Principal Dispositions Regarding the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System”; “Superintendent ...

8/19/2019 Principal Dispositions Regarding the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System”; “Superintendent Retirement in a Reform St…

1/52

1

__________________________________________________________________________________Vol. 11, No. 4 Winter 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

Winter 2015/Volume 11, No. 4

Table of Contents

Board of Editors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Sponsorship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Research ArticlesPrincipal Dispositions Regarding the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Theodore J. Kowalski, PhD and David A. Dolph, PhD

Superintendent Retirement in a Reform State: Rhetoric and Reality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Lori Boyland, EdD and John Ellis, PhD

Commentary

A Critique of "The Common Core is a Change for the Better" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Adam Wolfe, MEd

Book Reviews

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Dragon by Yong Zhao. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Reviewed by Christopher H. Tienken, EdD

Mission and Scope, Copyright, Privacy, Ethics, Upcoming Themes,

Author Guidelines & Publication Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

AASA Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52


2/52

2


Board of Editors

AASA Jour nal of Scholarship and Practice

2012-2015

Editor Christopher H. Tienken, Seton Hall UniversityCo-EditorKen Mitchell , Manhattanville College

Associate EditorsBarbara Dean , AASA, The School Superintendents AssociationKevin Majewski, Seton Hall University

Editorial Review Board

Albert T. Azinger, Illinois State University Sidney Brown, Auburn University, Montgomery

Brad Colwell, Bowling Green University Sandra Chistolini, Universita`degli Studi Roma Tre, Rome Michael Cohen, Denver Public Schools Betty Cox, University of Tennessee, Martin Theodore B. Creighton, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Gene Davis, Idaho State University, Emeritus John Decman, University of Houston, Clear Lake David Dunaway, University of North Carolina, CharlotteDaniel Gutmore, Seton Hall University Gregory Hauser, Roosevelt University, Chicago Jane Irons, Lamar University Thomas Jandris, Concordia University, Chicago

Zach Kelehear, University of South Carolina Theodore J. Kowalski, University of Dayton Nelson Maylone , Eastern Michigan UniversityRobert S. McCord, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Barbara McKeon, Broome Street Academy Charter High School , New York, NY Sue Mutchler, Texas Women's University Margaret Orr, Bank Street College David J. Parks, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University George E. Pawlas, University of Central FloridaDereck H. Rhoads, Beaufort County School District Paul M. Terry, University of South Florida Thomas C. Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University

Published byAASA, The School Superintendents Association1615 Duke StreetAlexandria, VA 22314

Available at www.aasa.org/jsp.aspxISSN 1931-6569

http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspxhttp://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspxhttp://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx


3/52

3


Sponsorship

The AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice would like to thank AASA, The SchoolSuperintendents Association, in particular the AASA Leadership Development Office, for its ongoingsponsorship of the Journal.

We also would like to offer special thanks to Seton Hall University and in particular the College ofEducation and Human Services.

We appreciate this unique relationship between research and practice, recognizing the mutual benefitto those educators who conduct the research and seek out evidence-based practice and those educatorswhose responsibility it is to carry out the mission of school districts in the education of children.

Without the support of AASA and Seton Hall University, the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice would not be possible.


4/52

4


Research Article ____________________________________________________________________

Principal Dispositions Regarding the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System

Theodore J. Kowalski, PhDProfessor and Kuntz Family Endowed ChairUniversity of DaytonDayton, OH

David A. Dolph, PhDAssistant ProfessorChair, Department of Educational Leadership

University of DaytonDayton, OH

Abstract

The Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) was first implemented during the 2013-14 school term.This study examined principals’ dispositions at the end of this school term. Findings revealed several

major concerns. The most prominent were (a) not having sufficient time to implement the program properly, (b) basing a teacher’s performance heavily on student value-added data, and (c) beingrequired to assist teachers in developing their annual improvement plans. Three independent variables,teaching experience, administrative experience, and level of school assignment , were found to haveonly a low level of association with principal dispositions. With respect to teacher evaluationgenerally, findings here were consistent with earlier studies reporting mixed principal dispositions;with respect to OTES specifically, findings here were consistent with studies in other states reportingthat principal dispositions were more negative than positive.

Key Words

superintendent, leadership, school administration


5/52

5


Principal Dispositions Regarding the

Ohio Teacher Evaluation System

R ecent federal programs, such as the No Child

Left Behind Act and the Race to the Top Initiative, reflect a commonly held belief:improving the accuracy and effectiveness ofteacher evaluation and making school officialsmore accountable for the process are essentialreforms (Strong, Gargani, & Hacifazlioglu,2011). In 2009, the Ohio legislature respondedto federal incentives by directing the state’s

Educators Standards Board to recommend arigorous statewide approach for assessingteacher performance.

