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 c20029999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00291
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 10, no. 43 (October 16, 2002).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c October 16, 2002
Attracting principals to the superintendency : conditions that make a difference to principals / Aimee Howley, Edwina Pendarvis, [and] Thomas Gibbs.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
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 10issue 43series Year mods:caption 20022002Month October10Day 1616mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2002-10-16
1 of 18 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 10 Number 43October 16, 2002ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2002, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES .Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. EPAA is a project of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory. 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 .Attracting Principals to the Superintendency: Conditions that Make a Difference to Principals Aimee Howley Ohio University Edwina Pendarvis Marshall University Thomas Gibbs Morgan Junior High School McConnnelsville, OhioCitation: Howley, A., Pendarvis, E. & Gibbs, T. (20 02, October 16). Attracting principals to the superintendency: Conditions that make a difference to principals, Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (43). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epa a/v10n43.html.AbstractResponding to a perceived shortage of school superi ntendents in Ohio as well as elsewhere in the nation, this study examine d the conditions of the job that make it attractive or unattractive as a ca reer move for principals.
2 of 18The researchers surveyed a random sample of Ohio pr incipals, receiving usable responses from 508 of these administrators. Analysis of the data revealed that principals perceived the ability to m ake a difference and the extrinsic motivators (e.g., salary and benefits) as sociated with the superintendency as conditions salient to the decisi on to pursue such a job. Furthermore, they viewed the difficulties asso ciated with the superintendency as extremely important. Among these difficulties, the most troubling were: (1) increased burden of respon sibility for local, state, and federal mandates; (2) need to be account able for outcomes that are beyond an educatorÂ’s control; (3) low levels of board support, and (4) excessive pressure to perform. The researchers also explored the personal and contextual characteristics that predis posed principals to see certain conditions of the superintendency as partic ularly attractive or particularly troublesome. Only two such characteris tics, however, proved to be predictive: (1) principals with fewer years o f teaching experience were more likely than their more experienced counte rparts to rate the difficulty of the job as important to the decision to pursue a position as superintendent, and (2) principals who held cosmopo litan commitments were more likely than those who did not hold such c ommitments to view the salary and benefits associated with the superin tendency as important. Findings from the study provided some guidance to t hose policy makers who are looking for ways to make the superintendenc y more attractive as a career move for principals. In particular, the st udy suggested that policy makers should work to design incentives that addres s school leadersÂ’ interest in making a difference at the district lev el. At the same time, they should focus on efforts to reduce the burdens that external mandates contribute to the already burdensome job of school superintendent.IntroductionIf popular press coverage is any indication, there seems to be mounting concern about an administrator shortage. Anecdotal reports suggest t hat fewer applicants are now applying for administrative positions than have done so in t he past (e.g., Cooper, Fusarelli, & Carella, 2000; Pugmire, 1999; Steinberg, 2000). Pro fessional organizations have focused in particular on the low numbers of applicants for principalships (NAESP/NASSP, 1998). So far, however, there has been little syste matic research to clarify the situation by showing how conditions associated with school ad ministration, especially the superintendency, relate to educatorsÂ’ decisions abo ut whether or not to pursue such positions.Regardless of the extent or severity of the shortag e, boards of education have an on-going interest in knowing that there will be an ample pool of applicants to fill vacancies (see e.g., McAdams, 1998). And if critica l shortages do indeed materialize, the concerns of boards will intensify. State policymake rs also have an interest because they have some control over pipeline issues, such as lic ensure requirements (see e.g., Ashbaugh & Kasten, 1992; Fenwick & Pierce, 2001). M oreover, policymakers bear some responsibility for the conditions that superin tendents face on the job. For example, in many states, accountability legislation introduc es pressure for performance that superintendents may find extremely difficult to add ress (see e.g., Graves, 1995).
