|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20009999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00153
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 8, no. 9 (January 24, 2000).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c January 24, 2000
Gender related differences in career patterns of principals in Alabama : a statewide study / William A. Spencer [and] Frances K. Kochan.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
1 of 18 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 8 Number 9January 24, 2000ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2000, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education Gender Related Differences in Career Patterns of Pr incipals in Alabama: A Statewide Study William A. Spencer Auburn University Frances K. Kochan Auburn UniversityAbstractThe purpose of this research was to determine the s tatus of women administrators in the Alabama in terms of demograph ic and career patterns. A survey was sent to all principals in Al abama. Five hundred-fifty, or 42% of the principals responded. In Alabama, women principals are generally more recent in their posit ion, are somewhat more likely to have come directly from the classroom, an d have less mobility in acquiring the position.Introduction In many fields research has shown that wo men fare differently from men in terms of their career patterns. In cases such as engineer ing, there are far fewer women than
2 of 18men recruited into the educational programs which p repare them for the career field and those women experience higher levels of attrition t han do their male counterparts (Riehl and Byrd, 1997). This unequal situation is compound ed by the fact that women also tend to receive less compensation than their male counte rparts, advance within the organization at a slower rate, and generally interr upt their professional careers in order to devote time to raising a family (Gupton & Slick, 19 96). In K-12 education, females comprise 83 % of the elementary and 54% of the seco ndary teaching populations. Yet they constitute only 52 % of the principalships in elementary schools and 26 % of the high school positions (Henke, Choy, Geis, & Broughm an, 1996). Only 7 % of the school superintendents in the United States are women (Sha keshaft, 1998). There is a general consensus that the adm inistrative leadership of a school is the key element to the effectiveness of the school (Wal lace, 1992; Short & Greer, 1997). While not disregarding the obviously critical role of teachers and parents, a poor principal or superintendent can nullify even the be st of teachers' and parental efforts. Therefore it is essential that schools have effecti ve, quality leaders. When examining women's capacity to serve as school leaders, some r esearchers believe that males and females have different leadership styles. (Nogay an d Beebe, 1997; Irby and Brown, 1995). As Fisher (1999) put it, ". . Sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists even business analysts have extensively described this multifaceted gender difference: women's interest in personal contacts, their drive to achie ve interpersonal harmony, and their tendency to work and play in egalitarian teams versus men's sensitivity to social dominance and their need to a chieve rank in real or perceived hierarchies. "(p. 29) Both Grogan (1996) and Aburden & Naisbett (1992) report that women's leadership style tends to be more transformative an d inclusive than that of their male counterparts making females more capable of adoptin g a collaborative management, approach than men. These researchers add that this style is the preferred one for today's schools. Others disagree with these assertions and argue that males and females do not differ significantly in the ways in which they lead (Astin & Leland, 1991; Dobbins & Platz, 1986; Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Mertz and McNe ely (1996) suggest that the either/or, male/female dichotomy is too simplistic and that a multidimensional approach, which examines context, ethnicity, and other factor s is required when conducting research on the issue of leadership style. Whether differences exist in female and m ale leadership styles and whether one style is preferable to another is unresolved and me rits further research. However, the research supports the fact that females are at leas t as effective in their leadership roles as men (Shakeshaft, 1990). Thus there is no apparent r eason why women should not fill these positions in proportion to their presence in the educational field. Alabama, like most of the nation, is ente ring a decade in which there will be a significant turnover in the principalship. Within 5 years, 40% of present principals expect to retire. Another 30% expect to leave these positions within 10 years (Kochan & Spencer, 1999). It is imperative that an ample supp ly of high quality professionals will be available to fill the vacancies these retirement s will create. If there are factors which hinder the recruitment of able women into leadershi p positions, then public education and the state will pay a price in lost credibility and potential in securing quality leaders for its schools.
