By the Light of the Silvery Moon : Teacher Moonlighting and the Dark Side of Teachers' Work [1 ed.] 9781975500184, 9781975500160

Citation preview

eacher moonlighting has been studied and documented since at least the early 1960s, and yet, it can be easily argued that the phenomenon is still not understood. Teachers

moonlight in higher numbers than other professions, and yet while most teachers claim that they do it for the money, increases in their compensation have not reduced the practice. By the Light of the Silvery Moon is the first book to provide a thorough review of the

Blair, Ed.

T

research on the topic, looking deeply into the intricate workings of a profession that is at least imperiled or, in the best of scenarios, a profession that is in transition. Teachers play a critical role in society, so teaching needs to be a sustainable profession where teachers may still moonlight, but the opportunities to expand the status as well as the content and by bringing together the research and situating it within a broader conversation about teachers’ work. “By the Light of the Silvery Moon is a must-read for pre-service teachers, teachers, policymakers and all those interested in understanding how social, ethical, economical, and political factors can shape the teaching profession when working conditions of teachers are framed by market-fundamentalism.” Ana Cruz, St. Louis Community College-Meramec “Blair opens up moonlighting and invites us to join her and her contributing authors in exploring its many and often multifaceted meanings. (She) breaks new and very intriguing ground here for everyone from theorists to policymakers.” David Gabbard, Boise State University Eleanor J. Blair is a faculty member at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina, and teaches foundations of education courses in assessment, teacher leadership and history/philosophy of education. Her research utilizes critical pedagogical frameworks to analyze teachers’ work, promote critical media literacy and understand the significance of place in teacher leadership.

ISBN 978-1-9755-0017-7

By the Light of the Silvery Moon

context of their work are unlimited. This book will fill an important gap in the literature

By the Light Silvery Moon OF THE

Teacher Moonlighting and the Dark Side of Teachers’ Work EDITED BY

$39.95 HIGHER EDUCATION / PUBLIC SCHOOLS / TEACHER EDUCATION / FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

ELEANOR J. BLAIR

A D VA N CE PRA I S E FO R

By the Light of the Silvery Moon “With By the Light of the Silvery Moon, Eleanor Blair presents us with a groundbreaking book that shines the light on a phenomenon of teachers’ work not recognized by most: teacher moonlighting.  The contributors to this provocative and deeply engaging edited volume keep the readers captivated by essays that cover a broad range of perspectives on moonlighting, including its manifestations in the digital age.  These essays reveal a complex set of motivations that cause teachers to take on additional jobs and how this multiplicity of jobs can affect teachers at the professional and personal levels, and the teaching profession overall.  The book is a must-read for pre-service teachers, teachers, policy-makers and all those interested in understanding how social, ethical, economical, and political factors can shape the teaching profession when working conditions of teachers are framed by market-fundamentalism.” Ana Cruz, St. Louis Community College-Meramec “Ellie Blair opens up moonlighting and invites us to join her and her contributing authors in exploring its many and often multifaceted meanings. What do these meanings mean in the lives of teachers? Moonlighting, it turns out, is not a simple matter. For anyone who takes collective learning seriously, moonlighting is a symptom of a larger reality. This is the reality of how and why we mistreat teachers as we do. Has this mistreatment and total disrespect led some teachers to no longer hear teaching as their all-consuming calling?  Have we so badly alienated them that teaching ceases being a life’s vocation and gets reduced to “just another job?” Or maybe, for those who never really heard it as their calling, moonlighting just helps a teacher take the edge off their day. Ellie breaks new and very intriguing ground here for everyone from theorists to policymakers.” David Gabbard, Boise State University “What does it mean to be an American teacher? Thanks to Dr. Blair’s work on moonlighting, we know it means finding a second income.”  J. Casey Hurley, Western Carolina University

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 1

3/30/18 11:28 AM

“By the Light of the Silver Moon offers students, teachers, administrators, and policy makers a fresh perspective on the topic of teacher moonlighting. There is no other book like this on the market. Readers will find a delightful variety of works done around an issue that all teachers know about but are afraid to talk about in public. By the Light of the Silver Moon can initiate needed conversations about teachers’ lives, the culture of teaching, and the impact that teacher moonlighting has on the profession.” Yolanda Medina, Borough of Manhattan Community College “Finally, a collection of essays that confronts the economic reality of the lives of teachers. A society that takes one of its most treasured professions—teaching and denies that profession decent wages forcing teachers to moonlight is reprehensible. This book enlightens readers through a number of provocative essays that focus upon the necessity of numerous teachers working additional jobs to survive economically and the consequences of that moonlighting. It should be required reading for all those concerned about the state of education and the profession of teaching in the present historical moment.” William M. Reynolds, Georgia Southern University “Blair has indeed illuminated a dimension of the lives of teachers about which few non-teachers are aware . . . we are not yet a true profession. And those who teach and strive for middle class lives make tough choices. Historically, teaching was something one did on the way somewhere else or because the school year aligned with farming and childcare. Blair’s close examination of the prevalence of the twojob teacher in the 21st century shows how little the semi-profession has changed.” Michelle Collay, University of New England

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 2

3/30/18 11:28 AM

By the Light Silvery Moon OF THE

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 3

3/30/18 11:28 AM

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 4

3/30/18 11:28 AM

By the Light Silvery Moon OF THE

Teacher Moonlighting and the Dark Side of Teachers’ Work edited by

ELEANOR J. BLAIR

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 5

3/30/18 11:28 AM

Copyright © 2018 | Myers Education Press, LLC Published by Myers Education Press, LLC P.O. Box 424 Gorham, ME 04038 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, recording, and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher. Myers Education Press is an academic publisher specializing in books, e-books, and digital content in the field of education. All of our books are subjected to a rigorous peer review process and produced in compliance with the standards of the Council on Library and Information Resources. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress. 13-digit ISBN 978-1-9755-0017-7 (paperback) 13-digit ISBN 978-1-9755-0016-0 (hard cover) 13-digit ISBN 978-1-9755-0018-4 (library networkable e-edition) 13-digit ISBN 978-1-9755-0019-1 (consumer e-edition) Printed in the United States of America. All first editions printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39-48 standard. Books published by Myers Education Press may be purchased at special quantity discount rates for groups, workshops, training organizations, and classroom usage. Please call our customer service department at 1-800-232-0223 for details. Cover and text design by Sophie Appel Visit us on the web at www.myersedpress.com to browse our complete list of titles.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 6

3/30/18 11:28 AM

This book is dedicated to the thousands of moonlighting teachers across the world. Your efforts to persevere as teachers despite the low salaries And challenging working conditions is to be commended. My hope for you and all teachers is that the 21st century will see a re-visioning of teachers’ work That produces meaningful, sustainable changes in the profession.

And finally, Richard Wisniewski, thank you for writing the foreword to this book. As a doctoral student, I viewed you as both muse and mentor; Your efforts on my behalf have always been appreciated. This book finally brings our work on teacher moonlighting full circle; Not finished, but not forgotten. .

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 7

3/30/18 11:28 AM

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 8

3/30/18 11:28 AM

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ix Foreword xi Richard Wisniewski Introduction: Those Who Can, Teach…and Work Two Jobs Eleanor J. Blair

1

Section One: Teacher Moonlighting: Studied and Still Misunderstood 1. Shedding Light on the Dark Side of Teacher Moonlighting Jeffrey A. Raffel & Lance R. Groff

15

2. A Study of Moonlighting by Public School Teachers 36 Doyne M. Smith & Bernice Cooper 3. Teacher Moonlighting: Interviews with Physical Educators Jacqueline A. Williams 4. Teacher Moonlighting: An Unstudied Phenomenon Richard Wisniewski & Paul Kleine

45

69

Section Two: Teacher Moonlighting IS Teachers’ Work 5. Gender Differences in Multiple Jobholding: Moonlighting among Teachers 81 Stephen C. Betts 6. Moonlighting and Morale: The Impact on Educators Who Moonlight and How Classroom Teaching Suffers 99 Sharon Brown, Sam L. Sullivan, & Bob Maninger 7. Characteristics and Working Conditions of Moonlighting Teachers: Evidence from the 2011–2012 Schools and Staffing Survey 121 Paul G. Fitchett, Tina L. Heafner, & Susan B. Harden

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 9

3/30/18 11:28 AM

By the Light of the Silvery Moon

x

Section Three: Teacher Moonlighting in the 21st Century: An Old Wine in a New Bottle 8. Teacher Moonlighting: The Good, the Bad, and the Possible 151 Stephen P. Gordon & Janis Newby Parham 9. New Moon: Teacher Moonlighting in the Digital Age 170 Rick Hartsell & Sarah Hunt-Barron 10. I’m a Sinner, I’m a Saint: A Teacher’s Perspective on Moonlighting in the Nightlife Industry 189 Cara Kronen 11. Sabriya and Me: An Essential Conversation about the Nontraditional Teacher Professional and a Life of Teacher Moonlighting 200 Hilton Kelly 12. Conclusion: Where Do We Go from Here? Eleanor J. Blair

216

Contributors 235

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 10

3/30/18 11:28 AM

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The present book presents a collection of essays, several of which have been previously published. We gratefully acknowledge the permission to reprint from the respective copyright holder. Betts, S.C. (2004). Gender differences in multiple jobholding: Moonlighting among teachers. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 2(8), 25–34. Brown, S., Sullivan, S. L., & Maninger, B. (2015). Moonlighting and morale: The impact on educators who moonlight and how classroom teaching suffers. The Journal of Multidisciplinary Graduate Research, 1, Article 8, 1–17. Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & Harden, S. B. (2016). Characteristics and working conditions of moonlighting teachers: Evidence from the 2011–2012 schools and staffing survey. Current Issues in Education, 19(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu .edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1672 Raffel, J. A., & Groff, L. R. (1990, Winter). Shedding light on the dark side of teacher moonlighting. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(4), 403–414. American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1164474 Smith, D. M., & Cooper, B. (1967, January). A study of moonlighting by public school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 4(1), 51–58. Williams, J. A. (1993). Teacher moonlighting: Interviews with physical educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 62–77. Wisniewski, R., & Kleine, P. (1984, April). Teacher moonlighting: An unstudied phenomenon. The Phi Delta Kappan, 65(8), 553–555. Retrieved from http://www. jstor.org/stable/20387118

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 11

3/30/18 11:28 AM

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 12

3/30/18 11:28 AM

FOREWORD

“Seems Like Old Times”

“

Seems Like Old Times” (1945) seemed an apt subtitle since it complements the reference to another song, the title of this book: “By the Light of the Silvery Moon” (1909). The latter song is a part of Americana, a staple of barbershop quartets, sing-alongs, and events evoking times long gone. The wide need for many teachers to seek a second income also has a long and persistent history. Even so, most studies, debates and policies governing teaching and teachers ignore the phenomenon and its implications, to their detriment and that of the profession. Teachers and their work life are often debated without confronting the singular fact that moonlighting by teachers is an integral part of teaching. Eleanor Blair has provided a compendium of work that can help correct that deficit. This book brings back memories of my years as a teacher. I began my career in the Detroit Public Schools in 1951. During my first several years of teaching, I supported myself during summer “vacations” by driving taxi cabs, fabricating sheet metal doors in a factory, moving crates in a soft drink plant, and fabricating auto window frames at yet another factory. Like many other teachers, I simultaneously took evening courses at the university to earn a master’s degree. These work experiences greatly expanded my understanding of life and people, a deficit in the lives of many teachers who move directly from high school to college, and to the front of a classroom with little or no experience beyond going to school. While earning money is at the heart of the phenomenon, moonlighting surely helps to expand one’s knowledge of social conditions and people beyond one’s own upbringing. Most of the male teachers and some of the female teachers with whom I worked also had second jobs, sometimes during the school year as

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 13

3/30/18 11:28 AM

xiv

By the Light of the Silvery Moon

well as the summer. I do not recall any of us complaining about having to work outside the classroom. It seemed like such a common practice that we simply assumed it was part of what being a teacher required. This recollection partially explains why, during my career in higher education, studies of the teaching profession became a central focus. I became ever more interested in the work life of teachers going beyond generalities and idealistic hopes. Happily, the research community was adding to a realistic knowledge base in teaching. My interest in the phenomenon led to working with colleagues on the extent of teacher moonlighting in two states. The first study was done with my late colleague Paul Kleine in Oklahoma. Writing the above reveals why I am writing this foreword with pleasure. The second study probed moonlighting among Tennessee teachers. Ellie Blair was my graduate assistant when I was the dean of education at the University of Tennessee. We collaborated on that study and here we find ourselves still interested in learning more, Ellie taking the lead and I a cheerleader for her efforts. We have remained in touch over the many years since we did that study. I have watched with pleasure her active and productive career. In this volume, she has compiled a range of studies and analyses of the many facets of moonlighting. It deserves widespread reading by those in the profession and any who wish to understand what being a teacher often requires of many. I especially value the book since it brings me up to speed on issues in which I am no longer immersed. Writing these remarks, I can imagine Ellie and I both humming “By the Light of the Silvery Moon.” It is a catchy tune. Like teacher moonlighting, it seems destined to be around for the long haul. Richard Wisniewski Dean of Education Emeritus, The University of Tennessee

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 14

3/30/18 11:28 AM

INTRODUCTION

Those Who Can, Teach… and Work Two Jobs Eleanor J. Blair All of the moonlighting jobs came first. Teaching came along later, and I was already so accustomed to them. I cannot imagine life without that. It’s just non-existent. I just felt like working another job was a part of life. I didn’t feel like it was any different. Most everybody that lives around here that works in a factory will also come home and moonlight at a job or they will raise a tobacco crop. If you have time, why not do it? (teacher and hair stylist) Nobody thought it [moonlighting] was bad at all. It was just like that’s what teachers do, they moonlight. So, if anything, I think people maybe admired me for doing it; they didn’t think badly of me. I wouldn’t think it was bad for anybody else to work another job, especially if you’re the breadwinner in the family; I’m not, I didn’t have to work. (teacher, tutor, and bus driver)

T

eachers moonlight. Many teachers moonlight on a continual basis throughout their careers. Others moonlight according to needs, both personal and financial. In the past, numbers have varied because of inconsistencies in what is defined as moonlighting. Is moonlighting the work that teachers do in the summer or does it also include additional work during the school year? Additionally, when teachers assume extra responsibilities during the school year and receive stipends, should that also be considered moonlighting? Blair (published as Hilty, 1987) found that when teachers were asked what constituted moonlighting behavior, all of the

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 1

3/30/18 11:28 AM

2

Eleanor J. Blair

above could be included. In her research, teachers suggested that additional compensation for anything beyond their contractual teaching responsibilities should be considered teacher moonlighting. Taking this into account, statistics on teacher moonlighting ranging from 15% (Bobbitt, 1988) to 65% (Wisniewski & Hilty, 1987) have been published. More recently, Blair (published as Hilty, 2008) found that 71% of North Carolina teachers had other sources of income beyond their base teacher salaries. These statistics led Gordon and Parham (2011) to claim that “between one-third and twothirds of teachers moonlight, making moonlighting teachers a significant subculture in the profession” (p. 51). Early research documenting the prevalence of moonlighting among American teachers dates back to the 1950s and 1960s (Anderson, 1966; Hilty, 1987, 2008; Norris & Hecker, 1962; Schiffman, 1963; Smith & Cooper, 1967; Turner, 1962; Yeager, 1956). Regardless of the pattern, this research forms a foundation for the continued study of teacher moonlighting and speculation regarding its impact on the profession. By the end of the 20th century, it could be clearly documented that teacher moonlighting was persistent and was an important part of the culture of teaching. And yet, no one had ever attempted to assemble the research from the last 50 years and initiate a more in-depth conversation about the complex relationship between teacher moonlighting and traditional notions of teachers’ work. The goals of this book are to fill that gap in the literature and to provide a stage for future work in this area. Additionally, this book will hopefully find its way into the hands of teacher education students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels to provide the impetus for a discussion of teachers’ work and the role of teacher moonlighting in the lives of both beginning and experienced teachers. As a preface to this book, I ask you to consider what we know about teacher moonlighting. Common sense tells us that teachers in fact moonlight, and that they probably moonlight in larger numbers than most suspect. Among those who study teacher moonlighting, two things are apparent. First, most teachers indicate that moonlighting is all about low teacher salaries; teachers moonlight for money. Second, for many teachers, the moonlighting jobs are important facets of their work lives; they like their moonlighting jobs. Many teachers would be reluctant to simply give them up their second jobs even if their salaries were increased. Less obvious, but equally well-known, is the fact that teacher moonlighting is a covert activ-

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 2

3/30/18 11:28 AM

introduction

3

ity; teachers don’t like to talk about their moonlighting activities in public. Researchers have regularly documented the prevalence of teacher moonlighting, and yet public discussions of teacher moonlighting are largely nonexistent. Teachers seem to be most comfortable discussing moonlighting in private settings, where they can share the information with other interested teachers and even recruit these teachers to moonlight, but it is done behindthe-scenes, not in public. Is this because they are embarrassed that they need extra income, or is it related to concerns about the appropriateness of the moonlighting jobs? Given the powerlessness and lack of autonomy felt by many teachers, some may fear being reprimanded for having a second job that might be perceived as interfering with their primary teaching responsibilities. Several weeks ago, I was on Facebook and stumbled upon @eddieb comedy, who has a following on social media. What (teachers) really say about what they get paid! pt.1 (@eddiebcomedy, 2017) had @eddiebcom edy ranting about teacher salaries. He stated that “it’s a shame that every teacher I know gotta have a side hustle.” His examples of side jobs included the following: teach, do hair, bake cakes, bake cookies, sell insurance and Uber. Interesting that he would reference Uber, since teachers, as a group, are targeted by Uber as prime potential employees: For the last two years, the company has sponsored initiatives to encourage teachers to moonlight as chauffeurs. The campaigns differ from city to city and from year to year. In 2014, the Uber campaign’s discomfiting motto was “Teachers: Driving Our Future.” In 2015, Uber offered teachers in Chicago a summer job; to sweeten the deal, the ride-share company gave a $250 bonus to any teacher who signed up to drive by a certain date and completed 10 car trips. In Oregon, Uber notifies riders when their driver is a teacher and trumpets the fact that 3 percent of each fare goes back to the driver’s classroom. The company also offers a $5,000 bonus to the school with the most active drivers. (Quart, 2016, para. 4)

I am certain that teachers make great Uber drivers: they are educated, reliable and generally have their own cars. However, I am also a little uncomfortable with the idea that teachers who are better educated than ever before