3 of 18Despite the efforts of some districts to look for t alented leaders from outside of the ranks of the educator workforce (e.g., Mathews, 1999), th e traditional career path for educational administrators involves the move from t eaching to the principalship to the superintendency (Glass, 1992). For this reason, the question Â“what conditions tend to attract and what conditions tend to deter principal s from considering the superintendency?Â” seems germane to those concerned with the recruitment of capable district leaders. Moreover, among principals, diffe rent subgroups might find the various conditions associated with the superintendency to b e more or less salient to their decision to pursue or not to pursue a position as s uperintendent. This study addresses four research questions direct ly related to these concerns: What conditions associated with the superintendency do principals see as attractive? What conditions associated with the superintendency do principals see as objectionable? What characteristics of principals predispose them to see certain features of the superintendency as attractive and certain other fea tures as objectionable? What characteristics of the context in which princi pals work predispose them to see certain features of the superintendency as attr active and certain other features as objectionable? Review of Related LiteratureThis study fits in with and expands research effort s that have explored the working conditions that characterize school leadership posi tions. In general, this line of inquiry has demonstrated that many educators are reluctant to pursue leadership positions because of the demands of the job, the increased pr essure to show Â“results,Â” and the inadequate remuneration (e.g., Cooley & Shen, 2000; Gewertz, 2000; Houston, 1998). Recent findings such as these seem to confirm rathe r than to contradict findings from earlier studies of the superintendency. Raymond Cal lahan (1962), for example, provided considerable evidence suggesting that, even in the early 1900's, superintendents (especially those in large cities) were pressured t o demonstrate accountability both in terms of financial management and in terms of educa tional outcomes. Although there have been challenges to CallahanÂ’s claim that super intendents were extremely vulnerable as a result of these pressures for Â“scie ntific managementÂ” of schools (see e.g., Button, 1991; Eaton, 1990; Thomas & Moran, 1992), m ost educational historians acknowledge that such pressures did exist (see e.g. Cuban, 1976). Contemporary case studies (e.g., Johnson, 1996) als o demonstrate the complexity of the role that superintendents undertake when they try t o balance educational, managerial, and political leadership in ways that promote schoo l improvement. According to some researchers (e.g., Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000), the complexities confronting superintendents have increased in recent decades, c ompounding the pressures traditionally associated with the role. Several con ditions account for the added pressure. First, state-level requirements -for instance, fo r school and district accountability --
4 of 18have intensified. Because, in many communities, loc al citizens do not concur with the state education agencyÂ’s interpretation of educatio nal quality, such mandates often sandwich superintendents between the interests of t heir constituencies and the interests of the state (see e.g., Chalker, 1999). Another sou rce of pressure results from the increasing power of teachersÂ’ unions (Haley & McDon ald, 1988). Interactions with these groups can become particularly troublesome when uni on interests do not fit in well with the school reform efforts desired by district leade rs (see e.g., Ballou, 1999; Lieberman, 1984; but cf. Koppich, 1991). Finally, changing dem ographics make the job of school administrators more complex, as various community g roups compete to define the mission of schools in ways that match their values and expectations (see e.g., Houston, 1998; Portin, 1997).SuperintendentsÂ’ jobs are also made more difficult when these school leaders are unable to garner adequate resources to implement the sorts of district improvements expected of them (Houston, 1998). According to Houston (2001), the expectations for reform and the resources allocated to districts are out of ali gnment. In fact, Glass and associates (2000) found that superintendents identify lack of financial resources as the one factor that most seriously limits their effectiveness. Mor eover, in districts with limited resources, superintendentsÂ’ low salaries may provid e these administrators with another source of job-related stress (Yvarra & Gomez, 1995) In spite of the difficulties of district leadership research clearly shows that most superintendents are satisfied with their jobs. In