3 of 18Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determin e the status of women administrators in the Alabama in terms of demographic and career patt erns. We sought to discover the degree to which females were represented in the adm inistrative ranks and whether there were any discernible barriers hindering their entra nce into these positions.Methodology Data Collection A survey was developed around demographic questions and the state principals' competencies. The survey was sent to all principals in Alabama. The mailing included an explanatory letter, guaranteeing anonymity, and a postage paid self-addressed envelope. Questions addressed demographic issues of gender, ethnicity, age, and number of years in position. Principals were also asked ab out retirement plans and how they acquired their leadership styles. The last part of the survey asked principals to rank order the Alabama principal competencies and then to rank their own capabilities on these skills.Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to analy ze most of the demographic data. Differences between men and women, reasons for reti rement and experiences which influenced leadership styles were counted and place d in rank order. Mean scores were computed for responses to the importance and compet ence principals assigned to each of the Alabama principal competencies.FindingsDemographic Characteristics Five hundred-fifty, or 42% of the princip als responded. Of these, 514 included a designation of gender and only those responses are included in these findings. Sixty-three percent of those responding to the gender question were males and thirty-seven percent were females. Eighty-four percent of the principals were white, nonHispanics, 15 % were African American, and the remaining 1% were ot her minorities. Almost 90% of the principals are 40 years of age or older while forty -three percent are 50 years of age or older. The average age is 48.3. This is slightly hi gher that the last reported national average of 47.7 (Henke et al., 1996).Educational Preparation Data related to educational preparation i ndicates a difference between males and females. Male principals as a group have somewhat l ower levels of professional education than do their female counterparts. Table 1 displays the educational degree and post-degree levels of female and male principals. A lmost half of the males have a Master's degree. Slightly less than one-third have post Master's work or a Specialist Degree and less than a quarter have a post-Speciali st work or a Doctorate. Females, on
4 of 18the other hand, are virtually evenly distributed ac ross the three levels with more than one third having post Masters work or Specialist Degree s and more than one-third having post Specialist work or Doctoral Degrees. Using a C hi square analysis, these differences were found to be significant at greater than the .0 01 level (chi-square (df=2) = 15.332, p < .001).Table 1 Educational Levels of Principals by Gender Masters orless Post Masters or AAPost AA or doctorate Total Male151 (46.6%) 101 (31.2%) 72 (22.2%) 324 Females59 (31.1%) 63 (33.2%) 68 (35.8%) 190 Total210 (40.9%) 164 (31.9%) 140 (27.2%) 514 chi-square (df=2) = 15.332, p < .001 Consistent with this finding, the data al so show that males have lower levels of professional certification than do female principal s (Table 2) with about twelve percent more females having "AA" certification. These diffe rences in formal preparation were also statistically significant (chi-square (df=1) = 5.67 (Corrected), p < .05).Table 2 Certification Levels of Principals by Gender "A" Certification Principal "AA" Certification Superintendent Total Males130 (42.2%) 178 (57.8%) 308 Females56 (30.9%) 125 (69.1%) 181 Total186303399 chi-square (df=1) = 5.67 (Corrected), p < .05 Another difference between the groups is in the undergraduate preparation of principals. As shown in Table 3, female principals are much more likely to have majored in education as undergraduates than males. Men were more likely to have undergraduate majors in social science, natural science, mathemat ics or engineering than females. In part this may simply reflect the fact that at the e lementary level principals are more generally female while at the middle school and hig h school levels, males predominate as principals. Again these differences are statistical ly significant (chi-square (df=4) = 55.44, p < .001.