Subsequently, the Ohio State Board ofEducation approved a new model, naming it theOhio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES).Initially implemented in the 2013-14 schoolterm, the system included two requirements previously uncommon in Ohio; 50% of ateacher’s annual performance had to be

determined by student value-added scores andteachers, assisted by principals, had to developannual individual growth plans.

The overall purpose of this study was todetermine principal dispositions toward performance evaluation generally and towardOTES specifically. According to the NationalCouncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education(2009), educator dispositions are relevant toreforms because they represent values andcommitments that define the performance ofthose who implement change. In the case ofemployee performance evaluation, principalopinions are especially germane because theyaffect both personal behavior and teachers’attitudes and beliefs (Youngs, 2007).

Data were collected after the principalshad implemented OTES for the first time.Findings indicate that the respondents’ general

views about performance evaluation wererather typical when compared to previousstudies. Their temperament toward OTES,however, was primarily negative. Three

variables often linked to principal dispositions,teaching experience, administrative experience,and level of school assignment (elementary orsecondary) were examined. All three werefound to have a low level association with thedispositions.

Prior LiteratureHistorically, teacher performance evaluationhas evolved from end of the year checklists tofar more sophisticated models that emphasized

both summative and formative judgments(Danielson, 2002).

Recognizing the growing complexity ofthe process, Medley and Coker (1987)examined its effectiveness nearly 3 decadesago. They found the validity of teacherevaluations conducted by administrators to beunacceptably low. Since then, countless otherstudies have been conducted in an effort to better understand and improve the procedure.

Two aspects of previous research are especiallyrelevant here: educator dispositions towardteacher performance evaluation and research onstate-mandated performance evaluationsystems.

Performance Evaluation DispositionsDispositions are relevant because they have a behavioral component. That is, attitudes andfeelings toward a responsibility influence behavior, particularly in relation to pursuing

that duty. Thus, if administrators believedifferentiating between good and badinstruction is impossible or if they believe thatcandid discussions with teachers do more harmthan good, they act accordingly. Equallyimportant, their personal behavior then


6/52

6


influences what teachers believe about theefficacy of performance evaluation and howthey feel about being subjected to the process(Tuytens & Devos, 2010).

Most studies examining teacher and principal dispositions have yielded ratherconsistent findings. With regard to the former,teacher temperaments have been mixed butskewed toward being more negative than positive. For instance, in a national study,Duffett, Farkas, Rotherham, and Silva (2008)reported that only 26% of the teachers thoughttheir evaluations were effective and useful.

Another study (Louis et al., 2010)reported that only 38% of teachers consideredclassroom observations helpful in relation toimproving instruction. With respect to thelatter, principal dispositions also have beenmixed but skewed slightly toward being more positive than negative. For instance, studyingIowa principals, Armendt, (2004) found that68% said the process had improved and 52%said they did not require additional training toconduct the process effectively.

Comparing the two groups, Armstrong(1988) found a statistically significantdifference between them with principalsexpressing the more positive opinions;however, in-group variance among principalswas considerably higher than it was amongteachers.

Much of the literature on educatoropinions has centered on problems and

constraints. The following are notableexamples of these findings:

School culture has beenidentified as a primary barrier.Donaldson (2013), for instance,reported that the effectiveness of

teacher evaluation in many schools has been diminished by shared negativevalues, beliefs and norms. Likewise,Louis and associates (2010) found that

educator dispositions on performanceevaluation often contravened professional norms and public policy.

Dandoy (2012) and Kersten andIsrael (2005) found that collective bargaining agreements unduly restrictedwhat could be assessed, howassessments occurred, and when andwhere they occurred.

Marshall (2005) and Youngs(2013) concluded that classroomobservations often were conductedusing invalid or unreliable instruments.In addition, Marzano (2012) found thatthe effectiveness of classroomobservations often has been diminished because the evaluator did notunderstand the process; specifically,sampling errors resulted in principalratings not being based on actual

behavior.

The presence of evaluator bias

and subjectivity in areas such as age,experience, gender, and race has beenreported in multiple studies such asthose conducted by Donaldson (2013)and Tucker and Stronge (2005).

Another pervasive problem

identified in previous research is

inadequate human and materialresources (e.g., Coulter, 2013).

The most pervasive problem inthe eyes of principals has been timerestrictions (e.g., Donaldson, 2013; Hill,2013; Kersten & Israel, 2005).


7/52

7


Painter (2001) reported that principals believe that defining andmeasuring effective teaching isinherently difficult.

Opinions about principal self-efficacyalso are relevant. In both an Ohio study(Himmelein, 2009) and Massachusetts study(Ford, 2014), the researchers found that amajority of respondents believed they had therequisite knowledge and skills to evaluateteacher performance. In a study of nearly 300Arizona principals, however, Painter (2001)found that a majority were dissatisfied with thelevel of training they had received in this area.