a survey of superintendents from several different states, Cooper and associates (2000) foun d that most of these school administrators reported that their jobs were challe nging, rewarding, and satisfying. In addition, these superintendents overwhelmingly rega rded themselves as effective, with 96% of those surveyed agreeing that their work made a significant difference in childrenÂ’s lives. Similar findings were reported by Ramirez and Guzman in their study of rural superintendents in Colorado. Hill and Ragl and (1995), moreover, found that long work hours did not seem to detract from superi ntendentsÂ’ job satisfaction. It appears that the ability to make a difference and t o exercise leadership may offer sufficient satisfaction to superintendents to enabl e these school leaders to persist in their work despite its obvious challenges (Wesson & Grady 1993; 1994).MethodsWe surveyed a random sample of 826 of the 3644 prin cipals in the state of Ohio (i.e., a sample draw with a 95% confidence level and 3 confi dence interval) using an instrument that included 19 variables related to conditions of the superintendency. Each respondent was asked to rate on a 4-point Likert scale the ext ent to which a specific condition would affect his or her decision to pursue a position as superintendent. The variables were organized into three scales reflecting the types of concerns that, based on previous research, seemed to be salient. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that these three scales Â– the Â“making a difference scale,Â” the Â“hard job scale,Â” and the Â“extrinsic motivatorÂ” scale Â– were, in fact, discrete and expl anatory. The instrument also included questions eliciting de mographic information about respondents (i.e., age, gender, years as a teacher, years as an administrator, highest degree obtained, experience as a coach). In additio n a scale including six items measured the localist and cosmopolitan commitments of the pr incipals. Localists were those who
5 of 18believed it was most important to remain in their c urrent districts, to live close to where they were born and raised, and to stay in the same communities for most of their lives. Cosmopolitans were those who believed it was most i mportant to make a name for themselves in the field of education, travel to bro aden their horizons, and leave home in order to seek career opportunities. This construct was deemed important because of the pioneering but somewhat neglected work of Carlson ( 1972), suggesting that place-bound (i.e., localist) and career-bound (i.e., cosmopolit an) superintendents harbor different reasons for pursuing leadership positions and follo w different career trajectories. In addition to data collected via the instrument, w e imputed contextual data from two other sources: the Ohio Department of EducationÂ’s Educational Management Information System (EMIS) and the National Center for Education Stati sticsÂ’ Common Core of Data. By using these publicly accessible resources, we w ere able to add to our data set accurate information about the community c ontexts in which our responding principals worked. The variables most salient to ou r analyses included locale (rural, non-rural), Appalachian/non-Appalachian, school SES (measured as percent eligible for free or reduced lunch), school size, and total per pupil expenditure. Descriptive statistics were computed for each varia ble; then data were analyzed to determine (1) the extent to which the three sets of conditions Â– making a difference, hard job, and extrinsic motivation Â– were salient to pri ncipals in their decision-making regarding pursuit of a superintendency, (2) the cha racteristics of principals that predicted the extent of their concern about each of the three sets of conditions, and (3) the features of school context that predicted the extent of prin cipalsÂ’ concerns about each of the three sets of conditions.FindingsWe received responses from 508 principals Â– a respo nse rate of approximately 62%. Of the respondents, 36% were female and 64% male. Thei r average age was 47.3 years. The average years of experience as a teacher was 12.8, and the average years of experience as a principal was 10.2. In addition, 58.6 % of respon dents had worked as coaches. Furthermore, among these principals, 51.8% tended t o be more cosmopolitan than localist, while 48.2% tended to be more localist th an cosmopolitan. With regard to highest degree earned, .6% held the BachelorÂ’s, 88. 2% held the MasterÂ’s, 3.2% held the specialist degree, and 8% held the doctorate.Among the principals, moreover, 24.1% worked in rur al schools and 12.8 % worked in schools within Appalachian counties (as identified by the Appalachian Regional Commission). SchoolsÂ’ sizes, SES, and levels of fun ding, of course, varied considerably across the sample.Preliminary descriptive analyses showed the individ ual variables that were most salient to principalsÂ’ decision to pursue the job of superi ntendent. These variables were classified intuitively as Â“appealing conditionsÂ” an d Â“unappealing conditions;Â” and the strength of each was revealed in its mean rating by the principals. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for each Â“appealingÂ” and eac h Â“unappealingÂ” condition. As these data indicate, principals found the following four conditions most appealing: the chance to have a greater impact, the anticipated satisfact ion associated with Â“making a difference,Â” the opportunity to implement creative personal ideas, and the anticipated
