I am working toward my bachelors degree in Sociology with a minor in Education.

The project I am currently working on is a part of Lionel Cantu’s class, “Logic and Methods of

Social Inquiry” as well as a graduation requirement for my degree. The attached survey is the

data collection instrument that I have chosen to use for my undergraduate thesis in Sociology. In

this project, I am looking at the relationships between class size, administrative structure and

teacher burnout. This project is not aimed at pointing a blame for teacher burnout, but simply to

examine the dynamic of these relationships. I am working within the guidelines of the University

of California so all of the participants, sites, and data involved in this survey are completely

confidential. The names of the participants or schools are not requested in the survey and will not

be used in the research at any time. Thank you very much for your time and participation.

Sincerely,

Todd Davidson

email any questions to: tdavidso@cats.ucsc.edu

Davidson 40
Davidson 41