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 3

3/30/18 11:28 AM

4

Eleanor J. Blair

in our history are feeling a financial necessity to drive a taxi during evenings and weekends. I am equally certain that there are some enjoyable aspects of being an Uber driver, but it would seem that with the challenges associated with teaching today, there might be more productive ways for a teacher to spend that time. So, perhaps, I should add one more caveat to the things I know for sure about teacher moonlighting: the professional status of teachers will always be in question as long as teachers work blue-collar jobs in order to make ends meet at the most minimal financial level. Research also indicates that some teachers work as bartenders, strippers and even as porn movie stars in settings that might cause some concern from those who believe that teachers should be held to higher moral standards because of the important work they do with young impressionable children (“California teacher fired for moonlighting as porn star fighting to get her job back,” 2012; “Teacher reprimanded for moonlighting as stripper,” 2011; Kronen, 2018). A search through popular media sites reveals numerous references to teachers who have chosen to moonlight in unconventional jobs and faced the scrutiny of punitive school boards. And yet, these kinds of issues represent one facet of the “dark side” of teachers’ work. Moonlighting is a part of teachers’ work, and as such, it occurs in myriad contexts and conditions that may or may not be related to education. Interestingly, at times, these “side hustles” are not jobs that encompass roles that are congruent with our expectations for a person who is simultaneously a teacher and a role model for children. If we don’t talk about teacher moonlighting, we don’t ask questions regarding the appropriateness of one job over another. These kinds of questions don’t have easy answers. Any job that is legal and involves the opportunity to work and make extra money should be acceptable for teachers who moonlight, but having said that, I know it is not entirely true. Ingersoll (2003) found that within schools, an important goal of education was to “shape conduct, develop character and impart values” (p. 227), and thus, a teacher’s conduct, character and values are front and center in any discussion of the roles and responsibilities of teachers as role models. Obviously, there are multiple perspectives on the different kinds of moonlighting jobs held by teachers, but the lack of a definitive answer on the kinds of jobs that are acceptable and those that are not is one of the reasons for the secrecy surrounding teacher moonlighting. Again, these questions need to be debated in a public forum, especially a non-punitive forum

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 4

3/30/18 11:28 AM

introduction

5

dedicated to understanding the phenomenon. Twenty-first-century teacher moonlighting does not seem to be different from the moonlighting activities of previous generations despite changes in the profession—for example, modest increases in teacher salaries, support for graduate education and national board certification, increased opportunities for career differentiation and merit pay. And yet efforts to explore the impact of those changes on the professional status of teachers’ work are still meager and limited. Researchers and policy makers should be seeking to ask new questions and expand our understanding of 21st-century teachers’ work. This kind of knowledge could be used to make teaching a different kind of career, a higher status profession with the autonomy, control and financial compensation that is typically found in other comparable professions. So, teachers have “side hustles,” and for many people that somehow balances the inequities and contradictions present in their salaries and working conditions. Most would agree that teaching is an important job, one of the most important in our society, but teachers don’t work 12 months a year, right? Therein lies part of the misunderstanding about teachers’ work. It is disturbing that this view of teachers’ work is perpetuated in textbooks for pre-service teacher candidates. For example, the following statement appeared in Those Who Can, Teach (Ryan, Cooper & Bolick, 2016): Compared with other workers, teachers spend much less time at their work sites. If we ignore what teachers do at home by way of preparing lessons, correcting papers, and checking homework, we can say they work six or seven hours a day for fewer than half the days of the year. Compared with those in power-and-status occupations, such as corporate finance or law, teachers have less demanding work schedules. (p. 6)

There is so much wrong with this statement that it leaves me speechless. First, it is difficult to believe that in the 21st century, judgments about a person’s work are made by how much time they spend at their work site. In this age of technology and digital resources, many workers complete their work-related tasks at home, and often, outside of the traditional workday. Additionally, how can one “ignore” preparing lessons, correcting papers,

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 5

3/30/18 11:28 AM

Eleanor J. Blair

6

and checking homework “at home.” These are important, essential and time-consuming tasks for most teachers. And finally, teachers clearly don’t have the power and status they deserve, but I would be quite comfortable arguing that teachers’ work is equally, if not more, important as jobs in corporate finance or law. Obviously, the educators who wrote this textbook are promoting a popular view of teachers’ work, but these perspectives are dangerous and contradict efforts to establish teaching as a full-fledged profession with all of the associated benefits that other professionals enjoy. While it is true that most teachers have 10-month contracts, the other two months are often filled with continuing education classes, workshops, planning for the next year, and other related activities. These are important tasks that contribute to the efficacy of teachers’ work during the traditional academic year. And yet, for many teachers, their schedules during the summer are also filled with the second jobs that make being a teacher financially possible. Riggs (2015) described the challenges of being a teacher as follows: Teaching entails a schedule unlike that of most other careers. Ostensibly, the typical teacher in the United States works 180 or so days annually, which comes with an average starting salary of a little over $36,000. But that excludes the work that he or she probably does throughout the summer, after school hours, and on the weekends. That 180-day policy is also a measure of the amount of time students—not necessarily teachers—must be in school. It doesn’t take into account professional-development time, parentteacher conferences, and “in-service” skills-training days, for example. (para. 3)

For the teachers interviewed by Riggs, the conclusion was that, “(a)t the end of the day, you definitely don’t do teaching for the money” (para. 11). A teacher recently explained to me that a downside of working at an inner-city year-round school is the impossibility of having a second job in the summer. The potential educational benefits of year-round schools are diminished by the need to supplement low teacher salaries with summer jobs. Another teacher, who was privy to this conversation, explained to me her need to work at Steak and Shake, a hamburger restaurant, because of her student

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 6

3/30/18 11:28 AM

introduction

7

loans. She owes $80,000+ in student loans, and her $800 monthly payment on those loans makes it impossible to pay rent, own a car and buy groceries on a typical starting salary of $35,000 for a teacher. It was both interesting and humorous that in her job as a waitress at Steak and Shake, she regularly works side-by-side with a parent of one of her students. While one could argue that the collegiality fostered by such an arrangement could be positive, I question the authority and respect that a teacher commands when one simultaneously works as a waitress or waiter in a semi-skilled position with limited authority and respect. Both of these teachers work in challenging circumstances that can result in burnout and attrition. Teacher moonlighting is, for most teachers, an innocuous activity. Teachers engage in jobs that are primarily in retail, education or schoolrelated activities; some teachers have moonlighting jobs in all three areas. The financial rewards are fairly modest, averaging around $5,000 or less (Hilty, 2008). And yet, teacher moonlighting persists despite raises in teacher salaries and expanded opportunities for teacher leadership. Armario (2011) found evidence that, “While moonlighting isn’t unique to teachers, they do tend to have second or third jobs at a higher rate than other professionals” (para. 13). She continues by noting that “the average salary for a public school teacher nationwide in the 2009-10 school year was $55,350, a figure that has remained relatively flat, after being adjusted for inflation, over the last two decades. Starting teacher salaries can be significantly lower; compared to college graduates in other professions, they earn more than $10,000 less when beginning their careers” (para. 9). Earlier research by Wisniewski and Kleine (1984) had indicated that the primary reason for teacher moonlighting was supplemental income, and yet, later research by Wisniewski and Hilty (1987) found that when teachers were asked if they would continue moonlighting if given comparable raises in salary, a fairly large number indicated that they would not surrender their other jobs. In the past, researchers primarily belonged to two camps: those who focused on the negative implications of moonlighting and those who viewed moonlighting as a positive activity for teachers. Both groups viewed teaching as a deprived profession, disagreeing only over the specificity of that deprivation. Many researchers in the negative camp argued that higher salaries would raise teaching to a loftier professional status. Those in the positive camp indicated that the deprivation was much more general: teachers had

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 7

3/30/18 11:28 AM

8

Eleanor J. Blair

many needs and dissatisfactions with the profession, and salary was only one of those needs. Until the school culture can be changed to meet those needs, moonlighting may have positive implications for the profession. I was a teacher moonlighter, and that experience later shaped and defined the work that I would do as I worked on my doctorate. I worked as a waitress throughout my early years as a teacher. The benefits were twofold: I was able to earn extra money, while at the same time the job provided me with an adult social life that was not possible in my job as a teacher. Because of the teacher moonlighting experience, my dissertation in 1987 focused on teacher moonlighting: Moonlighting Teachers: A Thematic Analysis of Personal Meanings (Hilty, 1987). In that work I explored the idea that teacher moonlighting was much more complex than simply presenting teachers with a quick way to make extra cash, and yet I wanted to understand what moonlighting meant to teachers, not researchers. How would teachers define moonlighting? How would they talk about their other jobs? Or, more importantly, how would they talk about teaching? In the end, I found that moonlighting was a complicated behavior that was not easily explained even by the teachers whom I interviewed. Teacher moonlighting intersected with teachers’ work in ways that I had not originally anticipated. Five conclusions emerged from this earlier work, conclusions that are still relevant to teachers today: 1. Moonlighting among teachers is related to being a teacher. Teachers who find teaching fulfilling will often seek moonlighting jobs that are a continuation of those roles and responsibilities, e.g., adult education, continuing education, tutoring, etc. 2. Teachers often experience dissatisfaction with the tasks and responsibilities of teaching. Moonlighting is a response to those perceived needs and dissatisfactions, resulting in teachers who might seek out a job that provides immediate feedback and gratification. 3. Teachers struggle with the “fit” between the moonlighting job and teaching. If the second job doesn’t “fit” or if it ceases to make sense, they will quit or move to another type of second job. 4. Teachers moonlight for the money, but the money alone is not enough motivation for most to continue working side jobs.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 8

3/30/18 11:28 AM

introduction

9

5. Not all second jobs provide satisfaction, but most teachers enjoy their moonlighting activities. (Hilty, 1987) There does seem to be ample evidence that teacher moonlighting is a complex issue that can be viewed as impacting the teaching profession in both negative and positive ways. However, when one digs beneath the surface, larger questions regarding the relationship of teacher moonlighting to the status of the profession and school culture persist and remain unanswered. In one sense, teacher moonlighting is like an iceberg, a large floating mass seemingly detached from other educational issues and concerns, and like an iceberg, the part below the surface is much larger than the part that is visible above surface. More importantly, like an iceberg, the connections we can’t see, the things we don’t know, can hurt us. We all know about teacher moonlighting, since it is visible and acknowledged by teachers and researchers alike, and yet, the larger, more complex issues related to teacher moonlighting are largely unseen and frequently ignored. Educational anthropologists George and Louise Spindler (1982) frequently referred to the idea of “making the familiar strange and the strange familiar.” Moonlighting is so familiar to teachers that we don’t recognize that the high levels of moonlighting among educators are a very strange phenomenon. Attempts to study moonlighting have failed from attempts to make what is commonplace appear disconcerting and worthy of serious consideration by policymakers, researchers, or members of the profession. The essays in this book are an attempt to pull together in one place the most significant work that has been done on teacher moonlighting and to provide a context for further investigation and speculation regarding a phenomenon that has been frequently studied, but seldom understood.

References @eddiebcomedy. (2017, November 16). What (teachers) really say about what they get paid! pt.1 [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi3r3LK0Dxo&list=RDvi3r3LK0Dxo&t=2 Anderson, W.D., Jr. (1966). Supplemental income survey: Oklahoma classroom teachers and counselors K–12 (doctoral dissertation). The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 9

3/30/18 11:28 AM

10

Eleanor J. Blair

Armario, C. (2011). Teachers, facing low salaries, opt to moonlight. Boston.com. Retrieved http://archive.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2011/11/11/teachers _facing_low_salaries_opt_to_moonlight/?page=1 Bobbitt, S. A. (1988). Moonlighting among public school teachers: Survey report (No. CS-89119). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. California teacher fired for moonlighting as porn star fighting to get her job back. (2012, October 23). NY Daily News. Retrieved from  http://www.nydailynews.com/ news/national/porno-teach-fighting-job-article-1.1190928 Hilty, E. B. (1987). Moonlighting teachers: A thematic analysis of personal meanings (doctoral dissertation). The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Hilty, E. B. (2008). Teacher moonlighting in North Carolina: Implications for the profession. Paper presented at the North Carolina Association for Research in Education Conference, North Bern, NC. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. Kronen, C. (2018). I’m a sinner, I’m a saint: A teacher’s perspective on moonlighting in the nightlife industry. In Blair, E. (Ed.), By the light of the silvery moon: Teacher moonlighting and the dark side of teachers’ work. Gorham, ME: Myers Publishing. Norris, W., & Hecker, S. E. (1962). Are Michigan educators moonlighters? Michigan Education Journal, 39, 559–61. Parham, J. N., & Gordon, S. P. (2011). Moonlighting: A harsh reality for many teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 47–51. Quart, A. (2016). Teachers are working for Uber just to keep a foothold in the middleclass. The Nation. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/teachers-areworking-for-uber-just-to-keep-a-foothold-in-the-middle-class/

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 10

3/30/18 11:28 AM

introduction

11

Riggs, L. (2015). The myth of the teacher’s summer vacation. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/07/myth-of-teacher-summer-vacation/397535/ Ryan, K., Cooper, J. M., & Bolick, C. M. (2016). Those who can, teach (14th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning. Schiffman, J. (1963). Multiple jobholders in May 1962. Monthly Labor Review, 86, 516–23. Smith, D. M., & Cooper, B. (1967). A study of moonlighting by public school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 4(1), 51–58. Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1982). Roger Harker and Schöenhausen: From familiar to strange and back again. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 20–46). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Teacher reprimanded for moonlighting as stripper. (2011, August 31). Independent. Retrieved

from

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/

teacher-reprimanded-for-moonlighting-as-stripper-2347021.html Turner, E. (1962). Moonlight over the chalkboard. National Education Association Journal, 51, 29–30. Wisniewski, R., & Hilty, E. B. (1987). Moonlighting: An education tradition we could do without. Tennessee Teacher, 30, 8–11. Wisniewski, R., & Kleine, P. (1984). Teacher moonlighting: An unstudied phenomenon. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(8), 553–55. Yeager, W. A. (1956). Teaching is still a part-time profession. The Nation’s Schools, 57, 61–62.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 11

3/30/18 11:28 AM

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 12

3/30/18 11:28 AM

SECTION ONE

Teacher Moonlighting Studied and Still Misunderstood

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 13

3/30/18 11:28 AM

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 14

3/30/18 11:28 AM

CHAPTER ONE

Shedding Light on the Dark Side of Teacher Moonlighting Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff University of Delaware

To date, research has emphasized the dark side of teacher moonlighting, linking moonlighting to teacher alienation and attrition. Research in Delaware, however, indicates that although some moonlighters were “reluctant” and would have quit if their income were increased, a majority were “willing” and would have continued to moonlight even if their salaries were increased enough to replace moonlighting income. Differences in the motivations, type of moonlighting position, job satisfaction, life impacts, and job search activity between willing and reluctant moonlighters are reported A constructive model of moonlighting, with related policy implications, is proposed to balance the dominant constraining view.

T

eaching is an “imperiled profession” filled with ranks of alienated, dissatisfied, and soon-to-exit individuals. This is the image portrayed in

Originally published in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Winter, 1990), pp. 403–414. Published by: American Educational Research Association. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164474. Accessed: 09-08-2017 19:37 UTC.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 15

3/30/18 11:28 AM

16

Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff

much of the recent research and depictions of teaching in America (Duke, 1984; Dworkin, 1987). In this context the holding of second jobs during the school year by a significant number of teachers, referred to as moonlighting, is a phenomenon to document, dissect, and decry. Wisniewski and Hilty (1987) have argued that moonlighting is a sign that teachers are not professionals. In their view, moonlighting is so limiting that there is no hope that teaching can reach the status of a profession: “The reality of moonlighting mocks efforts to increase the status of the profession. So long as moonlighting remains an integral part of the teacher’s world, the reforms being sought will only be partially achieved” (p. 1). In a much quoted and stirring television documentary, Tom Brokaw began with the moonlighting activities of a liquor store clerk, an outstanding high school teacher moonlighting to make ends meet. “I wanted to be a teacher—and this is what I have to do,” Leonard Stanziano, a “teacher’s teacher” of mathematics at Toms River High School East in New Jersey, declared (National Education Association [NEA], 1987). In a July 1, 1987, press release the NEA noted that Stanziano “faces the same dilemma confronted by thousands of his colleagues across the country…turning to moonlighting to make ends meet or keep from falling into debt” (p. 1). Despite the apparent importance of moonlighting by teachers, little empirical research has been conducted on this topic. In 1978, Divocky complained that “literature about the profession includes studies concerning almost every variable that could possibly affect teacher performance—the color of classroom walls, the espirit in the teachers lounge” (p. 40)—but nothing about the costs of moonlighting. A decade later Wisniewski and Hilty (1987) lamented that “studying moonlighting practices among teachers is almost a surrealistic experience…[because] the moonlighting phenomenon is virtually ignored by those who should be most concerned” (p. 1). To the extent that research has been conducted, it has been primarily limited to frequency counts and the investigation of simple relationships. To date research has emphasized the dark side of moonlighting. Louis Harris and Associates Inc. (1986) found that teachers who moonlighted were more likely to report that they were not likely to remain as teachers over the next 5 years. Harris and associates (1985) also found that more former teachers (54%) were likely to have moonlighted when they were teaching than those who remained in teaching (28%). Thus one dark side of moonlighting

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 16

3/30/18 11:28 AM

S hedding L ight on the Dark S ide of Moonlighting 17

is that it is a sign of teacher alienation and an early signal of, or step toward, teachers leaving the profession (Henderson & Henderson, 1986). Moonlighting may lead to teachers leaving the profession because it interferes with the professional development and work as well as personal lives of teachers. Wisniewski and Kleine (1984) found that over one-third of teachers in Oklahoma who moonlighted perceived that moonlighting interfered with their advanced graduate study (34%) and in-service training (59%) as well as physical well-being (37%) and family life (59%). Thus a further dark side of moonlighting is that teachers who moonlight are likely to have less time to devote to the teaching profession and presumably are shortchanging their students as well as their families. Moonlighting is viewed as a response to a negative condition—the low salary of teachers. The necessity of earning supplementary wages has been seen as the driving force behind teachers holding a second job (Henderson & Henderson, 1986; Divocky, 1978). According to Wisniewski and Kleine (1984), “an alarming number of teachers depend on some form of moonlighting to supplement their incomes” (p. 555). The NEA press release and Brokaw special, in addition, imply that teachers are moonlighting in lowskill, nonprofessional jobs. Thus teacher moonlighting has been viewed as an indicator of teacher dissatisfaction and the low status of this career, harming the education of children and leading to the exit of many teachers The Brokaw special exemplified a stereotype, hyped by the NEA, of a dedicated teacher forced by a low salary to work in a low-status job, alienated, searching for a way out, not able to devote the time to teaching, and upset at the loss of family and personal time. Higher teacher salaries are touted as a solution to this problem.

Questioning the Stereotype Many of those who have written about the negative aspects of teacher moonlighting would probably be staunch defenders of university faculty consulting. Although some negatives have been identified with faculty earning supplemental income, the opportunity to supplement one’s income by extending one’s professional activities and engage in interesting professional work is generally viewed as positive in academia (Allard, 1982; Howsam, 1985; Langway, 1978; Linnell, 1982; Plante, 1987). Linnell (1982) reported

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 17

3/30/18 11:28 AM

18

Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff

that “the vast majority (80-90%) of faculty engage in additional remunerative work, much of it professionally related” (p. viii). Finkelstein (1984) found that approximately one-third of American academics earn their primary or secondary supplementary income from consulting. Over 60% of American academics engage in some type of consulting during the year (Finkelstein, 1984). In fact, limits have been placed on this activity at two-thirds of the nation’s doctoral institutions to ensure that faculty keep their attention on their primary teaching and research responsibilities (Linnell, 1982). Although sometimes criticized, moonlighting by resident physicians has also been recognized as a means to increase professionalism through greater exposure to patients and their problems (Banahan Jr., Anderson, Banahan III, & Crump, 1987). We conclude that moonlighting per se is not necessarily a negative or unprofessional activity, and thus it is appropriate to ask deeper questions about the speculation and research presenting the dark side of teacher moonlighting. What kind of moonlighting positions do teachers hold? Are most moonlighters teaching courses in night school or tutoring students who need help, hence extending their professional activities, or are moonlighters working as sales people in department stores? Moonlighters may well be more likely to leave the teaching profession than those who do not hold second jobs. Yet what is the nature of the exiting process? Are all those who moonlight searching for a way out of their teaching positions when they accept a moonlighting position? How is moonlighting related to teachers’ satisfaction with their positions? Is moonlighting necessarily linked to job dissatisfaction? Faculty are encouraged to conduct research and consult in part to enliven their classroom teaching with “real world” examples. “According to most of the academics...being in touch with the ‘world of action’ through consulting allows them to transmit to students the relevance of the academic discipline” (Finkelstein, 1984, p. 333). Their activities are thought to add to their classroom performance. To what extent do elementary and secondary teachers detract from their classroom activities by engaging in moonlighting? How is moonlighting related to teachers’ time allocations? What are the motivations for moonlighting? What types of teachers are the most likely to moonlight? To what extent are moonlighters not the financially desperate, but rather individuals seeking to expand their horizons?

