CPSHiring_LeadershipandPolicyinSchools_revised

Transcription

STAFFING THE CLASSROOM
Staffing the Classroom: How urban principals find teachers and make hiring decisions
Mimi Engel
Maida Finch
1
Abstract
Despite the importance of teachers and the fact that teacher hiring is decentralized in most school
districts, we know relatively little about the process through which individual principals hire
faculty for their schools. Using interviews with 31 Chicago principals, we explore how principals
find job candidates, whether they collaborate with their faculty and administrative staff when
hiring, and whether and how these principal behaviors vary systematically by school level and by
whether schools are higher or lower achieving. We find that principals in higher-achieving
schools network more to find candidates, whereas principals in lower-achieving schools rely
more on hiring resources provided by the district and frequently hire their own substitute and
student teachers. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
2
Whether and how principals influence school outcomes is the focus of much research.
For example, the indirect effect of principal leadership on student achievement has been
suggested by several studies (e.g., Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 2009; Supovitz, Serenides, & May,
2010). Relatedly, one of the roles principals are expected to fulfill is that of an instructional
leader (Hallinger, 2005). Yet researchers have cautioned against limiting the definition of
“instructional leadership” to a narrow focus on principals’ direct instructional supervision of
faculty (Louis et al., 2010) because principal influence is likely mediated through multiple
channels including organizational management (Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 2010; Grissom & Loeb,
2011). Recent studies indicate that principals’ skills and time spent on organizational
management – including hiring personnel– as opposed to administrative tasks or instructional
monitoring are positively associated with student test score outcomes (Grissom & Loeb, 2011;
Horng et al., 2010; Rice, 2010). Thus, teacher hiring is a key leadership task for principals who
have primary responsibility for finding and selecting teachers to fill vacancies in their schools.
Despite the importance of teacher hiring, we know relatively little about how principals
go about finding and choosing teachers to fill vacancies in their schools. We use interviews with
31 Chicago Public Schools (CPS) principals to provide detailed information regarding where and
how principals find prospective teachers, as well as about the extent to which principals
collaborate with their faculty and administrative staff when making hiring decisions. This study
contributes both to research on principals’ hiring practices by exploring how principals use
formal and informal resources to find job candidates, as well as to scholarship on distributed
leadership by exploring the extent to which principals make hiring decisions autonomously or in
collaboration with their faculty and administrative staff.
3
The current study is the first to offer detailed information about how principals in an
urban district seek candidates and make decisions about whom to hire. We analyze interviews
with CPS principals to answer the following questions:
•
How do principals search for prospective teachers during the hiring process?
•
How do principals go about the decision-making process when deciding to whom
to make an offer?
•
And, to what extent do principals share these responsibilities with their faculty,
administrators, and colleagues?
In addition to examining overall results, we explore variation across principals in higher- versus
lower-achieving schools and elementary versus high schools. We present results followed by a
discussion of the implications of our findings both for future research and for strategies for
training urban school leaders to locate and hire quality faculty.
Background
The extant literature on teacher hiring highlights the complexity of the process (Balter &
Duncombe, 2005; Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson, 2010; Jacob, 2007). Although research
on teacher labor markets has focused more on teacher supply (teachers’ decisions about entering
and exiting teaching and where they choose to teach) than demand (how district and school
administrators select teachers) recent work has begun to examine how teachers are identified and
selected (Jacob, 2007). The current study adds to this body of research by providing new
information about the processes through which principals identify and hire teachers.
Studies of the supply side of the teacher labor market examine factors influencing
teachers’ decisions to enter, remain in, and leave teaching. Both wages and working conditions
influence where teachers choose to teach and whether they remain in the profession, with
4
working conditions playing an important role in these decisions (Bacolod, 2007; Dolton & van
der Klaaw, 1999; Grissom, 2011; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Johnson, Kraft, & Papay,
2012; Ladd, 2011; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002; Loeb, Darling-Hammond, & Luczak,
2005; Scafidi, Sjoquist, & Stinebrickner, 2007; Stinebrickner, 1998). Another factor that
determines teacher supply is geography. Studies indicate that teachers take jobs in schools near
their hometown or the college they attended (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005b;
Reininger, 2012).
Research on the demand for teachers has examined the characteristics of teachers hired
by principals and districts. Several studies indicate principals may not hire the most effective
teachers. Ballou (1996) found that neither attending a highly selective university or college, nor
having a better GPA increased the likelihood of a prospective teacher being hired. Baker &
Cooper (2005) found that most principals do not give preference to teachers who attended highly
selective universities.
Studies of principals’ stated preferences for teacher characteristics have found that
principals search for a variety of characteristics when selecting candidates, preferring those who
are enthusiastic and have strong communication skills (Harris et al., 2010) as well as applicants
who are caring and can manage a classroom (Engel, 2013; Cannata & Engel, 2012). Principals in
lower-achieving schools appear to focus more on classroom management skills and a teacher’s
ability to improve test scores, suggesting that principals’ preferences may vary systematically by
school type, even within a single district (Engel, 2013). More generally, these studies find that
principals seek a mix of personal and professional characteristics and look for teachers who they
perceive will be a good fit in their schools (Engel, 2013; Harris, et al., 2010). These results
5
highlight the need to understand principals’ strategies and decision-making processes for
identifying and hiring teachers.
Several studies focus on another aspect of teacher hiring; timing. Teacher hires are often
made late– a large portion of hires are made at the end of summer or once the school year has
already begun (Engel, 2012; Levin & Quinn, 2003; Liu & Johnson, 2006). Urban and
disadvantaged schools and districts hire teachers later, on average, than their suburban
counterparts (Engel, 2012; Levin & Quinn, 2003). Levin and Quinn (2003) suggest that later
hires in large urban districts may be due to vacancy notification requirements, transfer
requirements that are set by teachers unions, and poor forecasting and delayed timetables for
budgeting for teaching positions.
Tools for selecting and screening applicants
Rutledge and colleagues (2008) describe four distinct phases of the hiring process
identified in the occupational literature: recruitment, screening, selection, and the job offer.
When they are screening and selecting applicants, administrators rely on tools including resumes,
work samples, and personality tests. Principals rely most heavily on interviews when making
teacher hiring decisions (Ralph, Kesten, Lang, & Smith, 1998; Rutledge et al., 2008; Theel &
Tallerico, 2004). Multiple interviews are common (Balter & Duncombe, 2005; Kersten, 2008)
although administrators in urban districts may spend less time interviewing and conduct fewer
second interviews (Balter & Duncombe, 2006; Papa & Baxter, 2008).
Prior research indicates that principals have a variety of goals when interviewing
candidates. These include assessing candidates’ communication skills (Ralph et al., 1998) or
honesty in responses (Braun, Willems, Brown, & Green, 1987) as well as determining if a
candidate is up to date in the field (Kersten, 2008).
6
Searching and decision-making
Studies have found that teacher recruitment and hiring practices at both the school and
district-levels are highly localized. Principals and district administrators tend to search for
candidates locally rather than across a broad geographic area (Balter & Duncombe, 2005; Papa
& Baxter, 2008; Strauss, Bowes, Marks, & Plesko, 2000). Our knowledge, however, about how
principals find teachers to fill the vacancies in their schools is limited.
Survey research provides initial insight on how decisions are made during the teacher
hiring process. Liu and Johnson (2006) examined teacher hiring in four states and found that in
most districts hiring decisions were made at the school-level. A New York study found that
while the principal was instrumental in the final stage of selecting candidates, other district
officials played an active role (Balter & Duncombe, 2006). These findings offer a broad picture
of the hiring process.
Although some studies note that stakeholders such as teachers and district officials may