Although findings regarding principalself-efficacy have been mixed, teachers’opinions about principal expertise have beenlargely negative and consistent. Specifically,teachers have expressed doubt about principals being able to assess teachers across multiplesubject areas or grade levels (e.g., Duffet et al.,2008; Oppenhiem, 1994), to conductassessments relevant to instructionalimprovement (e.g., Louis et al, 2010; Peterson,

2000), and to apply assessment procedurescorrectly and consistently (e.g., Zimmerman &Deckert-Pelton, 2003).

Research examining evaluationoutcomes also has revealed problems. Forexample, in a study spanning 12 districts infour states, the vast majority of teachersreceived the highest rating possible butconversely, dismissals in this defined population were extremely rare (Weisberg,

Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009). Afteranalyzing numerous studies, Menuey (2005)noted that various researchers have estimatedthe level of incompetent teachers to be between2% and 20%, with 5% being the modalapproximation. Yet, research reveals that lessthan 1% of teachers have been dismissed

annually. Menuey described the discrepancy between the level of incompetent teachers andteacher dismissals as “gross” and “staggering”(p. 310).

Studies also have revealed the presenceof subjectivity and bias. Typically, theseconditions have resulted in discrimination,especially in the areas of gender and race (e.g.,Rinehart & Young, 1996). In addition tosubjectivity, leniency in performanceevaluations has been found to exist across alltypes of organizations, especially when performance ratings determined or influencedhigh-stake decisions, such as job retention,

promotion, or tenure (Jacob & Lefgren, 2007).

Studies examining possible associations between principal attitudes and personalcharacteristics have been limited and theirfindings mixed. Studying dispositions towardIowa’s mandated evaluation program, Amendt

(2004) found a significant difference betweenrelatively inexperienced principals (less than 4years) and their peers regarding programeffectiveness with the former group having

more positive beliefs. Conversely, Fisicaro(2010), studying New Jersey principals, foundhighly experienced principals (over 15 years) tohave more positive views about teacherevaluation than their peers.

Several other studies have looked at possible associations between leadership style,a factor arguably relevant to conductingevaluations, and levels of professionalexperience. Results of these inquiries also have

been mixed with most having found nostatistically significant association between thetwo variables (e.g., Bentley, 2011; Cooper,2011).

A few studies have examined a possibleassociation between principal opinions and the


8/52

8


level of school assignment (elementary orsecondary). Often, educators assume performance evaluation is more difficult forsecondary principals, primarily because the

quantity is greater and the nature (acrossmultiple subject areas) is more complex. Nevertheless, most studies examining level ofschool assignment as an independent variableand principal opinions as a dependent variable(e.g., Cardine, 1998) have found no statisticallysignificant association.

State-Mandated Evaluation SystemsThe number of state-mandated paradigms proliferated over the past 2 decades, largely

because of fiscal incentives embedded in thefederal program, A Race to the Top.Commonly, state systems include twomandates: student performance, assessed byvalue-added achievement scores, must be acomponent of a teacher’s evaluation and each

teacher must develop an annual professionalgrowth plan. Both obligations have been andremain controversial.

With respect to the former requirement,

many teachers and principals believe that placing considerable weight on value-addedlearning data, a condition that currently existsin 40 states (Collins & Amrein-Beardsley,2014), is unfair. Although some researchers(e.g., Kimball & Milanowski, 2009; Taylor &Tyler, 2012) have urged state policymakers torely on these metrics, others either havechallenged the validity of these measures (e.g.,Kerstling, Mei-kuang, & Stigler, 2013) or haveconcluded that they are invalid (e.g., Berliner,

2013; Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley,Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012; Konstantopoulous,2014). Expectedly, teacher opinions aboutusing value-added data to determine their performance have been predominantlynegative. In a California study, for instance,

Lee (2012) found that most teachers believedthat the mandate was not only unfair, it likelywould force them to change curriculum andinstructional methods.

To a lesser extent, concerns also have been expressed about requiring teachers todevelop individual growth plans under theguidance of a principal. Teacher opposition tothis mandate appears to be nested inskepticism; that is, many teachers have beenunconvinced that principals can provide themwith meaningful guidance (Stark & Lowther,1984; Zimmerman & Deckart-Pelton, 2003).Although principals’ opinions about assisting

teachers to develop growth plans are largelyunknown, persistent concerns about the amountof time spent evaluating teachers (e.g., Hill,2013; Maharaj, 2014) suggest that theirattitudes are likely to be negative.

Recently, researchers have examinedopinions of specific state-mandated programs.This body of research has disclosed myriadconcerns. Educator apprehensions were notunexpected given the fact that state programs

often contained as many or more constraintsthan the models they replaced (Hinchey, 2010).In a Colorado study, for example, Ramirez,Clouse, and Davies (2014) described thatstate’s policy as over -reaching, unduly timeconsuming, and poorly designed.

Other state studies reveal the depth ofeducator concerns. As examples, in Georgia(Eady & Zepeda, 2007), Washington (Coulter,2013), and Missouri (Killian, 2010),

researchers reported mostly negativedispositions. Equally notable, disapproval ofusing value-added data was pervasive andconcerns about specific state programs werenearly identical to those recorded in studiesaddressing performance evaluation in general


9/52

9


(e.g., lack of resources, excessive timerequirements, inclusion of value-added metrics,and unrealistic expectations).