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 18

3/30/18 11:28 AM

S hedding L ight on the Dark S ide of Moonlighting 19

If the primary motivation of teacher moonlighters is financial, does this mean that as salaries increase, moonlighting will decrease? What are the policy implications if other motivations come into play and if the stereotypical view is not the reality? We address these questions in the context of more extensive work we are conducting in the state of Delaware on teacher recruitment and retention.

The Delaware Study Worried about the impending teacher crisis, in 1986 a committee of the Delaware General Assembly requested that the University of Delaware’s College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy conduct a survey of current and former Delaware teachers (Raffel, 1986; Raffel & Groff, 1987). With the assistance of the Delaware Department of Public Instruction, a one-in-ten random sample of public school teachers in Delaware was drawn. In the spring of 1986 a survey was sent out to the selected teachers and a follow-up was sent to those who did not respond to the first mailing. In all, 488 teachers in the sample of 570 returned their questionnaires, a response rate of 86%. In the 1986 survey we asked, “During the last school year did you work at any other kind of job for pay in addition to your teaching/school activities?” Forty-two percent of the respondents answered yes to this question. This percentage was large relative to similar national surveys and surveys in other states.1 The 1985 national Harris et al. study had found that 21% of the teachers reported moonlighting during the school year, whereas the 1985–1986 NEA study suggested a higher rate. A study of teachers in nearby New Jersey found 29% holding second jobs during the school year (Center for Public Interest Polling, 1986). A study of rural Arkansas, a state traditionally at the bottom of the list in teacher salaries, found 38% of teachers in second jobs, but this included summer positions (Bell & Roach, 1988). Given the large percentage of Delaware’s teachers who reported moonlighting in 1986 and the issues surrounding such behavior, we designed questions focused on moonlighting in a follow-up survey in the spring of 1988 to administer to our 1986 respondents (Raffel, 1989). In the 1988 survey we asked, “In which...years did you hold an extra (moonlighting) job during the regular school year which supplemented your teaching salary?” Approximately one-third of the respondents reported that they had

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 19

3/30/18 11:28 AM

20

Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff

moonlighted in 1987–1988, 1986–1987, and 1985–1986. Overall, 39.8% of the respondents reported having moonlighted at least once during these three years. To simplify the analysis we focus on the 1987–1988 moonlighters. Findings We began our analysis with the question of motivation: Why do teachers moonlight? Wisniewski and his associates (Wisniewski & Hilty, 1987; Wisniewski & Kleine, 1984) have suggested three reasons for moonlighting: to improve one’s financial situation, as a diversion from teaching or to develop one’s interests, and to prepare for leaving the teaching profession. These three reasons are not mutually exclusive. Building on the work of Wisniewski and Hilty (1987), the 1988 survey asked Delaware teachers, “How important was each of the following for your taking an extra job?” with five reasons pertaining to the factors listed previously (Wisniewski & Hilty, p. 10, 1987). These five reasons were evaluated on a three-point scale with the choices being “very important,” “somewhat important,” and “not important.” Over 80% of teachers who moonlighted considered financial reasons—that is, improving their standard of living and maintaining their current standard of living—as “very” or “somewhat important” reasons for working an extra job. More than half of the teachers who moonlighted cited diversion or development—that is, pursuit of a secondary interest or diversion from teaching—as “very” or “somewhat important” reasons for moonlighting. Over one-third of the teachers who moonlighted cited preparation to leave teaching as a “very” or “somewhat important” reason for moonlighting. The data confirmed that many teachers who moonlight do so for financial reasons. The results also indicated, however, that finances were not the only reason teachers moonlight. To get a better handle on the financial factors behind moonlighting, we reworded a question asked by Henderson and Schleslinger (1988) and asked teachers, ‘‘If your teaching salary had been increased by the same amount of money that you made on your second job during the school year, would you have continued to moonlight?” Of the 92 teachers who moonlighted, 52 of them, a majority (56.5%), said they would still continue to moonlight; 40 of them, a minority, said they would not. The fact that a majority of moonlighters would continue their afterhours work even if the financial need was reduced was not expected. Given

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 20

3/30/18 11:28 AM

S hedding L ight on the Dark S ide of Moonlighting 21

the literature’s emphasis on the financial roots of moonlighting, this distinction suggested that moonlighting might not be a singular phenomenon and might have different meanings across the teacher force. We therefore focused our research on the differences between the moonlighters who would continue even if salaries were raised to offset their income loss (hereafter we call them “willing” moonlighters) and those who would not (we call them “reluctant” moonlighters). To first examine the meaning and significance of the differences between willing and reluctant moonlighters, the answers to the question “How important was each of the following for your taking an extra job?” were compared among the two groups (Table 1). Financial reasons for moonlighting were less important to the willing moonlighters than to the reluctant moonlighters. Although 92.5% of the reluctant moonlighters reported moonlighting to improve their standard of living, 73.1% of the willing moonlighters saw this as a “very” or “important” reason. The willing moonlighters placed the same level of significance on moonlighting as a developmental activity as they did on financial reasons. The reluctant moonlighters were more likely than willing moonlighters to say that preparing to leave was a reason for their after-hours job. The degree of financial dissatisfaction among reluctant moonlighters is further evidenced when one examines the three groups on working during the summer, or “sunlighting.” Over 70% (71.7%) of moonlighters reported holding a summer job for pay, whereas only 13.9% of nonmoonlighters reported sunlighting. However, 85% of the reluctant moonlighters worked during the summer of 1987 as compared to 59.6% of the willing moonlighters. These differences are statistically significant. The different motivations are apparent in a further comparison: differences among the three groups in the primary reason they came to Delaware to teach. This question was asked in 1986. One-third of nonmoonlighters reported coming to Delaware to teach because it was their home and onethird because of their spouse’s job (Table 2). Half of the willing moonlighters came to Delaware to teach because of the pull of the state or the job. Almost one-quarter (23.1%) of the reluctant moonlighters, double the percentage of willing moonlighters, reported coming to Delaware to teach because of high salary. These findings further support the financial inclination of the reluctant moonlighters and the more pronounced diversion/development motivation of willing moonlighters.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 21

3/30/18 11:28 AM

Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff

22

The 1986 Brokaw special on teachers focused on a teacher working in a liquor store, but is this the typical teacher’s moonlighting job? Teachers in the 1988 survey were asked what job they held while moonlighting. Over one-fifth of the Delaware teachers who moonlighted did so in coaching or afterschool activities (Table 3). Another one-fifth of the teachers moonlighted in the educational field, as teachers or tutors. Almost one-fifth (17%) of the teachers who moonlighted held managerial, administrative, or professional jobs, for example, consultant or department chair. Slightly under one-fifth (19%) of the teachers who moonlighted hheld jobs such as desk clerk or data entry clerk, or sales-type jobs such as store clerk. One-tenth of the teachers who moonlighted had their own business, for example, charter fishing or an antique store. Slightly less than one-tenth held jobs not easily classified, such as horseshoeing or exercise class instructor, and 4% of the moonlighters sold real estate Willing moonlighters were twice as likely to hold education-related positions than reluctant moonlighters. These results clearly show that the stereotype of the liquor clerk moonlighter does not hold for the Delaware teaching force. Two-thirds of Delaware’s moonlighters are engaged in an educational activity, a professional position, or operating a business. Only one-fifth were clerks or in routine sales positions. Previous research has suggested that moonlighters are more dissatisfied with their jobs and careers than nonmoonlighters. Dissatisfaction may lead to moonlighting or vice versa. We examined the relation between moonlighting and job and career satisfaction not only between moonlighters and nonmoonlighters but also between the types of moonlighters. Table 1. Importance of reasons for moonlighting (“very” or “somewhat” important) Reasons

All moonlighters (N = 92)

Willing moonlighters (N = 52)

Reluctant moonlighters (N = 40)

Improve standard of living

81.5%

73.1%

92.5%

Maintain standard of living

81.5%

71.2%*

95.0%*

Pursuit of secondary interest

67.4%

75.0%

57.5%

Diversion from teaching

56.6%

55.7%

57.5%

Preparation to leave teaching

34.7%

28.8%

42.5%

Note: Statistical significances of nonmoonlighters versus all moonlighters and willing versus reluctant moonlighters are reported as appropriate. *p ≤ 05.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 22

3/30/18 11:28 AM

S hedding L ight on the Dark S ide of Moonlighting 23

Table 2. Main reasons teachers came to Delaware to teach Reasons

Non­ moonlighters (N = 208)

All moonlighters (N = 92)

Willing moonlighters (N = 52)

Reluctant moonlighters (N = 40)

Delaware is home

34.6%

25.4%

23.1%

28.2%

Spouse’s job in Delaware

33.7%

9.0%

5.8%

12.8%

Prefer to live in Delaware

11.1%

15.9%

25.0%

5.1%**

Best job offer

7.2%

21.5%

28.8%

12.8%

High salary

6.7%

16.8%

11.5%

23.1%

Other

6.7%

11.3%

5.8%

17.9%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

** p ≤ 05. Table 3. Type of moonlighting position All moonlighters (N = 92)

Willing moonlighters (N= 52)

Reluctant moonlighters (N = 40)

Management

16.5%

13.5%

20.0%

Education-related

36.5%

46.2%

25.0%

Sales

14.2%

11.5%

17.5%

Clerical

5.4%

5.8%

5.0%

Public service

1.1%

0.0%

2.5%

Service occupation

3.3%

1.9%

5.0%

Agriculture

4.3%

5.8%

2.5%

Labor

2.2%

1.9%

2.5%

Position

Other

16.3%

13.5%

20.0%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

More nonmoonlighters (82%) than moonlighters (67%) were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their teaching career. In addition, the average level of job satisfaction on a composite scale of 14 items was higher (4.00 = very satisfied, 1.00 = very dissatisfied) among nonmoonlighters (2.59) than that among moonlighters (2.48). Although the difference is small, it is statistically significant. We compared moonlighters to nonmoonlighters on the

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 23

3/30/18 11:28 AM

Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff

24

14 specific satisfaction items (Table 4). The only statistically significant difference between the two groups on a specific item was with satisfaction with salary. On this item, the nonmoonlighters were much more satisfied than moonlighters: 61% of nonmoonlighters were satisfied with salary versus 43% of those without a second job. Although Table 4 suggests that moonlighters were more dissatisfied than nonmoonlighters, especially about their salaries, it also suggests that moonlighters varied in satisfaction. Willing moonlighters were similar in their satisfaction levels to nonmoonlighters. Reluctant moonlighters were more negative than these two groups. A comparison of

Table 4. Satisfaction with job dimensions (“very” or “somewhat” satisfied) Nonmoonlighters

All moonlighters

Willing moonlighters

Reluctant moonlighters

(N = 208)

(N = 92)

(N = 52)

(N = 40)

Challenge

86.5%

81.9%

82.7%

80.0%

Autonomy

78.3%

75.8%

84.6%

65.0%

Fringe benefits

76.3%

70.5%

82.7%

57.5%

Supervisor

67.8%

67.7%

73.1%

60.0%

Students

63.6%

62.0%

67.3%

57.5%

Salary

60.7%*

43.2%*

51.9%

35.0%

Supplies

58.9%

49.5%

50.0%

55.0%

Work site

58.7%

51.6%

50.0%

57.5%

Appreciation/Prestige

53.9%

41.5%

42.3%

45.0%

Job dimensions

Discipline

51.0%

48.4%

61.5%**

32.5%**

Career advancement

46.8%

32.6%

36.5%

25.0%

Influence

41.5%

27.4%

30.8%

22.5%

After hours work

33.5%

38.3%

44.2%

30.0%

Clerical duties

21.4%

29.5%

34.6%

25.0%

Overall satisfaction scale

2.59*

2.48*

2.57**

2.38**

Your job

85.7%

74.7%

80.8%

67.5%

Career

82.0%*

67.0%*

71.2%

62.5%

Note. “Your job” and “career” are not included in overall satisfaction scale. * p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .05.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 24

3/30/18 11:28 AM

S hedding L ight on the Dark S ide of Moonlighting 25

overall satisfaction among the three groups, using the job satisfaction scale, shows that the mean score of the reluctant moonlighters (2.38) was statistically significantly lower than that of the willing moonlighters (2.57) and of the nonmoonlighters (2.59). The lower overall average indicates a greater amount of dissatisfaction with teaching in general among the reluctant moonlighters. This is supported by the lower level of satisfaction on the specific items of teaching as a career and on job satisfaction. These results indicate that those moonlighters who would not continue to hold an extra job if their salaries were increased were dissatisfied with their career. Interestingly, there were no statistically significant differences between willing moonlighters and nonmoonlighters, again suggesting that the image of the disgruntled moonlighter is inaccurate or incomplete. The Effect of Moonlighting on a Teacher’s Time An extra job, in all likelihood, will have some ramifications on a person’s primary job and on his or her personal or nonworking time. To ascertain the perceptions of teachers who held extra jobs on this dimension, they were asked to “please rate each of these as to how it was affected by your extra job during the school year.” Nine items were evaluated on a threepoint scale of “helped,” “did not effect,” and “hindered” (Wisniewski & Hilty, 1987). This was further broken down between the two groups of moonlighters. Again we found differences between the willing moonlighters and the reluctant moonlighters (Table 5). A scale from 1.00 to 3.00 was created to measure overall hindrance, with 3.00 indicating maximum hindrance. Overall, the reluctant moonlighters (2.23) felt more hindered by their second job than willing moonlighters (1.99). It is no surprise that family and social activities was the most hindered item cited by both groups. A majority of the willing moonlighters and two­-thirds of the reluctant moonlighters felt this area was hindered by holding an extra job. Reading and private study was the next highest affected area, with one-third of the willing moonlighters and almost half of reluctant moonlighters feeling hindered in this area by holding an extra job. The other areas are shown in decreasing order of hindrance. Reluctant moonlighters felt much more hindered by a second job in the areas of physical well-being and morale or mental health.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 25

3/30/18 11:28 AM

Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff

26

Although teachers’ perceptions of the effect of holding an extra job on various aspects of their lives, including teaching, are important, so is the actual effect of holding an extra job on their teaching performance. One important dimension is the time allocation of moonlighters as compared with nonmoonlighters. One question on the survey asked the respondents to report the number of hours spent on various activities (e.g., classroom teaching, lunchroom monitoring) during the school week previous to filling out the questionnaire. The responses to this question were then compared across the types of moonlighters and nonmoonlighters. Surprisingly, we found little difference among the groups. Two areas where there were statistically significant differences were time in school spent tutoring students and time in school spent on administrative activities. Willing moonlighters report spending more time tutoring students in school than the other groups. This is consistent with a National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) report (Bobbitt, 1988), which also found that moonlighters spent more time tutoring students in school than nonmoonlighters. Reluctant moonlighters reported spending more time on administrative duties in school than the other groups. This would seem to indicate (along with other data) that willing moonlighters tutored students because they liked to do so. The frustration of the reluctant moonlighters may have led them to perceive that they spent more time on administrative duties than their less dissatisfied peers. Table 5. Perceived hindrance on life because of extra job Factors

All moonlighters (N = 92)

Willing moonlighters (N = 52)

Reluctant moonlighters (N = 40)

Family and social activities

59.8%

53.8%

67.5%

Reading and private study

39.1%

32.7%

47.5%

Advanced graduate study

31.5%

28.8%

35.0%

In-service seminars

29.4%

23.1%

37.5%

Physical well-being

32.6%

21.2%

47.5%

Morale/Mental health

27.2%

15.4%*

42.5%*

Preparation for teaching

14.1%

7.7%

22.5%

Teaching performance

8.7%

5.8%

12.5%

Hindrance scale

2.09

1.99*

2.23*

Note In hindrance scale, 1 = helped, 2 = did not affect, and 3 = hindered * p ≤ 05.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 26

3/30/18 11:28 AM

S hedding L ight on the Dark S ide of Moonlighting 27

Finding that moonlighters do not devote less time to their teaching responsibilities would seem to be counter-intuitive. Teachers who moonlight, holding all other factors in abeyance, do not have the same amount of hours in the day to devote to teaching as nonmoonlighters. Therefore, one would expect a difference between the two groups. One possible explanation is that, as previously noted, moonlighting first has an effect on family and social activities. Therefore, the time that is spent on moonlighting is taken from the time allocation for these areas, not professional time. Also, it is important to keep in mind that these results were obtained from the teacher’s own perception of his or her time allocation. It may be that, in reality, moonlighting does have a noticeable effect on teaching time allocation and that this effect is not recognized or acknowledged by the moonlighter. It is also possible that willing moonlighters are energized by their work and enjoy working more than reluctant moonlighters.2 Background Characteristics of Moonlighters Presumably, policies aimed at moonlighting should be based in part on who moonlights. The NCES (Bobbitt, 1988) conducted a survey in 1985 that included questions on the frequency and nature of moonlighting by teachers. They found that 16.8% of teachers moonlighted during the school year. They also found that males were more likely to moonlight than females, moonlighters were younger than nonmoonlighters, moonlighters had less experience than nonmoonlighters, secondary teachers moonlighted more than elementary teachers, and more moonlighters had a master’s or PhD degree than nonmoonlighters. In their 1987–1988 survey NCES (Bobbitt, 1990) found moonlighting rates had dropped some (15.4% moonlighted during the school year); the correlates of moonlighting did not change. We found only two significant demographic differences between moonlighters and nonmoonlighters in Delaware. Moonlighters were more likely to be males than nonmoonlighters: 52% of the male teachers moonlighted, whereas only 20.3% of the females moonlighted. When teachers were further broken down by marital status and sex, we found that 54.9% of the married males moonlighted, 33.3% of the single males moonlighted, 30.3% of the single females moonlighted, and 17.6% of the married females moonlighted. This suggests that the more a teacher is in the role of breadwinner, the more likely he or she is to moonlight.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 27

3/30/18 11:28 AM

28

Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff

The second demographic difference we found between moonlighters and nonmoonlighters was related to the first. Among nonmoonlighters, 51.9% were elementary teachers, but among the moonlighters only 19.6% were elementary teachers. One should note that most elementary teachers were females; therefore one would expect a difference among the two groups in this area. Demographic factors that were not significantly different in Delaware were teacher salary, household salary, age, and experience. Evidently moonlighting behavior is a function of more than financial factors, at least as we could measure it here. We attempted to predict moonlighter status using the multivariate technique of logit analysis, but we found that logit analysis allowed us to explain very little about moonlighting behavior. The best logit model predicted that only 5% of each moonlighting group would moonlight. Moonlighting, Search, and Exit Moonlighting behavior is strongly related to the likelihood of teacher retention. When asked about their job search behavior in the past two years, 16.5% of the nonmoonlighters indicated that they had searched and/or searched and interviewed for a different full-time job (Table 6). Among the willing moonlighters, 30.8% said they had searched and/or searched and interviewed. Among the reluctant moonlighters, however, 53.8% had searched and/or interviewed for a new position. The percentage of reluctant moonlighters indicating their likelihood of leaving the teaching profession in Delaware for another job was consistently higher than willing moonlighters or nonmoonlighters. We created a summary scale of the likelihood of leaving the teaching profession in Delaware. On each of five items, respondents were asked how likely it was that they would leave the Delaware teaching profession (options ranged from “very likely” through “very unlikely”). The items included were leaving the teaching profession in Delaware for (a) the private sector, (b) a counseling or an education-related administrative job, (c) a government or nonprofit position, (d) a public school position outside of Delaware, and (e) a nonpublic school teaching job. We determined the mean response so that a score of 4 meant that a teacher reported he or she was “very likely” to leave for all five alternatives and a score of 1 meant that a teacher was “very unlikely” to

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 28

3/30/18 11:28 AM

S hedding L ight on the Dark S ide of Moonlighting 29

leave for any of the items. We found that reluctant moonlighters were more likely to expect to leave the teaching profession in Delaware for another job (1.70) than willing moonlighters (1.55) and nonmoonlighters (1.44). From 1986 to 1988 the state of Delaware made a major effort to increase teacher salaries, rising in state rankings from 21st in 1986–1987 to 10th in 1988–1989. The salary increases were aimed more at veteran than beginning teachers. For example, salaries at the master’s plus 10 years of experience level increased by 43.5% from 1985–1986 to 1989–1990, whereas salary increases at the beginning of the scale, bachelor’s with no experience, increased 34.9% over this period (Crowley & Moorehead, 1990). Presumably moonlighters would have been delighted with the salary increase and the decreased need for extra income. Yet again we find differentiated reactions among moonlighters. Both nonmoonlighters in general and willing moonlighters in particular had a large increase in satisfaction with salary from 1986 to 1988 (30.1% and 28.1%, respectively). However, the reluctant moonlighters only had an 8% increase in salary satisfaction. This is a statistically significant difference. Increased salaries, at least at the level experienced in Delaware, did not have much of an impact on the satisfaction levels of reluctant moonlighters. Table 6. Job search activity Job search

Non­ moonlighters (N = 208)

All moonlighters (N = 92)

Willing moonlighters (N = 52)

Reluctant moonlighters (N = 40)

83.5%*

58.7%*

69.2%

46.2%

Searched but found nothing

7.3%

9.0%

5.8%

12.8%

Searched and interviewed

9.2%*

32.3%*

25.0%

41%**

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Did not search

* p ≤ 05.

