Holmes versus Traditional Teacher Candidates: Labor Market Receptivity

Abstract

Paper credentials similar to those found in most college placement files were used to create 12 hypothetical teacher candidates. Contents of these credentials were varied systematically to reflect all combinations of college preparatory institutions (Holmes vs. Traditional), type of educational degree (BA vs. MA), and chronological age of teacher candidate (29 yrs, 49 yrs, or control). For each experimental condition senior high school principals (n = 360) were selected at random from all public school districts in the United States, assigned at random to a specific experimental condition, and requested to evaluate a hypothetical teacher candidate as if screening for a vacant position in their building. Fixed effect analyses of variance revealed a statistically significant interaction involving type of educational degree × chronological age. Holmes prepared candidates were perceived to be similar to traditional candidates and equally likely to be extended an offer to interview.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Avolio

B. J.

, and Barrett

G. V.

1987. “Effects of Age Stereotyping in a Simulated Interview,” Psychology and Aging, 2(1): 56–63.

Bredeson

P. V.

1986. “Toward a Thicker Description of the Teacher Selection Process,” Journal of Research and Development in Education, 79(2): 22–29.

Castetter

W. B.

1996. The Human Resource Function in Educational Administration. Ohio: Prentice Hall.

Cohen

1977. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: Academic Press.

Dreeban

1987. “Comments on Tomorrow's Teachers,” in Reforming Teacher Education, New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 49–55.

Graces

F. P.

1932. The Administration of American Education. New York: Macmillan.

Holmes Group. 1986. Tomorrow's Teachers. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.

Holmes Group. 1995. Tomorrow's Schools of Education. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.

Murray

F. B.

1996. “The Narrow and Broad Readings of Tomorrow's Schools of Education,” Educational Researcher, 28(5): 28–31.

10.

Pounder

D. G.

1989. “Improving the Predictive Validity of Teacher Selection Decision: Lessons from Teacher Appraisal,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 2: 141–150.

11.

Rynes

, and Gerahart

1990. “Interviewer Assessments of Applicant ‘Fit’: An Exploratory Investigation,” Personnel Psychology, 43(1): 13–35.

12.

Solis

J. F.

1987. Reforming Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

13.

Young

I. P.

, and Place

A. W.

1988. “The Relationship between Age and Teaching Performance,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 2: 43–52.

14.

Young

I. P.

, and Pounder

D. G.

1985. “Salient Factors Affecting Decision Making in Simulated Selection Interviews,” Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership, 5(3): 216–233.

15.

Young

I. P.

, Rinehart

J. R.

, and Baits

D. M.

(In Press). “Age Discrimination: Impact of Chronological Age and Perceived Position Demands on Teacher Screening Decisions,” Journal of Research and Development in Education.

16.

Young

I. P.

, and Ryerson

1986. “Teacher Selection: Legal, Practical, and Theoretical Aspects,” University Council of Educational Administration, University Park: PA.

17.

Zar

J. H.

1984. Biostatistical Analysis. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.