5. Was the teacher's behavior characterized by consistent enthusiasm and interest in the lesson?

6. Did the students appear interested and involved in the lesson?

7. Did the teacher go about his task with a crisp business-like behavior?

8. Were the students presented with specific tasks to learn and develop?

9. Were the students given a chance to learn and practice the material presented?

10. Did the teacher ask questions or request demonstrations to make sure the students understood the material presented?

11. Did the students provide input which the teacher acknowledged, accepted, and where possible applied in the lesson?

12. Did the teacher avoid the use of harsh criticism in maintaining lesson control and evaluating student performance?

13. At one or more points in the lesson, did the teacher give evidence of order or direction by reviewing, summarizing or clearly signalling the material presented?

14. Did the teacher question the students on the material presented?

15. Did the teacher persistently probe to find out what the class was thinking? Were surface answers followed up for further clarification?

16. Were most of the students appropriately challenged by the level of difficulty of the material presented?

Cheffers and Keilty (18) developed a questionnaire (Teacher Performance Criteria Questionnaire, TPCQ) answered by students or independent observers rating a teacher or coach on these variables (Figure 3). In tests conducted at the University of New Brunswick no significant differences between male and female teachers were found using this scale (TPCQ).

In Summary

1. The research does establish differences between male and female performers in physical and psychosocial spheres. No research as yet has been able to distinguish how much of this difference is due to body chemistry and how much to culturally defined sex roles. Certainly, in the U.S.A., boys are more powerful in terms of body size, weight and muscular performance, although indications that this may not be so globally have been hinted at (19). 2. No significant teaching behaviors can be identified to which the label male or female can be attached. The differences in teacher behaviors are within the sexes, not between.

3. The only barriers to effective coeducational class activity appear to exist in poorly prepared lessons and through stereotyped individualists asserting that "it will not work." Efforts to implement the spirit of Title IX into physical education classes and sporting activities will scarcely succeed if teaching standards do not rise. The days of "rolling out the ball", or forbidding the students to participate if their tunics are more than 1.48 inches "above the knee" must be numbered.

4. Individual differences within the range of boys' and girls' achievements are a stimulus to provide more interesting and appropriate curricula. Title IX affords an excellent opportunity to bring about these changes.

REFERENCES

1. Bem, Sandra L. and Daryl J., "Training the Women to Know Their Place: The Social Antecedents of Women in the World of Work," Pennsylvania Department of Education, Box 911, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126, 1974. 2. Oxendine, Joseph B., Psychology of Motor Learning. New York: Appleton, Century and Crofts, 1968, pp. 149-152.

3. Dawe, H. C., "An Analysis of 200 Quarrels of Preschool Children." Child Development, 1934, 5, 139.

4. Harris, D. B., "Sex differences in the life problems and interests of adolescents, 1935 and 1957." Child Development, 1959, 30, 463.

5. Crandall, V. J. and A. Rabson, "Children's repetition choices in an intellectual achievement situation following success and failure," J. Genet. Psychol., 1960, 97, 161-168.

6. Mancini, Victor H., "A Comparison of Two Decision Making Models in an Elementary Human Movement Program Based on Attitudes and Interaction Patterns," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University, 1974.

7. Smith, B. Othaniel, "Toward a Theory of Teaching," Theory and Research in Teaching. A. O. Bellack, ed., Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1963.

8. Ausubel, David P., "A Cognitive Structure Theory of Teaching," Current Research in Interaction. R. C. Anderson et al., Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1969, Chapter 8.

9. Cheffers, John T. F., Amidon, Edmund, and Rodgers, Ken D., Interaction Analysis, An Application to Nonverbal Activity. Association for Productive Teaching, Chicago Ave., South Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1974.

10. Miller, Arthur G., Cheffers, John T. F. and Whitcomb, Virginia, Physical Education: Teaching Human Movement in the Elementary Schools. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1974.

11. Flanders, Ned, Analyzing Teaching Behavior, Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970.

12. Papatsos, Cal, Quotation from Keynote Address. Eastern District Association, AAHPER Conference on Children with Special Needs, Boston, November, 1974.

13. Amidon, Edmund and Elizabeth Hunter, Improving Teaching: Analyzing Verbal Interaction in the Classroom. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1966.

14. Cheffers, John T. F., "The Influence of Sex Role Standards in Shaping Adolescent Behavior Examined in the Context of Sports Participation. Real or Imaginary?" Sport Sociology Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1973 (Ed. Benjamin Lowe). Governors State University, Chicago, Illinois 60466.