6 of 18 satisfaction associated with the ability to provide support to school and district staff. They found the following four conditions least appe aling: increased burden of responsibility for local, state, and federal mandat es; the need to be accountable for outcomes that are beyond an educatorÂ’s control; low levels of board support; and excessive pressure to perform.Table 1 Principals Ratings on a 4-point Likert Scale of App ealing and Unappealing Conditions of the SuperintendencyAppealing Conditions MSDN chance to have a greater impact3.17.80466anticipated satisfaction associated with Â“making a differenceÂ”3.11.84467 opportunity to implement creative personal ideas3.0 6.77463 anticipated satisfaction associated with the abilit y to provide support to school and district staff 3.05.75462 high levels of board support 2.93.97454 improved annual salary 2.78.85466 improved benefit package 2.77.88468 greater control over work schedule2.72.83464increased opportunities for professional growth2.70 .86467 higher status 2.42.84465 Unappealing Conditionsincreased burden of responsibility for local, state and federal mandates 3.08.93467 need to be accountable for outcomes that are beyond an educatorÂ’s control 2.94.93465 low levels of board support 2.901.03457 excessive pressure to perform 2.90.96465 stress associated with anticipated conflict with te achersÂ’ unions2.75.97463 increased work load 2.64.95464 lack of clarity about job expectations2.45.87466need for greater amounts of technical knowledge2.32 .8466 superintendency is overly dominated by males1.78.90 464 As indicated in the discussion of research methods above, we made the assumption,
7 of 18 based on our reading of the related literature, tha t several of the variables identifying appealing and unappealing conditions would combine to form discrete and meaningful scales. We tested our assumptions about the items t hat would be associated by performing a confirmatory factor analysis in which we used varimax rotation to accentuate strong associations. This analysis showe d that the significant factors comprised of associated items explained 50.53% of t he variance on the instrument and corresponded to three themes that were clearly evid ent in previous literature. These themes related to (1) the satisfaction associated w ith Â“making a difference,Â” (2) the distress associated with the difficulty of the job (theÂ”hard jobÂ” factor), and (3) the satisfaction associated with extrinsic rewards such as salary and benefits (the Â“extrinsic motivatorsÂ” factor). Appendix A presents the items that load on each of the significant factors and their factor loadings. We identified fa ctors as reliable using Stevens (1996) criteria. In order to examine the extent to which t he three sets of concerns represented by the three reliable factors were salient to the prin cipals, we computed and compared scale means using paired-sample t-tests. We found that pr incipals rated Â“making a differenceÂ” as most salient (mean = 3.02), Â“hard jobÂ” as second most salient (mean = 2.82), and Â“extrinsic motivatorsÂ” as least salient (mean = 2.6 6). Differences between pairs of means were all highly significant ( p < .0001). We then constructed multiple regression equations t o identify significant predictors of level of concern for each of the three sets of cond itions. In each equation we included the scale measuring a set of conditions (i.e., Â“mak ing a difference,Â” Â“hard job,Â” or Â“extrinsic motivatorsÂ”) as the dependent variable a nd the characteristics of principals or of their schools as independent variables. In the e quations that considered the influence of the characteristics of principals we excluded Â“h ighest degree obtainedÂ” from among the independent variables because, with over 88% of respondents holding the MasterÂ’s as the highest degree, there was very little varian ce. We also excluded the independent variable Â“ageÂ” because of its moderate bivariate co rrelation with Â“years of experience as a principalÂ” ( r = .52). In the equations that considered the princ ipalsÂ’ school contexts, we omitted the dummy variable, Â“Appalachian/non-App alachianÂ” because