This statewide study examined selected demographic characteristics, worklife experiences, and personal issues that influence the satisfaction of administrators (assistant principals, principals, assistant superintendents) and their intent to leave their positions and careers or pursue career advancement in public school administration. The results of this study suggest that this group of school administrators is satisfied with their worklife experiences; however, personal issues and individual demographic characteristics have a major influence on their intent to leave their careers and professions or pursue advancement. Moreover, few intend to pursue public school advancement, with the exception of assistant principals, who are the least qualified and experienced but most willing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeaudinB. Q., ThompsonJ. S., & JacobsonL. (2002, April). The administrator paradox: More certified, fewer apply. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
2.
BlountJ. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women and the superintendency, 1873–1995.Albany: State University of New York Press.
3.
BluedornA. C. (1982a). The theories of turnover: Causes, effects, and meaning. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1, 75–128.
4.
BluedornA. C. (1982b). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35(2), 135–153.
5.
BrubakerD. L., & ThomasR. M. (2000). Theses and dissertations: A guide to planning, research, and writing.Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
6.
BrunnerC. (1999). Scattered all over the road. In BrunnerC. C. (Eds.), Sacred dreams women and the superintendency (pp. 1–8). Albany: State University of New York Press.
7.
CzajaM., & HarmanM. J. (1997). Excessive school district superintendent turnover: An explorative study in Texas. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 1(6). Retrieved November 02, 2001, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume1/CzajaHarmanv1n6.html
8.
Dardain-RagguetP., & RussoC. J. (1994). Exits from urban superintendencies. Urban Education, 28(4), 439–455.
9.
DiPaolaM., & Tschannen-MoranM. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 43–65.
10.
EckmanE. W. (2002). Women high school principals: Perspectives on role conflict, role commitment, and job satisfaction. Journal of School Leadership, 12(1), 57–77.
11.
EckmanE. W. (2004). Similarities and differences in role conflict, role commitment, and job satisfaction for female and male principals. Education Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 366–387.
12.
FlowersV. S., & HughesC. L. (1973, July/August). Why employees stay. Harvard Business Review, 4, 49–60.
13.
GlassT. E. (2000). The shrinking applicant pool. Education Week. Available at http://www.edweek.org
14.
GlassT. E., BjorkL., & BrunnerC. C. (2000). The study of the American school superintendency 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
15.
GroganM., & AndrewsR. (2002, February). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Paper commissioned for the first meeting of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation, Racine, WI.
16.
GroganM., & BrunnerC. (2005a, February). Women leading systems. The School Administrator, 62(2), 46–50.
17.
GroganM., & BrunnerC. C. (2005b). Women superintendents and role conceptions: (Un)Troubling the norms. In BjörkL., & KowalskiT. J. (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 1–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
18.
GrunebergM. M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction.New York: John Wiley.
19.
HoustonP. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: It's not a job, it's a calling. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 428–433.
20.
HoxJ. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
HuL. T., & BentlerP. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Institute of Educational Leadership. (2000, October). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship.Washington, DC: Author.
23.
JacksonB. (1999). Getting inside history—Against all odds. In BrunnerC. C. (Eds.), Sacred dreams women and the superintendency (pp. 141–159). Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
JohnsrudL. K., & EdwardsR. L. R. (2001, November). Mediating the intent to leave: The affective responses of midlevel administrators to their worklives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Association for the Study of Higher Education, Richmond, VA
25.
JohnsrudL. K., HeckR. H., & RosserV. J. (2000). Morale matters: Midlevel administrators and their intent to leave. Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 34–59.
26.
JonesB. A. (2000). Educational leadership: Policy dimensions in the 21st century.Stanford, CT: Ablex.
27.
JonesB. A. (2001, October). The superintendent and principal shortage: Points for policy. Policy Today, 1–6.
28.
KamlerE., & ShakeshaftC. (1999). The role of search consultants in the career paths of women superintendents. In BrunnerC. C. (Ed.), Sacred dreams women and the superintendency (pp. 51–62). Albany: State University of New York Press.
KerrinsJ. A. (2001). Take this job and fill it. Leadership, 30(5), 20–24.
31.
LawlerE. E. (1994). Motivation in work organization.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32.
LeeT. W., & MowdayR. T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical investigation of Steers and Mowday's model of turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 30(4), 721–743.
33.
LoganJ. P., & ScollayS. (1999). The gender equity role of educational administration programs: Where are we? Where do we want to go?Journal of School Leadership, 9, 98–124.
34.
MarchJ., & SimonH. (1958). Organizations.New York: John Wiley
35.
MarshallC. (2003). The emperor and research on women in school leadership: A response to Julie Liable's loving epistemology. In YoungM. D., & SkrlaL. (Eds.), Reconsidering feminist research (pp. 211–245). Albany: State University of New York Press.
36.
MuthénL. K., & MuthénB. O. (2007). Mplus (Version 4.21) [Statistical software].Los Angeles: Author.
37.
National Association of Elementary School Principals & National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study.Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
38.
PriceJ. L. (1977). The study of turnover.Ames: Iowa State University Press.
RaykovT., & MarcoulidesG. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41.
RosserV. J. (2004). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The unsung professionals of the academy. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Planning, 48(3), 317–337.
42.
RozaM., CelioM. B., HarveyJ., & WilsonS. (2003). A matter of definition: Is there truly a shortage of school principals?Seattle: University of Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education.
43.
SchaererJ. W., VickersN. W., HansingH. E., & HarveyA. S. (1996). Perceived supply and demand of minority teachers and administrators in the Southeast united states. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED405292)
44.
ScottJ. (2003). Introduction reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership. In YoungM. D., & SkrlaL. (Eds.), Reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership (pp. 81–99). Albany: State University of New York Press.
45.
ShenJ., & CrawfordC. S. (2003). Introduction to the special issue: Characteristics of the secondary principalship. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 2–7.
46.
SpectorP. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
SteersR. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46–56.
48.
SteersR. M., & MowdayR. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommodation processes. In CummingsL. L., & StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 235–281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
TallericoM. (2000). Gaining access to the superintendency: Headhunting, gender, and color. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 18–43.
51.
TallericoM., & BlountJ. M. (2004). Women and the superintendency: Insights from theory and history. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 633–662.
WendelF. C. (1999). A study of supply and demand of school administrators in Nebraska (Report No. EA030528). Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Council of School Administrators, Nebraska Association of School Boards. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED443195)
54.
YoungM. D. (2003). Troubling policy discourse: Gender, constructions and the leadership crisis. In YoungM. D., & SkrlaL. (Eds.), Reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership (pp. 265–296). Albany: State University of New York Press.
55.
YoungM. D., & CreightonT. B. (2002, August). Who is framing the nation's understanding of educational leadership preparation and practice? Paper presented at the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Burlington, VT
56.
YuklG. (2001). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
