EDAD 742
Human Resources
Mondays
The Second Summer Six Week Session
The College of Education First Ed. D Cohort
Frostburg State University@USMH The Partners’ Building, Room 151
July 7 through August 13, 2014
John L. Stoothoff, Ph.D.
Coordinator, Administration and Supervision Masters in Education
Coordinator and Liaison, FSU ’Education’ @USM
University System of Maryland at Hagerstown
The Partners’ Building
60 West Washington Street, Hagerstown, MD 21740
Office Phone (240) 527-2736 Cell Phone (518) 369-7135
jlstoothoff@frostburg.edu
The Frostburg State University website: www.frostburg.edu
Administrative Assistant: Ms. Cameron Dennison
Office: The USMH ‘Partners’ Building Room 151
(240) 527-2741
E-Mail: cddennison@frostburg.edu
Course Description: Nature and scope of educational supervision including human relations skills,
technical skills, social systems as they relate to educational supervision, professional organizations,
literature and ethics.
Course Policies:
1. Adherence to and participation in all online-initiated activities is required
2. Participation in all online discussions is required.
3. Assignments are due in class or online as posted.
4. Policies on Academic Dishonesty, Harassment, and Disruptive Student Behavior are
fully
applicable for this course.
5. Students with any type of recognized and confirmed disability that would require
accommodations in assignments or assessment practices should provide written notification to the
instructor by no later than the second class meeting. Students may request that this notification be
provided to the instructor by the Office of Student Special Services.
6. REPORTING OF CHILD ABUSE: new in Summer 2014:
Please be aware that according to state law in Maryland, educators are required to report current
and past child abuse and neglect even when the former victim is now an adult and even when the
former alleged abuser is deceased. If you disclose current or past abuse/neglect in class, in papers,
or to me personally, I am required by law to report it. Please see me if you are interested in more
information about this law.
Office Hours: A wide variety of daily morning and afternoon office hours is offered per University
regulation. However, an important reality is recognized: Unique to this program concentration, nearly
all students are employed among leadership and/or teaching ranks in a three state region and will likely
1
benefit from late afternoon and evening appointments. An even wider array of that order of appointment
days and times is possible, including via phone, Skype, or email and Blackboard communication.
Students are encouraged to utilize any of the contact points in order to arrange a time for meeting.
Also, Ms. Dennison is fully prepared to assist us in getting together.
Text
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. and Shinkfield, Anthony J. (2007) Evaluation, theory, models, and applications,
1st edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Course Description:


Extensive Doctoral-Level Material Identification and Inspection
Examinations of the Human Resources functions, including recruitment, employment,
evaluation, and the professional development of human capital, against the specific
backlight of the various developments in the field of program and policy evaluation as
advanced or promulgated through the Personnel Evaluation Standards as aligned to by
The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, the U.S. Government
Accounting Offices, and The American Evaluation Association
Course Purpose: Students will develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to apply
leadership principles in human resources. Students will add to their on-going requirement to develop a
thorough literature review for subsequent applications.
Class Modalities
The class will utilize face-to-face meetings. The classwork load will be equivalent to a traditional onceper-week meeting fifteen times during the semester.
Grading Scale
A = 93% - 100% (a minimum of 186 of 200 points)
B = 84% - 92% (minimum168 points)
C = 75% - 83% (minimum 150 points)
F = Below 75%
(Percentages are rounded up from .5)
Scoring Rubrics (percentages below multiplied by the assignment’s point value)
Written Papers
Content
75%
Mechanics, style
20%
References, citation 5 %
Please note: The standard for our writing, unless otherwise specified, calls for a 12-point Times
New Roman font, double spaced, with a 1½” left margin and 1” margin elsewhere. It is further
expected that students will use American Psychology Association (APA) citation parlance for
2
within-text citations and bibliographies. This particular segment on this page conforms to that
model.
Of Special Note: Particular and specific expectations for upper graduate level work is in force.
Required absolutely is the respectful consideration of the demands for the written communications
of the school organization’s workplace in addition to those expectations of our University.
Therefore, a high value is placed on what written work should look like for us. The gauging of
“mechanics”, “presentation”, citation parlance, and “style” is taken seriously. Observe above the
scoring mechanics, particularly for written assessments which are assigned.
Our Assessments for EDAD 742 Human Resources,
Professor’s Message on Student Progress:
In recognition that, in order to craft a Summer Session II doctoral level course, the assessments and due dates may be
seen as “competing” with those of other courses and with busy work schedules and lifestyles. It has, therefore become
necessary to make for work and learning products which are particularly queued to the end of the Summer II Session.
Therefore, I offer this pledge: At any time during the session, a student will be invited to seek the professor’s analysis
of that student’s progress in the course as of that particular time, an analysis which will be expected as one committed
to record. In addition, there is no limit to the number of such inquiries permitted.
