The influence of cellular and noncellular administrative placement options on the job satisfaction, work interdependence and work-related factors of special educators
Abstract
The administrative placement option of special education teachers was investigated as a source of job satisfaction. The administrative placement options investigated were the cellular administrative placement option (the self-contained classroom) and the noncellular administrative placement option (the resource room). The Job Descriptive Index was employed. Scores were computed relative to five measures: work on the job, present pay. opportunities for promotion, supervision on the job, people on the job. An overall job satisfaction score was also computed for each person.
In addition to job satisfaction, this study investigated the level of work interdependence of special education teachers working in cellular administrative placement options and those working in noncellular administrative placement options.
It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between special educators in the cellular administrative placement option and those in the noncellular administrative placement option on the five measures. It was also hypothesized that there would be no significant difference on the overall job satisfaction of these two groups.
In addition to the six hypotheses relative to job satisfaction it was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences relative to level of work interdependence of these two groups of special educators.
A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was employed to test the six null hypothesis relative to job satisfaction. All were retained. A Mann-Whitney U Test was employed to test the null hypothesis relative to interdependence level. It was rejected because the statistical analysis indicated the existence of a significant difference between the level of work interdependence of special educators working in these two administrative placement options.
A Duncan Multiple Range Test was employed to determine if a significant difference existed relative to the score on the five measures when treating the two groups as one homogeneous group. A significant difference was reported for two clusters of the five-measures. One cluster was comprised of responses to measures of work on the job, people on the job and supervision on the job. The second cluster was comprised of responses to measures of present pay and opportunities for promotion.