of its bivariate correlation ( r = .32) with the variable, rural/non-rural. With regard to the effect of principalsÂ’ characteri stics on the extent to which they saw Â“making a differenceÂ” as salient, the overall equat ion was non-significant and explained a minute fraction of the variance. (See Table 2.) I t appears that the characteristics of principals we measured had little bearing on the ex tent to which they saw the possibility of making a difference as important to their decisi on to pursue or not to pursue the position of superintendent.Table 2 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Principa l Characteristic Variables Predicting Concern for Â“Making a Differen ceÂ” (N = 410)Variable BSE(B)Gender.108.081.081Years as teacher.003.005.036
8 of 18 Years as principal-.003.005-.033Experience as a coach.011.075.009Localism-.023.032-.036Cosmopolitanism.088.031.141Adjusted R2 = .01, p = .119 Results were similar for the Â“hard jobÂ” scale, wher e the overall equation was significant ( p = .048) but explained very little of the variance on the scale (adjusted R square = .017). (See Table 3.) Only one variable, years as a teacher, had a significant effect. Principals with less teaching experience were more likely than their more seasoned counterparts to rate the difficulty of the job as s alient to the decision to pursue a position as superintendent.Table 3 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Principa l Characteristic Variables Predicting Concern for Â“Hard JobÂ” (N = 39 6)Variable BSE(B)Gender-.138.085-.100Years as teacher-.011 006-.109* Years as principal-.001.005-.014Experience as a coach-.039.079-.029Localism .066.034.097Cosmopolitanism.021.033.033Adjusted R2 = .017, p = .048, *p < .05 With regard to the Â“extrinsic motivatorÂ” scale, the overall equation was significant but also explained relatively little (3.7%) of the vari ance on the scale. (See Table 4.) One predictor, cosmopolitanism, exerted a significant i nfluence. A principal was more likely to view the salary and benefits associated with the superintendency as important if he or she held cosmopolitan commitments.Table 4 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Principa l Characteristic Variables Predicting Concern for Â“Extrinsic Motivat orÂ” (N = 415)Variable BSE(B)
9 of 18 Gender.137.080.101Years as teacher-.001.005-.012Years as principal-.002.005-.016Experience as a coach.076.075.058Localism-.013.032-.020Cosmopolitanism.129.032.200*Adjusted R2 = .037 p = .002, p < .05 The influence of school context features on the str ength of principalsÂ’ concern for the three major conditions of the superintendency (i.e. Â“making a difference,Â” Â“hard job,Â” and Â“extrinsic motivatorsÂ”) was even less pronounce d than the influence of principal characteristics. None of the equations predicting t he strength of principalsÂ’ concern for these conditions was significant. Summary statistic s for these regression models are provided in Tables 5, 6, and 7.Table 5 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of School C ontext Variables Predicting Concern for Â“Making a DifferenceÂ” (N = 3 82)Variable BSE(B)Locale.065.081.044Total per pupil expenditure.000.000.072School SES-.000.001-.019School size-.000.000-.022Adjusted R2 = -.04, p = .675Table 6 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of School C ontext Variables Predicting Concern for Â“Hard JobÂ” (N = 364)Variable BSE(B)Locale-.072.086-.046Total per pupil expenditure.000.000.060School SES.000.001-.117School size.000.000-.085
10 of 18 Adjusted R2 = .007, p = .164Table 7 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of School C ontext Variables Predicting Concern for Â“Extrinsic MotivatorÂ” (N = 3 84)Variable BSE(B)Locale.127.080.086Total per pupil expenditure.000.000.081School SES.000.001-.031School size.000.000-.001Adjusted R2 = .001, p = .361DiscussionOverall, the analyses showed that principals rated the ability to make a difference as a superintendent as the most compelling reason guidin g their thinking about whether or not to pursue such a position. Their concern about making a difference was reflected in their high ratings on questionnaire items related t o the superintendentsÂ’ role in providing support to school and district staff, the ability o f superintendents to implement creative personal ideas, and the general impact that distric t leaders can have. Based on this study, it seems, principalsÂ’ perspectives correspond close ly to those of practicing superintendents with respect to the features of dis trict leadership that are perceived to be most compelling (e.g., Cooper et al., 2000; Houston 2001; Wesson & Grady, 1994). This finding has important ramifications for policy and practice. Regarding professional preparation, those who design university and worksh op programs for aspiring superintendents might