5 of 18Table 3 Background Preparation of Principals EducationSocial Sciences HumanitiesNat. Sci, Math or Engineering Business or Other Total Male176 (58.5%) 48 (15.9%) 10 (3.3%) 50 (16.6%) 17 (5/6%) 301 Female160 (86.5%) 3 (1.6%) 8 (4.3%) 5 (2.7%) 9 (4.9%) 185 Total336 (69.1%) 51 (10.5%) 18 (3.7%) 55 (11.3%) 26 (5.3%) 486 chi-square (df=4) = 55.44, p < .001 Length of Tenure in Position As can be seen in Table 4, females have f ewer years in their current positions than do their male counterparts. From those in their fir st year as principal up through about 8 years in the position, females are more prominent t han males. Beginning with the ninth year and going forward, males are overrepresented. The maximum time in the job for a female principal was 21 years whereas the maximum f or the males was 32 years. It is largely this highly skewed distribution that accoun ts for a significant difference in the average years in position for females vs. males (5. 53 years vs 7.41 years). Thus women's entrance into the principalship roles appears to ha ve increased in recent years.Table 4 Years in Current Position 0 45 910-1415-1920 or moreTotalMale151 (46.5%) 82 (25.2%) 45 (13.8%) 25 (7.7%) 22 (6.8%) 325 Female98 (51.6%) 64 (33.7%) 15 (7.9%) 12 (6.3%) 1 (.5%) 190 Total249 (48.3%) 146 (28.3%) 60 (11.7%) 37 (7.2%) 23 (4.5%) 515 chi-square (df=4) = 18.10, p < .01 Entry into the Principalship An important dimension of recruitment is whether leadership of an organization is provided by individuals who are already employed by that organization or by individuals who come from outside the organization. Another imp ortant issue is whether these leadership positions are open to all or whether som e individuals have limited access to them. As shown in Table 5, principals in Alabama ex hibit a marked tendency to come
6 of 18from within their own system. More than 80 percent became principals in the system in which they were already employed. However, of those who did come from outside the system, more than 75 percent were males. Thus femal es are somewhat more likely to become principals in their own systems than are mal es. This difference is also statistically significant (chi-square (df=1) = 7.48 (Corrected), p < .01).Table 5 Origin of Principals Within Current System From Outside System Total Male253 (79.1%) 67 (20.9%) 320 Female169 (88.9%) 21 (11.1%) 190 Total42288510 chi-square (df=1) = 7.48 (Corrected), p < .01 A related issue of interest, is the posit ion principals previously occupied prior to assuming their current principal role. Again, we ob serve a somewhat different pattern between males and females. As displayed in Table 6, females are proportionally more likely than males to have come from the central off ice or other supervisory position or from the classroom while males are proportionately more likely to accede to the principalship from either an assistant principal po sition or from being a principal in another school or system. Moreover these difference s are significant (chi-square (df=2) = 19.9, p < .001). In spite of these differences, the trend for both groups is to become principals after being either an assistant principa l or a principal in another school.Table 6 Position Held Prior to This Principalship Supt, Asst or Assoc Supt,Supervisor Principal or Asst Principal Teacher, Coach or Other Total Male12 (3.8%) 242 (77.6%) 58 (18.6%) 312 Female15 (8%) 110 (58.8%) 62 (33.2%) 187 Total27352120499 chi-square (df=2) = 19.9, p < .001 Retirement Prospects While mobility from one principalship to another may leave vacancies in a school system, overall the number of principals would appe ar to be relatively stable. However
7 of 18this appears to be changing in Alabama. A large pro portion of current Alabama principals plan to retire in the near future. In Alabama, all public school employees belong to the Alabama Teachers Retirement System. After 25 years of service, they are eligible to retire but are not required to do so. According to the dat a shown in Table 7, over the next five years almost 75 percent of male principals will be eligible for retirement but only about 62 percent of female principals will be eligible. T hus female principals can anticipate a longer service career ahead before they would be el igible to retire.Table 7 Eligibility for Retirement Now or This Year Next YearNext Five Years Next Ten Years More than 10 Years Total Males29 (9.2%) 101 (32%) 104 (32.9%) 42 (13.3%) 40 (12.7%) 316 Females15 (8.1%) 45 (24.2%) 56 (30.1%) 45 (24.2%) 25 (13.4%) 186 Total 44 (8.8%) 146 (29.1%) 160 (31.9%) 87 (17.3%) 65 (12.9%) 502 chi-square (df=4) = 10.97, p < .05 Being eligible to retire and actually ret iring are, of course, different things. Therefore we examined current principals plan to re tire in the near future. We also looked at whether there was a difference between males and females in this regard. The results, contained in Table 8, show that while there are dif ferences between the genders in this regard, these differences were not statistically si gnificant. Thus we would conclude that the two groups likely do not differ in the time fra me within which they actually plan to retire.Table 8 Planned Retirements This YearNext YearNext Five Years Next Ten Years After Ten Years Total Males6 (2.2%) 13 (4.9%) 109 (40.7%) 81 (30.2%) 59 (22%) 268 Females010 (6.9%) 51 (35.2%) 54 (37.2%) 30 (20.7%) 145 Total6 (1.5%) 23 (5.6%) 160 (38.7%) 135 (32.7%) 89 (21.5%) 413 chi-square (df=4) = 6.18, n.s. Reasons for Retiring Turnover among principals is the result o f many factors. Using information from