be involved in teacher hiring (Balter & Duncombe, 2006; Kersten, 2008; Liu & Johnson, 2006),
little is known about the extent to which the hiring process is a collaborative endeavor. For
example, we do not know whether principals rely on colleagues or their faculty to help them find
prospective teachers. The current study contributes to research on teacher hiring using results
from qualitative interviews with principals to examine aspects of the teacher hiring process that
are not yet well understood.
Exploring teacher hiring through the lens of distributed leadership
We use distributed leadership theory to frame our analyses which examine how principals
find candidates and make decisions regarding whom to hire. We rely on Gronn’s (2002)
definition of distributed leadership as a mode of action in which multiple individuals “pool their
7
expertise… to solve a problem,” (p. 430). These collaborations, according to Gronn (2002), may
be spontaneous or ongoing. Accordingly, we explore the extent to which principals undertake
hiring tasks on their own or in partnership with their faculty and administrators. We consider
whether and how principals’ describe collaborating during hiring to be examples of distributed
leadership and the extent to which it varies both across principals and within principals across
tasks.
Elmore (2000) proposed that distributed leadership challenges the traditional borders of
leadership, replacing the notion of a hierarchal authority with that of a wider base of expert
knowledge. It is argued that the collective activity of distributed leadership can result in a
product that is greater than the sum of the expertise of individual participants. Recent
conceptions of school leadership have emphasized the reality that multiple individuals participate
in leading a school (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001; Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003;
Spillane, 2005). Theory on distributed leadership stresses that to understand how leadership is
enacted in schools, researchers must look beyond formal leadership roles and structures to the
actual practices individuals engage in (Spillane, et al., 2001; Spillane, 2005).
The concept of interdependence is central to understanding distributed leadership. More
than just the division of tasks, distributed leadership “stretches” responsibilities across
participants whose skills and knowledge are suited to solving particular problems (Copland,
2003; Spillane 2005). These collaborations can occur spontaneously during a crisis or can be
formalized as organizational structures (Gronn, 2000). To promote conjoint activity, leadership
boundaries must be open and flexible (Bennett, Wise, Woods & Harvey 2003).
Highlighting some of the challenges to implementing distributed leadership, Goldstein
(2003) explored the effects of a new teacher evaluation policy that shifted responsibility for this
8
task from the principal alone to the principal in collaboration with teachers. Findings from this
study suggest that to successfully open leadership boundaries, administrators and teachers must
confront the reality of entrenched institutional norms which often consider the principal as the
sole authority in the school (Goldstein, 2003). Other research describes how and among whom
leadership tasks are distributed.
Research exploring distributed leadership in education settings has found variation in
how leadership and responsibility is distributed both across schools and within schools across
tasks, activities, and individuals. For example, Camburn, Rowan, and Taylor (2003) found more
variation in the distribution of leadership activities within than across schools. Studies have also
found that principals tend to participate in a wide variety of leadership tasks (Camburn et al.,
2003), and that the type of leadership function (e.g., general versus specialized) determines both
whether a principal is likely to participate and who else is involved in the leadership task
(Spillane, Camburn, and Pareja, 2007).
Robinson (2008) critiqued prior research on distributed leadership for not articulating the
possible paths by which distributed leadership might affect student learning. It is noteworthy that
despite recent research suggesting that leadership tasks such as teacher hiring appear to be
associated with student achievement (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Horng, Klasik & Loeb, 2010), the
role of distributed leadership in teacher hiring is largely under-examined. One study investigated
leadership roles in schools undergoing sustained reform efforts, stressing the importance of
principals’ personnel decisions as part of these efforts (Copland, 2003). Other studies have noted
whether or not formal and informal school leaders participated in school staffing and managing
personnel (Leithwood et al., 2007; Spillane et al., 2007), but have not analyzed how leadership in
teacher hiring is distributed beyond noting participants.
9
One topic related to distributed leadership that has been explored by a number of studies
is the role of district administrators, principals, and teacher leaders relative to various leadership
responsibilities (e.g., Firestone & Martinez, 2007). Research has found that principals are less
likely to share leadership and responsibility when tasks are administrative in nature (Camburn et
al., 2003; Spillane et al., 2007). Prior research also finds more shared responsibility in leadership
activities related to professional growth and instruction (Spillane & Camburn, 2006). In
considering whether principals will engage in distributed leadership when hiring teachers, it is
important to note that teacher hiring is both an administrative task and a task that has major
implications for teaching and learning.
On the one hand, hiring teachers is a key administrative task – personnel are the largest
line item in any school’s budget. This might result in principals being less inclined to share
leadership responsibilities among their administrators and faculty. On the other hand, the central
function of a school is the teaching and learning that it engenders. As such, principals might
approach teacher hiring with the central goal of finding teachers who are most likely to have a
positive influence on student learning. In this case, we might anticipate the leadership activities
related to teacher hiring to be distributed among the administrators and faculty whom principals
believe are most likely to help them successfully reach that goal. Understanding the extent to
which principals collaborate when seeking prospective teachers and deciding whom to hire
provides new information on how leadership is distributed in practice.
Scholarship on distributed leadership has been critiqued for a lack of attention to how
distributed leadership practices might vary across sociocultural contexts (Bennett, et.al 2003).
Prior research has largely ignored the extent to which school context might influence how
leadership is distributed. While one study noted that schools implementing Comprehensive
10
School Reform had higher levels of distributed leadership, other, more fine-grained distinctions
about social and cultural contexts are notably absent (Camburn et al., 2003). The current study
examines whether and how leadership is distributed within and across schools in the teacher
hiring process. It contributes to research on distributed leadership by examining variation in the
distribution of leadership across schools by level (elementary versus secondary) as well as by
school-level student achievement.
Based on prior studies that find variation in the distribution of leadership tasks within
schools (Camburn et al., 2003; Spillane et al., 2007), we expect that both the extent to which
teacher hiring is a collaborative process across schools as well as the particular tasks in the hiring
process that are shared will vary substantially. Our data provide the opportunity for a careful
examination of how leadership in teacher hiring is distributed both within and across schools in
general as well as whether the distribution of leadership in relation to teacher hiring varies
systematically across particular school contexts.
Given that prior research on the distribution of teachers across schools finds that lower
achieving schools are much more likely to be staffed by inexperienced and lesser credentialed
teachers (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2005a; Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2006; Lankford,
Loeb & Wyckoff, 2002), we anticipate that sample principals in lower-achieving schools will be
less likely to rely on their faculty for informal referrals of prospective teachers. We also expect
that these principals will be less likely to report receiving a substantial number of unsolicited
resumes. Due to these anticipated resource constraints, we expect principals of lower-achieving
schools to be more likely to report using formal CPS resources (e.g., support from Office of
Human Resources) when seeking candidates to fill vacancies in their schools.
11
Because prior research indicates that principals will distribute leadership more when
leadership tasks require specialized knowledge (Spillane et al., 2007) or when leadership tasks
emphasize instruction (Spillane & Camburn, 2006), we anticipate that principals will collaborate
with their faculty and fellow administrators when making decisions about whom to hire. Further,
because teaching positions in high school are generally content-specific (e.g., math teachers,
English teachers), we expect that high school principals will engage in more collaborative
decision-making than their elementary school counterparts. Below, we provide an overview of
the hiring process in the Chicago Public Schools and a description of our sample. We explain our