A notable exception among the statestudies is research conducted by Lasswell,Pace, and Reed (2008) in Iowa. They foundthat principal opinions toward that state’s

system were primarily positive; however, theirstudy population included only principals fromsmall rural districts. Limited research (e.g.,Ferguson, 1981) suggests that principals insmall-enrollment districts have receivedsubstantially less performance evaluationtraining than have principals from large-

enrollment districts. Thus, the nature of theIowa study population may largely explain theatypical finding.

Ohio Study of Principals’ Dispositions Description

This study of Ohio principals was conductedimmediately after teachers were evaluatedunder OTES for the first time. The researchwas guided by three questions:

1.

What are the principals’ opinionsregarding teacher performanceevaluation?

2. What are the principals’ opinionsregarding OTES?

3. What level of association exists between the dependent variable(opinions of OTES) and each of threeindependent variables (respondentteaching experience, administrativeexperience, and level of school

assignment )?

The first question focused on opinionsregarding educator dispositions toward performance evaluation generally; the second

question focused on opinions regarding OTES.Both questions were answered usingdescriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages,and rank order). The rank order of the

responses was determined by calculating the percentage of respondent agreement for eachstatement.

Because opinion data were continuousand demographic data were dichotomous, thethird research question was answered bycalculating point biserial correlationcoefficients. The coefficients were then appliedas descriptive statistics using a typologyrecommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983):

• Small association: (+ or -)correlations from .01 to .29

• Moderate association: (+ or -)correlations from .30 to .49

• Large association: (+ or -)correlations of .50 and higher

The defined study population consistedof 89 principals employed in public elementaryand secondary schools located in three

Southwestern Ohio counties. Data werecollected in May and June of 2014 using a paper survey developed by the researchers.Content validity was established by a panel ofexperts, all of whom were former principalsand current professors.

Limitations The study had three notable limitations. First,the defined population only included publicelementary or secondary school principals in

three Ohio counties. Second, findings relied onthe accuracy of self-reported beliefs. As such,validity depends on principals having sufficientself-awareness and responding honestly. Third,no inferences could be made about the study population’s non-responders.


10/52

10


FindingsCompleted surveys that could be analyzed werereturned by 50 principals, a return rate of 56%.The respondents were almost equally divided in

terms of the level of assigned schools, with54% being secondary school principals and theremainder being elementary school principals.

Response percentages for nine statementsabout teacher performance evaluation ingeneral are in Table 1. The statements appear inrank order based on the percentage of

respondent agreement (highest to lowest). Amajority of respondents disagreed that they andteachers had a positive disposition toward theevaluation process in general.

Table 1

Opinions about Teacher Performance Evaluation in General

Rank* Statements

Percentages

SD D A SA

1 Principals have the skills necessary to complete teacher evaluations effectively. 2 10 68 20

2 Evaluation data are used by principals to improve the quality of instruction. 4 18 56 22

3 Principals consider teacher evaluation to be one of their most important duties. 10 14 52 24

4 Principals have the knowledge necessary to complete teacher evaluations effectively. 0 28 54 18

5 Evaluation data are used by principals to determine if a teacher is competent. 2 30 60 8

5 Teachers have confidence in the evaluation data generated by principals. 4 28 62 6

7 Evaluation data are used by principals to determine if a teacher should be reemployed. 4 33 47 16

8 Principal dispositions regarding performance evaluation are positive. 16 38 40 6

9 Teacher dispositions (attitudes/beliefs) regarding performance evaluation are positive. 14 48 36 2

*Statements are ranked from highest to lowest respondent agreement

Legend: SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; D = Disagree; SD = Strongly Disagree


11/52

11


Response percentages for the 16 OTES-related statements are in Table 2. Again, thestatements appear in rank order based on the percentage of respondent agreement. Overall,

the principals’ responses reveal that opinions

regarding OTES were substantially morenegative than opinions about performanceevaluation generally.