8 of 18 the literature, we listed 14 reasons principals ret ire in the survey and asked the principals to indicate those which applied to them. Respondent s were also given the option of adding any other reasons. Table 9 displays the list of reasons these principals would retire and their relative ranks based upon how frequently the respondents chose them. The number one reason given for retiring was to assume a better position. Thus technically, they are not leaving the professioin, but they are leaving the State of Alabama. But when one looks at the reasons these respondents selected for leaving this role through retirement, the correlation between the relative ra nking of reason for retiring is fairly high between males and females (Spearman r = .82, p < .0 01), with a few notable discrepancies. Females rank frustration of goals as second highest in importance while males rank it sixth. Similarly females place more i mportance on a lack of fulfillment than do males. They also ranked the need for having more time with family at a much higher level than males. Females also more often than thei r male counterparts ranked the time needed to do the job as a reason to retire. At the same time, they have less problem apparently in dealing with the external mandates th an do male principals and are somewhat less inclined to seek a new position out o f state.Table 9 Importance of Reasons Given for RetiringStated Reason Male N (Rank) Female N (Rank) Better Opportunity Elsewhere 222 (1)118 (1)Too Much Community Politics 100 (2)56 (2-tie)Burn Out 91 (3)46 (4) Take Another Position in Another State85 (4)40 (7)Too Many External Mandates83 (5)25 (11)Too Much Frustration of My Goals65 (6)56 (2-tie)Job Requires Too Much Time60 (7)43 (5-tie)Too Many Financial Problems in My School58 (8)27 (1 0) Lack of Fulfillment with Job53 (9)33 (8)Need More Time with My Family 44 (10)43 (5-tie)Deteriorating Relations within School and Community 33 (11)24 (12) Other Reasons 28 (12)28 (9) Too Much Influence of Teachers' Organization9 (13)2 (13-tie) Inadequately Prepared for the Job2 (14)0 (15)Maternity Leave 1 (15)2 (13-tie) rs = .82, p < .001 N = 325N = 191 Importance of Specific Skills and Self Evaluation To understand more fully why there might be differences in the desire to retire
9 of 18 between males and females, a portion of the survey was dedicated to assessing (1) what principals now on the job believe to be the most im portant skills that a new principal would need, and (2) how those principals would asse ss their own level of proficiency in those same skills. As a basis for this, the researc hers utilized a set of skills which the Alabama State Department of Education uses to evalu ate principals in the field. Table 10 contains a list of these skills and their level of importance as seen by principals. While the relative importance level of each skill is the same for both males and females (r = .985), females tend to place more importance on the skills overall than do males. On balance there is about one fourth of a point differ ence which is statistically significant, t (16) = 18.04, p <.001.Table 10 Importance of Principal SkillsSkill MalesFemales Evaluates staff according to state and local polici es and procedures4.354.52 Demonstrates problem solving skills4.354.49Demonstrates organizational skills4.294.48Takes a leadership role in improving education4.34. 45 Communicates standards of expected performance4.284 .49 Improves professional knowledge and skills4.184.53Demonstrates skills in the recruitment, selection a nd assignment of school personnel 4.244.34 Manages Instruction 4.104.38 Implements clear instructional goals and specific a chievement objectives for school 4.064.34 Establishes clear instructional goals and specific achievement objectives for school 4.044.29 Implements evaluation strategies for improvement of instruction3.864.05 Understands special education laws and requirements 3.774.03 Understands the states education accountability la w and requirements 3.773.91 Understands legislative (political) processes that impact schools3.673.68 Understands impact of the New Foundation Program fo r funding public schools 3.453.62 Understands the states education trust fund and re ports to board and community on finance issues (proration, etc.) 3.293.32 Understands the states new accounting system for e ducation3.073.34 r = .985, p < .001; Mean diff = .23 (Females higher ), t(16) = 18.04, p < .001 Self Rating of Principals