analytic strategy and then describe our results. We conclude with a discussion of the contribution
of the current study to research on teacher hiring and distributed leadership.
Teacher Hiring in Chicago
CPS principals, like most U.S. principals, have substantial autonomy in the teacher hiring
process and are responsible for hiring teachers to fill the vacancies in their schools.1 CPS
principals are supported by the district in the teacher hiring process in several ways. The district
maintains a large, searchable database of applicants for principals which contains information on
individuals who have applied to teach in CPS through the district’s central office. The database
includes information from applicants’ resumes on areas of certification, years of teaching
experience, highest degree obtained, and degree granting institution. During the spring and
summer of 2006, the year that the interviews for this study were conducted, CPS sponsored five
job fairs. Although principals are not required to attend these job fairs, most report attending at
least one. Principals use fairs to find prospective teachers, generally engaging in brief
“interviews” with job fair applicants (Engel, Jacob, & Curran, 2014). Principals are also able to
12
advertise positions in a CPS electronic bulletin (“ebulletin”) distributed within the district,
however they are asked not to advertise vacancies externally.
While CPS provides these resources to help schools find and screen candidates,
principals have sole responsibility for deciding how to structure the hiring process and for
selecting candidates. Once a candidate has accepted an offer from a principal, the rest of the
hiring process is handled centrally, and paperwork for payroll and benefits is handled through the
CPS central office.
Methods
Data
Data used in this analysis come from qualitative interviews about the hiring process with
a sample of 31 CPS principals. Interviews were completed during September and October of
2006, with a response rate of 97 percent.2 During these interviews, which lasted from 40 to 90
minutes, principals answered detailed questions about how and where they found teachers to fill
their vacancies each year. During most interviews, this conversation began with a general, openended question about what sources principals used to find candidates. To ensure as thorough a
response as possible, prompts were used to probe for details regarding how principals found
candidates. We define formal resources as the opportunities and infrastructure provided by the
CPS Office of Human Resources (HR) for the specific purpose of helping principals hire
teachers. The formal resources that principals were asked about include CPS job fairs, direct
contact with staff in HR, an ebulletin to list available positions, and an online system that allows
candidates to post resumes in a database for principals to view. Principals were also asked about
whether they network within their schools with teachers, administrators and other employees,
13
whether they hire their own student and/or substitute teachers, network within CPS with
principals and administrators from other schools, and whether and how they search for
prospective teachers outside of CPS.
Principals were asked about whether and how they included other administrators and/or
faculty in the teacher hiring process, with whom they collaborated when hiring, and about the
extent to which they collaborated during various stages of the hiring process including screening,
interviewing, and decision-making.
Sample
The sample of 31 principals was selected using several different methods. Twenty five
schools were part of a stratified random sample.3 Schools were stratified by region and level
(elementary and secondary). The regional strata captured variation in both the racial and
achievement composition of schools. Additionally, six schools were sampled purposively: two
higher achieving elementary schools were included as pilot schools for testing the interview
protocol, and two higher achieving charter schools and two top achieving CPS schools (one
elementary and one high school) were also included. This small number of charter and top
achieving CPS schools were included in the sample in order to see whether principals’ hiring
practices differed in these particular contexts. The purposively sampled schools are included in
the analyses that follow, and when results for these schools are noteworthy, they are discussed.
Table 1 compares demographic characteristics of sample schools and all CPS schools.
The sample and population were similar in terms of student achievement and principal gender.
The proportion of high schools was larger in the sample (34 versus 15 percent); they were
purposefully over-sampled to include a large enough number (n=11) to allow for comparison
across elementary and high schools. The sample included 14 schools that are grouped as “lower-
14
achieving.” These schools were below the median CPS school-level achievement in reading for
the 2005-2006 school year.
Table 2 provides additional descriptive statistics for the 31 sample schools. As the table
indicates, sample schools had an average enrollment of around 800 students. As would be
expected, elementary schools were much smaller than high schools, with averages near 600 and
1200 students, respectively. High schools also had twice the number of vacancies in May of
2006, with an average of eight, compared with only four for the average elementary school in the
sample. On average, 84 percent of students in sample schools were eligible for free or reduced
price lunches. In schools that were below the median CPS achievement, 92 percent were eligible.
Analytic Strategy
Principal interviews were transcribed verbatim. We read full interview transcripts to look
for themes in principals’ experiences and to help describe the hiring process in general, as well
as how it varied across principals in different types of schools (i.e., above versus below the
median CPS achievement, primary versus secondary). We then sorted principals’ responses
topically into broad categories representing both the subjects discussed during interviews and the
overarching themes common across interviews.
Once coding was completed for a particular topical area, we read through the interview
excerpts about that topic to describe, overall, how principals discussed the topic. For example,
as we read through interview transcripts, we coded any conversations with principals about the
extent to which their hiring decisions are made collaboratively under the heading
“collaboration.” Once we had read through all of the interviews and coded all of the excerpts
that fit under this domain, we then read through the entire coded text for the domain to further
code for the various aspects of collaboration during the teacher hiring process that principals
15
mentioned. Thus, under the heading of collaboration, there are multiple sub-headings describing
aspects of collaboration and decision-making mentioned multiple times by principals. For
example, we coded how collaborative the decision-making process was, ranging from not at all
collaborative to decisions that are made through joint effort on the part of the principal and her
committee. Once this second iteration of coding was completed, we read within the sub-codes to
look for themes and examples (e.g., what reasons do principals give for making hiring decisions
collaboratively versus on their own?). See Appendix for examples of interview questions.
Results
In the sections below, we report our findings on how CPS principals search for
prospective teachers as well as how they describe the decision-making process used to determine
to whom they will offer a position. We begin by providing an overview of how principals
described these processes in their schools. We then examine variation by school-level
achievement and across elementary and high schools. Tables 3 and 4 provide detailed results on
how many principals reported various hiring practices. Table 3 reports percentages of principals
who used the various means to find candidates, both overall and for subgroups by achievement
and level. Table 4 provides results regarding principal reports of collaboration during hiring.
We provide these fine-grained tallies of responses in order to increase the transparency of
our analyses and to provide readers with details that support the descriptions that follow. We
used the tallies as part of the analysis process to show evidence regarding patterns of principals’
responses. This practice improves our capacity to provide an objective analysis of our data and
provides information for researchers who conduct similar studies that will allow them to examine
the extent to which their results replicate or challenge the findings reported below.
Searching: How CPS principals find candidates
16
Summary of overall results
All sample principals reported using at least one formal resource within CPS to find
teachers to fill vacancies in their schools. All 29 eligible principals (the two charter school
principals did not have access to the ebulletin or to the CPS online system, but were invited to
attend all CPS job fairs) reported posting jobs in the ebulletin and/or using the online system to
search for candidates. This is not surprising as principals are expected to post vacancies in the
ebulletin. The vast majority of principals reported attending at least one job fair to find
prospective teachers. Many principals reported using CPS HR or other CPS departments (e.g.
Special Education or Math and Science) to find applicants.
In terms of informal networking, the vast majority of principals reported doing some type
of informal networking within CPS, both within and outside of their schools. Most frequently,
principals reported using referrals from their faculty and administrators (e.g., vice principals,