find it useful to focus on th e competencies that enable school leaders to promote district-level improvement. Givi ng administrators tools that can help them make a difference builds on these educatorsÂ’ i ntrinsic motives for pursuing leadership roles (cf., Lortie, 1975). Furthermore, local boards would be well served by creating conditions that support superintendentsÂ’ e fforts to foster meaningful district-level change. Increasing a superintendentÂ’ s term of contract, for example, might give him or her sufficient chance to have a noticea ble impact on the districtÂ’s performance (cf. Yee & Cuban, 1996).Our analyses also revealed that principals were con cerned about the challenges of the superintendency. Among the variables included on th e Â“hard jobÂ” scale, they rated the following as most salient: Â“superintendentÂ’s increa sed burden of responsibility for local, state, and federal mandatesÂ” and Â“the need to be ac countable for outcomes that are beyond an educatorÂ’s control.Â” These responses sugg est that the current focus on accountability may be adding to the stresses alread y associated with the superintendency (see e.g., Cooley & Shen, 2000). Policies that prom ote accountability mechanisms
11 of 18responsive to local rather than state concerns may temper such added stress (e.g., Mathews, 1996).Principals with fewer years as teachers were more c oncerned than others about the difficulty of the superintendency, and this finding suggests particular cautions regarding districtsÂ’ recruitment of principals Specifically, districts may want to avoid hiring as principals applicants who have limited experience a s teachers. This suggestion, of course, also corresponds to recommendations concern ing the background necessary for instructional leadership (Miller, 1987), and it fits in with certain resear ch findings about predictors of effective school administration (Ball ou & Podgursky, 1995). Our study, however, provides tentative support for the practic e of hiring experienced teachers as principals on the grounds that these individuals wi ll be more likely than their less experienced counterparts to pursue a full career in administration, eventually assuming the chief executive role. In times of administrator shortages, of course, districts with few other options will be likely to offer principalship s to relatively inexperienced educators. This practice may enable such districts to fill sch ool vacancies but may limit their long-term efficacy in cultivating leadership at the district level. Our study also showed that extrinsic motivators suc h as salary, benefits, control over work schedule, and status were also important consi derations when principals thought about the possibility of applying for positions as superintendents. In fact, principals who were committed to cosmopolitan values seemed especi ally attuned to these conditions. This finding is not surprising considering that the se individuals place priority on accomplishment of career goals. For these career-bo und administrators, work in small, lower-paying districts may often serve as steppingstones to larger, more prestigious roles (see e.g., Carlson, 1972). Moreover, this fin ding has important practical consequences since, at least in Ohio, more than hal f of all principals harbor stronger cosmopolitan than localist commitments.These results suggest that local boards and state p olicy makers should work to find ways to create incentive packages that are attractive to aspiring superintendents. According to several commentators, such compensation packages ne ed to address salary, portable retirement plans, annuities, insurance, tuition rei mbursement, expense account allowances, and support for moving expenses (see e. g., Educational Research Services, 1990; Heller, 1991; Shannon, 1987).One other finding from this study, namely the unifo rmity of principalsÂ’ concerns across demographic differences, seems pertinent. As our re gression equations revealed, just a few personal characteristics and no school context characteristics exerted a significant influence on the strength of principalsÂ’ concern fo r the three sets of conditions associated with the work of superintendents. This f inding suggests that principalsÂ’ views of the conditions of administrative work may be sha ped by forces other than those attached to conventional social categories. Princip alsÂ’ views, it seems, are formed in an ideological space that transcends social location.This conclusion leads to speculation about the ways professional socialization may function to define not only the character of school administratorsÂ’ work but also their interpretations of its scope and meaning. And such speculations provide a hopeful path back to the profession itself as a place to look fo r continued, perhaps revitalized, support for the superintendency. This analysis does not go so far as to espouse a laissez-faire response to the problem of superintendent shortages (i.e., Â“if you advertise it, they will