10 of 18 Using the same list of skills principals were asked to rate their own level of competence on each and the results are shown in Tab le 11. Again the results are similar to the previous case. Both males and females again are in basic agreement on their relative strengths and weaknesses. And again female s tend to rate themselves slightly higher (Mean = .19 ) than do males, but the differe nce is statistically significant t (16) = 8.57, p < .001.Table 11 Self Rating of Principal SkillsSkill MalesFemales Evaluates staff according to state and local polici es and procedures4.434.68 Demonstrates problem solving skills4.564.80Demonstrates organizational skills4.604.79Takes a leadership role in improving education4.534 .73 Communicates standards of expected performance4.574 .79 Improves professional knowledge and skills4.444.78Demonstrates skills in the recruitment, selection a nd assignment of school personnel 4.604.77 Manages Instruction 4.574.75 Implements clear instructional goals and specific a chievement objectives for school 4.574.84 Establishes clear instructional goals and specific achievement objectives for school 4.614.82 Implements evaluation strategies for improvement of instruction4.344.64 Understands special education laws and requirements 4.424.70 Understands the states education accountability la w and requirements 4.174.42 Understands legislative (political) processes that impact schools3.854.15 Understands impact of the New Foundation Program fo r funding public schools 3.974.19 Understands the states education trust fund and re ports to board and community on finance issues (proration, etc.) 3.583.81 Understands the states new accounting system for e ducation4.044.17 r = .977, p < .001; Mean diff = .19 (Females higher ), t(16) = 8.57, p < .001DiscussionThe Status of Females in the Principalship Female respondents in this survey compris e 37% of the principals, which is slightly lower than the state figure of 38% and the national average of 42%. From the
11 of 18perspective of women seeking these positions, there is "good news" and "bad news." The findings suggest that although there has been an in crease in the number of females entering the principalship in recent years, those w ho are in these positions have higher levels of education and more teaching experience th an their male counterparts. This may be a factor in why females ranked their competence on the Alabama Principal Competencies more highly than males. Their higher l evels of education and experience may have raised their competency levels and/or leve ls of confidence in their knowledge and skills. While it appears that opportunities are opening up, one-third of the females moved directly to the principalship from their teac hing role. That may mean it requires more time for t hem to become familiar and comfortable in the job. This may partially explain why the work load and the time the job takes was ranked more highly by females than males in retirem ent decisions. However, since this explanation seems to contradict females ranking the ir competence more highly than males, it is also possible that the time pressures females feel are related to family needs, a retirement decision factor ranked more highly by females than males. The impact of moving from a teaching position to a principalship requires further examination. The reasons a higher percent of females move from distr ict office positions to the principals also bears further study. An issue that may also be troubling for f emales is that while most principals are appointed to positions within the county in which t hey work, those selected for these positions from outside their county are predominate ly male. Whether this is the result of females having less mobility than males or is an in dication of some type of discriminatory attitude in educational systems is s omething that bears further investigation.Potential Actions The role of the principal in today's scho ols is a complex and difficult one for males and females alike. However, our data suggest that females may have to deal with more stresses and difficulties in acquiring and fun ctioning in this role. The actions recommended below may help overcome some of these d ifficulties. Although these recommendations focus on the role of women, we woul d like to stress the need for all principals to receive support and guidance. Thus st rategies should be developed that support the needs of all principals regardless of g ender. The disparity of females in the principal ship relative to their numbers in the teaching force, may be the result of many factors: tradition, hiring practices, female