department heads). About half of principals reported hiring student teachers who had been
placed in their schools. Most principals reported networking with CPS colleagues outside of
their schools to find candidates. Principals also described looking for candidates outside of the
CPS system altogether. While over two-thirds of sample principals reported doing some type of
networking outside of CPS, in most cases it was quite limited. For the majority of principals, this
meant using contacts at one or two local schools of education. Finally, most principals reported
receiving resumes, often unsolicited, from prospective job candidates. Principals reported
receiving them through mail, email, fax, and from candidates dropping them off in person.
Differences across principals from higher-achieving and lower-achieving schools4 We find that principals’ reports of how they search for candidates vary systematically
across higher- versus lower-achieving schools. Principals in lower-achieving schools were
17
somewhat more likely to use formal means for finding candidates than principals in higherachieving schools. More striking, however, were differences in how principals across these
contexts used informal means for finding candidates. Specifically, principals of higher-achieving
schools were more likely to take referrals from their teachers and from colleagues in other CPS
schools than principals in lower-achieving schools. In contrast, principals in lower-achieving
schools were more likely to report hiring student and substitute teachers. Below, these
differences are discussed in detail.
While differences were small, in all cases principals from lower-achieving schools were
more likely to report using formal CPS resources than their counterparts from higher-achieving
schools. Principals who reported going to Human Resources for assistance in finding candidates
said that when they had a vacancy, particularly if they were having trouble finding a candidate,
they called the central office to see if they knew of a candidate who might be a good fit. For
example, one principal of an elementary school that served over 700 students, over 95 percent of
whom were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch noted how helpful this resource was.
INTERVIEWER: Where are your top places for finding your candidates?
RESPONDENT: Human Resources…They do a tremendous job of sending
candidates. Because we were in a crunch at the end of the school year – at the
end of the summer, because we had unexpectedly had a couple of people that went
on to do something else…And she sent some awesome resumes (principal, lowerachieving elementary school).
Principals who reported enlisting help from Human Resources often noted that they were most
likely to do so if they had learned of the vacancy late in the hiring season or when they were
trying to fill hard-to-staff positions such as Special Education.
Results indicate that sample principals from lower- and higher-achieving schools used
informal resources within their schools in different ways. Principals from higher-achieving
schools were more likely to use referrals from their faculty and administrators. These principals
18
generally reported that they liked interviewing, and when possible, hiring teachers who were
referred internally. They noted that they trusted the opinions of their teachers and administrators
and felt as if it gave them additional or inside information.
… I’ve found that the best person to recommend a teacher is another teacher in the
building. And if you know the teacher – well, I believe that if the teacher in the
building is a very good teacher, they would not recommend someone who would not
be good. So those candidates are great also (principal, higher-achieving high
school).
Noting that his favorite referral source is his faculty, this principal of a school where over 85
percent of students were African American (with the vast majority qualifying for free or reducedprice lunch) suggests if a teacher he thinks favorably of recommends a candidate, he trusts that
recommendation. Another sample principal, this one from a school with a majority of students
from higher income backgrounds, also took referrals from within his school and described
another approach.
I am not above asking my teachers that are new to my building if there’s anybody at
their last building that they thought we might be interested in speaking to. Of course
I would never steal another principal’s teachers, but if one of their colleagues
contacts them and tells them there’s an opening, you know, I would definitely want to
meet them (principal, higher-achieving elementary school).
This principal described an aggressive tactic, asking newer teachers in his building about talented
teachers from their previous schools that might be worth recruiting. While some principals, such
as this one, made a point of asking their current faculty whether they knew any prospective
teachers, the charter school principals interviewed took a step further. Interestingly, both charter
school principals described using monetary incentives to encourage internal referrals. In both
schools, an employee who made an internal referral that resulted in a successful hire was
rewarded several hundred dollars.
19
As can be seen in Table 3, principals from higher-achieving schools were also somewhat
more likely to report contacting fellow CPS principals and administrators in other schools for
recommendations for prospective teachers. Some noted that they would call their colleagues
when they were trying to fill a vacancy to see if they had received any promising resumes.
Similarly, other principals explained that once they had filled a vacancy but still knew of
candidates they thought would make good teachers; they would often refer those candidates to
their colleagues.
I had a woman walk in here – oh, my God. You asked where you get ideas. So I
have a [school name] parent who I helped get a position about eight years ago as
a Kindergarten teacher in another school. She’s great, they love her. So I told
her, you know, what you owe me now is, when you see a good person coming
through student teaching, call me. She called me and said I cannot believe it, the
numbers; they had to cut this woman. She’s wonderful. So I had her come meet
me. I have nothing for her. But I know my friend at [school name] had just told
me he’s looking for a primary. So I called him up, 3:30 in the afternoon, this
poor girl’s standing here, she’s crying, because she’s moved from New York, now
she has no job. So he said have her come see me. So at 7:30 in the morning he
met her and hired her…. so you try to help each other. You try to find out where
there are good people. And you try and stay in that network (principal, higherachieving elementary school).
Other principals in higher-achieving schools mirrored this sentiment, suggesting they would be
happy to help a colleague out with a referral or a resume and would call fellow principals when
seeking candidates.
While principals from lower-achieving schools were less likely to report taking referrals
from within their schools and other informal sources within the district, they were more likely
than their counterparts from higher-achieving schools to hire substitute and student teachers.
Principals who hired student and substitute teachers noted two reasons that these hires were
appealing: they provided an unusual opportunity for observing these teachers in the classroom,
and the teachers themselves already had experience with the school’s culture and student
20
population. One principal of a school where over 90 percent of students qualified for free or
reduced-price lunch described the information she gleans from observing a student teacher she is
considering for a position:
I’ve actually found some great teachers that actually started off as substitutes.
You know if you’re bringing in a day-to-day sub, and you’re bringing them in and
you’re walking down the corridor to check on them, you say my goodness. And
then you bring them in three or four more times and you’re walking down the
corridor, children are engaged…and I don’t think, necessarily, that a quiet room
is a good room, because if they’re doing a project, you know the difference
between good noise and just noise. And I’ve hired at least three or four teachers
over the years that were actually subs, and I mean they were just awesome
(principal, lower-achieving elementary school).
Another principal describes positive experiences with hiring substitute teachers into full-time
positions.
INTERVIEWER: Do you ever hire subs or student teachers, or interns from
within?
RESPONDENT: Yes. Oh, yes.
INTERVIEWER: Is that a common way?
RESPONDENT: Very common. In fact, we have three members on staff right now
that did their student teaching here and have been hired. Then I have a teacher
that subbed in here, and she was so good I ended up hiring here. She subbed like
two years ago. She subbed for me like four or five months… she was a day-today, and then I got a position for her, and I hired her the next year (principal,
lower-achieving elementary school).
For these principals and a number of their colleagues in lower-achieving schools, hiring
substitute and student teachers was viewed as a viable means for filling teaching vacancies in
their schools. For these principals, getting to know student teachers and substitutes who were
placed in their schools for the short term allowed them to vet the teachers and provided an
opportunity for the teacher to know more about the school as well, ideally resulting in a
permanent hire that would be a good fit.
However, many principals reported that they did not hire student or substitute teachers;
this was particularly true among principals of high-achieving schools. One principal explained
21