-
John Stoothoff
Assessment # 1 (30 Points) Participation 1: One (1) Weekly Class Leadership Assignment
Each student is responsible to conduct a fifteen (15) minute introduction of an assigned topic, according
to the schedule of topics below.
David Kehne, An overview of the Frederick County Teachers’ Collective Bargaining
Agreement
July 14: Heath Wilcox, An overview of the Washington County Teachers’ Collective Bargaining
Agreement
Rick Akers, “The Teacher Evaluation Imperative meets Human Resources”
July 7:
July 21: Patty Hosfelt, “The Induction of New Administrators and its Human Resource Implications”
July 28: Stacy Henson, “The Teacher Incentive Plan meets Human Resources”
In addition, time near the conclusion of each class will be set aside for the respective session’s presenter
to share his or her ideas for their dissertation topic, permitting viewing by each class mate and the
professor. There will not be an expectation of any prescribed level of completion or finality to topic
sharing. There will not be an expectation of a firm association to human resource management nor to
program or policy evaluation.
‘Participation #1’ grades will be registered in the Blackboard Grade Center
no later than Monday, August 4.
Assessment #2
(40 points) Participation 3: A Human Resources-Based Literature Build Up
A. Additionally, each week each student is to come to class prepared to share with classmates the
applicability of assigned scholarly journals to the utility, feasibility, probity, and accuracy of the
evaluation of their county’s human resource coordination unit or offices. While no written
product is required, what is required is yet another combined hard-copy and electronic means
submission of the scholarly works’ APA- reference list citation.
3
The course instructor and each classmate are to be the recipients of students’ discoveries each week, no
later than class meeting time. The term unduplicated in A, above, refers to the requirement that no
student will distribute a citation which is identical to either another’s incoming submittal, or one which
has been previously shared. The goal of non-duplication will likely be achieved most often as
consistent, mid-week communication among classmates occurs.
‘Participation #2’ grades will be registered in the Blackboard Grade Center
no later than Monday, August 4.
Assessment #3: (30 Points) Participation 2: General Weekly Class Discussion, Preparation,
Reflection, and Participation:
Grades in this assessment are judged to be at their optimum award when the participant:
a. Contributes as a thorough, engaging, and willing member to the class session formats and
aspects.
b. Demonstrates the expertise of the organizational leader, one who welcomes the challenges to
combine, align, and analyze (1) the elements of human resources tradecraft, (2) literature
which is clearly pegged at our doctorate level, (3) the advanced study of organizations’
program and policy evaluation, and (4) the political environment of our era in education.
‘Participation #3’ grades will be registered in the Blackboard Grade Center
no later than Monday, August 4.
Assessment #4: (100 Points) The Final Exam
Our objectives for the final exam:
1.
2.
3.
To build in our knowledge of approaches in program and policy evaluation
To conduct our human resources content build-up portion in this light: The human resources duties,
functions, roles, and activities, together, as a service and as an organizational element, can be considered as a
“program”.
To inspect various approaches in program and policy evaluation for their appropriateness by which we could
determine the effectiveness and achievements of the human resource unit
Each student is to construct a report which identifies the efficacy and/or feasibility of two assigned
approaches to evaluation for the analysis of the Human Resources function of their county. It is
not expected that students will either evaluate their county’s Human Resources division or offices, or
assemble the plan for such an evaluation. Instead, this final exam report is meant to (1) demonstrate the
student’s awareness and growth in knowledge about the human resource functions, (2) demonstrate,
separately, at least two (2) additional methods of program or policy evaluation, and (3) show new or
renewed knowledge and awareness of important local documents, policies, and procedures.
Each student is expected to be most meticulous in their analysis of their county’s imperatives for human
resource management as they are identifiable in their district’s negotiated contractual agreements,
particularly that for the teachers’ bargaining unit. Each student is expected to be most meticulous in
their analysis of their county’s imperatives for human resource management as they are identifiable from
the county’s board’s policy manual and the administration’s administrative regulations. Primarily, each
student is responsible for exposing and for elaborating on the priorities for analysis as can be identified
in the bargaining agreements and policy materials.
4
To the best of their ability, each student is expected to conduct this analysis in as bias-free a manner as
possible. In no way is there to be editorializing on the specifics of a county’s human resource unit,
particularly as might be attributable to identifiable individuals.
This challenge can be summarized in these statements:
 “By virtue of my analysis of the language in the ____________document(s), I see that
__(issue, function)______should be considered as priorities to which the human
resources office need attend
 My assigned approach(s) would be efficacious in this way: ___________________
 My assigned approach(s) would not be efficacious in this way:_________________
A final exam submittal of no fewer than seven (7) pages and no more than twelve (12) pages is required.