unwillingness or reluctance to seek the role (Griff in, 1997), or issues related to family needs. This finding bears further study and examina tion within the state and school system structures. However, it is apparent that uni versities and school systems should take some actions to help deal with the disparate s tatus of women in these positions. Programs of educational administration and school s ystems should consider establishing programs to identify, educate, and encourage female s to enter the administrative ranks. School districts should also examine thei r hiring practices and/or establish programs to groom and prepare female leaders in a s ystemic manner to assure that opportunities for advancement are made more apparen t and equal between the genders. The lack of adequate role models is another issue s ystems should address. While the lack of a role model may have the advantage of allowing a new principal to be more open to new ideas it can also be the source of many difficu lties including making political or technical errors and displaying a lack of confidenc e (Greenfield,1983). Having a role model provides validation for those entering a new role which is particularly important
12 of 18for traditional outsiders, such as women. This sugg ests that the advantages of having a role model outweigh the disadvantages (Hart, 1995; Pence, 1995). Since mentoring is seldom available for these women, school systems an d educational leadership programs should consider creating mentoring opportunities fo r them to provide support and guidance (Funk & Kochan, in press; Crow, Mecklowitz & Weekes, 1992). In addition, "women-friendly" promotion structures that recogniz e the special career patterns of females related to childbearing and childbearing, p roposed by Griffin (1997) and the alternate career model proposed by Grant (1989) sho uld be reviewed and considered as avenues for assuring fair and equitable opportuniti es are available for females to enter the administrative ranks.Implications While this study has by no means been an exhaustive exploration of all gender differences in the principalship in Alabama, it has been sufficient to indicate that women principals are generally more recent in their posit ion, are somewhat more likely to have come directly from the classroom, and have less mob ility in acquiring the position. A cursory look at the figures indicates that females have assumed the principalship in larger numbers and percentages than in the past sug gesting that barriers to females assuming school administrative roles are being over come. However, there are some cautions that flow from the results. First, there i s no reason to believe that the increases in female principals will continue exponentially ov er time. In fact, some of the data indicate that barriers and pressures may deter fema les from seeking or being selected for these positions. The data demonstrate that females are hired more often in places they are known and have worked and are seldom hired outs ide of their school systems. Thus their opportunities for employment as principals ap pear more limited than those of males. Second, there is the issue of whether fem ales will seek these positions at all and if they get them, one wonders if they will remain in t hem. Data related to reasons for retirement indicate that family pressures fall more powerfully on females than on their male counterparts. When this is combined with the f act that women must have higher levels of education and more years of experience th an males to get the position, some of them may decide not to seek these positions. Third, the fact that many women come to t he principalship without having been assistant principals may be an indication that they are getting principalships in schools where there are no assistant principals. This may b e one of the reasons they selected the time spent on their job as a retirement factor more often than men. Further data should be gathered on this issue. Most states, like Alabama, will be facing massive administrative retirements over the next decade ( Muse & Thomas, 1991; National Ass ociation of Secondary School Principals, 1998). Likewise, the percent of female principals in Alabama is similar to the field in general. Therefore it is probable that our findings have uncovered meaningful issues that are present not just in Alabama, but in other states and school districts thoughout the country. It might be helpful for them to conduct similar studies to determine the status of females in the principalshi p in their settings. We believe that this statewide study poses questions not only for our st ate but for other states and for the field in general to consider. Among them are: Despite recent increases in females entering the pr incipalship, are they being held to a higher educational standard than males before being placed in these positions? 1.