12/52

12


Table 2

Opinions about Ohio Teacher Evaluation System

Ran

k

Statements

Percentages

SD D A SA

1 The amount of time I spend on the OTES is excessive. 4 0 10 86

2 The pre-conference requirement is an effective OTES element 8 16 62 14

3 The amount of time teachers I supervise spend on the OTES is excessive. 4 24 24 48

4 I know how to apply the OTES correctly. 2 30 56 12

5 The OTES is increasing the quantity of time I spend with supervising teachers. 10 24 28 38

6 The scope of the OTES is understood by the teachers I supervise. 6 38 50 6

7 Instructions for applying the OTES are clear to me. 6 42 46 6

8 The professional growth plan requirement is an effective OTES element. 12 40 42 6

8 The teachers I supervise know how to apply the OTES correctly. 6 46 42 6

10 Instructions for applying the OTES are clear to the teachers I supervise. 12 42 40 6

11 The OTES is increasing the accuracy of teacher evaluations. 18 45 31 6

12 I have a positive disposition regarding the OTES. 20 44 28 8

13 The OTES is having a positive effect on teaching and learning. 27 45 20 8

14 The OTES has improved my relationships with the teachers I supervise. 18 54 24 4

15 The weight placed on student growth measures (50%) in the OTES is fair. 36 44 18 2

16 The teachers I supervise have a positive disposit ion regarding the OTES. 24 58 14 4

*Statements are ranked from highest to lowest respondent agreement

Legend: SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; D = Disagree; SD = Strongly Disagree


13/52

13


Responses to three demographicquestions were dichotomous and the percentages are shown in Table 3. Associations between respondent beliefs about OTES and

each of the demographic variables weredetermined by calculating point bi-serialcorrelations. The coefficients were then

categorized as being large, medium, or small asdescribed earlier. The coefficients andcategorization outcomes are in Table 4. Asthese data reveal, all three association were

small, with the highest level of association being negative.

Table 3

Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

Teaching experience Administrative experience Level of assignment

< 11 years 11 > years < 11 years 11 > years Elementary Secondary

38% 62% 62% 38% 46% 54%

Table 4

Levels of Association between Opinions about Ohio Teacher Evaluation System and Demographic

Variables

Variable Correlation coefficient Level of association

Teaching experience +.19 Small positive

Administrative experience +.03 Small positive

Assignment level -.27 Small negative


14/52

14


DiscussionThe main purpose of this study was todetermine dispositions of a defined populationof Ohio principals toward performance

evaluation generally and OTES specifically. Atthe time the study was conducted, the followingthree pieces of evidence suggested that theirtemperaments would be more negative than positive.

1. Relatively recent studies (e.g., Duffettet al., 2008; Louis et al., 2010) haverevealed that educator skepticismregarding the validity and usefulness ofteacher evaluations remains

considerable.2. Using value-added student data to

determine teacher performance has beencriticized not only by educationassociations but also by several prominent scholars, such as Berliner(2013) and Darling-Hammond andassociates (2012). Expectedly, studiesexamining reactions to this mandate(e.g., Lee, 2012) have reportedsubstantial teacher opposition to it.

3.

Mandating educators to implementchanges (i.e., using a power-coercivestrategy), especially those they do notsupport, almost always have failed to beinstitutionalized (Kowalski, 2011; St.John, Griffith, & Allen-Haynes, 1997).

Nevertheless, in light of the fact thatOTES constituted a radical change in teacherevaluations, there was a need to determine ifthis assumption was accurate.

With respect to opining about performance evaluation nationally, outcomesreported in this study are congruent with previous research findings. As examples, mostrespondents in the Ohio study thought that principals understood the importance of

performance evaluation and possessed therequisite knowledge and skills to apply it properly. These findings reinforce evidence

reported earlier by Armstrong (1988),Himmelein (2009) and Kersten and Israel(2005). Nevertheless, principal self- perceptions should be weighed in relation toteachers’ perceptions of principal efficacy.

Teachers have tended to rate principals’

expertise much lower as demonstrated ininvestigations conducted by Armstrong (1988),Duffet et al. (2008), and Oppenhiem (1994);unfortunately, explanations for the disparate

views remain imprecise. Equally notable, theOhio study found that most principals believedthat educator dispositions toward performanceevaluation were more negative than positive.This outcome reinforces data reported in arecent national study conducted by Louis andassociates (2010).

With respect to OTES specifically,several findings are noteworthy. First, 96% ofthe principals agreed that the time they had

devoted to implementing the new system wasexcessive. This finding is congruent withnumerous studies reporting that principalsconsider insufficient time to be their mostserious constraint (e.g., Hill, 2013; Kersten &Israel, 2005; Killian, 2010). Instead ofattempting to mitigate this problem, OTES,especially the mandate for principalinvolvement in teacher professional growth plans, exacerbates time requirements.

Second, the level of opposition to usingstudent value-added measures reported herewas considerable. A similar finding wasreported in a recent California study conducted by Lee (2012). As previously noted, resistanceto judging teacher performance on the basis ofvalue-added scores appears to be pervasive in


15/52


16/52

16


Given the proliferation of state systems,the need for additional investigations isaxiomatic. Specifically, future research isencouraged in the following areas: studies of

mandated systems in other states, examiningvariables underlying the disparity between principal and teacher views of principal

efficacy, examining variables associated witheducator dispositions toward teacherevaluation, and the development of alternativemodels that include reliable and valid

components aligned with the existingknowledge base on performance evaluation.