that her substitute teachers were rarely qualified to fill her vacancies. Another principal who had
hired substitutes and student teachers provided a somewhat negative perspective on the practice.
I don’t like it very much... Well, it’s great for people to get an experience somewhere
else before they come here. It’s almost like a family business, you know. Best you go
work somewhere else before you work in your own dad’s company (principal, higher
achieving high school).
Despite the convenience that hiring her own student teacher might provide, this principal
indicated that she would prefer that teachers gain experience in another environment rather than
moving directly from student teaching to filling a vacancy within her school. Principals who
discussed their reasons for choosing not to hire substitute and student teachers reported that they
chose not to do so because they generally did not perceive these teachers as being optimal hires
for their schools.
Interestingly, while principals in lower- and higher-achieving schools were equally likely
to look to colleges and universities to find candidates, principals from higher-achieving schools
were substantially more likely to report additional networking – beyond local teacher training
programs – outside of their schools. These principals’ efforts included contacting Golden Apple
(an Illinois nonprofit focused on teacher development), taking referrals from friends, making
presentations at local churches, advertising in newspapers or on websites, or using head hunters.
Finally, principals from higher-achieving schools reported receiving unsolicited resumes at a
much higher rate – 88 percent – versus only 57 percent of principals from lower-achieving
schools.
Among the five principals who reported that they did not network with fellow CPS
principals and administrators for hiring, few provided an explanation. However, one principal
noted she believes that other principals would keep the best candidates for themselves. Another
22
principal indicated that she believed her colleagues would send her teachers they were trying to
remove from their own schools.
So why take the time, when sometimes even the outcomes are not guaranteed? You
know, you took all that time to write up this teacher, to provide him or her with
training and help and support, and with whatever else you’re asked to do, and at the
end, the outcome might not be necessarily that he or she will leave you. You’re still
stuck with that person. So I have been kind of like – I have experienced that already,
where colleagues of mine just like here, you know, you’re stuck with it, and it’s
lalalala, well, when he was in my school, he was doing great, what’s going on with
you? (principal, lower-achieving elementary school).
Providing a very different perspective from the majority, this principal indicated that she does
not like referrals from colleagues because she worries that they may be trying to unload inferior
teachers. Three of these principals came from higher-achieving schools and two were principals
of lower-achieving schools.
After principals identified candidates, they described embarking on a decision-making
process to determine which candidates they preferred. The process included screening and
conducting interviews to determine which candidates would receive an offer. We describe this
process, and the extent to which the process was collaborative, below.
Collaboration: How CPS principals decide whom to hire
Summary of overall results
Almost all principals reported using committees when hiring new faculty. Frequently,
principals noted that the nature of the vacancy determined which administrators and faculty were
appointed to the committee. Most often, hiring committees included assistant principals and/or
teachers. About half of principals reported including faculty with specialized knowledge (e.g.,
department chair, literacy specialist).
During interviews, principals discussed the extent to which they collaborated with their
faculty and administrators across three dimensions of the hiring process: screening candidates,
23
interviewing prospective teachers, and deciding whom to hire. Most principals collaborated with
their faculty when screening. Principals were most likely to report collaborating, or using their
hiring committee, during interviews. Principals who interviewed collaboratively reported both
valuing discussions about candidates and trusting committee members’ opinions. Principals
often described debriefing with their team after conducting interviews.
We analyzed whether and how principals collaborated with their faculty and
administrators when deciding whether to extend a job offer to a particular candidate, finding that
the extent to which principals collaborated when making hiring decisions varied substantially.
While some principals collaborated extensively, with a handful even indicating that they rely on
the committee to make the decision, others reported using committee input in a limited way or
not at all.
All but one principal reported collaborating with staff on at least one dimension of hiring,
and a large minority of principals collaborated on all three aspects that we analyzed – screening,
interviewing, and decision-making. As Table 4 shows, both the extent to which principals
reported collaborating with their staff and the role that staff members played in the hiring process
varied across elementary versus secondary schools.
Differences across high school and elementary school principals
In analyzing how principals collaborated during the hiring process, we found systematic
differences in how elementary and high school principals described collaborating with their
administrators and faculty. In general, elementary school principals were less likely to
collaborate during the hiring process than high school principals. Further, elementary school
principals reported both assembling and working with their hiring committees in ways that
differed from descriptions provided by high school teachers.
24
Overall, hiring committees were composed of assistant principal(s) and/or teachers.
However, the extent to which principals included faculty with particular expertise differed
substantially across elementary and high schools. Elementary school principals were much less
likely than their high school counterparts to report including faculty with specialized content
knowledge. One reason high school principals offered for including these teachers was because
their expertise lent itself to assessing the pedagogical content knowledge of the prospective hire.
A high school principal of a school serving nearly 1200 students explained how this is helpful.
You may bring in the department chair to help along with the interview, just to see
exactly what this person teaching strategy (sic). Do they really understand the
methods that need to be used in teaching Social Studies, and, speak the language,
basically, as we say (principal, lower-achieving high school).
The role of the specialist was generally very clear among high school principals: they wanted
the specialist to evaluate the candidate’s knowledge of subject matter and subject-specific
teaching skills.
Elementary school principals were also less likely to collaborate during the initial
screening process than their high school counterparts. Some principals described using hiring
committees to increase efficiency and capitalize on faculty expertise. For example, one principal
explained that she had department chairs validate the candidates she has chosen. In another case,
an assistant principal described dividing resumes among her fellow assistant principals for
screening based on subject area.
INTERVIEWER: And what kind of screening process do you use ahead of time?
Who sifts through the resumes and decides who is going to be interviewed?
RESPONDENT: The three assistant principals. We all have an area. See I’m over
science and English, and the reading arts. There’s another assistant principal
that’s over fine arts, math, Special Ed, that kind of thing. So we divide up the
resumes by content area, and say mine is all science. So based on what we need, I
just go through the resumes (assistant principal, higher achieving high school).
25
Again, high school principals relied more on the expertise of their faculty in terms of gleaning
whether candidates had subject matter expertise than did elementary school principals. Relatedly,
only a quarter of elementary school principals reported using recommendations from their hiring
committees when deciding whom to interview compared with over half of high school principals.
In general, principals were most likely to report collaborating when interviewing
candidates, with the majority of both elementary and high school principals reporting
collaboration during interviews. Interestingly, a number of high school principals reported that
they delegated the first interview to their committees, with the committee deciding whom to
recommend for a second interview with the principal. This practice was very infrequent among
elementary school principals.
Principals were less likely to report collaborating with faculty when deciding whom to
hire than during interviews. Here again, elementary school principals were much less likely than
high school principals to report that deciding whom to hire was a joint process. Among
elementary school principals who reported collaborating during decision-making, most reported
soliciting input from their faculty. However, these principals took ultimate responsibility for
selecting the new hire. They actively sought assistance from faculty and/or their hiring
committee because they valued their opinions, but in the end, they decided whom to hire. One
principal described allowing her team to share opinions, but also that she was up front about the