13 of 18Are hiring practices free from gender-bias, particu larly when "outsiders" are being considered to fill positions? 2. Are females being consistently placed in principals hips where they are the only administrator? 3. How can female administrators be given support and mentored when there are so few role models to guide them? 4. Although we have focused on females, the future of our schools will be largely determined by the quality of our leadership. Alabam a and the nation cannot afford to limit the potential or quantity of the pool of indi viduals who can provide this leadership. This study indicates that there are limits and barr iers being faced by women who are qualified to fill the principalship in our state. A lthough progress has been made, particularly during the last five years, not all is "right with the world." Fairness and the needs of our state dictate that the issues raised a nd the questions posed be addressed not only by those who educate and hire school administr ators in Alabama, but by those who do so throughout the nation.ReferencesAburdene, P., & Naisbitt, J. (1992). Megatrends for women New York: Villard. Myers Astin, H.S., & Leland, C. (1991). Women of influence: Women of vision San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bishop, P.W., & Mulford. W.L. (1996). Empowerment i n four Australian primary schools: They don't really care. International Journal of School Reform, 5 (2),193-204. Chase, S. E. (1995). Ambiguous empowerment: The work narratives of women school superintendents. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Crow, G. M., & Glascock (1995). Socialization to a new conception of the principalship. Journal of Educational Administration, 33 (1), 22-43 Crow, G. M., Mecklowitz, B., & Weekes, Y. N. (1992) From teaching to administration: A preparation institute Lancaster, PA: Technomic. Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differen ces in leadership: How real are they? Academy of Management Review, 11 118-127. Eagly, A.H., & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and lea dership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 233-256. Elmore, R.F. (1995). Structural reform and educatio nal practice. Educational Researcher, 24 (9), 23-26. Funk, F., & Kochan, F. (In Press) Journeys in mento ring from a female perspective. In C. Mullen & D. Lick (Eds.). New directions in mentoring: Creating a culture of synergy London: Falmer Press.Grant, R.(1989). Heading for the top-the career exp eriences of a group of women
14 of 18deputies in one LEA. Gender and Education,1 (2), 113-25. Greenfield, W. D. (1983). Career dynamics of educat ors: Research and policy issues. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19 (2), 5-26. Griffin, G.(1997). Teaching as a gendered experienc e. Journal of Teacher Education, 48 (1), 7-18. Gossetti, P.P. & Rusch, E. (1995). Reexamining educ ational leadership: Challenging assumptions. In D. M. Dunlap & Patricia A. Schmuck (Eds.) Women leading in education (pp. 11-35). Albany State University of New York P ress. Grogan, M. (1996). Voices of women aspiring to the superintendency Albany, NY: State University Press.Gupton, S. L., & Slick, G. A. (1996) Highly successful women administrators: The inside stories of how they got there. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hart, A. W. (1995). Women ascending to leadership: The organizational socialization of principals. In D. M. Dunlap & Patricia A. Schmuck ( Eds.) Women leading in education. (pp. 105-124). Albany; State University of New York Press. Helgeson, S. (1991). The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership. Garden City, NY: DoubledayHenke, R. R., Choy, S. P., Geis, S., & Broughman S. P. (1996). Schools and staffing in the United States: A statistical profile, 1993-94 (NCES No. 96-124). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for E ducation Statistics. Hill, M. S., & Ragland, J. C. (1995) Women as educational leaders: Opening windows, pushing ceilings Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Irby, B. J., & Brown, G. (1995, April). Constructin g a feminist-inclusive theory of leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting o f the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Kochan, F. K. (1999). A collage of voice and form: A summary of the findings. In F. K. Kochan, Barbara L. Jackson, & Daniel Duke (Eds) A thousand voices from the firing line: A study of educational leaders, their jobs, t heir preparation, and the problems they face (pp.104110). Columbia, MO: UCEA Press Kochan, F. K., Jackson, B., & Duke, D. (In press). Voices from the firing line: How principals and superintendents view their jobs. Pha se I: Assembling the Pieces Columbia, MI: UCEA Press.Kochan, F., & Spencer, W. (1999). The principalship : The practitioners' perspectives. Mid-South Educational Research Journal, 6 10. Leithwood, K., & Menzeos, T. (1998). Forms and effe cts of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy, 12 (3), 325-346. Loden, M. (1985). Feminine leadership or how to succeed in business w ithout being one