Two Models We began with the stereotypical view of a moonlighting teacher—working as a clerk, dissatisfied, trying to leave teaching, and primarily motivated by money. This research indicates that this stereotype holds for a subset of

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 29

3/30/18 11:28 AM

30

Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff

moonlighting teachers, but only a minority. These reluctant moonlighters were dissatisfied with a number of aspects of teaching, especially salary. What is not clear is whether moonlighting caused this dissatisfaction or whether the dissatisfaction caused moonlighting. After two years of large salary increases in Delaware, however, reluctant moonlighters maintained their dissatisfaction. For some moonlighters, the willing moonlighters, it is clear that moonlighting was a diversion or a developmental activity, and thus it seemed to have little or no negative effect on their attitude toward teaching. The stereotype of the moonlighting teacher who has had to take a part-time low-status job to make ends meet, neglecting his or her students, and waiting for an opportunity to leave teaching is not supported by our results. Although we did find a substantial number of reluctant moonlighters, we found a higher percentage of willing moonlighters. These moonlighters were in higher status, education-related, part-time positions; were not likely to quit moonlighting even if their incomes were proportionately increased; viewed their second jobs as diversions or developmental opportunities; and spent as much time preparing for teaching as their nonmoonlighting counterparts. They were not unhappy and were not looking to leave the profession. We propose that the stereotypical model of moonlighting, a model based on the notion of moonlighting as a constraining activity, needs to be balanced by a constructive model of moonlighting. Table 7 summarizes the differences in the constraining and constructive models on the dimensions of the nature of the moonlighting position, the motivation for moonlighting, the effects of moonlighting, and the policy implications of the model. Having discussed the first three dimensions, we now turn to the policy implications of this research.

Policy Implications The differentiated nature of teachers who moonlight complicates the possible policy approaches to address the moonlighting “problem.” In fact, the complexity of moonlighting suggests that working to eliminate moonlighting may not be the proper approach. Any policy that addresses moonlighting should address the reasons teachers moonlight. We found that the two largest motivational factors were financial and diversionary/development factors.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 30

3/30/18 11:28 AM

S hedding L ight on the Dark S ide of Moonlighting 31

Table 7. Two models of teacher moonlighting Factors

Constraining (Stereotypical)

Constructive (Non-stereotypical)

Nature of position

Non-professional

Professional

Motivation

Financial

Diversion/Development

Effects of moonlighting

Negative

Positive

Policy implication

Increase salaries

Increase opportunities

The constraining model of moonlighting assumes that increasing teachers’ salaries is a solution to the problem of moonlighting. Higher salaries should reduce moonlighting. Our research suggests that, at least in the short run, increasing salaries will not make reluctant moonlighters less disgruntled about their salaries or their profession. A policy directed toward moonlighting would have to address the diversionary and development factor that seems to motivate a number of teachers. The constructive model suggests that the policy goal should not be to eliminate moonlighting, but to make it more attractive for the teacher and educational system. This means that school districts must seek to create moonlighting positions that meet diversionary and development goals but still fall within a teacher’s professional realm. Creating and identifying a wide range of alternative opportunities for teachers, beyond the traditional extra responsibilities that are tied to extra pay, would thus be the objective. Some teachers would seek opportunities far removed from the classroom, but others would want to build directly on their experience. Working from a different premise would lead to the generation of many policy ideas. Perhaps this is an area where we could use a thousand points of light. At the operational and program level, school districts or states could develop supplementary job banks for teachers. Teacher consultants to neighboring school districts could be encouraged to provide peer counseling, engage in curriculum development, or conduct teacher evaluations. The institutional resources of a community—its corporations, nonprofit agencies, governments, and postsecondary institutions—could be tapped to develop part-time positions, internships, and summer positions for teachers. At a minimum, a constantly updated listing of such current opportunities could be developed and made available to a state’s teachers. A few isolated examples, but no systematic effort, exist in the state of Delaware. The

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 31

3/30/18 11:28 AM

Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff

32

University of Delaware teams high school teachers with college professors in its Summer College program, one bank hires teachers as interns, and the DuPont company has trained science teachers in the summer months. Some national examples of summer programs have been noted in the literature. Service Plus, an employment program for teachers in Tennessee, places teachers in meaningful summer positions in adult activity centers, libraries, and human service departments to the benefit of the community and teachers (Hoffman, 1987). A number of summer internship programs have been identified nationally that contribute to the professional development needs of teachers and presumably improve their instructional capabilities (Gold, 1986). Under the premise that moonlighting may well be constructive, school districts would also need to consider policy changes. Professional outside work could be encouraged by a district’s personal and professional leave policy. Increasing the number of opportunities for additional professional work for a district’s teachers as well as providing for “consulting” teachers from other districts would require a change in priorities. Our analysis suggests that although uncertainty about the linkage of moonlighting to teacher classroom effectiveness remains, efforts built upon the constructive model of moonlighting could well increase teachers’ morale and sense of professionalism. And if such efforts helped reluctant moonlighters to become willing moonlighters, perhaps teacher attrition could also be limited.

Notes This work was financially supported by the Delaware Development Office and the Public Service Assistantship Program of the Delaware General Assembly. The authors were greatly aided by the members of the Delaware State Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Teacher Recruitment as well as by Bob Hampel, Julius Meisel, and Richard Wisniewski. Helen Foss, Bob Boozer, and Erv Marsh also were instrumental in assisting us with ideas and data. 1 The higher percentage was partly the result of the wording of the 1986 question, which allowed some respondents to include summer positions in their responses. In general one must be careful in making comparisons of the rates of teacher moonlighting because studies differ in their definitions of moonlighting, for example, including summer jobs or extra work for one’s school district, time frame (3

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 32

3/30/18 11:28 AM

S hedding L ight on the Dark S ide of Moonlighting 33

years vs. 1 year), sample (state vs. nation), and reporting of data (reporting multiple responses, etc.). Because it is arbitrary to exclude extra work for one’s school district while including the same work for pay for another school district, we have included activities such as coaching. 2 It was found that the reluctant moonlighters, on the average, spend more time on their moonlighting jobs than do the willing moonlighters (18.5 hours vs. 13.5 hours). There was no significant difference, however, between the average income obtained from moonlighting. The implication here is that because the reluctant moonlighters spend a greater amount of time moonlighting for the same monetary reward, they experience greater feelings of dissatisfaction toward the various aspects of teaching than do willing moonlighters.

References Allard, S. (1982). A summary of institutional policies affecting outside and offload employment for faculty at Maryland public higher education institutions. Annapolis, MD: State Board for Higher Education. Banahan, B. F., Jr., Anderson, R. L., Banahan, B. F., III, & Crump, W. J. (1987). Physicians’ evaluations of their moonlighting during residency training. Journal of Medical Education, 62(4), 351–353. Bell, D., & Roach, P. B. (1988, August). Moonlighting—Arkansas style. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators Summer Workshop, Starkville, MS. Bobbitt, S. A. (1988). Moonlighting among public school teachers. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Bobbitt, S. A. (1990, April). Moonlighting among public and private school teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Center for Public Interest Polling. (1986). The New Jersey public school teacher: A view of the profession. Rutgers University, NJ: The Eagleton Institute of Politics.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 33

3/30/18 11:28 AM

34

Jeffrey A. Raffel and Lance R. Groff

Crowley, D. E., & Moorehead, K. L. (1990). A study of the competitiveness of Delaware teacher salaries. Dover, DE: Delaware State Education Association. Divocky, D. (1978). Moonlighting: Occupational hazard or benefit? Learning, 7(3), 40–45. Duke, D. L. (1984). Teaching—the imperiled profession. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Dworkin, A. G. (1987). Teacher burnout in the public schools: Structural causes and consequences for children. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American academic profession: A synthesis of social scientific inquiry since World War II. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Gold, G. G. (1986). Employer-sponsored teacher internships in science and math: A part of education reform strategy. Washington, DC: National Institute for Work and Learning. Henderson, D. L., & Henderson, K. L. (1986). Moonlighting, salary, and morale: The Texas teachers’ story. Unpublished report. ERIC (Report No. ED269374). Henderson, D. L., & Schlesinger, Frank J. (1988). Texas teachers and moonlighting in the 1980s (Unpublished report). ERIC (Report No. ED298106). Hoffman, E. (1987). Teachers and community service: A plus for both. Washington, DC: The Education Writers Association. Howsam, R. B. (1985). Academic consulting in colleges and universities. Enclaves of intellectual and moral integrity (A Report to the Coordinating Board). Austin, TX: Texas College and University System. Langway, L. (1978, July). Too much moonlighting? Newsweek, p. 84. Linnell, R. H. (Ed.). (1982). Dollars and scholars: An inquiry into the impact of faculty income upon the function and future of the academy. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Press.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 34

3/30/18 11:28 AM

S hedding L ight on the Dark S ide of Moonlighting 35

Louis Harris and Associates Inc. (1985). Former teachers in America. New York: Metropolitan Life Company. Louis Harris and Associates Inc. (1986). The American teacher, 1986. New York: Metropolitan Life Company. National Education Association. (1987, July). Teachers forced to moonlight to supplement family income. Press release distributed at 125th Annual Meeting. Los Angeles, CA. Plante, P. R. (1987). The art of decision making: Issues and cases in higher education. New York: Macmillan. Raffel, J. A. (1986). Teaching in Delaware: An analysis of current and former teachers’ views. Newark, DE: University of Delaware. Raffel, J. A. (1989). Teacher crisis in Delaware. Newark, DE: University of Delaware. Raffel, J. A., & Groff, L. R. (1987). Teachers for Delaware: Augmenting teacher recruitment and retention in Delaware. Newark, DE: University of Delaware. Wisniewski, R., & Hilty, E B. (1987, October). Moonlighting: An education tradition we could do without. Tennessee Teacher, pp. 8–11, 30. Wisniewski, R., & Kleine, P. (1984). Teacher moonlighting: An unstudied phenomenon. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(8), 553–555.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 35

3/30/18 11:28 AM

CHAPTER TWO

A Study of Moonlighting by Public School Teachers Doyne M. Smith and Bernice Cooper The University of Georgia

T

hroughout the nation, to supplement salaries, many teachers work at other jobs in addition to their teaching, a practice commonly called “moonlighting.” Of course, other workers than teachers hold second jobs. The National Education Association (Turner, 1962) reported that “the Census Bureau has found in a series of studies in recent years that about one worker in twenty has some employment other than his primary job.” It was further noted by Turner (1962) that “actually, postal workers, school teachers, and protective-service workers such as guards and firemen were listed by the bureau in that order—as being more likely than factory workers to be holders of more than one job.” School administrators have evidenced an interest in, and have encouraged research to determine, the extent of moonlighting by public school personnel. The present study was an outgrowth of this interest and was co-sponsored by the Georgia State Department of Education and the Bureau of Educational Studies and Field Services, College of Education, the University of Georgia.

Source: American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 51–58. Published by: American Educational Research Association. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1161724. Accessed: 17-01-2018 21:19 UTC. 36

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 36

3/30/18 11:28 AM

M O O N L I G H T I N G by public school teachers

37

Purposes The purposes of the study were (a) to determine the personal and professional characteristics of moonlighting teachers, and (b) to compare male moonlighters with female moonlighters according to a number of factors concerning the second job.

Procedure A questionnaire, which was developed by Norris and Hecker (1962) of Michigan State University and modified as needed for the present study, was administered to a 5 percent sample of the classroom teachers in Georgia in the fall of 1963. From the 198 school systems in the State with approximately 34,700 teachers, questionnaires were distributed to a total of 1,767 teachers in 133 systems. There were 1,334, or 75.5 percent, of the questionnaires returned. Frequencies were determined and chi-square was used as a test of significance.

Findings and Discussion There were 338 teachers, or 25.3 percent, who reported that they earned income from sources other than public school employment during the period between September 1, 1962, and August 31, 1963. Personal characteristics. Table 1 presents the results of the chi-square test to determine the significance of the relationship between personal characteristics and moonlighting. According to sex, an expected significant difference was found with 57.9 percent of the male respondents as compared with 15.5 percent of the female respondents reporting a second job. However, it should be remembered that many females hold the second job of housekeeping, which is not included as moonlighting since it does not result in extra income directly. According to race, it was found that a higher proportion of white teachers (27.2 percent) as compared with Negro teachers (20.3 percent) earned income from sources other than public school employment during the reported period. The difference was significant at the .02 level and perhaps may be partially explained as the lack of opportunities for Negro teachers to secure second jobs.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 37

3/30/18 11:28 AM

38

Doyne M. Smith and Bernice Cooper

Table 1. The Relationship Between Moonlighting and Personal Characteristics of Teachers Personal Characteristics

p*

Sex

.01

Race

.02

Marital Status

N.S.

Age

.01

No. in Family

.01

Whether Spouse Worked

.01

Size of Community in Which Respondent Resided

.05

When p was greater than .05, chi-square was considered not significant.

The general assumption has been that it is the “family” man who must turn to moonlighting to adequately support his family. These data do not support that assumption, for the difference according to marital status was not significant. In fact, 26.9 percent of the single teachers as compared with 25.3 percent of the married teachers and 22.5 percent of others (separated, divorced, widowed) were moonlighters. It was found that the proportion of teachers with two jobs steadily decreased as age increased. The difference was significant, with more moonlighters than expected of the younger groups and fewer than expected of the older groups. For instance, there were 37.9 percent of those under 25 years of age as compared with 14.5 percent of those over 54 years of age who reported moonlighting. When the number in the family was considered, again the difference was significant. Although the greatest discrepancies between expected and observed frequencies of moonlighting were not found at the extremes (one in family and six or more), there were fewer moonlighters than expected in families of two and more than expected in families of five. Although the difference was significant also when the variable of whether the spouse worked was considered, this finding was not surprising. There was less moonlighting than expected by teachers whose spouse worked and more than expected when the spouse did not work. The difference was significant at the .05 level when the size of the community in which the respondent resided was considered. In this sample, there were considerably more moonlighters than expected in cities of from

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 38

3/30/18 11:28 AM

M O O N L I G H T I N G by public school teachers

39

2,500 to 4,999 population and fewer than expected in cities of 25,000 to 99,999. This finding was not in agreement with Yeager’s (1956) study that more moonlighters lived in urban areas. To summarize the personal characteristics of moonlighters, they were more likely to be male, white, young, with large families, with a non-working spouse and living in small towns. All of these variables with the possible exception of race indicate that need for extra income was perhaps the predominant reason for moonlighting. Marital status was not a significant factor, but this in itself may be a reflection of salary for there were proportionately more single than married moonlighters and the single teachers are more likely to be young and have less training and experience with resultant lower salaries. Professional characteristics. Table 2 presents a summary of the chi-square test to determine the significance between professional characteristics and the frequency of moonlighting. As may be noted from the table, each variable was significantly related to moonlighting. According to years of experience as a teacher, there were fewer moonlighters than expected with more than fifteen years of experience and more moonlighters than expected with less than fifteen years of experience. However, the greatest single discrepancy occurred in the group with less than five years of experience with considerably more moonlighters than expected. This finding reinforces need for extra income as a reason for moonlighting since years of experience is a factor of salary. Table 2. The Relationship Between Moonlighting and Professional Characteristics of Teachers Professional Characteristics

p*

Years of Experience

.01

Years of College Education

.01

Area of Major School Assignment

.01

Contract Salary

.05

Supplement to Contract Salary

.01

* When p was greater than .05, chi-square was considered not significant.

A significant relationship was found also between years of college education and moonlighting. Although some fewer teachers with under four

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 39

3/30/18 11:28 AM

40

Doyne M. Smith and Bernice Cooper

years of college education were moonlighters than expected by chance, the greatest discrepancy was in the group of teachers with four years of college education. In this group considerably fewer teachers than expected were moonlighters. This finding suggests some variable other than salary as a reason for holding second jobs since these teachers with lower professional preparation would earn less. Perhaps there is a lack of ambition factor in operation here, with more of these teachers satisfied with a low professional standing and accompanying low salaries. This is verified also when the variable of contract salary was considered, for there were fewer moonlighters than expected in the lowest paid group (salaries less than $3500). However, there were many more moonlighters than expected in the $3500–$4499 group, but this would include teachers with five-year certificates and several years of experience. Perhaps need coupled with ambition spurred these teachers to seek second jobs. This explanation is further substantiated when moonlighting by only those receiving a supplement to the regular contract salary was considered. A significant relationship was found, with more teachers receiving the highest supplements holding second jobs than expected by chance and fewer than expected of those receiving the lowest supplements. This finding seems to be related also to the sex factor, for male teachers are more likely to receive supplements and there was more moonlighting by all those receiving supplements (44.0 percent) than from the total population (25.3 percent). In addition, the area of major school assignment was significantly related to the frequency of moonlighting. There were fewer general elementary teachers holding second jobs than expected by chance and more social studies, mathematics, science, and physical education teachers. Again, the sex factor was undoubtedly the predominant influence since more females teach general elementary and more males are employed in the teaching areas with the most moonlighting. Then, to summarize the professional characteristics of moonlighters, they are more likely to be teachers of social studies, mathematics, physical education, and science with the least experience, more than four years of college training, and relatively low salaries with high supplements. These factors indicate that young males with a need for extra income coupled perhaps with ambition are most likely to hold second jobs.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 40

3/30/18 11:28 AM

M O O N L I G H T I N G by public school teachers

41

Comparison of male with female moonlighters. Table 3 presents the relationship between male and female moonlighters according to certain secondjob variables. These variables include when and how long they worked, what they earned, and the type of second job. Table 3. Differences Between Male and Female Moonlighters According to Certain Second Job Factors Job Factors

p*

Summer Vacation: Average Number of Weeks

N.S.

