This study examined the effects of four variables on job ratings provided by applicants for simulated superintendent vacancies. The participants were superintendents (n = 72) and superintendent-certified personnel (n = 72) reacting to jobs described in simulated position announcements. The participants rated jobs in districts without school councils higher than jobs in districts with school councils. Superintendents rated jobs in districts without school councils higher than did superintendent-certified personnel. Superintendents rated jobs in high-wealth districts with signing bonuses higher than jobs in a high-wealth district with no signing bonus. Implications for recruitment practice and future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlspaughJ. W. (1992). Socioeconomic measures and achievement: Urban vs. rural. Rural Educator, 13(3), 2–7.
2.
AndrejczakM. (1998, June). California loan officers getting signing bonuses, high pay. American Banker, 763(113), 9.
3.
BarberA. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
BjörkL. G. (2001). Preparing the next generation of superintendents: Integrating formal and experiential knowledge. In BrunnerC. C., & BjörkL. G. (Eds.), The new superintendency: Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (pp. 19–54). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
5.
BjörkL. G., & KeedyJ. L. (2003). Who will lead? Examining the superintendent shortage. Journal of School Leadership, 13, 256–263.
6.
CampbellD. T., & StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.Chicago: McNally.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
DashJ. (2002, February). Signing bonuses filter out to rank and file. Computer-world, 34(8), 36.
9.
DillmanD. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
10.
ElmoreR. F. (1993). School decentralization: Who gains? Who loses? In HannawayJ., & CarnoyM. (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement: Can we fulfill the promise? (pp. 3–54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
GlassT. E. (1992). The study of the American school superintendency: America's education leaders in a time of reform.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
12.
GlassT. E. (2001a). State education leaders view the superintendency.Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
13.
GlassT. E. (2001b). The superintendent crisis: A review by search consultants.Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
14.
GlassT. E. (2002). Board presidents view superintendent turnover.Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
15.
GlassT. E., & BjörkL. G. (2003). The superintendent shortage: Findings from research on school board presidents. Journal of School Leadership, 13, 264–287.
16.
GlassT. E., BjorkL., & BrunnerC. C. (2000). The study of the American superintendency 2000: A look at the superintendent in the new millennium.Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
17.
GlazerJ. S. (1991). Feminism and professionalism in teaching and educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 321–342.
18.
GoodmanR. H., & ZimmermanW. G. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21st century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high student achievement.Arlington VA: Educational Research Service.
19.
HayesW. (2001). So you want to be a superintendent?Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
20.
HodgkinsonH., & MontenegroX. (1999). The U.S. school superintendent: The invisible CEO.Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
21.
KenningC. (2003, July 27). Kentucky school chiefs, councils at odds over how to pick principals. Courier Journal, (Louisville, KY) A1, A13.
22.
Kentucky Department of Education. (2000). 2000 Kentucky school laws annotated.Charlottesburg, VA: Matthew Bender and Company.
KeppelG. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25.
KirkR. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
26.
KowalskiT. J. (1999). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27.
KowalskiT. J. (2001). The future of local school governance: Implications for board members and superintendents. In BrunnerC. C., & BjörkL. G. (Eds.), The new superintendency: Advances in research and theories in school management and educational policy (pp. 183–204). Oxford, Eng.: JAI Press.
28.
KowalskiT. J. (2003). Superintendent shortage: The wrong problem and wrong solutions. Journal of School Leadership, 13, 288–303.
29.
LaddH. F., & WalshR. P. (2002). Implementing value-added measures of school effectiveness: Getting the incentives right. Economics of Education Review, 21, 1–17.
30.
LangeJ. T. (1993). Site-based, shared decision making: A resource for restructuring. NASSP Bulletin, 77(546), 98–107.
31.
LindleJ. C. (2000). School-based decision making. In PetroskoJ. M., & LindleJ. C. (Eds.), 2000 review of research on the Kentucky education reform act (KERA) (pp. 279–305). Lexington: Kentucky Institute for Education Research.
32.
MurphyJ. (1991). School restructuring: Capturing and assessing the phenomena.New York: Teachers College Press.
33.
MurphyJ. (1994). Restructuring schools in Kentucky: Insights from superintendents. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374518.
34.
NatkinG. L., CooperB. S., AlboranoJ. A., PadillaA., & GhoshS. K. (2003). Predicting and modeling superintendent turnover. Journal of School Leadership, 13, 328–346.
35.
O'ConnellR. (2000). A longitudinal study of the applicant pool for the New York State superintendency 1995–1999.Albany, NY: New York State Council of School Superintendents.
36.
OrtizF. I., & MarshallC. (1995). Becoming a school leader: The case of females and minorities. People and Education, 3(10), 83–111.
37.
PounderD. G., & MerrillR. J. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principal-ship: A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 27–57.
38.
PounderD. G., & YoungI. P. (1996). Recruitment and selection of educational administrators: Priorities for today's schools. In LeithwoodK. (Ed.) and A. W. Hart (Section Ed.), The international handbook of educational leadership (pp. 279–308). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
39.
RodriguezN. C. (2003, January 18). Bill would require schools to focus on minority hiring. Courier Journal, (Louisville, KY) B1.
40.
RynesS. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new research directions. In DunnetteM. D., & HoughL. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 399–444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
41.
RynesS. L., & BarberA. E. (1990). Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 15, 286–310.
42.
RynesS. L., & LawlerJ. L. (1983). A policy-capturing investigation of the role of expectancies in decisions to pursue job alternatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 620–631.
43.
SchwabD. P., RynesS. L., & AldagR. J. (1987). Theories and research on job search and choice. In RowlandK. M., & FerrisG. F. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 129–166). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
44.
ShakeshaftC. (1989). Women in educational administration (rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
TallericoM. (1997). Gender and school administration. In BlankB., & HallP. (Eds.), Gender, equity, and schooling: Policy and practice (pp. 187–210). New York: Garland.
47.
TallericoM. (2000). Gaining access to the superintendency: Headhunting, gender, and color. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 18–43.
48.
TallericoM. (2003). Policy, structural, and school board influences on superintendent supply and demand. Journal of School Leadership, 13, 347–364.
49.
TyackD. (1993). School governance in the United States: Historical puzzles and anomalies. In HannawayJ., & CarnoyM. (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement: Can we fulfill the promise? (pp. 1–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50.
WinterP. A., & MorgenthalJ. R. (2002). Principal recruitment in a reform environment: Effects of school achievement and school level on applicant attraction to the job. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 319–340.
51.
WinterP. A., RinehartJ. S., & MuñozM. A. (2002). Principal recruitment: An empirical evaluation of a school district's Internal pool of principal certified personnel. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16, 129–141.
52.
YoungI. P., PlaceA. W., RinehartJ. S., JuryJ. C., & BaitsD. F. (1997). Teacher recruitment: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis for race and sex. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 86–106.
53.
YoungI. P., RinehartJ. S., & HenemanH. G.III (1993). Effects of job attribute categories, applicant job experience, and recruiter sex on applicant job attractiveness ratings. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7, 55–66.