Author Biographies

Theodore Kowalski is professor and the Kuntz Family Endowed Chair in educational administration atthe University of Dayton. E-mail: [email protected]

David Dolph is an assistant professor and chair at the University of Dayton’s Department ofEducational Leadership. He is a former school principal and district superintendent. E-mail:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


17/52

17


References

Amendt, B. C. (2004). A study of administrator perceptions of state-mandated teacher evaluation: The student achievement and Iowa teacher quality law. Doctoral dissertation, Drake University,

Des Moines, Iowa.

Armstrong, S. R. (1988). Perceptions of principals and teachers toward mandated teacher evaluation.Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Bentley, K. (2011). An investigation of the self-perceived principal leadership styles in an era ofaccountabilit y. Doctoral dissertation. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.

Berliner, D. C. (2013). Problems with value-added evaluations of teachers? Let me count the ways!Teacher Educator, 40(4), 235-243.

Cardine, L. B. (1998). Principals' perception of teacher evaluation as a support for decision-making .Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, Teachers College, New York, New York.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, C. & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). Putting growth and value-added models on the map.Teachers College Record, 116 (1). Retrieved fromhttp://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17291

Cooper, G. J. (2011). The influences of school variables on the principals' instructional leadership

style in elementary schools in an urban setting . Doctoral dissertation, University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Coulter, M. P. (2013). A qualitative study of teacher and principal perceptions of Washington stateteacher evaluation instruments. Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman.

Dandoy, J. R. (2012). Principals' perceptions of barriers to dismissal of poor-performing teachers.Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement .Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacherevaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 96 (6), 5-6.

Donaldson, M. L. (2013). Principals’ approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness: Constraints and

opportunities in hiring, assigning, evaluating, and developing teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49( 5), 838-882.

http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17291http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17291


18/52

18


Duffett, A., Farkas, S., Rotherham, A., & Silva, E. (2008). Waiting to be won over: Teachers speak onthe profession, unions, and reform. Washington, DC: Education Sector.

Eady, C. K., & Zepeda, S. J. (2007). Evaluation, supervision, and staff development under mandated

reform: The perceptions and practices of rural middle school principals. Rural Educator, 28(2),1-7.

Ferguson, V. S. (1981). Principals’ perceptions concerning teacher evaluation in the state ofWashington. Doctoral dissertation, Seattle University, Seattle, Washington.

Fisicaro, R. J. (2010). Teacher evaluation: Assessing principals’ perceptions in the state of New Jersey. Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia.

Ford, M. C. (2014). Instructional self-efficacy of principals in the context of a statewide educatorevaluation system. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Massachusetts.

Hinchey, P. H. (2010). Getting teacher assessment right: What policymakers can learn from research.Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.

Hill, K. A. (2013). Walking the tightrope: Secondary school principals' perspectives on teacherevaluation. Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Himmelein, M. E. (2009). An investigation of principals’ attitudes toward teacher evaluation processes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2007). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective

performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26 (1), 101 – 136.

Kersten, T. A., & Israel, M. S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: Principals’ insights and suggestions forimprovement. Planning & Changing, 36 (1/2), 47-67.

Kersting, N. B., Mei-kuang, C. & Stigler, J. W. (2013). Value-added teacher estimates as part ofteacher evaluations: Exploring the effects of data and model specifications on the stability ofteacher value-added scores. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(6/7), 1-39.

Killian, B. R. (2010). Administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the efficacy of the Missouri performance-based teacher evaluation model . Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University, St.

Louis, Missouri.

Kimball, S., & Milanowski, A. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decisionmaking within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly,45(1), 34-70.


19/52

19


Konstantopoulos, S. (2014). Teacher effects, value-added models, and accountability. TeachersCollege Record, 116 (1). Retrieved fromhttps://www.tcrecord.org/library/Abstract.asp?ContentId=17290

Kowalski, T. J. (2011). Public relations in schools (5th

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.

Lasswell, T. A., Pace, N. J., & Reed, G. A. (2008). Weighing in: Rural Iowa principals’ perceptions of

state-mandated teaching evaluation standards. Rural Educator, 29(3), 40-44.

Lee, L. (2012). Voices less heard: Teachers' perspectives on the evaluation of teacher effectivenessthrough the use of value-added modeling . Doctoral dissertation, California State University,Los Angeles, California.

Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Walhlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., Mascall, B., Gordon,M., Strauss, T., Thomas, E., & Moore, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved learning:

Final report of research findings. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research andEducational Improvement.

Marshall, M. (2005). It’s time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 86 , 727-730.

Maharaj, S. (2014). Administrators’ views on teacher evaluation: Examining Ontario’s teacher performance appraisal. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, (152), 1-58.

Marzano, R. J. (2012). Reducing error in teacher observation scores. Educational Leadership,70(3),82-83.

Medley, D. M., & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 242-247.

Menuey, B. P. (2005) Teachers’ perceptions of professional incompetence and barriers to the dismissal process. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18(4), 309-325.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2009). NCATE 2009 standards. Washington,DC: author.