decision ultimately being hers.
I have opened it up to them. And I always make it clear that I make the decision
and am just accepting input into the decision. And truly, I do appreciate it,
because I think many times, if I’m not the only person interviewing, that I can
then look at this person and take a couple minutes without being focused on the
interview, and then I can see. So I think it is a good practice (principal, highachieving elementary school).
26
This principal explained that part of the reason that she interviews with a team is because
it allows her to observe the candidate during the interview, which is difficult if she is
interviewing alone.
In contrast, high school principals reported making hiring decisions by consensus with
the hiring committee, or noted that input from the committee was crucial to the decision-making
process. They characterized the process as a “group” one and believed that choosing a candidate
was not solely their decision.
Typically I would like to look at my top three candidates along with my team.
Because, again, it’s not about [states name] making all the decisions. I rely
heavily on feedback (principal, lower-achieving high school).
In a comment typical of principals coded as joint decision-makers, this principal of a school
where approximately 90 percent of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch noted that
input from his team was crucial to the final hiring decision.
Three high school principals explained that they consider committee members to be the
primary decision-makers and see their role as approving the committee’s recommendations.
Another principal of a school with a high population of lower-income students explained the
process.
…We sort of sit down and talk a little bit about what are we looking for, what’s
the position we’re going to be hiring for? You know, what kind of person do we
want to have here? What are the needs of the school? And then they do some
interviewing, and then they usually bring in the candidate to me, and then I talk
with them. And I usually just ratify what the chairs are going to – because the
chairs are the people that are going to be working with them…not me. I may
think they’re great, but I mean, I’m not going to work with them (principal,
higher-achieving high school).
This comment was typical of how these principals explained their role: they support the choices
made by their department chairs since they will be required to work most closely with a new hire
in their department. Similarly, another principal explained that he allows his committee to make
27
the decision, describing his job as “rubber stamping”. These principals indicate that since their
teachers will work directly with the new hire, it is important for them to feel comfortable with a
candidate.
Interestingly, three elementary school and two high school principals reported making
hiring decisions on their own, without input from their faculty or administrators. These principals
indicated that they were the only decision-maker in the hiring process.
INTERVIEWER: And then is the decision joint, in the end?
RESPONDENT: I tell people straight out, no, it’s going to be mine. I, you know –
the times I haven’t, or when I argued about it, I said just remember those. Just
remember. This is not my pick, and if it comes back, you’re going to have to help
me with, you know, helping the people move on, you know. But that usually
doesn’t happen. Nobody has that memory (principal, higher-achieving high
school).
In this principal’s view, she is ultimately responsible for the teacher who is hired, and she
therefore prefers to remain in control of the decision. Principals in this category sometimes noted
that they would bring someone in to conduct an additional interview, or might have a discussion
with their hiring committee, but in the end, they made the decision about whom to hire with little
or no input from others.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study provides an in-depth exploration of how 31 CPS principals search for and
make decisions about prospective teachers in a large urban school district. Our analyses reveal a
number of general trends in hiring practices across sample principals. First, most principals used
the formal resources provided by CPS – job fairs, human resources, and online services – to find
candidates. However, principals also reported using an array of informal networking strategies
within their schools and within CPS. Principals were less likely to search for candidates outside
of the district.
28
The fact that CPS principals searched for candidates almost exclusively within the CPS
system adds to a growing body of evidence underscoring the highly local nature of teacher labor
markets. This finding is similar to prior research at the district-level that highlights how efforts to
find prospective teachers tend to be highly localized (Balter & Duncombe 2005, 2006; Strauss,
Bowes, Marks & Plesko 2000). Research on teacher supply has also found that teachers prefer to
teach close to where they are from (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005a, 2005b) and are
more likely to “stay local” than other professionals (Reininger, 2012).
We also examined the extent to which sample principals collaborate with their
administrators and faculty when hiring teachers. Overall, principals described the hiring process
as collaborative; the vast majority form committees to support their hiring efforts. Most
principals reported collaborating when interviewing, and many also collaborated during
screening and decision-making. In fact, nearly forty percent of principals worked with their
faculty and administrators during all three phases of hiring including screening candidates,
interviewing, and making final hiring decisions.
It is important to note that the degree to which principals hired collaboratively varied
substantially both across principals and within principals across tasks. For about a third of our
sample, the process of teacher hiring was described as being truly distributed in nature. These
principals talked about the decision regarding which teachers to hire as one that was made jointly
with their faculty and/or administration. Thus, we find that for a large minority of CPS
principals, teacher hiring is task for which leadership is distributed among colleagues. In
contrast, many principal described a hiring process that was more top-down in nature. Just over
forty percent of principals in our sample indicated that while they typically solicit input (to
varying degrees) when hiring, the decision regarding whom to hire is ultimately their own.
29
The current study contributes to research on distributed leadership in several ways. It is
the first in-depth study to explore the distribution of leadership tasks in relation to teacher hiring,
adding to a small but growing body of applied research on how leadership is distributed, in
practice, within schools. Corroborating evidence from previous studies, we find substantial
variation in how leadership is distributed across schools (Spillane, et al., 2007). As we argue
earlier in this paper, teacher hiring is both an administrative and pedagogical task. Given that
prior studies of distributed leadership indicate that principals are less likely to share leadership
when tasks are administrative in nature (Camburn et al., 2003; Spillane et al., 2007) and more
likely to do so when tasks relate to instruction (Spillane & Camburn, 2006), it is not surprising
that we find extensive variation in terms of whether and how principals shared leadership in
relation to teacher hiring.
We also explored whether there was systematic variation in the distribution of leadership
across school contexts; an aspect of distributed leadership that has been largely underexplored in
both theory and research (Bennett, et al., 2003). We find considerable variation in the
distribution of leadership across higher- versus lower-achieving schools as well as across
elementary versus secondary schools. The fact that how leadership is distributed varies
systematically across different school contexts, even within a single district, indicates that studies
of distributed leadership need to be more attuned to the possibility of contextual variation.
Based on prior research on the uneven distribution of teachers across schools, we
anticipated that principals in higher-achieving schools would be more likely to share leadership
in the teacher hiring process, simply because they are more likely to have more experienced and
better credentialed teachers to rely on (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2005a; Clotfelter,
Ladd & Vigdor, 2006; Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2002). We do, in fact, find systematic
30
differences in how principals distribute leadership across higher- versus lower-achieving schools.
Principals in higher-achieving schools were more likely to report networking within their
schools, with other CPS principals, and outside CPS to find teachers to fill the vacancies in their
schools. At the same time, they were less likely to use formal CPS resources than their
counterparts in lower-achieving schools and were also less likely to report hiring their own
substitute and student teachers. In general, principals in higher-achieving schools were more
likely to use informal networks and resources to find job candidates, except in the case of hiring
substitute and student teachers from within their own schools.
In sum, principals in higher achieving schools seem more likely to access and mobilize
social capital when searching for teachers compared with their counterparts in lower achieving
schools. This may, in part, be driven by the fact that principals in higher achieving schools have
more access to social capital than principals in lower-achieving schools and that they have an