15 of 18of the boys New York: Times Books. Mertz, N., & McNeely, S. R. (1998) Women on the job : A study of female high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34 (2), 196-222. Muse, I., & Thomas, G. J. (1991). The rural princip al: Select the best. Journal of Rural and Small Schools, 4 (3), 32-37. Myers, D. B., McKeegan, H. F., & Bieger, G. R. (198 6, April). Male and female elementary principals: Development press, control p ress, and job satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu cational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.National Association of Secondary School Principals (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principals hip: An exploratory study. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.Nogay, K., & Beebe, R. J. (1997). Gender and percep tions: Females as secondary principals. Journal of School Leadership, 7, 246-65. Pence, J. L.(1995). Learning leadership through men torships. In D.M. Dunlap & Schmuck, P.A. (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 125-144). Albany: State University Press.Riehl, C., & Byrd, M. A. (1997). Gender differences among new recruits to school administration: Cautionary footnotes to an optimist ic tale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 45-64. Robinson, E., & Kochan, F. (1999). Theory and pract ice: Can they meet? Unpublished manuscript.Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 119-125. Rosener, J. B., McAlester, D. J., & Stephens, G. K (1990). Leadership study: The women's forum. Unpublished manuscript, University o f California at Irvine. Schmuck, P. A., & Schubert, J. (1994). Women princi pals' views toward sex equity. In D. Dunlap & P. L. Schmuck (Eds.) Women leading in education (pp. 234237). Albany: State University of New York Press.Shakeshaft, C. (1986). A female organizational cult ure. Educational Horizons, 65, 117-122.Shakeshaft, C. (1989). The gender gap in research i n educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25 (4), 324-337. Shakeshaft, C. (1990). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE PublicationShakeshaft, C. (1998). Wild patience and bad fit: A ssessing the impact of affirmative action on women in school administration. Educational Researcher, 27 (9), 10-12.
16 of 18 Spencer, W., & Kochan, F. (1998, November). Gender related differences in principal career patterns in Alabama. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the MidSouth Educational Research Association New Orleans, LA.NoteAdapted from a paper presented at the Annual Confer ence of the Midsouth Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, November, 19 98.About the AuthorsWilliam A. SpencerEFLT Department4036 Haley CenterAuburn University, AL 36849Phone: (334) 844-3073Fax: (334) 844-3072 Email: email@example.com William A. Spencer is professor of education and ha s conducted research both in the U.S. and abroad on factors influencing the academic performance of middle school youth, as well as the causes and consequences of dr opping out of high school. He has also studied the relationship between principal lea dership and school climate as well as the impact of teacher involvement on teacher percep tions of principal leadership. Frances K. KochanTruman Pierce Institute2195 Haley CenterAuburn University, AL 36849Phone: (334) 844-4488Fax: (334) 844-0558 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Frances K. Kochan is Director of the Truman Pierce Institute and Associate Professor in Educational Leadership. Her research interests focu s on creating collaborative communities, the relationship of beliefs and practi ce, and the role of educational leaders. She is co-editor of a book on leadership and has pu blished in numerous journals including Theory into Practice Journal of Teacher Education and Planning and Changing.Copyright 2000 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu
17 of 18General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, email@example.com or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-0211. (602-965-9644). The Commentary Editor is Casey D. C obb: firstname.lastname@example.org .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov email@example.com Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton firstname.lastname@example.org Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers Ann Leavenworth Centerfor Accelerated Learning Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven email@example.com Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisUC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young UniversityEPAA Spanish Language Editorial Board
18 of 18 Associate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico firstname.lastname@example.org Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.email@example.com Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx firstname.lastname@example.org Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica email@example.com Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 8issue 9series Year mods:caption 20002000Month January1Day 2424mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2000-01-24