1 / 27

Introduction

Principal Recruitment in Low Performing Schools: Effects of Job Status, Student Achievement, School Support, and Principal Hiring Decision Geneva Stark Price, Ph.D. Marco Muñoz, Ed.D. Paul Winter, Ph.D. Introduction. Principal Hiring In Kentucky and JCPS Problem and Purpose

maalik
Download Presentation

Introduction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Principal Recruitment in Low Performing Schools: Effects of Job Status, Student Achievement, School Support, and Principal Hiring Decision Geneva Stark Price, Ph.D.Marco Muñoz, Ed.D.Paul Winter, Ph.D.

  2. Introduction • Principal Hiring In Kentucky and JCPS • Problem and Purpose • Theoretical Framework • Method • Findings • Discussion

  3. Research Advancements • This was the first study in Kentucky to assess differences in attraction to principal positions at low-performing schools among practicing principals, assistant principals, central office administrators, school counselors, and teacher-leaders. • This was also the first investigation in Kentucky to address effects of school council members, versus superintendents, making the final principal hiring decision.

  4. Review Of Literature • Theoretical Framework • Research Design • Recruitment Simulation Technique • Selection of Independent Variables • Measurement of Dependent Variables

  5. Theoretical Framework • Rynes and Barber (1990) Applicant Attraction Model • Job characteristics • Organizational characteristics • Phase of the attraction process

  6. Research Design & Method • Factorial Experiment (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Keppel, 1991; Kirk, 1995). • Three-way ANOVA design specified as a 5 x 2 x (2 x S) between-within ANOVA design. • Two-way ANOVA design specified as 3 x (2 x S) between-within ANOVA design.

  7. The between-subjects factors for the three-way ANOVA were (a) participant job status and (b) school support package. • The within-subjects factor for the three-way ANOVA was final principal hiring decision. • The independent variable for the one-way ANOVA was school achievement classification.

  8. Dependent Variable • Two-item additive composite score for applicant rating of the job: • Likelihood of accepting an interview for the job • Likelihood of accepting the job if offered.

  9. Coefficient alphas greatly exceeded the minimum recommended for use of composite scales in statistical analysis (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) • Coefficient alpha was .94 when the superintendent made the hiring decision • Coefficient alpha was .96 when the school council made the final hiring decision.

  10. Recruitment simulation with participants role playing as job applicants • The simulation instruments have three parts: background data, description of two jobs (support package) at low-performing schools and rating items for two principal jobs (repeated measures variable). • Based on power analysis (Cohen, 1988) the plan was to collect data from at least 252 JCPS educators.

  11. Power Analysis • The specifications for the power analysis were (Keppel, 1991, p. 74): (a) a medium effect size (ω2 = .06), (b) a planned alpha size (α = .05), and a specified power level of 80% (1-β = .80). N = 252. • The purpose of the power analysis was to minimize the probability of committing a Type II statistical error; that is, failing to detect statistical significance when significance does, in fact, exist.

  12. Results • Collected data from 619 of 717 individuals from all job categories included in the analysis • The response rate was 86.3% (Dillman, 2000)

  13. Participants • Participants averaged 46.8 years of age and had an average of one dependant child. • The majority of the participants were female (75.1%), married (68.7%), and White American (73.2%). • The participants averaged 13.5 years of teaching experience, 8.3 years of administrative experience, and 9.3 years to retirement. • More than a third of the individuals plan to retire within five years or less.

  14. Results • Three-way between-within ANOVA with job rating serving as the dependent variable. • The between-groups factors were current job (principal, assistant principal, central office administrator, school counselor, teacher-leader) and support package (yes, no). • The within-groups factor was hiring decision (superintendent, school council).

  15. Main Effect • A significant main effect for current job was found (F = 13.5, p < .001). • The partial eta-squared indicates current job accounted for 8% of the variance in job rating, an effect size characterized by Keppel (1991, p. 72) as a “medium” effect size.

  16. Post Hoc Analysis • In order of magnitude, the mean scores for levels of the job title were: principal (8.1), central office administrator (7.5), assistant principal (7.1), teacher-leader (6.8), and school counselor (6.2). • The post-hoc analysis used the Bonferroni procedure.

  17. The most notable aspect of the main effect was that school counselors provided the lowest rating of the principal position.

  18. Interaction Effect • There was a significant two-way job title by hiring decision interaction (F = 4.8, p < .001). • The interaction explained 3% (η2 = .03) of the variance in job rating, a magnitude of explanation characterized by Keppel (1991, p. 72) as a “small” effect size.

  19. The most notable aspect of the interaction effect was that central office administrators rated the job higher when the superintendent made the hiring decision. • School counselors rated the job higher when the school council made the hiring decision.

  20. The two-way ANOVA addressed CATS assessment and principal hiring decision. There was a significant main effect for hiring decision (F = 5.5) with participants rating the job highest when the school council made the hiring decision.

  21. Secondary analysis assessed the teacher leader group. • Administrative interns (M = 9.8) provide the highest job rating of any teacher leader group. • Resource teacher/Instructional coach (M = 6.2) provided the lowest job rating.

  22. Discussions, Implications, and Conclusions • The age and the planned retirement data underscored the need to implement effective programs to recruitment principals. • The ANOVA results suggested counselors are not the most productive group to be target for principal recruitment programs.

  23. Discussion • Shrinkage of applicant pools for principal vacancies • Principal hiring practices in KY • Principals at low-performing schools receive the same salary as principals in other schools • Redesigning the job of principal (managerial vs. instructional tasks)

  24. Limitations: • Individuals from other geographical areas and school districts might have reacted different • Limitations of simulated recruitment techniques

  25. Conclusion: • High stakes testing and greater accountability demands at low-performing schools make the job of principal increasingly unattractive. • Explore new ways to restructure the principalship. • Explore new incentives (intrinsic and extrinsic)

  26. Contact Information • Geneva.price@jefferson.kyschools.us • Marco.munoz@jefferson.kyschools.us • Winter@louisville.edu

More Related