Average Number of Hours Per Week

.01

Average Earnings Per Week

.01

School Year: Average Hours Per Week

N.S.

Average Earnings Per Week

N.S.

Seasonally or Intermittently: Average Number of Weeks

N.S.

Average Number of Hours Per Week

.05

Average Earnings Per Week

.01

Type of Work: Summer Vacation

.01

School Year

N.S.

Intermittently or Seasonally

N.S.

* When p was greater than .05, chi-square was considered not significant.

There were 219 teachers (123 male and 96 female) who reported that they earned extra income during the summer vacation. This group included almost two-thirds of all the moonlighters and approximately 15 percent of the total sample. During the summer, more moonlighters worked from 8–10 weeks than any other length of time, and almost one­-half worked over 39 hours per week, which, it may be assumed, amounted to a full-time job during the summer. There was no significant difference between males and females insofar as the number of weeks they were employed was concerned, but significantly more males worked over 39 hours per week than females and, logically, earned significantly more than females. Fewer males

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 41

3/30/18 11:28 AM

42

Doyne M. Smith and Bernice Cooper

and more females than expected earned less than $30 a week and, although the difference was not as great, there were more males and fewer females than expected who earned over $89 a week. There were 135, or approximately 10 percent of the total sample, who reported moonlighting during the entire school year. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Schiffman, 1963) reported that “since 1958, the rate of dual job-holding has remained between 4.5 and 4.9 percent.” Yet, of the teachers in this sample, 26.4 percent of all the male respondents and 5.2 percent of all the female respondents held second jobs during the school year. Approximately two-thirds of this group worked less than 15 hours per week on the second job and earned less than $30 a week. There was no significant difference between male and female moonlighters insofar as hours worked or amount earned during the school year was concerned. There were 76 teachers, approximately 6 percent of the total sample, who reported that they held a second job seasonally or intermittently during the school year. On this job, 40 percent worked over 13 weeks and almost two-thirds worked less than 15 hours per week and earned less than $30 a week. There was no significant difference between males and females concerning length of employment, but females worked significantly fewer hours and earned significantly less than males. Insofar as type of job was concerned, in each period of time surveyed— summer vacation, during the entire school year, and seasonally or intermittently during the school year—approximately one-fourth of the moonlighters were employed in professional and managerial jobs. The only significant difference between the type of job held by the male and the female was during the summer months, with the greatest discrepancies in clerical and sales work with more females and fewer males than expected by chance employed in these types of jobs. Table 4 presents the relationship between male and female moonlighters according to the reasons for and the effects of the second job. The respondents were asked to check their reasons for moonlighting from a list of eight plus the opportunity to write in reasons not included in the listing. The 338 moonlighters indicated 452 reasons for holding second jobs. “Continued increase in the cost of living (make ends meet)” was the reason given most often, followed by “desire for more consumer goods (improved standard of living)” and “to meet a financial emergency.” These three reasons ac-

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 42

3/30/18 11:28 AM

M O O N L I G H T I N G by public school teachers

43

counted for approximately 75 percent of the total. Although the difference between reasons of males and females for moonlighting was not significant, males tended to give “continued increase in cost of living” more often than females and females tended to give “ease of obtaining ‘outside’ employment” more often than males. Table 4. Differences Between Male and Female Moonlighters According to Reasons for and Effects of Moonlighting p* Reasons for Moonlighting

N.S.

Effects on Family Relationships

N.S.

on Work as a Teacher

.05

on Self

N.S.

*When p was greater than .05, chi-square was considered not significant.

The reasons as identified by the respondents reinforce the findings concerning age, experience, salary, and other variables previously reported which seem related to need for extra income. The respondents reported the effects of moonlighting (no effect, adverse, favorable) on family relationships, on work as a teacher, and on self. A great majority of the moonlighters of both sexes reported that there was no effect from moonlighting on family relationships (64 percent), on work as a teacher (76 percent), or on self (76 percent). Of the remaining respondents, about the same number of each sex considered the effect from moonlighting as favorable as those who considered the effect to be adverse both on family relationships and on self. However, there was a significant difference concerning the effect of moonlighting on work as a teacher, with more males than expected reporting the effect as adverse and more females than expected by chance reporting a favorable effect on work as a teacher.

Conclusions The findings of this study indicated that approximately one of every four teachers held second jobs for added income in addition to teaching during

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 43

3/30/18 11:28 AM

44

Doyne M. Smith and Bernice Cooper

the year of the study. Some of these worked during the summer months, which might be considered by some to be free time. However, there are many professional demands during the summer which a second job would perhaps curtail or preclude entirely. Other teachers held second jobs either during the entire school year or intermittently or seasonally throughout the school year. Does the profession suffer through this necessity? Not only must consideration be given to the effect of moonlighting on the public school program by some who are engaged in teaching at the same time they are holding another job but the implications are much more far-reaching than this immediate concern. School administrators and the public must also consider the detriment to the school program because some do not choose a profession which is so poorly paid that a second job is necessary to meet the continued increase in the cost of living. The whole educational system may suffer by default.

References Norris, Willa, & Hecker, Stanley E. “Are Michigan Educators Moonlighters?” Michigan Education Journal 39:559–61; May 1962. Schiffman, Jacob. “Multiple Jobholders in May 1962.” Monthly Labor Review 86:516–23; May 1963. Turner, Ewald. “Moonlight over the Chalkboard.” NEA Journal 51:29–30; April 1962. Yeager, William A. “Teaching Is Still a Part-Time Profession.” The Nation’s Schools 57:61–2; May 1956.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 44

3/30/18 11:28 AM

CHAPTER THREE

Teacher Moonlighting Interviews with Physical Educators Jacqueline A. Williams James Madison University

The purpose of this study was to investigate the phenomenon of public school physical education teachers holding multiple jobs. Data were collected through interviews of 17 secondary physical education teachers who described their motives and perceptions concerning the combination of teaching and moonlighting. Each teacher was interviewed twice. In the first interview participants were encouraged to identify what they regarded as the realities of moonlighting. Prior to the second interview, participants read through the transcript of the first interview, which documented primary areas of interest and items that required amplification or exploration. Three particular themes appear to be both common and powerful in the professional lives of physical education teachers: (a) a life-cycle squeeze, (b) pushed out of teaching, and (c) pulled out of teaching. It is apparent that a number of factors such as economics, personal history, spouses, administrators, and subject matter contribute to determining whether, when, and how moonlighting will occur.

T

he profession of teaching is not merely confined to working 180 days from 8:00 to 3:00. The lives of teachers are far more complicated and demanding. Moonlighting (engagement in full- or part-time employment

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1993, 13, 62–77. © 1993 Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 45

3/30/18 11:28 AM

46

Jacqueline A. Williams

that is secondary to a primary job) is a necessary part of many teachers’ careers and many view it as a significant source of frustration. The U.S. Department of Labor (Stinson, 1990) reported that in 1989 those involved in educational services had the highest rate of multiple job holding (11.1%). Wilensky’s (1963) work in sociology states four conditions that he believes maximize moonlighting behavior: (a) flexible work schedules, (b) consumption greater than salaries, (c) people who are achievement motivated, and (d) people who possess relevant skills. He also coined the term “life-cycle squeeze” as a time in one’s life cycle when family needs outweigh resources, particularly for young, male, married workers with dependents. Also, predispositions are identified by Dempster-McClain and Moen (1989) in terms of capability: being young, healthy, and committed to the ethics of hard work. Hence, teachers may possess all of these conditions given their backgrounds and work environment. In the education literature, definitions of moonlighting include (a) working for additional compensation outside the school district during the school year (Burch, 1966; Stewart, 1981), (b) supplementing salary outside the school district when school is not in session (Gumm, 1968; Tucker, 1965), and (c) working for additional compensation both inside or outside the school district at any time (Williams, 1992; Wisniewski & Kleine, 1983). It is clear that the act of establishing definition, whether set arbitrarily by the investigator or constructed as a product of the participants’ own perceptions, will be a critical step in any study. Differences in the underlying definition of the teacher’s role also complicate construction of a consistent and concise definition of moonlighting. There are conflicting perceptions about where a teacher’s regular workload begins and ends. Some researchers have accepted the proposition that taking on compensated duties within the school that go beyond provision of classroom instruction nonetheless is part of “teaching responsibilities,’’ taken in the broad sense, and thereby does not constitute a form of supplemental employment. This assumption is reinforced by many teachers and administrators who either undertake or encourage assumption of extracurricular duties for additional compensation.Wisniewski and Kleine (1983) and Williams (1992), on the other hand, believe that teaching in the classroom is a full-time commitment and additional work of any kind must logically be regarded as an overload and thus as a second job—even at the same work site. Hence, moonlighting is defined in this study as compensation for work either inside or outside the school setting.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 46

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

47

It is clear that many teachers hold multiple jobs to supplement salaries and maintain a desired standard of living. Some teachers, however, enjoy holding multiple jobs and might seek them out irrespective of financial needs or incentives (Williams, 1992). Finally, there is an additional interpretation that is less directly supported by survey data and more the result of the impressions formed by scholars who have observed teachers closely and made themselves familiar with the workplace culture of public schools (Locke, 1975; Lortie, 1975; Sikes, 1985; Webb, 1985). This second hypothesis suggests that the school context may contribute to alienation in that it prompts teachers to look elsewhere for an environment that would encourage growth, relieve frustrations, improve status, and reduce isolation. For teachers, employment in several jobs is rarely subject to restriction and has become an accepted part of the career pattern. Having an extra source of employment and income is neither a new phenomenon nor an uncommon practice among teachers (Wisniewski & Kleine, 1984). Nevertheless, moonlighting is a fact of life in education that rarely is recognized in explicit terms and that has been subject to surprisingly little study (Divocky, 1978). In the course of a survey study, Wisniewski and Kleine (1983) found that across each calendar year, 59% of their teachers received remuneration for second jobs located either inside or outside the school setting. Williams (1992) reported that 83% of the physical education teachers surveyed were involved in some sort of moonlighting activity. Although Boyer (1983) believes firmly that “for many teachers moonlighting has become essential’’ (p. 166), there is no doubt that teachers moonlight for a variety of reasons. Wisniewski and Kleine (1983), for example, reported that teachers hold multiple jobs to supplement low salaries. Though the amount of money earned by moonlighting teachers usually is small, it provides an increase in disposable income that may have considerable socioeconomic significance (Wisniewski & Kleine, 1984). In a very different direction, however, Sikes (1985) believes that a second job compensates for the dissatisfaction felt in teaching. This diversion of moonlighting allows teachers to enjoy certain aspects of teaching while deploying a distraction to those aspects of frustration, therefore making teaching a more tolerable line of work. Moonlighting may be a common phenomenon in the teaching profession, but researchers know little about how teachers perceive its impact on their professional and personal lives. Clearly, the studies conducted on teacher moonlighting show that it exists as an option for the majority and

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 47

3/30/18 11:28 AM

48

Jacqueline A. Williams

that it must be considered part of a broad career pattern for many teachers. That same research literature, however, raises more questions than it resolves concerning the phenomenon of moonlighting in education. The following areas have yet to be addressed or demand more attention: 1. There is little known about teachers’ perceptions of and concerns about moonlighting. Research provides nothing substantial regarding teachers’ motives to engage in or eschew multiple employment, no clear indications of the rewards sought or the negative consequences borne, and finally, no measure of the degree of control that teachers believe they possess over this aspect of their career. 2. Little research has been conducted that pertains to the possibilities for role conflict or role reinforcement between work performed within the teacher’s personal life and professional life. 3. Defining moonlighting in education has not been approached through the eyes of the teachers. Researchers have assigned definitions, but some may be contradictory to the role dimensions of “teaching’’ as assigned by teachers themselves. 4. We know little concerning how the act of moonlighting may supplement what teachers find missing in their teaching positions. 5. A closely related question is whether teachers tend to resent, regret, or simply accept the fact that teaching may not provide enough income. 6. At the level of fundamental causes, it is unclear whether moonlighting is best regarded as the transitory effect of personal finances (linked to a particular career stage or the demands of a life-cycle squeeze) or whether in education it is something more pervasive and ubiquitous, an outcome of contextual forces that surround teaching and that may make a second job attractive or even necessary for any teacher at any time. 7. Job satisfaction among teachers who moonlight and those who do not is an area yet to be explored. 8. Lastly, little is known about those teachers who resist or do not experience the lures of moonlighting.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 48

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

49

This study was not designed to answer all those questions. It does provide, however, an initial base of understanding derived from data reflecting teachers’ own vantage points.

Method Introduction Teachers were allowed an opportunity, through interviews, to elaborate on their motives and perceptions concerning the combination of teaching with other employment opportunities. An earlier survey study (Williams, 1992) clarified the limitations of quantitative data acquired through questionnaires. Although explicit and relatively narrow points could be addressed through frequency counts and percentage tables, the wider and more complex questions remained unanswered. Knowing the answers to “how many” and “what kind” served only to underscore the centrality of questions dealing with the participants’ perceptions of motives and consequences. To achieve insight into such matters, a qualitative approach is more appropriate. Access A letter was sent to all secondary physical education teachers in three counties in western Massachusetts. This letter was designed to introduce the investigator and to obtain permission to call the teacher. Once a response was received from the teacher (stamped, self-addressed postcards were used), the respondent was contacted by phone to schedule the first interview date. Thirty­-seven teachers (over half of the original sample) volunteered to become participants. Participants The participants were teaching full-time at the secondary level and also were involved in a second job outside the school system during the school year, during summers, or both. Based on significant factors from previous research (Stewart, 1981; Williams, 1992) teachers who volunteered were selected to insure representation by gender, marital status, extracurricular responsibilities, years of teaching experience, and school level. Due to

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 49

3/30/18 11:28 AM

50

Jacqueline A. Williams

prevailing conditions in public education, however, there were no volunteers who had taught fewer than 7 years. Thus, participants’ teaching experience ranged from 7 to 26 years. To accommodate these variables, 17 participants (9 females and 8 males), from different school districts, were selected for the study. Of the female participants, 4 were single, and 5 were married. Their teaching experience ranged from 8 to 23 years. Seven of the males were married, leaving only one single male teacher. Their teaching experience ranged from 7 to 26 years. Two of the physical education teachers interviewed moonlighted in the past, but no longer did so. Data from these interviews were used to provide a basis for exploratory comparisons with information gathered from the teachers who did moonlight. A full protocol for informed consent was followed, and the identity and place of employment of all participants was kept confidential. The school schedule—daily hours, school holidays, and summers off— allowed teachers the opportunity to obtain employment outside the school. Although often not as convenient as in-school work, the majority of participants worked at extra jobs during the school year and summers. Ten of the participants worked outside the school in addition to coaching. Six of the participants worked outside the school both during the school year and throughout the summer in addition to their coaching. The participants who did not work outside the school either dedicated their spare time to family or were involved in extracurricular activities in school. The majority of jobs held outside the school were related to physical education, such as owner of a gymnastics school, sports official, and coach at a sports camp. Other jobs included occupations such as construction, carpentry, ski-lift operator, and managing and owning rental property. In addition, two of the male participants were involved in running small family businesses year-round. Five of the 8 females held jobs outside the schools, but only 3 both coached and worked at such jobs concurrently. As would be expected, the married females with children were the least likely to hold a job outside the school (Acker, 1989; Spencer, 1984). In contrast to this varied pattern for women, 8 of the 9 male participants held positions outside the realm of teaching.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 50

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

51

Data Collection Each teacher was interviewed twice. Such conversations with teachers, guided by a broad topical outline, were audiotaped and constituted the primary data source for this study. The first interview was largely unstructured (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Patton, 1990), using only an opening question and a short list of key topical areas (e.g., employment history, teaching assignment, out-of-school activities) to be probed over the course of an otherwise open conversation. The participants were encouraged to elaborate on and identify what they regarded as the realities of moonlighting, the deliberate purpose being to identify questions, problems, and issues not previously encountered or understood. Prior to the first interview, participants completed an occupational history chart requiring the individuals to re-create both their teaching history and their “other job” history along a temporal continuum. This helped each individual refresh his or her memory concerning past employment prior to elaborating on it during the first interview. The second interview followed within 10 days of the first and focused more specifically on points raised through preliminary analysis of data from the first interview. These points related to moonlighting activity and perceptions of their teaching responsibilities. Participants reviewed, in advance, selected portions of the first interview that documented primary areas of interest or concern, or items that required amplification or exploration for the investigator. Each interview was typically 60 to 90 minutes. It was imperative that the researcher establish the trustworthiness of procedures used while conducting the investigation. Toward that end, the study incorporated three procedures described by Lincoln and Guba (1985): peer debriefing, “an activity that provides an external check on the inquiry process” (p. 301); member checking, “an activity providing for the direct test of findings and interpretations with the human sources from which they have come—the constructors of the multiple realities being studied” (p. 301); and maintaining a reflexive journal, “a kind of diary in which the investigator on a daily basis, or as needed, records a variety of information about self and method” (p. 327). Peer debriefing entailed having an individual not associated with the study periodically review data and other study materials for the purpose of engaging the investigator in a continuing dialogue to probe problems that

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 51

3/30/18 11:28 AM

52

Jacqueline A. Williams

became apparent, raise questions that should be addressed, and encourage reexamination of procedures and emerging interpretations. The peer debriefer helped the researcher be accountable for the quality of data, fairness to the participants, and consistency in application of rules for procedures and analysis. As an informed colleague and sympathetic listener, the peer debriefer also served to help the researcher identify and confront frustrations that could cause poor judgment. The peer debriefer met with the researcher once each week to audit study materials and to discuss progress of data acquisition and analysis. The peer debriefer was a colleague who was not an authority figure. The sessions were open and helpful as the study progressed and helped to diminish the feelings of isolation as a sole investigator. Member checking provided the opportunity for participants to review and react to transcribed material in follow-up interviews. It was possible to assure the accuracy of both transcripted material and, to some extent, the researcher’s understanding of those data. Selected portions of the transcripts that were alleviated of peripheral and unrelated conversation from the first interview were returned to the participants for review prior to the second interview. The second interviews allowed participants to confirm issues and perceptions discussed in the first conversation, and the investigator had the opportunity to raise specific points that remained unclear after the initial encounter. In addition to the interviews, a reflexive journal was kept by the researcher throughout the inquiry process. Material relating to two topics was recorded: (a) speculative ideas and interpretations that developed during the interview process, and (b) observations about the research process itself— including reflections about the respective roles of researcher and participant, and related issues of data quality. Aspects such as the investigator’s changing perceptions of the participants and their responses, personal feelings that surfaced during interviews, and comments about needed adjustments in the interview guide were included in the journal. Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that “the reflexive journal might be thought of as providing the same kind of data about the human instrument that is often provided about the paper-and-pencil or brass instruments used in conventional studies” (p. 327). In addition, the journal provided the researcher another opportunity to communicate with the peer debriefer.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 52

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

53

Data Analysis The analysis was a continual process beginning with the pilot study and continuing throughout the investigation. To begin, the transcripts of both interviews were reviewed, once by reading and the second time by listening to the original audiotapes while reading the transcript, to assure accuracy. During this process, concept units were identified and sorted into simple categories through the use of the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Typological analysis (Goetz & Lecompte, 1984) was employed based on previous research findings (Wisniewski & Kleine, 1984) and literature in this area (Dempster-McClain & Moen, 1989; Wilensky, 1963). Categories were used to sort the data, allowing room for subdivisions and new categories to develop as the analysis proceeded. Simultaneously, the data were examined to identify and extract themes that appeared to be common to some or all of the participants. Also, as part of this process, careful note was made of negative cases: those individuals whose accounts appeared to present exceptions to the regularities captured in the common themes. Negative cases is a technique designed to improve credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Findings For purposes of this report, three major themes will be discussed that were identified from the data: (a) life-cycle squeeze, (b) pushed out of teaching, and (c) pulled out of teaching. Each theme will be described and illustrated by the teachers’ actual words. Life-Cycle Squeeze The life-cycle squeeze had been identified by previous research (Wilensky, 1963) and serves to accommodate a number of related reasons teachers gave for holding multiple jobs. A financial squeeze occurs when needs outrun available resources, and this happens at fairly predictable points in the typical lifetime of a teacher. It is then that the individual, or someone in the family household, must supplement the total income.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 53

3/30/18 11:28 AM

54

Jacqueline A. Williams

Some teachers reflected on the experience of a life-cycle squeeze when their financial commitments were growing and salaries lagged behind. Michael, who had been teaching for 12 years, talked of some of his financial responsibilities: Right now, I have a son, I’ve just moved into a new house, so now the financial strappings are starting to burden me a little bit, so I have to look elsewhere. When I was single making $13–14,000, living at home, that’s not bad. I wasn’t starving...but now the burdens are a little more.