Frederick
County
Patty Hosfelt
Chapter Assignment
David Kehne
14-The Case Study Approach,
including Approach 16, ch. 7
13 - Suchman
Washington
County
Rick Akers
Stacy Henson
Heath Wilcox
18-Patton
17-Stake
9-Social Agenda Advocacy
Chapter 21
Alternative
X
Notes
X
X
X
X
……………………………….
Each chapter reference is of Stufflebeam, Daniel L. and Shinkfield, Anthony J. (2007) Evaluation,
theory, models, and applications, 1st edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Assessment #4, the Final Exam, is due via electronic means no later than
Wednesday, August 13.
The Weekly Format to Our Work Together
Week
The Class
Meeting
1
Monday
Module
Class Meeting:
5
July 7
Our Introduction to 742 Human Resources:
The Syllabus
Professor’s Monologue: The Human Resource Offices’
Functions and Organizational Climate
In-Depth Presenter: David Kehne, The FCPS Teachers’
Negotiated Bargaining Agreement
(Whatdygot?)Students have prepared for class by reading
‘Stufflebeam and Shinkfield’, Chapter 4, “Personnel
Evaluation: ‘The Ghost’”
Class Meeting:
The ‘Human Resources’ Evaluability by Utilizing
Approaches 20-22
Professor’s Monologue: A district’s responsibilities for
recruitment, selection, and placement
Monday July
14
2
In-Depth Presenter: Heath Wilcox, The WCPS Teachers’
Negotiated Bargaining Agreement
In-Depth Presenter: Rick Akers, “The Teacher
Evaluation Imperative meets Human Resources”
(Whatdyagot?)Students have prepared for class by reading
‘Stufflebeam and Shinkfield’, Chapter 8, “Improvement and
Accountability-Oriented Evaluation Approaches”…
…and by
Beginning to respond to a list of wide readings for inclusion
in our class meetings’ discussions and for our reference list
build-up (“Keep Talking”, 1960)
Class Meeting:
Where students initially see the ‘Human Resources’
Evaluability by Utilizing their individually-assigned
Approach
Professor’s Monologue: The HR basics of performance
evaluation of Support Staff members and of Instructional
Staff members
3
Monday July
21
In-Depth Presenter: Patty Hosfelt, “The Induction of New
Administrators and its Human Resource Implications”
It’s more than just “Whatdyagot?” Classmates benefit from
their fellows having prepared for class by reading their
individually assigned chapter for the final
‘Stufflebeam and Shinkfield’. It’s a variation on
“chunking” is what it is.
Students have also prepared for class by continuing to
6
respond to a list of wide readings for inclusion in our class
meetings’ discussions and for our reference list build-up
(“Keep Talking”, 1960)
Class Meeting:
Where students initially see the ‘Human Resources’
Evaluability by Utilizing Chapter 21
Professor’s Monologue: Those Numerous Legal Aspects for
the HR Offices’ Attention
4
Monday July
28
In-Depth Presenter: Stacy Henson, “The Teacher
Incentive Plan meets Human Resources”
(Whatdyagot?)Students have prepared for class by reading
‘Stufflebeam and Shinkfield’, Chapter 21.
…and by
Continuing to respond to a list of wide readings for inclusion
in our class meetings’ discussions and for our reference list
build-up (“Keep Talking”, 1960)
Bibliography
Alexander, K. and Alexander, M.D. (2001) American public school law (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
West/Thompson Learning.
Bamberger, Michael., Rugh, Jim., and Mabry, Linda., (2012) Real world evaluation: Working under
budget, time, data, and political constraints. (2nd edition), Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.
7
Brandt, Chris; Mathers, Carrie; Oliva, Michelle (2007). Examining district guidance
to schools on teacher evaluation policies in the Midwest region. Issues &
Answers Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. 37 pp.
Brundrett, Mark; de Cuevas, Rachel Anderson (2008). Setting an agenda for the development of the next
generation of school leaders: A commitment to social justice or simply making up the numbers?
School Leadership & Management, 28(3), 247-260.
Byrne, Z. S., Pitts, V.E., Wilson, C. E., and Steiner, Z.J. (2012) Trusting the fair
Supervisor: The role of supervisory support in performance appraisals. Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol 22, no 2, pages 129–147.
Danielson, Charlotte. (1996) Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
Danielson, Charlotte and McGreal, Thomas L. (2000) Teacher evaluation to enhance professional
practice, Alexandria, VA: ASCD ISBN# 0-87120-380-4
Edwards, J.E., Scott, J. C., and Raju, N. S. (Eds.), (2006) The human resources program-evaluation
handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fitzpatrick, Jody L., Sanders, James R., and Worthen, Blaine, R. (2011) Program evaluation:
Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. (4th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Floden, Robert E. and Weimer, Stephen S. (1978) Rationality to ritual:
The multiple roles of evaluation in governmental processes. Policy Sciences 9
pp. 9-18.