15. Cheffers, John, Archanbault, Francis X., and John Greene, "An Approach to the Measurement of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior: Modifying CAFIAS for Varying Research Needs." Paper presented to the 5th Annual Convocation of the Northeast Educational Research Association (NERA), Ellenville, New York, November 1st, 1974.

16. Mosston, Muska, Teaching Physical Education, Charles Merrill Co., New York, 1966.

17. Rosenshine, Barak and Furst, Norma, "Research on Teacher Performance Criteria," B. Othaniel Smith (ed.), Research on Teacher Education: A Symposium, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971.

18. Cheffers, John and Keilty, C. Gerald, "Teacher Performance Criteria Questionnaire," In Physical Education: Teaching Human Movement in the Elementary Schools by Miller, Cheffers and Whitcomb, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1974.

19. Espenschade, A. S. and Eckert, H. M., Motor Development. Charles Merrill Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1972.

Chapter VI

PERSONNEL: RECRUITMENT, PLACEMENT,

EVALUATION

Donna Mae Miller
University of Arizona

There is no mental blueprint available or standards written in heaven which describe definitive ways in which the mandates of Title IX of the education amendments of 1972 should be implemented. Although a forthright call to action is demanded, HEW has much interpretive latitude. If Title IX does not yield to substantive descriptions of ways of implementation, it does find a great many institutions facing the compulsory taking of a journey into utterly unknown environments, using vehicles and charts and even a compass which were made for journeys quite different from this new one. In view of this journey into unscheduled territory, a few personal observations, prior to launching into possible avenues for implementation, may be warranted, or at least pardoned.

The means for achieving implementation can be varied-precise or haphazard, tasteless or elegant, chaotic or constructive. It can mean anything that satisfies minimal criteria or accords with one's own preferences. Some persons identify with an impulse toward greed. They choose the alternative of directing women's sports programs toward the "big-time" model, and seem to concur with Mae West's point of view that "When I choose between two evils I always like the one I've never tried before." Their propositions trouble many persons because they represent the same old blurring of distinctions between what pertains to the individual participant and what can be sold to spectators. Critics call these persons loud, extreme, and gauche. On the other hand, lamentations of some counter-critics, who are concerned about their own "paradise lost," prefer to illuminate the weaknesses in equality. They contend that with women's lib and Title IX, the "gals" hold a double-barreled shotgun, where previously they held a pop-gun, and are firing it indiscriminately. They may find themselves in a place where prior conventions no longer count and they believe in little else except survival.

Between these extremes are those who contend that Title IX resonates with a powerful harmony of connectedness. All that is needed is to put our fertile minds together in designing an environment with less noise and more music, an environment in which men and women complement instead of wound each other, an environment in which each person can live with "gusto."

Continued study of Title IX, therefore, leaves me with the impression that: (1) mere analysis of mandates may not suffice; (2) interpretation seems to promise a number of different set-ups and practices; (3) the most that anyone can do at present is to study all actual and potential alternatives; and (4) we must try to make the new model car run smoothly and fast on roads built for buggies and wagons. It is within such a perspective that the following conjectures regarding implementation of Title IX are offered.

PROVISIONS APPLYING TO EMPLOYMENT

The provisions applying to employment practices are perhaps the most clear-cut and comprehensive in the entire document. The regulation applies to all aspects of all education programs or activities of a school. Coverage extends to all employees, both full and part-time, in all institutions covered. Sex bias is prohibited in all aspects of employment. These include employment criteria and recruitment, job assignments, classification and structure, promotions, salary, fringe benefits and other types of compensation, tenure and collective bargaining agreement provisions.

Presumably embodied within these provisions is the idea of progress, both material in terms of improvement of physical education and athletic programs and metaphysical in terms of perfectability of institutions. Such a view of "the future of the future," to borrow John McHale's (7) concept, carries with it some assumptions about ideals and possibilities which go beyond present constraints and inadequacies. What, then, are some potential constraints?

BASIC PROBLEM AREAS

If one really wants to know what bothers a lot of persons, one should read the comments on Title IX presented to HEW by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW), and the National Association for Girls and Women in Sport (NAGWS). For example, according to NAGWS (3), under the guise of adjustment to Title IX, many institutions are merging physical education and athletics into single departments, although NAGWS finds nothing in the proposed regulations which dictates a particular departmental structure. Although many departments have been merged successfully in the past and will be in the future, this recent trend, merely to meet the mandate of Title IX, does seem to raise a problem of further limiting employment opportunities for women. At any rate, some questions being asked include: Are the program objectives, purposes and methods of physical education and athletics significantly different? Are the goals and methods of athletics for men, athletics for women and intramurals suffi