easier time recruiting candidates to fill positions than their colleagues who are in schools that are
considered less desirable by many applicants. These differences may be cause for concern if the
broader range of strategies reported by principals in higher-achieving schools results in their
amassing larger and/or better pools of applicants from which to select new teachers.
Similarly, the fact that principals in lower-achieving schools are more likely to hire
substitute or student teachers may be concerning in that it suggests the possibility that these
principals may not be considering a large or varied pool of applicants to fill these vacancies and,
therefore, may settle for inferior teachers. On the other hand, it is possible that principals who
hire substitute or student teachers – in our sample nearly 60 percent of principals of lowerachieving schools reported doing so – may in fact be gaining crucial information about these
31
teachers in terms of their content and pedagogical knowledge and their ability to engage students
in the classroom. Future research should explore these and related questions.
In addition to asking principals about how they find candidates, we also queried them
about whether and how they collaborate with their staff when hiring. Here, we expected to see
differences across elementary versus secondary schools. Specifically, we anticipated that
elementary school principals would be less likely to share hiring responsibilities with their
faculty and administrators. Because elementary school principals are less likely to be hiring
content area specialists than their high school counterparts, they might be less inclined to engage
faculty with specific knowledge around content and instruction in the area in which they are
hiring.
In our study, elementary school principals were nearly three times less likely than their
high school counterparts to report including faculty with specialized content knowledge on their
hiring committees. This disparity may reflect differences in principals’ perceptions across
contexts regarding the importance of content area expertise for teachers as well as differences in
the extent to which principals believe they can assess candidates’ content knowledge.
Principals in elementary schools were also less likely to report collaborating across all
three phases of the hiring process. It is worth considering why these principals were generally
less collaborative than their high school counterparts. It is possible that the organizational
structure of elementary schools – typically arranged by grade levels – does not facilitate sharing
leadership tasks associated with hiring new teachers. It is also important to note that sample
elementary schools had, on average, half the number of students and half the number of
vacancies than their high school counterparts. It seems likely that the fact that elementary school
32
principals typically had fewer hires to make as well as fewer administrators and faculty with
whom to share hiring responsibilities also contributed to the differences we observe.
The current study is not without limitations. First, it is important to keep in mind that
principal interviews were conducted with 31 principals in a single district. The Chicago Public
Schools is a large urban district serving a highly disadvantaged student population. While
understanding the teacher hiring process in this context is valuable, it should be noted that these
results may not generalize to other contexts, particularly those serving dramatically different
student populations or those where principals have less autonomy in the teacher hiring process.
Further, the extent to which our results might generalize to all CPS principals is unclear.
These results are based on principal self-reports of their hiring process and preferences.
While principals generally seemed comfortable and open while talking about how they go about
hiring teachers, it is possible both that principals provided answers that they thought would be
socially desirable (e.g., principals may over-report collaborating with their faculty because it
seems like a good thing to say) or that principals would misreport their behaviors simply because
they have forgotten what they actual do. These challenges are relevant to all studies that use
self-reported data. Future research should examine whether a) observations of principals during
the hiring process and/or b) faculty reports of the hiring process corroborate principal reports.
Further, while we find interesting variation across higher- and lower-achieving CPS
schools, we are unable to examine the extent to which these differences result in principals hiring
more effective teachers. It would be useful for future research to replicate and extend the current
study by collecting data on job offers and eventual hires to examine the extent to which principal
networking and collaboration in teacher hiring is associated with identifying and hiring more
qualified teachers and/or teachers who then perform better on the job. Finally, future research
33
should also explore the extent to which principals’ hiring practices might vary by principal
characteristics such as race/ethnicity, gender, and years of experience. While we did not find
systematic differences by individual principal characteristics, it is possible that future studies
with varied samples of principals may uncover subgroup variation. Given recent evidence
indicating that prospective teachers’ preferences vary systematically by race/ethnicity (Engel,
Jacob, & Curran, 2014), and evidence indicating that teacher applicants seek schools and districts
that are familiar (Cannata, 2010), it is important to understand whether principals’ hiring
preferences might also reveal hemophilic tendencies.
In addition to providing new information, the current study generates a number of
questions and ideas about urban principals’ hiring practices. It suggests that some principals
systematically engage in behaviors such as low levels of networking and limited collaboration
with faculty that may lead them to hire less qualified teachers. Future research should replicate
the current study in different contexts to examine the extent to which CPS principals’ hiring
practices generalize to principals in other contexts (e.g., rural or suburban districts).
It is also possible that the extent to which principals collaborate with their faculty when
hiring varies by the specific criteria they are looking for in a prospective hire. The fact that
nearly half of principals in our sample reported including faculty members with content or gradelevel expertise on their hiring committees suggests that this is likely the case. It is also important
to note that the extent to which principals collaborate with their faculty when hiring may vary
systematically and be determined by whether collective bargaining agreements allow teachers to
be involved in hiring for their schools. CPS principals and teachers faced no constraints in this
regard, but this is likely not the case in all contexts.
34
Finally, our results illustrate the need for those training current and future school leaders
(administrators and teacher leaders alike) to anticipate the highly collaborative nature of the
hiring process. Possible areas to emphasize in training include discussion of strategies for
deciding whom to include in the hiring process and at what stages collaboration might be most
beneficial.
Our results may also have further implications for practice. If strategies seen with more
frequency among principals in higher-achieving schools such as more extensive external
networking to find candidates and greater collaboration in decision-making result in their finding
better candidates – teachers who are more effective and are a better fit for their schools – then
less experienced principals as well as those who are more isolated (whether by choice or by
circumstances) may benefit from additional support and training around hiring strategies.
If future research finds that more extensive networking does, in fact, lead to principals’
hiring teachers who are more effective or a better fit for their schools, this would suggest that
new principals and principals who are less likely to network or collaborate when hiring could
benefit from support and training with regard to building strong networks and the development
of hiring teams. More generally, all principals stand to benefit from understanding how various
teacher hiring practices might result in improvements in teacher hiring at both the school and
system-levels.
35
Notes
1
Nationally, 75 percent of public school principals report that they have a high degree of
autonomy in the teacher hiring process. Authors’ calculation using 1999-2000 Schools and
Staffing Survey.
2
The initial sample included 32 schools. One principal refused to participate in the study.
3
Only schools with vacancies for the 2006-2007 academic year were included. Special education
schools, alternative schools, and schools that had formed in the last year were excluded from the
sample. In two high schools assistant principals were interviewed. In both cases, the assistant
principals had primary responsibility for hiring teachers. In two schools, principals invited their
assistant principals to join the interview.
4
We also explored variation in principals’ responses by principal experience, race/ethnicity, and
gender. We did not find systematic differences by these principal characteristics.
36
References
Bacolod, M. (2007). Who teaches and where they choose to teach: College graduates of the
1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(3), 155-168.
Baker, B. D. & Cooper, B.S. (2005). Do principals with stronger academic backgrounds hire