12 of 18comeÂ”), but it does suggest that the profession its elf, without much mediation from local and state policy makers, may be able to reinvest th e role of superintendent with sufficient authority and efficacy to once again mak e its attainment the aspiration of those educators with the greatest talent for leadership.ReferencesAshbaugh, C.R., & Kasten, K.L. (1992 ). The licensure of school administrators: Policy and practice. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges o f Teacher Education. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 347 16 3) Ballou, D. (1999). The New York City teachersÂ’ union contract: Shackli ng principalsÂ’ leadership (Civic Report Number 6). New York: The Manhattan I nstitute, Center for Civic Innovation.Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1995). What makes a go od principal? How teachers assess the performance of principals. Economics of Education Review, 14 (3), 243-252. Brunner, C.C. (1999). Taking risks: A requirement o f the new superintendency. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 290-310. Button, W.H. (1991). Vulnerability: A concept recon sidered. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27 (3), 378-391. Callahan, R.E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of th e social forces that have shaped the administration of public schoo ls. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Carlson, R.O. (1972). School superintendents: Careers and performance Columbus, OH: Merrill.Chalker, D.M. (Ed.). (1999). Leadership for rural schools: Lessons for all educa tors Lancaster, PA: Technomic.Cooley, V.E., & Shen, J. (2000). Factors influencin g applying for urban principalship. Education and Urban Society, 32 (4), 443-454. Cooper, B.S., Fusarelli, L.D., & Carella, V.A. (200 0). Career crisis in the superintendency? The results of a national survey. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. (ERIC Documen t Reproduction Service No. ED 143 167)Cuban, L. (1976). Urban school chiefs under fire. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Eaton, W.E. (1990). Shaping the superintendency: An examination of Call ahan and the cult of efficiency. New York: Teachers College Press. Educational Research Services. (1990). Fringe benefits for superintendents in public schools, 1989-90. Part 1 of national survey of fringe benefits in pub lic schools. Arlington, VA: Author.
13 of 18Fenwick, L.T., & Pierce, M.C. (2001). The principal shortage: Crisis or opportunity. Principal Magazine Retrieved October 8, 2001 from http://www.naesp.org/comm/p0301a.htm.Gewertz, C. (2000, July 12). ReaderÂ’s Digest grants will focus on school leadership. Education Week, 19(42), 15.Glass, T.E. (1992). The 1992 study of the American school superintenden cy: America's education leaders in a time of reform Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.Glass, T.E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C.C. (2000). The study of the American school superintendency, 2000: A millenium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440 475) Graves, B. (1995). Putting pay on the line. School Administrator, 52 (2), 8-14, 16. Haley, P.W., & McDonald, R.D. (Eds.). (1988). An administrative shortage real or perceived? A view from the inside. Albany, NY: University of Albany, State University of New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 321 396) Heller, R.W. (1991). Negotiating for retirement. American School Board Journal, 178 (8), 18-22. Hill, M.S., & Ragland, J.C. (1995). Women as educational leaders: Opening windows, pushing ceilings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Houston, P.D. (1998, June 3). The ABCs of administr ative shortages. Education Week 17 (38). Retrieved October 8, 2001 from http://www.edw eek.org/ew/1998/38houst.h17. Houston, P.D. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: ItÂ’s not just a job, itÂ’s a calling. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (6), 429-433. Johnson, S.M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superin tendency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Koppich, J.E. (1991, April). The changing role of teacher union leaders Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu cational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 338 595) Lieberman, M. (1984). Educational reform and teache r bargaining. Government Union Review, 5 (1), 54-75. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Mathews, D. (1996). Is there a public for public schools? Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation.Mathews, J. (1999). On-the-job learning of nontradi tional superintendents. School Administrator, 56 (2), 28-30, 32-33.