Pam, who had been teaching for 8 years, found that if she is to live in the style she desires, she must make certain sacrifices that go even beyond the demands of holding coaching positions: Right now I’m trying to buy a house, and there’s no way I can afford a house. That’s what’s on my mind is being able to buy something that I can live in, that will suit me. Now actually I’m going to move home at the end of the month, and really save money, because I’m going to buy some land.

Although more established and settled financially, some teachers talked about their sense of being squeezed during the later stages of the life cycle. Doug for instance was concerned that his two sons attain a college education without accumulating a large loan debt: When you have a family, a house, and education [two sons in college] you can’t basically do it. I could not support kids in a 4-year private institution on what I make here, I would have to do other things. And I’m not talking about just the coaching part of it, because that’s very nominal, too.

At the same time, Doug also was concerned about his retirement. In his response he identified a potentially powerful motive for teachers to seek supplemental employment outside the school system:

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 54

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

55

We have probably one of the poorest retirement systems. This might be the third reason why I got into other things. You can’t retire early in Massachusetts. To get 80% of the best 3 years, you’ve got to wait until you’re 62. A lot of teachers [who] teach in Massachusetts are trying to get quarters in their social security to try and supplement their retirement. So that might allow them to get away from this situation a few years earlier.

Contrary to this was Carol, who recently became a married mother and no longer held multiple jobs, who felt more of a time squeeze than a financial squeeze: One thing that I never thought of when I went into the profession is you have a kid and the hours are convenient. You get home by 3:30, now at least, and you have some time to spend with your kid, and you have summers [and] vacations with them. I coached up until the point that I became a mother, and at that point l decided to pick a new priority in my life. And at this point in time I prioritized to be a mother.

Summary. Of the 17 participants, 13 mentioned the inadequacy of their teaching salary relative to their needs as one of the primary reasons for holding multiple jobs. All of the males mentioned something about feeling financially squeezed, whereas fewer than half of the female participants cited financial need as the motive for an extra job. Not surprisingly, the transcripts that betrayed little or no evidence of life-cycle squeeze were from interviews with women who were either married, with their salary representing a second family income, or single teachers with more limited financial needs. Pushed Out of Teaching There were negative aspects of teaching that participants perceived to push them out into other jobs, often as compensation for satisfactions reported to be lacking in teaching. Sikes (1985) related the activity of moonlighting to the career stage of the teacher: “Some decided that the returns are not

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 55

3/30/18 11:28 AM

56

Jacqueline A. Williams

worth the effort and so cut down on what they do, while others build up an alternative career’’ (p. 49). In other words, teaching for some becomes a dead end, and extra jobs can compensate for the unrest found in teaching. Ball and Goodson (1985) also suggested that work outside teaching “may provide...psychological withdrawal from teaching’’ (p. 22). The participants appeared to be saying that moonlighting was a way to find release from frustrations that accumulate in the school context. Three aspects reported by the teachers that helped to push them out into other jobs were low professional self-esteem, tension experienced with students, and a lack of teaching in the gymnasium. Low Professional Self-Esteem. The majority of physical educators in this study reported having had to learn to cope with being regarded as secondclass citizens within the school environment. Whether it be administrators holding lower expectations for the physical education curriculum or the general public often holding negative stereotypes of the dumb jock, the resulting erosion of self-respect causes a significant strain for some professionals. Sparkes, Templin, and Schempp (1990) reported that teachers are influenced by what others think about their subject area, and as a result, “teachers who feel devalued are unlikely to remain committed to their subject and will divert their energies into other areas’’ (p. 13). The following teachers expressed ways of coping with this marginal status. Some participants appeared to seek compensatory ways to promote their personal and professional self-esteem. This was clear in Doug’s decision to take on other jobs: I always live I think with the stigma, that, “What are you?” “A teacher.” “What do you teach?” “Physical education.” [The] stigma, that you can’t do anything else. So I had to prove to myself that there’s other things out there that l can do besides teach and coach and work with kids—that’s what I enjoy doing the most, and I still do. I had to prove to myself that there are other things out there [I could do].

Ann cited limited support from her administrators as a continuing tension within her teaching role:

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 56

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

57

I get frustrated sometimes [with] the administration. You’re only as good as the people above you, I think, and sometimes that [support is] not always there and that makes it difficult to feel they hold the same expectations in phys. ed. as they do for other subject matter.

In contrast, Michael blamed the low status of physical educators on the teachers themselves, but he appeared to experience the same pain as those who identified other sources: I think we’re looked down on as professionals, and a lot of that is of our own doing, because there are so many people out there now who are kind of going through the motions, people who have been in teaching for a while. Let’s take for example the guy I work with. He’s not here to teach; he’s here to coach. This is just a nice little avenue to pick up some extra cash, and he can get away with this, because again, people aren’t really scrutinizing us.

Alice, who does not hold multiple jobs, on the other hand expressed because she was not involved in an after-school sport as a physical educator: In phys. ed. I think it’s assumed that you should be a coach, and I would probably say that’s where I feel most inadequate in choosing this profession. I really don’t feel comfortable in a coaching position. I still don’t want to do it. I do feel guilty.

Tension With Students. Some teachers discussed the more particular constraints of school environment and problems associated with pupils as the sources of tension. Ann compared her frustrations in teaching with her experience in coaching: When you’re teaching, there’s not just the motivation, but the discipline too. [This] is challenging when you’re coaching; the kids want to be there, so it’s a satisfaction that you don’t get all the time when

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 57

3/30/18 11:28 AM

58

Jacqueline A. Williams

you’re teaching, because you don’t always have the opportunity to teach. The other things that you need are found in coaching...well, you don’t have to worry about [for example] Johnny has a pass today, and he can’t take it; Betty is not dressed; [and] Billy wants to chew gum. All the little elements that you have to get through before you can actually get into your 20–25 minutes of accomplishing goals. Tom also compared frustrations in the gymnasium with the relative pleasures of his coaching role: In a normal teaching day, you have a lot of people that you really don’t want to be associated with. But when coaching, you want to be around those type of kids. That’s why I do it. In teaching during the scheduled hours, you’re told here are the kids that you are going to be working with, and you will do this. Whereas coaching, there’s quite a bit of flexibility, and I can pick the kids who I want to be with, that kind of thing. I love to coach. That’s my essence for existence in terms of my teaching. And yet, it’s something that holds me, too, if I want to get the standards that I have anticipated for my family in terms of what [we] expect we can gain out of my profession financially.

The constant comparison between coaching and teaching by the teachers highlighted their tension with students within classes and a steady undertone of aggravation in the workplace. The contrast of tasks was most unique among physical educators, given the direct parallel between subject matter and extracurricular activities. Lack of Teaching. Other teachers reflected on the problem of teaching pedagogically sound classes within the constraints of limited resources and the demands of coaching that contributed to the situation. Barb was frustrated by the absence of what she regarded as genuine teaching in her physical education classes. She looked to her coaching position as a vehicle for satisfying her need to actually teach:

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 58

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

59

I want to teach, and I know how to teach, and I’m teaching on the coaching level, whereas I am not teaching as much as I would like to in the classroom situation. I was [feeling] a little bit frustrated in a recreational setting.... [Coaching is] saving me, I swear, because if I were just a physical educator [the students] don’t look at it as education. Teaching has become a routine for Carol, one that allowed her more time for other interests: Once teaching became a pattern, once again sad but true, but once you’ve established a routine, you can go off and do other things. You can go off and do something during your prep period that when you first started you might not have been able to [do]. And you might be able to spend some time planning your team practice during your prep rather than your lesson plan during your prep. [Teaching] gets easier. The coaching end never gets easier in a sense, because the bodies change constantly and once again, that’s the emotional commitment you have to coaching.

The lack of recognition for what Judy achieved in her regular job was highlighted when she described the greater emphasis on her coaching: This year was the second year I’ve had an administrator observe a class of mine. So, I’ve been there for 16 years, and the first time it happened it was the vice principal came down and sat through an entire class, from beginning to end.... So I definitely put more concentration and energy into my coaching, and much more interaction with the kids. Again, it’s a small group, and our classes at that time were huge. I had some classes of like 46 students.

It is apparent that in-school moonlighting through coaching helped to alleviate the frustrations experienced in teaching physical education. Coaching responsibilities assisted in restoring professional credibility.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 59

3/30/18 11:28 AM

60

Jacqueline A. Williams

Pulled Out of Teaching Finally, some teachers reported being pulled out of teaching into moonlighting jobs by the residues of past experience. Many teachers who occupied themselves with after-school activities, such as coaching athletic teams, also spoke of their own high school days as student athletes. Their school days didn’t end at 2:30 or 3:00, but were prolonged by other activities. This extended student role appears to form a habitual pattern of engagement when these students become teachers, and led them to accept or seek responsibilities beyond the limits of their regular assignment. These past routines of studenthood may not easily be extinguished by the role transformation of becoming a teacher in the same environment. Subsequently, the need for holding multiple jobs may continue even though all financial commitments can be met out of base salary. Listening to their voices, it is not difficult to imagine that some of the participants were compelled by just such addiction to multiple employment. This “after-school syndrome” may have been modeled by mentors and significant people in the lives of these participants, thereby paving what some teachers may see as the appropriate path for their role as teacher. Their interactions with teachers who held multiple school responsibilities were an influencing aspect of their presocialization. In addition, these participants were no different from Hutchinson’s (1990) subjects who found coaching to be vital part of teaching. Long days and hectic schedules may appear to be appropriate expectations for the teacher’s role—expectations that might easily be learned during the long apprenticeship of observation as a student (Lortie, 1975). Linda, who has been teaching for 8 years, provided a graphic illustration of a lifelong history of crowded schedules and frenetic involvement in school activities: For as long as I can remember, when school was over, l was involved in a sport. l played all three sports in high school. I played two in college, and then as soon as I started teaching here, I got involved with field hockey and officiating. Then I went to the university and coached softball.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 60

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

61

Michael, on the other hand, was involved in sports as a student, which led naturally to additional work in coaching. Now, as a 12-year veteran, he has left that secondary vocation only to encounter a familiar need—the need to fill all the after-school space in his life: 1 can remember always having somewhere to go as far as athletics are concerned: baseball, basketball, football. I played soccer when I was young, summertime baseball. There was always something to do after school. It was football, basketball, baseball for 4 years in college. It was baseball in Virginia. Back up here I played football and baseball. So I had a basketball season off, and I would have played then too if l really wanted to try three sports. But there was always something to do after school, always. Now it’s not coaching. I can do some reconditioning, and now I can spend time with my son. If he wasn’t there, I’d probably be coaching and doing the reconditioning.

Pam, who has been teaching for 7 years, spoke of her father having a direct influence on her own pattern of work. He was a teacher who himself was involved in school assignments far beyond the regular teaching day, and this appeared to be a major push toward her acceptance of additional jobs: I’ve followed [my father’s] example. He’s been always active in school. He’s the one who tells me, are you gonna chaperone these dances, are you gonna do this, are you gonna do that? There’s more than just coming to school and leaving and that’s the end of it.

Linda remembered one of the physical education teachers as a model for extended time commitment: She [former physical educator] coached three sports. She put a lot of time and effort into all of us, she cared about us as people.... I learned a lot of the rules about teaching from her.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 61

3/30/18 11:28 AM

62

Jacqueline A. Williams

Some of these accounts may indicate no more than the simple belief that all teachers should expect to do a bit of extra duty after school—as part of the basic contract. Others, however, seem to represent part of a wider fabric of needs and dispositions—part of, or precursors to, a lifetime of moonlighting.

Discussion Although the personal and professional lives of the participants in this study were both complex and highly individual in nature, there were regularities within their stories. Moonlighting for some is an unquestioned, unavoidable, and often permanent necessity. For others it is an option, often transitory, and no more than a minor tactic in the wider game of living well. For a final group it is the natural extension of the teaching role, not so much necessary as it is simply proper. Economics, personal history, pretraining socialization, spouses, school administrators, parents, pupils, and (most clearly for these 17 teachers) subject matter all play a part in determining whether, when, and how moonlighting will occur. Maintaining financial security throughout one’s life is a difficult task for many teachers. The participants in this study had a variety of financial pressures, such as preparing for a first home mortgage, planning for retirement, sending children to college, and expanding the family. These financial pressures ebb and flow based on the variables that individuals face in life. Teachers’ salaries have been a concern for many years. Low salaries reflect low status, and teachers are shown to rank well below other professions in which salaries have risen in the 1970s and 1980s while teachers’ salaries have fallen (Webb, 1985). Due to the work schedule of teachers, it becomes apparent that the public looks at teaching as a part-time job and expects teachers to be ambitious and motivated to go out and find another job to supplement the income from their profession. Although teaching as a profession is demanding more from teachers in terms of in-service programs and continued professional development, the extrinsic rewards of teaching remain limited. One potential problem in this vocational arrangement is the impact of additional work on the capacity to perform both the tasks of primary professional responsibility and those of continuing professional development. A second problem, of course, is the impact on quality of life experienced by teachers who must hold multiple jobs. Given the initial base

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 62

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

63

of understanding derived from this study, these two issues clearly represent areas for future research. Schools often expect more of teachers when they perform their coaching role than when they perform their physical education duties. The high visibility and importance placed on interscholastic sports by the community pressures administrators into granting more support to coaches who teach elite athletes than to the physical educators who teach the majority of children. This creates the potential for conflict between the roles of teacher and coach (Bain, 1983; Locke & Massengale, 1978). Success can be measured much more precisely, and is measured more frequently, in the coaching situation than in physical education. As a form of moonlighting, coaching provides a different dynamic than work outside the school. Coaching often is considered a job expectation, a professional responsibility, and a way of building professional self-esteem. In addition, coaching allows the opportunity to supplement income without the inconvenience of leaving the primary workplace. Despite the desire of some to limit school demands, the majority of teachers interviewed did believe that their in-school moonlighting (most commonly coaching) was actually part of their teaching duties, a professional responsibility, even though they were compensated for it above and beyond their contracted teaching salary. In fact, some of the teachers in this study who did not hold extra duties expressed a sense of guilt because they were not involved in after-school sports, feeling less adequate as physical education professionals because they “only” teach. Such feelings underscore the importance and status associated with the position of coach within the dual role. Many of the teachers had role models in their lives who were teachers/coaches, and the pattern was consciously adopted for their own lifestyle. In addition, by requiring coaching courses, offering special training, and embedding coaching in the practicum, teacher education programs also work to perpetuate the perception that coaching after school is part of being a physical education teacher. In that sense, one version of moonlighting is built into the very definition of teaching in this subject field (Sage, 1989). All of this is complicated by a professional rhetoric that holds teaching physical education classes, not after-school coaching, to be the real basis for bringing such teachers into the school community. Such discrepancies raise questions that lie beyond the scope of this study. At the least, however, it is important to note several alternative ways

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 63

3/30/18 11:28 AM

64

Jacqueline A. Williams

of understanding what sustains the dual role, with its peculiarly unequal priorities. One interpretation is that coaching enhances both present salary and the possibilities for career advancement—both being necessary to recruit young males into teaching, a predominantly female vocation. There were those teachers, primarily male, who reported choosing the teaching profession from the outset, because it would allow them the opportunity to moonlight as coaches. This was also true for the preservice males who participated in Bain and Wendt’s (1983) study. They are not frustrated physical education teachers, because they never regarded that aspect of their role as a serious source of satisfaction. Teaching physical education was considered recess and simply was the price to be paid to be allowed to coach (Kneer, 1987). A second factor may be the tacit recognition that anyone who really wants an opportunity to teach the subject matter of physically active play will need the opportunity to coach after school, because the context of required classes provides no serious opportunity to do such work (Rupert & Buschner, 1989). Finally, it may be that physical education exists only as the socially acceptable excuse for the full-time employment of coaches, whose real work is understood by all to be outside both the school curriculum and the educational mission of the school. From such a tangle of personal motives and tacit social agreements comes the complexities of moonlighting in physical education. The quality of teaching produced by teachers who hold multiple jobs was beyond the scope of this study, but it beckons further examination. It is apparent that teachers’ lives outside the classroom do indeed influence their professional job performance in both positive and negative ways (Pajak & Blase, 1989). How and to what extent this also is true in the gymnasium must not be ignored. The personal lives of teachers should no longer be a separate piece from their professional role—certainly the quality of one has an influence on the success of the other. There is no clear, simple, single recommendation to be made concerning moonlighting among teachers. The fact that this phenomenon continues to exist with little or no attention at this level of either research or public policy poses several interesting questions. Is moonlighting now so much a commonplace in the lives of teachers that no one recognizes it? Alternatively, is it simply too embarrassing for a vocational group with aspirations to professional status to admit that most practitioners cannot make a living at their primary job?

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 64

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

65

After listening to the words of these teachers, it becomes obvious that there are many different reasons for holding second and third jobs—and such jobs may constitute either negative or positive factors in the life and work of a teacher. For some individuals the elimination of moonlighting might make them better teachers and happier people. For others, the loss of a second job would yield no such benefits and might well serve to force them out of education altogether. Moonlighting is only a small piece of the complicated lives of teachers, but it represents an aspect that is central in many of their biographies. Administrators, staff developers, teacher educators, and teacher unions must confront policies and institutional traditions that lie at the intersection of lives inside and outside the school.