better teachers? Policy implications for improving high-poverty schools. Educational
Administration Quarterly,41(3), 449-479.
Ballou, D. (1996). Do public schools hire the best applicants? The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 111(1), 97-133.
Balter, D. & Duncombe, W. (2006). Staffing classrooms: Do teacher hiring practices affect
teacher qualifications? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education
Finance Association, Denver, CO, March 24.
Balter, D. & Duncombe, W. (2005). Staffing classrooms: How do New York school districs find
their teachers? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance
Association, Louisville, KY, March 17.
Bennett, N., Woods, C., Philip, A. & Harvey, J.A. (2003). Distributed leadership: A review of
the literature. National College for School Leadership.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2005a). Explaining the short careers of highachieving teachers in schools with low-performing tudents. The American Economic
Review, 95(2), 166-171.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2005b). The draw of home: How teachers'
preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 24(1), 113-132.
Braun, J. A., Willems, A., Brown, M. & Green, K. (1987). A survey of hiring practices in
selected school districts. Journal of Teacher Education. 38(2), 45-49.
37
Camburn, E., Rowan, B. & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of
elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373.
Cannata, M. (2010). Understanding the teacher job search process: Espoused preferences and
preferences in use. Teachers College Record, 112(12), 2889-2934.
Cannata, M. & Engel, M. (2012). Does Charter Status Determine Preferences? Comparing the
Hiring Preferences of Charter and Traditional Public School Principals. Education
Finance and Policy 7(4), 375-424.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H.F. & Vigdor, J.L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the
assessment of teacher effectivenes. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 778-820.
Copland, M.A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school
improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375-395.
Dolton, P.J., & van der Klaaw, W. (1999). The turnover of teachers: A competing risks
explanation. Review of Economocis and Statistics, 81(3), 543-552.
Ehrenberg, R. G. & Brewer, D.J. (1994). Do school and teacher characteristics matter?
Evidence from high school and beyond. Economics of Education Review, 13(1), 1-17.
Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a new structure for leadership. The Albert Shanker Institute:
Washington, DC.
Engel, M. (2013). Problematic Preferences? A Mixed Method Examination of What Principals
Look for when Hiring Teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly. 49(1). p. 52-91.
Engel, M. (2012). The Timing of Teacher Hires and Teacher Qualifications: Is there an
Association? Teachers College Record. 114(12).
38
Engel, M., Jacob, B., & *Curran, F.C. (2014). New Evidence on Teacher Labor Supply.
American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 36-72.
Firestone, W.A. & Martinez, M.C. (2007). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership:
Changing instructional practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 3-35.
Goldstein, J. (2003). Making sense of distributed leadership: The case of peer assistance and
review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 397-421.
Grissom, J. A. (2011). Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? Linking
principal effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff environments.
Teachers College Record, 113(11), 2552-2585.
Grissom, J.A. & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of
parents, teachers, and assistant Principals identify the central importance of managerial
skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091-1123.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,
423-451.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 1-20.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980-1995, Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1),
5-44.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J.F. & Rivkin, S.J. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal
of Human Resources, 34, 326-354.
39
Harris, D. N., Rutledge, S.A., Ingle, W.K. & Thompson, C.C. (2010). Mix and match: What
principals really look for when hiring teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 5(2), 228246.
Horng, E., Klasik, D. & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal time use and school effectiveness. American
Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-523.
Jacob, B. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future of
Children, 17(1), 129-153.
Kersten, T. (2008). Teacher hiring practices: Illinois principals' perspectives. The Educational
Forum, 72, 355-368.
Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Working Conditions How Predictive of
Planned and Actual Teacher Movement?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
33(2), 235-261.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools:
A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007).
Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37-67.
Levin, J. & Quinn, M. (2003). Missed opportunities: How we keep high-quality teachers out of
urban classrooms. Report, The New Teacher Project, New York.
Liu, E. & Johnson, S.M. (2006). New teachers' experiences of hiring: Late, rushed, and
information-poor. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 324-360.
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L. & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher
turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44-70.
40
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to
improved student learning: Final report of research findings. Retrieved November,
2010, from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/Knowledge
Topics/Current AreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Documents/Learning-fromLeadership-Investigating-Links-Final-Report.pdf
Papa, F. & Baxter, I. (2008). Hiring teachers in New York's public schools: Can the principal
make a difference? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(1), 87-117.
Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools:
The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their
students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1-39
Ralph, E. G., Kesten, C., Lang, H. & Smith, D. (1998). Hiring new teachers: What do school
districts look for? Journal of Teacher Education, 49(1), 47-57.
Reininger, M. (2012). Hometown disadvantage? It depends on where you’re from: Teachers’
location preferences and implications for staffing schools. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 34(3), 127-145 .
Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability: What
research says. The Urban Institute, Washington, D. C.
Robinson, V. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational
outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 241-256.
Rutledge, S., Harris, D., Thompson, C. & Ingle, W. (2008). Certify, blink, hire: An examination
of the process and tools of teacher screening and selection. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 7(3), 237-263.
41
Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D.L. & Stinebrickner, T.R. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility.
Economics of Education Review, 17(2), 127-136.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.
Spillane, J. P. & Camburn, E.M. (2006). The practice of leading and managing: The distribution
of responsibility for leadership and management in the schoolhouse. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E.M., & Pareja, A.S. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the
school principal’s workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103-125.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Educational Research, 30(3), 23-28.
Stinebrickner, T.R. (1998). An empirical investigation of teacher attrition. Economics of
Education Review, 19, 387-415.
Strauss, R. P., Bowes, L.R., Marks, M.S. & Plesko, M.R. (2000). Improving teacher preparation
and selection: Lessons from the Pennsylvania experience. Economics of Education
Review, 19, 387-415.
Supovitz, J., Serenides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 31-56.
Theel, R. K. & Tallerico, M. (2004). Using portfolios for teacher hiring: Insights from school
principals. Action in Teacher Education, 26(1), 26-33.
42
43
44
45
46
Appendix
Principal Interview Protocol, selected Questions
Principal/Interviewee Background
Do you do most of the hiring for your school? If not, how do you delegate these responsibilities?
Can you describe your general process for hiring new teachers?
The Hiring Process
What sources do you rely on to find candidates?
Other principals/administrators?
Other word of mouth?
Subs/student teachers/interns in your school?
Contacts at education schools?
Job fairs?
Advertising (how, where)?
Other?
What sources do you prefer? Why?
How do you interview (probe 1 on 1, with teachers, with a team)?
What kind of screening process do you use?
Are teachers or other administrators part of the hiring process? How so?
47

CPSHiring_LeadershipandPolicyinSchools_revised

Transcription

Similar documents

WVCPD Board of Directors Members Co

BOSSLey Biz - Bossley Park High School

Read the Full Article Here!

MESPA`s Strategic Direction - Minnesota Elementary School

Website: http://sbtetap.gov.in TELEPHONE:

a brochure with the agenda, conference registration, and

From Our Superintendent: Announcements!

Monday Mailing 2014 Feb 24 - Waikato Principals` Association

Techniques and hints to aid in your job search

Finding - Key Resource Group, LLC