Getsels, J. W., and Guba, E.G. (1957) Social behavior and the administrative process. Collective
bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Gitomer, Drew H. (2007). Teacher quality in a changing policy landscape: Improvements in the
teacher pool. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Glover, L.and Butler, P. (2012) High-performance work systems, partnership and
the working lives of HR professionals. Human Resource Management Journal, Vol
22, no 2, pages 199-215
Goddard, R. D., Sweetlend, S. R. , and Hoy, W. K. (2000) Academic emphasis of urban elementary
schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multinational analysis.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 683-702.
Greenberg, David H.; Michalopoulos, Charles; Robin, Philip K (2006). Do experimental and nonexperimental evaluations give different answers about the effectiveness of government-funded
training programs? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25 (3), 523-552.
Greenburg, Julie., McKee, Arthur., and Walsh, Kate (2013) Teacher prep review: A review of
the nation’s teacher preparation programs. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/teacherPrep.
8
Greenberg, Julie., Pomerance, Laura., and Walsh, Kate Walsh.(2011) Student teaching in the
United States. Retrieved from
http://www.nctq.org/edschoolreports/studentteaching/report.jsp
Hannaway, J. and Rotherham, A.J. (Eds.), (2006) Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating
change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Hargreaves, Andy., Lieberman, Ann., Fullan, Michael., and Hopkins, David. (Ed.), (2010), Second
international handbook of educational change, v 2. Dordrecht: Springer.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. (1959) The motivation to work (2nd ed.) New York:
Wiley.
Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C. G. (2005) Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. (7th
ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ladd, Helen F.; Lauen, Douglas L (2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school
accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 426-450.
Lawrence, C.E., and Vachon. (1997) The incompetent specialist: How to evaluate, document
performance, and dismiss school staff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Levesque, J.D., .(1993) Manual of personnel policies, procedures and operations (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Loeb, Hilary; Knapp, Michael S.; Elfers, Ana M (2008). Teachers' response to standards-based reform:
Probing reform assumptions in Washington state. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(8), 129.
Maslow, A., (1970) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper Collins.
Militello, Matthew; Gajda, Rebecca; Bowers, Alex J (2009). The role of accountability policies and
alternative certification on principals' perceptions of leadership preparation. Journal of Research
on Leadership Education, 4(3), 30-66.
Pate, J., Morgan-Thomas, A., Beaumont, P. (2012) Trust restoration: an examination of
Senior managers’ attempt to rebuild employee trust. Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol 22, no 2, pages 147-164.
Patton, M.Q.(2003) Qualitative evaluation checklist. Evaluation Checklists Project
www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Utilization-focused evaluation checklist. Retrieved September 9, 2002, from The
Evaluation Center, Evaluation Checklists Web site: www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/
Phye, Gary D.. Robinson, Daniel H. and Levin, Joel R. (Ed.), (2005) Empirical methods for evaluating
educational interventions. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
Schneider, Anne Larason. (1986), The evolution of a policy orientation for evaluation research: A guide
to practice. Public Administration Review. 46(4), 356-364
Scribner, Jay Paredes; Heinen, Ethan (2009). Alternative teacher certification: A program theory
analysis. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36 (2), 179-197.
9
Scriven, Michael. (1994) Duties of the teacher. Journal of personnel evaluation in education, 8 (2)
pp.151-184).
Scriven, M. (2004) Key evaluation checklist.http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/.
Smith, S., and Mazin, R.(2004) The HR answer book: an indispensable guide for managers and human
resource professionals. New York: American Management Association.
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. and Shinkfield, Anthony J. (1995) Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective
practice. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. and Shinkfield, Anthony J. (2007) Evaluation, theory, models, and applications,
1st edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. (2000) Personnel evaluation systems metaevaluation checklist.. Kalamazoo: The
Evaluation center. Western Michigan University, Evaluation checklists projects,
www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists
Sykes, Gary., Schneider, Barbara., David N. Plank., and Ford, Timothy G. (Ed.), (2009) Handbook of
education policy research. AERA, New York: Routledge.
Wallace, Geoffrey L.; Haveman, Robert (2007). The Implications of differences between employer and
worker employment/earnings reports for policy evaluation. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 26 (4), 737-754.
Webb, L.D. and Norton, M.S. (2009). Human resources administration: Personnel issues and needs in
education, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Weil, David; Fung, Archon; Graham, Mary (2006). The effectiveness of regulatory disclosure policies.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25 (1), 155-181.
Weiss, Carol H. (1998, 1972). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies.(2nd edition).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Weiss, Carol H. and Bucuvalas, Michael J. (1980) Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers’ frames
of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review 45:302-313.
Wilde, Elizabeth Ty; Hollister, Robinson (2007). How close is close enough? Evaluating propensity
score matching using data from a class size reduction experiment. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 26 (3), 455-477.
10
11