Author Note This study is based on a dissertation submitted to the University of Massachusetts– Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in the Department of Professional Preparation in Physical Education, under the direction of Dr. Lawrence Locke. I would like to thank the 17 teachers whose voices tell their stories of how they struggle and strive with their own lives, careers, and dreams.

References Acker, S. (1989). Rethinking teachers’ careers. In S. Acker (Ed.), Teachers, gender and careers (pp. 7–20). New York: Falmer Press. Bain, L.L. (1983). Teacher/coach role conflict: Factors influencing role performance. In T.J. Templin & J.K. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical education (pp. 94–101). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Bain, L.L., & Wendt, J.C. (1983). Undergraduate physical education majors’ perceptions of the roles of teacher and coach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 54, 112–118. Ball, S.J., & Goodson, I.F. (1985). Understanding teachers: Concepts and contexts. In S.J. Ball & I.F. Goodson (Eds.), Teachers’ lives and careers (pp. 1–26). London: Falmer Press.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 65

3/30/18 11:28 AM

66

Jacqueline A. Williams

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Boyer, L.B. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row. Burch, K.L. (1966). An investigation of the status of the male secondary school teacher in Jefferson County, Kentucky, in relation to additional jobs. Dissertation Abstracts International, 27, 1535A. (University Microfilms No. 66–12, 641) Dempster-McClain, D., & Moen, P. (1989). Moonlighting husbands: A life-cycle perspective. Work and Occupations, 16(1), 43–64. Divocky, D. (1978). Moonlighting: Occupational hazard or benefit? Learning: The magazine for creative teaching, 7, 40–45. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine. Goetz, J.P., & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Gumm, G.H. (1968). Salary-supplementing activities of male public school teachers in Tennessee. Dissertation Abstracts, 29, 3799–3800A. (University Microfilms No. 69–71, 60) Hutchinson, G.E. (1990, April). Would-be teachers’ perspectives about the physical education teacher role. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Kneer, M.E. (1987). Solutions to teacher/coach problems in secondary schools. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 58(2), 28–29. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 66

3/30/18 11:28 AM

interviews with physical educators

67

Locke, L. (1975, Spring). The ecology of the gymnasium: What the tourist never sees. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Association for Physical Education for College Women, Gatlinburg, TN. Locke, L., & Massengale, J. (1978). Role conflicts in teacher/coach. Research Quarterly, 49, 162–174. Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pajak, E., & Blase, J. (1989). The impact of teachers’ personal role enactment: A qualitative analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 283–310. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rupert, T., & Buschner, C. (1989). Teaching and coaching: A comparison of instructional behaviors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 49–57. Sage, G.H. (1989). The social world of high school athletic coaches: Multiple role demands and their consequences. In T.J. Templin & P.G. Schempp (Eds.), Socialization into physical education: Learning to teach (pp. 251–268). Indianapolis: Benchmark Press. Sikes, P.J. (1985). The life cycle of the teacher. In S.J. Ball & L.P. Goodson (Eds.), Teachers’ lives and careers (pp. 27–60). London: Falmer Press. Sparkes, A.C., Templin, T.J., & Schempp, P.G. (1990). The problematic nature of a career in a marginal subject: Some implications for teacher education programmes. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(1), 3–28. Spencer, D.A. (1984). The home and school lives of women teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 283–298. Stewart, C.W. (1981). The conditions related to and the effects of multiple jobholding on fulltime teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa). Dissertation Ab-

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 67

3/30/18 11:28 AM

68

Jacqueline A. Williams

stracts International, 42, 4655A. Stinson, J.F. (1990, July). Multiple jobholding up sharply in the 1980s. Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Department of Labor, pp. 3–10. Tucker, M.L. (1965). A study of salary-supplementing activities of Utah public school teachers. Dissertation Abstracts, 26, 184. (University Microfilms No. 65- 7592) Webb, R.B. (1985). Teacher status panic: Moving up the down escalator. In S.J. Ball & I.F. Goodson (Eds.), Teachers’ lives and careers (pp. 78–88). London: Palmer Press. Wilensky, H.L. (1963). The moonlighter: A product of relative deprivation. Industrial Relations, 31, 105–124. Williams, J.A. (1992). Moonlighting: The norm for physical educators. The Physical Educator, 49(1), 14–22. Wisniewski, R., & Kleine, P. (1983, April). Teacher moonlighting: An unstudied phenomenon. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Wisniewski, R., & Kleine, P. (1984). Teacher moonlighting: An unstudied phenomenon. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 553–555.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 68

3/30/18 11:28 AM

CHAPTER FOUR

Teacher Moonlighting An Unstudied Phenomenon Richard Wisniewski and Paul Kleine

Moonlighting among teachers appears to be a fairly common practice. Unfortunately, the need for moonlighting jeopardizes the professional status of all teachers.

H

olding more than one job, or moonlighting as it is commonly known, is essentially an unstudied phenomenon among teachers. But it appears to be a fairly common practice. A 1982’report by the National Education Association (NEA) states that about half of all teachers who were surveyed worked at other jobs to supplement their teaching salaries; they earned an average of $2,462 in extra income from these activities.1 If these figures are correct, the ramifications of moonlighting among teachers deserve far more than a passing glance. Educators appear to lead all occupational groups in holding second jobs. A 1978 study of multiple-job-holding found that an average of 4.8% of all employed workers held more than one job. Among the occupations that exceeded 8% were persons employed in education, in state and local government offices, and in the postal service. Of these groups, the highest Source: The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 65, No. 8 (Apr., 1984), pp. 553–555. Published by: Phi Delta Kappa International. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20387118. Accessed: 09-08-2017 19:36 UTC.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 69

3/30/18 11:28 AM

70

Richard Wisniewski & Paul Kleine

proportion of persons with second jobs (20%) were teachers below the college level.2 The authors of this study suggest that teachers’ work schedules may be conducive to taking part-time jobs. Although studies of moonlighting among teachers are rare, popular treatments of the subject occasionally appear. For example, Instructor began an upbeat article with the subhead “You Can Moonlight in the Sunlight with These Money­making Ideas.” The article listed a number of activities for teachers: planning weddings, conducting exercise classes, typing research papers, tutoring, house painting, and so on.3 U.S. News & World Report examined the nation’s estimated five million moonlighters and pointed out that “teachers are constantly targeted by firms that need extra workers.”4 Another article in the popular press quoted Ernest Boyer, former U.S. commissioner of education, as stating, “For many teachers, moonlighting is essential.” Boyer then suggested the obvious alternative: better financial rewards for teachers, in order to improve the quality of teaching in America.5 Before we undertook our study of moonlighting among Oklahoma teachers, we searched the literature. We were able to find only five largescale studies of moonlighting among teachers that had been conducted during the past 35 years.6 All are dissertations, and the most recent was completed in 1969. All identified a total moonlighting rate among teachers of more than 50%. For our purposes, the most relevant of these is William Anderson’s 1966 study because his sample of 13,000 teachers and counselors in Oklahoma parallels our own sample. Using data for the 1963–64 school year, Anderson reported the following major findings: 1) 69% of the male teachers said that they held outside employment during the school year or during the summer, and 2) those teachers engaged in supplemental employment worked an average of 11 hours per week and earned an average of $1,096 per year.7 Anderson collected no data on teacher perceptions, but he did reveal several interesting findings on superintendents’ attitudes. Although 89% of superintendents felt that moonlighting hindered teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom and only 38% approved of the practice, 92% felt that moonlighting was necessary, and 77% reported having done so themselves when they were classroom teachers. Moreover, 25% of the superintendents reported that they currently owned a farm or some other type of business

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 70

3/30/18 11:28 AM

An Unstudied P henomenon

71

that took time from their school administration chores, and 20% reported that they held non-school-related jobs during the summer. All five of the studies of moonlighting allow us to draw three conclusions: 1) moonlighting is not a new phenomenon among teachers; 2) it has been a fairly common practice for some time; and 3) it has not received much attention, particularly in recent years. But these five studies do not resolve the basic question of definition. Just how should we define moonlighting? Extra jobs outside a school system are obvious examples of moonlighting. But jobs also exist within a school system that pay extra money to teachers. Should this money be counted as income from moonlighting? Some teachers earn extra money from home crafts or hobbies. Is this moonlighting? The problem is compounded in a state like Oklahoma because many teachers engage in ranching or farming in their free time. We based our definition of moonlighting on two assumptions: 1) to leave anything out of the definition would ignore the importance of some kinds of monetary rewards for some individuals, and 2) teaching school is a full-time occupation. Hence our definition of moonlighting includes any income earned beyond the basic salary covered in a teaching contract. We have divided our data into four separate categories of moonlighting: 1) within a school system, 2) outside a school system, 3) family income, and 4) income from other sources. We field-tested the instrument we used with several graduate classes at the University of Oklahoma. This limited field-testing clarified some questions and led us to add others. We then surveyed a 10% sample (4,100) of all Oklahoma Education Association members. Each of these persons received a questionnaire through the mail, and 1,103 usable questionnaires were returned. We conducted no follow-up mailing. Of the 1,103 usable responses, 28.7% were from males and 71.3% from females. Seventy-four percent of these respondents were classroom teachers, 19.3% were specialists (reading teachers, media specialists, counselors, etc.), and 6.1% were administrators. Sixty-two percent held bachelor’s degrees, and 35% held master’s degrees. Although the sample cannot be absolutely defended as representative of all Oklahoma teachers, none of the figures are so far out of line as to seriously challenge the representativeness of the sample with respect to age, sex, ethnicity, or marital status. This conclusion is supported by data collected

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 71

3/30/18 11:28 AM

72

Richard Wisniewski & Paul Kleine

by the Oklahoma State Department of Education and by the 1980 NEA national survey of teachers.8

Profile of Moonlighting Teachers We have broken the respondents into four categories according to the source of their extra income. Within the school system. The major form of moonlighting within school systems consists of taking on duties that provide extra compensation. Fortyfour percent of the respondents said that they earn some extra income by performing duties beyond those required in their teaching contracts; 62% of male teachers and 38%of female teachers do so. The most common types of duties that carry extra compensation are coaching (9.2%) and being a teacher consultant (9.1%). Driving a school bus provides extra income for 6.8% of the respondents, and 6.5% earn extra money by teaching summer school. The overall figure of 44% may be inflated by the inclusion of the teacher consultant category. Teacher consultants are full-time teachers who earn an extra $500 for working with a first-year teacher under the new teacher education law in Oklahoma. Because these activities take place during regular school hours, they are not the type usually described as moonlighting. However, even if we disregard the 9.1% of the respondents who listed themselves as teacher consultants, more than one-third of our sample earn extra income by moonlighting within their school systems. Outside the school system. Working evenings and weekends at jobs outside the school system is the most recognizable form of moonlighting. A total of 31.4% of the respondents (48% of the males, 23% of the females) said that they had held such jobs during the preceding three years. The average annual income they said that they earned from such jobs was $2,075. If our sample is representative of the entire state, then some 12,000 Oklahoma teachers may be engaged in this sort of moonlighting. Forty-two percent of the respondents said that within the last three years they had held jobs outside the school system during the summer. Most of these jobs were full time, and the average annual income from summer work was $1,822.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 72

3/30/18 11:28 AM

An Unstudied P henomenon

73

Family income. We also asked respondents to provide information about income that they had earned during the preceding three years from familyowned businesses, such as farming, raising horses, and so on. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents said that they had earned additional income from such sources. The estimated average annual income from family-owned sources was $5,136. Nearly 90% of those who earned income from familyowned sources said that these activities provided less income than their earnings as teachers; 3.6% said that the income was about equal to their earnings as teachers; 6.8% said that they earned more in these activities than they earned from teaching. Income from other sources. A range of other activities provided income for the respondents, from renting property and collecting royalties to earning dividends or interest from investments. The most frequently cited categories were income from dividends and interest (16.5%) and income from rental properties (12.5%). We did not probe these sources further and do not draw any generalizations about time spent or dollars earned in these ways. All of our data suggest that a moonlighting teacher is most likely to find some paying activity within the school system. When all types of outside income are combined, we find that 71% of teachers report some form of outside income, averaging $3,917 per year. Any description of moonlighting teachers would be incomplete without some information about teaching salaries. Among the teachers who responded to our survey, 1.2% earned less than $10,000; 5.4% earned between $10,000 and $12,000; 29.9% earned between $12,001 and $15,000; 47.1% earned between $15,001 and $20,000; 11.5% earned between $20,001 and $25,000; and 5% earned more than $25,000. Seventy-three percent indicated that they consider the salary derived from teaching to be their primary source of income. When we asked how dissatisfied these teachers were with their present income, 13% said “very satisfied,” 47.1% said “satisfied,” 38% said “dissatisfied,” and 1.5% said “very dissatisfied.” The fact that 60% of the respondents are at least satisfied with their present salary is interesting. Considering this high level of satisfaction, why do large numbers of teachers moonlight? Is there a connection between the degree of satisfaction with teaching salaries and moonlighting?

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 73

3/30/18 11:28 AM

74

Richard Wisniewski & Paul Kleine

Motives for Moonlighting Our survey asked respondents why they engaged in moonlighting. We found that 37.7% needed the money to pay debts; 36.5% needed the money to improve their living standards; 5.5% were pursuing a secondary work interest; 4.7% were looking for diversion from teaching; 5.1% were preparing to leave teaching; and 10.6% cited some other reason. Thus nearly threequarters of the respondents engaged in moonlighting for monetary reasons. What is the relationship between the degree of satisfaction that teachers feel with their salaries and the likelihood that they will seek additional employment? Forty-eight percent of those respondents who indicated satisfaction or strong satisfaction with their salaries sought additional jobs within the district, while only 36% of those who indicated dissatisfaction with their salaries sought such within-district employment. Thirty-six percent of the respondents who said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their teaching salaries held jobs outside the school system, while only 22% of those who were dissatisfied with their teaching salaries did so. These two findings strike us as curious, but our data do not provide enough information to explain them fully. Perhaps those who moonlight and are nonetheless satisfied with their teaching salaries have accepted the notion that moonlighting is now an accepted part of a teacher’s life.

Impact of Moonlighting What is the effect of moonlighting on the quality of teaching and learning? What effect does moonlighting have on the personal, social, and professional lives of educators? Although we did not gather data on the actual impact of moonlighting on teaching and learning or on the lives of educators, we can shed light on the perceptions of our respondents with regard to these questions. Twenty-two percent of the respondents believe that their supplemental job actually helps their teaching performance, 20% believe that it hinders their teaching, and 58% believe that it has no effect; 14% believe that their extra job helps their preparation for teaching, 28% believe that it hinders, and 58% believe that it has no effect; 9% believe that their extra job helps their private reading and study, 51% believe that it hinders, and 40% be-

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 74

3/30/18 11:28 AM

An Unstudied P henomenon

75

lieve that it has no effect; 8% believe that their supplemental employment helps their advanced graduate study, 34% that it hinders, and 58% that it has no effect; 10% believe that their extra job helps their in­service training, 59% that it hinders, and 31% that it has no effect; and 23% believe that their extra job helps their physical well-being, 37% that it hinders, and 40% that it has no effect. The area hardest hit by the demands of outside employment is family life; 59% of the respondents said that outside employment hinders their family and social activities. We also asked the respondents about their plans for remaining in the profession. Fifty percent said that it was very likely that they would remain in teaching for at least the next five years, 33% said that it was likely, 12% said that it was unlikely, and 6% said that it was highly unlikely. Thirty-four percent of the respondents said that it was highly likely that they would remain in teaching until they retired, 29% said that it was likely, 19% said that it was unlikely, and 18% said that it was highly unlikely. Furthermore, about the same proportion of moonlighters and non-moonlighters said that they were likely or highly likely to leave the profession. Finally, we asked our sample of Oklahoma teachers how they felt about the practice of moonlighting in general. Forty-four percent said that they felt that supplementary work degrades the profession and that they hope someday that no one will have to seek work outside teaching; 20% said that teaching will always be considered less than a profession by many people, and so teachers will be forced to moonlight; 21% said that supplementary jobs are necessary to provide a living wage for teachers and that such jobs neither help nor hurt a teacher’s primary work; and 14% said that some jobs could even enhance the professional role of educators. Additional statistical analysis suggests that teachers’ attitudes toward moonlighting (more than half of the sample express negative feelings) are clearly unrelated to their participation (nearly three-quarters of the sample moonlight).

A Semiprofession? It is abundantly clear from our data that an alarming number of teachers depend on some form of moonlighting to supplement their incomes. Ninety percent of the males in our sample and 65% of the females reported earning some additional income within the past three years. These data are

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 75

3/30/18 11:28 AM

Richard Wisniewski & Paul Kleine

76

consistent with the earlier studies of moonlighting, but the percentage of females who moonlight has increased substantially. Of course, this finding is consistent with the dramatic increase in the numbers of female moonlighters in all fields.9 On the surface, the relationship between moonlighting and poor teaching salaries seems obvious. After all, nearly three-quarters of the teachers in our sample said that they moonlight to pay off debts or to improve their living standards. However, moonlighting does not depend on an individual’s level of satisfaction with his or her teaching salary. This suggests that, for some teachers, moonlighting is an accepted part of their image of themselves as teachers. This last conclusion leads directly to the implication that teaching is only superficially a profession. The fact that so many teachers need the supplementary income that moonlighting provides seriously jeopardizes the professional status of all teachers. Whether such a high rate of moonlighting actually hurts the performance of those teachers who hold extra jobs is not clear; our study was not designed to answer such questions. But it is clear that teaching will remain at best a semiprofession as long as so many of its members are taking nonprofessional work for nonprofessional wages and benefits. The positive solution to the problems presented by extensive moonlighting is to develop a strong profession, with a level of training and responsibility that would yield higher compensation. We fully support this goal and suggest that, however difficult it might be to achieve, it is far preferable to our current condition.

Notes 1 Thomas Toch, “Teachers Today Are Older, Poorer, and Much Less Happy with Career,’’ Education Week, 10 March 1982, pp. 1, 13. 2 Carl Rosenfeld, “Multiple Jobholding Holds Steady in 1978,”Monthly Labor Review, February 1979 , pp. 59–61. 3 “Cashing In on Summer,” Instructor, May 1980, pp. 28–29.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 76

3/30/18 11:28 AM

An Unstudied P henomenon

77

4 “A Look at Nation’s 5 Million Moonlighters,” U.S. News & World Report, 8 December 1980, p. 77. 5 Patricia McCormack, “Moonlighting Essential for Some Teachers Today,” Houston Chronicle, 17 February 1982, p. 2. 6 Stuart A. Anderson, “A Study of the Professional Personnel of Wisconsin Secondary Schools with Special Reference to Extra-Contractual Income” (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1948); Melvin LeRoy Tucker, “A Study of the Salary-Supplementing Activities of Utah Public School Teachers” (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1965); George Harris Gumm, “Salary-Supplementing Activities of Male Public School Teachers in Tennessee” (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1968); Charles Parker, “Salary-Supplementing Activities of Male Public School Teachers in Missouri” (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1969); and William Donald Anderson, Jr., “Supplemental Income Survey Oklahoma Classroom Teachers and Counselors K–12” (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1966). 7 Anderson’s figures should of course be adjusted for inflation. 8 NEA Research Memo, “Survey of NEA Members, 1980,” National Education Association, Washington, D.C., November 1980. 9 Edward Sekscenski, “Women’s Share of Moonlighting Nearly Doubles During 1969–79,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1980, pp. 36–39.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 77

3/30/18 11:28 AM

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 78

3/30/18 11:28 AM

SECTION TWO

Teacher Moonlighting IS Teachers’ Work

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 79

3/30/18 11:28 AM

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 80

3/30/18 11:28 AM

CHAPTER FIVE

Gender Differences In Multiple Jobholding Moonlighting among Teachers Stephen C. Betts William Paterson University

Moonlighting can be considered an alternative source of work-related outcomes for the individual. This is especially true for occupations which are known to have high rates of multiple jobholding, such as uniformed professions (police, firefighters), medical fields (nursing, physicians) and teachers and therefore warrants study by organization and occupation researchers. In this paper the findings of a recent multiple jobholding survey of 312 K–12 teachers are reported. Among the findings are differences in the patterns of moonlighting behavior between female and male teachers. These differences include the prevalence, pay and type of moonlighting activity.