14 of 18McAdams, R.P. (1998). WhoÂ’ll run the schools? American School Board Journal, 185 (8), 37-39. Miller, E. (1987). A new balance: Reshaping the principalship. A speci al report to the profession. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 290 200)National Association of Elementary School Principal s and National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1998). Isthere a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.Portin, B.S. (1997, November). Complexity and capacity: A survey of principal role change in Washington state. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Unive rsity Council for Educational Administration, Orlando, FL (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 414 624 )Pugmire, T. (1999, April 10). The principal shortage St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Public Radio. Retrieved October 8, 2001 fromhttp://news.mpr.org/features/199908/30_pugmiret_saf ety/principal.shtml. Ramirez, A., & Guzman, N. (1999, October). The rural school district superintendency: A Colorado perspective Paper presented at the annual conference of the N ational Rural Education Association, Colorado Springs, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 437 235)Shannon, T.A. (1987). Follow this map into the new world of superintendent compensation. American School Board Journal, 174 (3), 35-37, 44. Steinberg, J. (2000, September 3). NationÂ’s schools struggling to find enough principals. New York Times, p. A1.Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social scie nces (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Thomas, W.B., & Moran, K. J.(1992). Reconsidering t he power of the superintendent in the progressive period. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (1), 22-50. Wesson, L.H., & Grady, M.L. (1993, March). A comparative analysis of women superintendents in rural and urban settings. Paper presented at the National Conference on Creating the Quality School, Oklahoma City, OK. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 359 008)Wesson, L.H., & Grady. M.L. (1994, April). The leadership challenge: A national study of women superintendents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri can Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 527)Yee, G., & Cuban, L. (1996). When is tenure long en ough? A historical analysis of superintendent turnover and tenure in urban school districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32 615-641.
15 of 18 Yvarra, P., & Gomez, R. (1995). School superintendency and the effects on family life (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 392 162)AcknowledgmentThis research was made possible with funds provided by Ohio UniversityÂ’s College of Education, the Coalition of Rural and Appalachian S chools, and the Ohio Appalachian Initiative. The authors also wish to acknowledge th e following organizations for their support of the project: Ohio School Boards Associat ion, Buckeye Association of School Administrations, Ohio Association of Elementary Sch ool Administrators, Ohio Association of Secondary School Administrators, and the Ohio Department of Education.About the AuthorsAimee Howley is chair of the Educational Studies Department at Ohio University, where she also coordinates and teaches in the Educa tional Administration program. Her recent research focuses on the effects of education al policies and practices on schools (especially rural schools) and communities. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Edwina Pendarvis is a professor in the School of Education at Marsh all University in Huntington, West Virginia. Her chief research inter ests are gifted education and education in rural communities.Thomas Gibbs is an assistant principal at Morgan Junior High Sc hool in McConnnelsville, Ohio and is currently working towa rds a doctoral degree in Educational Administration at Ohio University. He h as recently served as the coordinator of the Southeastern Ohio Regional Princ ipals Academy and as a research team member for the Coalition of Rural and Appalach ian Schools.Appendix A Variable Loadings > .40 on the Three Significant Fa ctors (Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotatio n; N = 417)Factor and VariablesFactor Loadings% Variance Expla ined Making a Difference20.7Chance to have greater impact.83Making a difference.77Opportunity to implement ideas .76Provide support to staff.74Opportunities for growth.60Hard Job 17.28
16 of 18 Responsibility for mandates.80Accountability for outcomes.76Increased work load.70Conflict with unions.70Low board support.69Excessive pressure.65Unclear job expectations.56High board support.55Extrinsic Motivators12.55Improved salary.83Improved benefits.79Control over work schedule.65Higher status.55Copyright 2002 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General 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 5287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: 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
17 of 18 Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute ofTechnology Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Education Commission of the States 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 California State UniversityÂ—Stanislaus Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven email@example.com Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisÂ—UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young University EPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate 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 Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.br
18 of 18 firstname.lastname@example.org Javier 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)American Institutes for ResesarchÂ–Brazil(AIRBrasil) 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