Oppenheim, C. (1994). Encouraging evaluation utilization by preserving teacher self-

esteem. Washington, DC: Center for Research in Educational Accountability andTeacher Evaluation.

Painter, S. R. (2001). Barriers to evaluation: Beliefs of elementary and middle school principals. Planning & Changing, 32(1/2), 58-70.

https://www.tcrecord.org/library/Abstract.asp?ContentId=17290https://www.tcrecord.org/library/Abstract.asp?ContentId=17290


20/52

20


Ramirez, A., Clouse, W., & Davis, K. W. (2014). Teacher evaluation in Colorado: How policyfrustrates practice. Management in Education, 28(2), 44-51.

Rinehart, J., & Young, P. (1996). Effects of teacher gender and principal gender on ratings of teacher

performance. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10( 4), 313-323.

St. John, E. P., Griffith, A. I., & Allen-Haynes, L. (1997). Families in schools: A chorus of voices inrestructuring . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Stark, J. S. & Lowther, M. A. (1984). Predictions of teachers' preferences concerning their evaluation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(4), 76-106.

Strong, M., Gargani, J., & Hacifazlioglu, O. (2011). Do we know a successful teacher when we seeone? Experiments in the identification of effective teachers. Journal of Teacher Education,62(4), 367-382.

Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). Can teacher evaluation improve teaching? Education Next, 12(4),78-84.

Tucker, P. & Strong, J. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning . Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2010). The influence of school leadership on teachers’ perceptions ofteacher evaluation policy. Educational Studies, 36 (5), 521-536.

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to

acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: The New TeacherProject.

Youngs, P. (2007). How elementary principals’ beliefs and actions influence new teachers’experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 101-137.

Youngs, P. (2013). Using teacher evaluation reform and professional development to support commoncore assessment . Retrieved from www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/201304/Using-Teacher-Evaluation-and-PD-to-Support

Zimmerman, S., & Deckert-Pelton, M. (2003). Evaluating the evaluators: Teachers’

perceptions of the principal’s role in professional evaluation. NASSP Bulletin87 (636), 28-37.

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/201304/Using-Teacher-Evaluation-and-PD-to-Supporthttp://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/201304/Using-Teacher-Evaluation-and-PD-to-Supporthttp://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/201304/Using-Teacher-Evaluation-and-PD-to-Supporthttp://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/201304/Using-Teacher-Evaluation-and-PD-to-Support


21/52

21


Research Article ____________________________________________________________________

Superintendent Retirement in a Reform State: Rhetoric and Reality

Lori Boyland, EdD

Teachers College

Ball State University

Muncie, IN

John Ellis, PhD

Teachers College

Ball State University

Muncie, IN

Abstract

Indiana recently gained status as a national leader in educational reform. At the same time, a recordnumber of superintendents retired, with 62 retirements in 2012 and 2013, representing 21% ofsuperintendents in the state. The purpose of this study was to explore factors influencingsuperintendents’ decisions to retire during this time. Quantitative survey methodology was used togather data directly from retiring superintendents over two years with 28 participants. Analysis ofresponses revealed that school funding issues, including Indiana’s new voucher program and itsimpacts on education funding, were the highest-rated issues influencing participants’ retirement

decisions. This research advances our understanding of the superintendency in today’s school reformclimate and identifies factors potentially affecting longevity in the position.

Key Words

public school superintendency, superintendent retirement, superintendent preparation and training


22/52

22


Superintendent Retirement in a Reform State: Rhetoric and Reality

Public school superintendents are paramountin promoting school and student success (Björk& Kowalski, 2005; Wahlstrom, Louis,Leithwood, & Anderson, 2010). Studies havedocumented the value of effective, goal-oriented, and stable leadership at thesuperintendent level (Cooper, Fusarelli, &Carella, 2000; Trevino, Braley, Brown, &Slate, 2008).

Statistically significant positive

relationships have been found betweensuperintendent tenure and student achievement,highlighting the importance of retaining veteransuperintendents (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Arecent study revealed that superintendents withmore experience in their respective states had alarger influence on student achievement thanthose with less experience (Plotts & Guttmore,2014). Logically, it follows that thewidespread retirement of veteransuperintendents in a state immersed ineducational reform is concerning and should bestudied.

In Indiana, an unusually high number ofsuperintendents retired in 2012 and 2013,leading to speculation that the role was becoming less desirable.

However, no state-specific researchcould be drawn upon to determine if the issues being discussed as “reasons for leaving” were

rhetoric or reality. This led to the developmentof this study, with the purpose of ascertainingissues that retiring superintendents recognizedas having influenced their decisions to leave the position.

Changes in the Public School

SuperintendencyAlthough the superintendency has long beenconsidered a challenging position, nationalresearch reveals that the job is evolving withnotable increases in the demands, complexities,and scope of the role (Björk & Keedy, 2003;Glass & Franceschini, 2007; Litchka, Fenzel, &Polka, 2009).

