The purpose of this study was to investigate human resources (HR) professionals’ perceptions of music teacher job candidate performance on prescreening interviews in five Midwestern school districts. Specifically, I explored how HR professionals viewed music teacher job candidate performance in relation to specific facets of the interviews as well as to other candidates. The primary data sources were interviews with HR professionals in charge of hiring new teachers. Participants perceived that prescreening interview instruments revealed differences between primary (grades K–6) and secondary (grades 7–12) licensure areas. Music teacher candidates’ responses appeared to mirror those of secondary candidates; they had difficulty exercising empathy and discussing individual student growth, and instead focused on policies and exhibited a program director mindset. Finally, participants exercised agency to personalize prescreening interview instruments depending on licensure type and applicant pool.
BoydD.GoldhaberD. D.LankfordH.WyckoffJ. H. (2007). The effect of certification and preparation on teacher quality. Future of Children, 17(1), 45–68.
2.
BrinkmanD.MallettC. (2000). Questions asked in job interviews of music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 10(1), 16–23. doi:10.1177/105708370001000104
3.
BrunoP.StrunkK. (2019). Making the cut: The effectiveness of teacher screening and hiring in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis. doi:10.3102/0162373719865561
4.
ClemonsB. L. (2010). A correlational study of the ventures for excellence interview-rating system and first year teacher evaluations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI: 3389740)
5.
DonaldsonM. L.WoulfinS. (2018). From tinkering to going “rogue”: How principals use agency when enacting new teacher evaluation systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. doi:10.3102/0162373718784205
6.
DwyerR. (2015). Unpacking the habitus: Exploring a music teacher’s values, beliefs and practices. Research Studies in Music Education, 37(1), 93–106. doi:10.1177/1321103X15589260
7.
EbmeierH.NgJ. (2005). Development and field test of an employment selection instrument for teachers in urban school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 201–218. doi:10.1007/s11092-006-9021-4
8.
EdgarS. (2012). Communication of expectations between principals and entry-year instrumental music teachers: Implications for music teacher assessment. Arts Education Policy Review, 113, 136–146. doi:10.1080/10632913.2012.719426
GoldhaberD.AnthonyE. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National Board Certification as a signal of effective teaching. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 134–150. doi:10.1162/rest.89.1.134
11.
GoldhaberD.CroutC.Huntington-KleinN. (2016). Screen twice, cut once: Assessing the predictive validity of applicant selection tools. Education Finance and Policy, 12, 197–223. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00208
12.
HabermanM. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty. Milwaukee, WI: Kappa Delta Pi.
13.
HanushekE.RivkinS. G. (2006). Teacher quality. In HanushekE.WelchF. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (pp. 1051–1078). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
14.
HarrisD. N. (2009). Would accountability based on teacher value-added be smart policy? An examination of the statistical properties and policy alternatives. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 319–350. doi:10.1162/edfp.2009.4.4.319
15.
HarrisD. N.IngleW. K.RutledgeS. A. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matter for accountability: A comparative analysis of teacher effectiveness ratings by principals and teacher value-added measures. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 73–112. doi:10.3102/0002831213517130
16.
HarrisD. N.RutledgeS. A.IngleW. K.ThompsonC. C. (2010). Mix and match: What principals really look for when hiring teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 5, 228–246. doi:10.1162/edfp.2010.5.2.5205
17.
IngleK.RutledgeS.BishopJ. (2011). Context matters: Principals’ sensemaking of teacher hiring and on-the-job performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 579–610. doi:10.1108/09578231111159557
18.
JuchniewiczJ. (2015). An examination of music teacher job interview questions. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 26(1), 56–68. doi:10.1177/1057083715613590
19.
KaneT. J.RockoffJ. E.StaigerD. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27,615–631. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.05.005
20.
KirchnerJ.EvansS. C.NormanA. D. (2010). Examining the relationship between two assessments of teacher effectiveness. Action in Teacher Education, 32, 73–81. doi:10.1080/01626620.2010.10463544
21.
KvaleS. (2014). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
MaranzanoC. (2000). Music teacher performance evaluation: A call for more inclusive models. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14, 267–274. doi:10.1023/A:1008152400957
24.
MetzgerS. A.WuM. J. (2008). Commercial teacher selection instruments: The validity of selecting teachers through beliefs, attitudes, and values. Review of Educational Research, 78, 921–940. doi:10.3102/0034654308323035
25.
NelsonB. (2013). Exploring the relationship between the Ventures for Excellence Teacher StyleProfile data and teacher performance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No: 3605257)
26.
NovotnyM. T. (2009). The relationship between TeacherInsight™ scores and professional development and appraisal system domain scores (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (Accession No: ED532419)
27.
OestreichT. A. (2016). A study of the effectiveness of the AppliTrack TeacherFit hiring selection tool when compared with a teacher’s summative evaluation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
28.
ParkesK. A.PowellS. R. (2015). Is the edTPA the right choice for evaluating teacher readiness?Arts Education Policy Review, 116, 103–113. doi:10/1080/10632913.2014.944964
29.
PattonM. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
RockoffJ. E.JacobB. A.KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2011). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one?Education Finance and Policy, 6, 43–74. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00022
31.
RutledgeS. A.HarrisD. N.IngleW. K. (2010). How principals “bridge and buffer” the new demands of teacher quality and accountability: A mixed-methods analysis of teacher hiring. American Journal of Education, 116, 211–242. doi:10.1086/649492
32.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
SchwartzH. (1996). The changing nature of teacher education. In SikulaJ.ButteryT.J.GuytonE. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 2–13). New York, NY: Macmillan.
34.
StaigerD. O.RockoffJ. E. (2010). Searching for effective teachers with imperfect information. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 97–117. doi:10.1257/jep.24.3.97
35.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
TaebelD. K. (1990). An assessment of the classroom performance of music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38, 5–23. doi:10.2307/3344826
37.
WintersM. A.CowenJ. M. (2013). Would a value-added system of retention improve the distribution of teacher quality? A simulation of alternative policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 634–654. doi:10.1002/pam.21705
38.
WoodyR. H.GilbertD.LairdL. A. (2018). Music teacher dispositions: Self-appraisals and values of university music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 66,111–125. doi:10.1177/0022429418757220
39.
YoungI. P.DelliD. A. (2002). The validity of the teacher perceiver interview for predicting performance of classroom teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 586–612. doi:10.1177/0013161X02239640
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