Introduction

O

rganization studies often address jobs and job-related topics with the underlying assumption that the job is the employee’s only employment. Rarely do we find an explicit statement acknowledging the possibility of multiple-jobholding. Yet, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that 5.9% of workers in the US were multiple jobholders in May of 1999 (BLS, 1999), and there is considerable reason to believe that the actual

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 81

3/30/18 11:28 AM

Stephen C. Betts

82

rate is much higher (Baba & Jamal, 1992; Crawford, 1978; Jamal, 1986). Indeed, multiple-jobholding, or moonlighting, is a widespread phenomenon that has largely been overlooked in organization studies (Baba & Jamal, 1992; Jamal, 1986). Moonlighting warrants attention by organization scholars because it provides workers with an alternative source of valuable work-related outcomes such as income, training, and benefits (Factor, 1991; Henry & Rogers, 1986). It also potentially changes their perceptions, decisions, and behaviors, and may impact their performance, absenteeism and turnover at their primary jobs (Aebi, 1998; Davey & Brown, 1970; Habbe, 1957). With such potential effects, organization researchers are sure to benefit by considering the impact of moonlighting on the constructs and relationships they are studying.

Multiple Jobholding (Moonlighting) Moonlighting is commonly understood as having a second job in addition to a primary job. In addition, it is assumed that the primary job is usually a full-time job. From mid 1956 to 1966 the overall rate of moonlighting was relatively steady, ranging from 4.5% to 5.7% according to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports (Hamel, 1967; Perrella, 1970). From January 1994 to January 2004 the overall moonlighting rate has fluctuated from a low of 5.2% to a high of 6.6% with the most recent rate 5.2% (January 2004). The rates of moonlighting reported in empirical studies of moonlighting since the early 1960s have consistently been much higher than government estimates (Baba & Jamal, 1992). The rates for mixed occupations/bluecollar/rank-and-file workers found in studies done in the 1960s range from 10.3% (Wilensky, 1963) to 14.2% (Mott, 1965). These rates are well above the official government estimates for the time of 4.5–5.7%. Studies in the 1980s, show a much higher rate than the BLS reported among mixed occupations/blue-collar/rank-and-file workers of between 15.3% (Jamal & Crawford, 1981) and 20.9% (Dempster-McClain & Moen, 1989). The BLS estimates for the time went as high as 6.2% in 1989. Although most of the moonlighting research published has used samples from the United States, moonlighting is an international phenomenon. Canada and Great Britain, two countries that are culturally and econom-

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 82

3/30/18 11:28 AM

G ender Differences I n M ultiple J obholding

83

ically similar to the United States (Hofstede & Bond, 1983), show moonlighting statistics quite similar to those found in the US. In addition to Great Britain, the rest of Europe also experiences moonlighting. A recent Institute of German Business study reported in the Futurist (1997) shows that moonlighting has been on the rise in Europe, doubling in 10 years. Sweden shows the highest rate at 8.3%, then Denmark 5.7%, Portugal 5.6% to Italy, which was the lowest at 1.3%. In short, moonlighting is a pervasive and international phenomenon.

The Impact of Multiple Jobholding The popular and practitioner presses reveal general issues that concern employers regarding multiple jobholding. Many organizations have policies, either implicit or explicit, that restrict or encourage multiple jobholding activity (Davey & Brown, 1970). The widespread implementation of such policies indicates considerable concern on the part of organizations. The most common policies adopted by organizations regarding multiple jobholding are designed to eliminate conflicts of interest (Davey & Brown, 1970). Restrictions against working for a competitor, supplier or customer are implemented to minimize the possible disclosure of proprietary information or unfair preferences and favoritism toward certain firms or individuals (Davey & Brown, 1970; Miller, Balkin & Allen, 1993). Organizations also adopt policies against controversial activities that can do damage to the reputation, create a legal liability or otherwise cause a loss for the organization. Some employers restrict employee involvement with advocacy groups involved in political or social causes because the employee’s involvement might create an association between the cause and the primary employer. The primary employing organization is concerned that its reputation might be damaged (Miller, Balkin & Allen, 1993). Although explicit restrictions are unnecessary, employers are also concerned with employees engaging in illegal activities. In addition to damage to their reputation, they are concerned with legal liability due to an association with the employee, or face a loss if the employee is unable to work because of legal troubles (Davey & Brown, 1970; Miller, Balkin & Allen, 1993). Organizations are also concerned with performance problems and inappropriate use of company resources associated with multiple jobholding.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 83

3/30/18 11:28 AM

84

Stephen C. Betts

Performance problems dealing with the quality or quantity of an employee’s work and habitual absenteeism are believed to be among the best indicators to an employer that employees are moonlighting (Habbe, 1957). Employers are often concerned that employees are moonlighting on company time (Crawford, 1978) or while on sick leave (Habbe, 1957). They are also concerned with employees using materials, supplies (Crawford, 1978) and intellectual property. Several occupations have unusually high rates of multiple jobholding. These occupations have dynamics and issues that are not generalizable to other occupations. Teaching, medical residency, information systems and uniformed professionals are four such fields, which will briefly be recapped. Teaching is the profession with the highest rate of moonlighting (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001; Divocky 1978a). The common conclusion is that teachers hold multiple jobs in order to stay in a profession where they are underpaid (Divocky, 1978b; Guthrie, 1969; Turner, 1962; Wisniewski & Hilty, 1987). There is a greater acceptance of multiple jobholding among police officers and firefighters than other occupations because of a long history and tradition of moonlighting activity (Miller, Presley & Sniderman, 1973). A newer field where multiple jobholding is common is the information services area. In this area the primary moonlighting activities are entrepreneurial efforts to develop commercial products on the side, and the primary concern of employers is the loss of intellectual property (Fafard, 1997; LaPlante, 1996; Whitford, 1998). Medical residency is the occupational situation where moonlighting has generated the most controversy. Medical residents take on additional jobs because of the enormous financial burdens of medical school (Bazzoli & Culler, 1986; Buch & Swanson, 1986; Cohen, Conley & Henderson, 1987; Culler & Bazzoli, 1985). The financial concerns of the residents compete with the residency program’s concern that multiple jobholding compromises the effectiveness of the health services and reduces the learning potential of the residency experience (Bazzoli & Culler, 1986; Buch & Swanson, 1986; Culler & Bazzoli, 1985; Moss, 1985). Despite concern on the part of employers regarding the impact of multiple jobholding, there has been very little research regarding these issues conducted by organization researchers. A recent review (Betts, 2002) cited only 34 published empirical studies between 1963 and 1998. The research was primarily presented in economics or occupation-specific journals, and many were descriptive in nature.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 84

3/30/18 11:28 AM

G ender Differences I n M ultiple J obholding

85

Academic Research into Moonlighting There has been surprisingly little empirical research into moonlighting, given the prevalence of the activity. There are several theoretical frameworks that have been explored in multiple or single studies. These frameworks can be grouped into two general categories, economic/financial approaches and individual/dispositional approaches. The economic approaches assume that moonlighting activity is primarily a source of income. They concentrate on the trade-off of free time for wages (Shisko & Rostker, 1976) or the choice between moonlighting and other income supplements under conditions of financial necessity (Allen, 1998; Culler & Bazzoli, 1985; Krishnan, 1990; Lakhani, 1995). The special case of financial necessity resulting from a high number of dependents is addressed in several studies (Dempster-McClain & Moen, 1989; Guthrie, 1965, 1969; Wilensky, 1963). Financial/economic theories have generally found empirical support, but the support has not been universal. A number of studies had results inconsistent with the economic theories. For example, a number of studies found the primary wage rate to be positively related to the moonlighting rate (Lakhani & Fugita, 1993; Miller, 1972; Miller & Sniderman, 1974; Smith & Cooper, 1967). It might be that these moonlighters may have higher aspirations, be more ambitious and energetic. Their aspirations, ambition and energy result in earning more at their primary job, but they may still need additional income to reach their goals or otherwise value the moonlighting experience. If we consider these explanations, it becomes apparent that the economic theories are not enough. The economic approaches fail to account for dispositional differences between individuals. These differences between individuals were partially addressed during the same time period, but not in studies using financial/economic explanations. One of the early individual dispositional explanations for moonlighting behavior was the relative deprivation theory (Wilensky, 1963). Subjective deprivation was found to be “among the best predictors of moonlighting” (Wilensky, 1963). Other research failed to support the relative deprivation theory and chaotic work history ideas. The idea of deprivation was re-examined about 15 years after Wilensky’s and Guthrie’s initial studies. A stream of research followed which paired the idea of “deprivation” with “aspiration” as competing hypotheses (Jamal, 1986;

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 85

3/30/18 11:28 AM

86

Stephen C. Betts

Jamal, Baba & Riviere, 1998; Jamal & Crawford, 1981). Deprivation was reframed as a negative view of the moonlighter. It was a more general concept than in the previous work. Under this theory, moonlighters are economically and socially deprived. The alternative, or the positive view of the moonlighter, was the aspiration hypothesis. Under this theory, moonlighters were special people, with higher aspirations and more energy. The aspiration theory has consistently found more support than the deprivation theory (Jamal, 1986; Jamal, Baba & Riviere, 1998; Jamal & Crawford, 1981; Mott, 1965).

Reasons Multiple Jobholding Is Under-Researched If the study of moonlighting activity has such potential value to researchers and practitioners, why has it not been extensively addressed? The available literature suggests several reasons. A traditional view of moonlighters is that moonlighters can be viewed as “socially withdrawn and economically deprived” (Baba & Jamal, 1992). If the “withdrawn and deprived” view of moonlighting is accepted, there is no further reason to study the phenomenon. Although there was some early support for this view (Wilensky, 1963), more recent studies have found support for alternative portraits of the moonlighter (Jamal, 1986; Jamal, Baba & Riviere, 1998; Jamal & Crawford, 1981; Mott, 1965). This view was more prevalent in past generations and is generally not accepted (Baba & Jamal, 1992). Another reason commonly cited for not studying moonlighting is that it is not seen as a pervasive enough phenomenon to warrant such attention (Baba & Jamal, 1992). One problem with this reasoning is that official government statistics grossly underestimate moonlighting rates (Baba & Jamal, 1992). Another reason for the lack of attention from organizational researchers is that moonlighting activity could be viewed as an occupationspecific phenomenon such that findings couldn’t be generalized across occupations. For example, the high rate of moonlighting among medical residents is attributed to the high debt associated with medical school and the low pay during residency (Bazzoli & Culler, 1986; Buch & Swanson, 1986; Culler & Bazzoli, 1985; Moss, 1985). The counter argument put forth here is that those occupations with high moonlighting rates do not have unique characteristics, but rather have high degrees of characteristics that generally affect moonlighting. Using the previous example, although debt is unusually

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 86

3/30/18 11:28 AM

G ender Differences I n M ultiple J obholding

87

high for medical residents, debt is not unique and is generally associated with moonlighting activity (Miller & Sniderman, 1974). The most valid reason for the lack of a systematic study of moonlighting is the difficulty in obtaining data (Baba & Jamal, 1992). It is exceedingly difficult or impossible to a-priori identify those individuals in a population who moonlight. Another source of difficulty is the notion that some moonlighters may be hesitant to disclose their moonlighting activity (Taylor & Sekscenski, 1982; Perella, 1970). They may be secretive about their moonlighting because it is in violation of a policy of their primary employer, it goes unreported for tax purposes, or a host of other reasons (Perella, 1970; Taylor & Sekscenski, 1982). Additional difficulty lies in the methodology used to gather moonlighting data. Surveys are the primary means of data collection, and response rates to surveys are typically low in the social sciences (Sudman & Bradburn, 1982). The combination of these three problems—difficulty in identifying moonlighters, hesitancy to disclose moonlighting status, and the low response rates of surveys in general—might make it necessary to start with an exceedingly large initial sample to deal with the risk of getting an insufficient response. Some researchers have tried to deal with these problems by using a population with a comparatively high incidence rate of moonlighting, guaranteeing anonymity, distributing the questionnaires in the workplace, and aggressively following up and encouraging individuals to respond (Bell & Roach, 1990; Jamal, 1986; Jamal, Baba & Riviere, 1998; Pearson, Carroll & Hall, 1994; Raffel & Groff, 1990).

Research Question: Is the Gender of Workers With a Full-Time Primary Job Related to Their Multiple Jobholding Status? The basic idea of multiple jobholding has been around for centuries. However, as a social phenomenon, it would be reasonable to assume that the specific role of moonlighting in society changes over time. Empirical research over the past four decades has shown changes over time in the demographics and frequency of moonlighting activity (Amirault, 1997; Stinson, 1986; Stinson, 1990). Given these changes it becomes necessary to establish the current relationship between moonlighting and key constructs that have been explored in the past. The questions in this section address the relation-

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 87

3/30/18 11:28 AM

Stephen C. Betts

88

ships between multiple jobholding and several key demographic factors for which the previous empirical findings are in question. The main idea driving a proposed relationship between gender and moonlighting is that men have traditionally been viewed as the primary wage earners. As the primary wage earners they are expected to do what is necessary (i.e., moonlight) in order to support their families. A great many studies have supported this view by finding that men were more likely to moonlight than women (Buch & Swanson, 1986; Guthrie, 1965, 1969; Miller, 1972; Miller & Sniderman, 1974; Pearson, Carroll & Hall, 1994; Smith & Cooper, 1967; Wisniewski & Hilty, 1987). The research findings were strong and consistent for several decades, but there is reason to believe that the relationship between gender and moonlighting has changed in recent years. The government (BLS) statistics have indicated a steady shift in the rate of moonlighting among women throughout the 1980s (Stinson, 1986, 1990) and 1990s such that the moonlighting rate among women surpassed the rate among men (Amirault, 1997). The BLS statistics indicate that the findings of the research studies may no longer hold true.

Methods and Analysis An anonymous mail survey was conducted during spring 2001. The population that the sample is drawn from is elementary, middle and high school teachers in the state of New Jersey. There are several advantages to using teachers for a sample population. Teachers have a high survey response rate (Betts, 2002), have a high rate of multiple jobholding (Betts, 2002), and have often been the focus of moonlighting studies (Bell & Roach, 1990; Guthrie, 1965, 1969; Jamal, Baba & Riviere, 1998; Miller & Sniderman, 1974; Pearson, Carrol & Hall, 1994; Raffel & Groff, 1990; Santangelo & Lester, 1985; Smith & Cooper, 1967; Wisniewski & Hilty, 1987). The survey was distributed to 20 schools across the state. Approximately 1,400 survey packets were distributed, and 312 were returned for a return rate of approximately 22.3%. The schools were selected to include public and private schools of different sizes, purposes (occupational vs. traditional) and socio-economic groupings.

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 88

3/30/18 11:28 AM

G ender Differences I n M ultiple J obholding

89

Survey packages (an envelope with the survey, a business reply envelope and a business reply postcard) were either placed in teachers’ mailboxes or distributed by the school administrator in a staff meeting. Participation by the teacher required only completing the survey, placing it in the attached business reply envelope and placing it in the mail. In order to ensure anonymity, there was nothing on the survey or envelope that could be used to identify either the individual or school. Approximately two weeks after the initial distribution of the survey, follow-up letters were delivered to the schools. The letter thanked those who participated, emphasized the importance of the research and encouraged participation by those who had not yet responded. Precautions have been taken to ensure the integrity of the data and the confidentiality of responses on every step, including secure storage of the filled questionnaires and files with the data. The research question involved dichotomous variables (multiple jobholding, gender). The appropriate measure of the relationship between two true categorical variables is the Φ coefficient (Glass & Hopkins, 1996, ch. 7). The Φ coefficient was used for exploring the relationship between gender and multiple jobholding. ANOVA is used to explore the relationship between gender and several additional variables. Table 1. Prevalence of Moonlighting Moonlighting Category

Prevalence in Sample

Job Outside of School System

34.0%

Supplemental Contract

47.7%

Summer Employment

53.2%

all three

14.7%

at least one

76.0%

Results Prevalence of Multiple Jobholding. The rates of various categories of moonlighting can be found in Table 1. The rate holding a “Job Outside of School System” during the school year was 34%, which corresponds to the rate of 35% reported by both Jamal, Baba and Riviere (1998) and Pearson, Carroll and Hall (1994).

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 89

3/30/18 11:28 AM

Stephen C. Betts

90

Although there was no common definition of moonlighting across studies, one study of teachers in Tennessee closely paralleled the three categories of multiple jobholding used in this study (Wisniewski & Hilty, 1987). In that study, 33.2% held jobs outside the school system during the school year. They also reported 28.6% held a supplemental contract during the school year, compared to 47.7% in this study, and 35.1% had summer employment, compared to 53.2% in this study (Wisniewski & Hilty, 1987). The “outside job” findings are similar, but the supplemental contract and summer employment findings are higher in this study. This discrepancy might be partly due to Wisniewski and Hilty including a fourth category: 22.6% of the respondents reported income from “self or family owned businesses.”

Did you have summer employment?

Did you have a s upplemental contract?

Did you have a job outside the school?

Table 2. Gender Versus Moonlighting Status

blair-moonlighting3P.indd 90

Φ coefficient

Male count

Female count

Total

no

44

159

203

value

4.358

%

53.7

70.4

65.9

df

1

yes

38

67

105

Sig.

.037

%

46.3

29.6

34.1

Total

82

226

308

no

39

117

156

value

.60

%

48.8

52.5

51.5

df

1

yes

41

106

147

Sig.

.330

%

51.3

47.5

48.5

Total

80

223

303

no

25

123

148

value

13.26

%

30.9

54.4

48.2

df

1

yes

56

103

159

Sig.

.000

%

69.1

45.6

51.8

81

226

307

Total

3/30/18 11:28 AM

G ender Differences I n M ultiple J obholding

91

The multiple jobholding rates reported from our sample of teachers were well above the reported rate across all occupations by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001) for the same period. This is consistent with previous research, which concluded that teaching was the occupation with the highest rate of multiple jobholding (BLS, 1999; Divocky, 1978a). Relationships between gender and multiple jobholding. The relationship between gender and multiple jobholding has changed over the last 45 years from the rate among men being three times that of women (Hamel, 1967; Perrella, 1970) to being about even by 1989 (Stinson, 1990) and even to slightly higher for women through the late 1990s (Amirault, 1997; BLS, 1999). The findings of this study (Table 2) and others (Pearson, Carroll & Hall, 1994; Wisniewski & Hilty, 1987) suggest that this trend has not occurred among teachers. Further analyses of the data suggest that the explanation might lie in gender differences in multiple jobholding and financial need. Outside employment pay and summer job pay were higher (p