Practitioners and researchers report thattoday’s superintendents face intensified

pressures like more on-the-job conflict,expectations to meet the needs of differentspecial interest groups, higher accountabilitystandards, persistent media exposure, fundingdifficulties, increased state and federalmandates, and negative public perceptionsabout schools (Cordeiro & Cunningham, 2013;Hall & Brown, 2013; Litchka et al., 2009;Trevino et al., 2008).

There are added pressures when schools

are highly engaged in educational reform because these efforts typically involve theconcurrent implementation of multiple large-scale changes, all of which can leave educatorsfeeling “initiative fatigue” (Reeves, 2010).

Clearly, today’s public school

superintendents face a plethora of complexissues. Yet, it is not clear if any of these issuescontribute to retirement decisions, especially because despite the ever-increasing challenges,

superintendents still report relatively high jobsatisfaction (Kowalski, McCord, Petersen,Young, & Ellerson, 2011). However,superintendents have indicated higher levels of


23/52

23


job stress. In 2007, Glass and Franceschinifound that nearly 60% of superintendentsreported either “considerable” or “very great”stress levels, which represented an increase of

16% from twenty-five years earlier. Theheightened stress and demands of the positionhave resulted in speculation that somesuperintendents have left the position due to the

increased stress and pressures of the job (Björk

& Keedy, 2003; Hall & Brown, 2013).

At the same time that superintendents’

jobs are becoming more complex anddemanding, demographic studies indicate thatthe typical American superintendent is older

than in past years (Fale, Ike, & Terranova,2012; Kowalski et al., 2011; Sharp, 2011).

The 2000 national decennial studyconducted by the American Association ofSchool Administrators (AASA), found thateight percent of superintendents reported being

older than 60 (Glass, Björk, & Brunner, 2000).

However, in the 2010 AASA decennial study,that number rose to 18% being over 60, with72% of superintendents reporting being age 50

or above (Kowalski et al., 2011).

This prompts the question: Is theupswing in retirements in Indiana simply age-related with superintendents feeling “it is timeto retire?” Or are other factors pushingsuperintendents towards this importantdecision?

Through this study, we investigate thisquestion by asking superintendents who have

recently chosen to retire why they made thatdecision. This research is valuable because it broadens our understanding of thesuperintendency in today’s climate by

potentially isolating job issues superintendentsfelt were important enough to influence their

decisions to retire, shedding light on currentfactors that may hinder the appeal of the role.

Background on Retirement from the

Indiana SuperintendencyA record number of superintendents retired inIndiana in 2012 and 2013, according to datamaintained by the Indiana Association ofPublic School Superintendents (IAPSS, 2013).For the ten years prior (from 2001-2011), theaverage rate of superintendent retirement peryear in Indiana was 6.8%, or about 20 per year.

However, at the end of the 2011-2012school year, 33 superintendents retired

(11.3%). At the end of the 2012-2013 schoolyear, 29 retired (9.9%). Therefore, for the two-year period of this study, 62 of the 293 publicschool superintendents in Indiana retired; atotal of 21.2% of the state’s superintendents.

During this same period the statewidesuperintendent search team began reporting ashrinking pool of qualified applicants (D.Jarman, member of statewide superintendentsearch team, personal communication, May 19,

2012; April 11, 2013).

This combination of increasedretirements with a smaller applicant poolgenerated concerns in the education communityand heightened awareness about recruitmentand future staffing. In addition, these factorsled to speculation regarding increased hesitancyabout serving as a superintendent in Indiana. Inrecent years, Indiana has been extensivelyinvolved in multiple educational reform efforts

and there has been conjecture that one or moreof these initiatives might be dissuadingsuperintendents.

However, increased attrition ofsuperintendents is not unique to Indiana. A


24/52

24


recent study of superintendents in the state of New York found that 48% of veteran and 19%of new superintendents intended to retire withinfive years (Fale et al., 2012). The Pennsylvania

Association of School Administrators recentlyreported much higher retirement levels,indicating that in the last four years their statehad a 49% turnover rate for superintendents(Hall & Brown, 2013).

Substantially increased superintendentretirement rates have been recorded in NewJersey (Cooper, 2013) and Kentucky (Coldiron,2013). The Illinois Association of SchoolBoards noted that the supply of experienced

school administrators was soon to be at an all-time low after a survey indicated thatapproximately 40% of Illinois superintendentsintended to retire by 2015 (Hall & Pierson,2010).

Educational Context in Indiana In the last few years, Indiana has embarked ona fast-track educational reform journey withstate initiatives involving increasedaccountability and standardized assessments, an

innovative educator evaluation model with performance-based pay components, grading ofschools and districts, revisions to the schoolfunding process and formula, new academicstandards (not Common Core), full-daykindergarten, increased charter schools, and theimplementation of a generous and quicklygrowing voucher program (Center forEvaluation and Education Policy [CEEP],2011; CEEP, 2012; Hirth & Eiler, 2014).

Several prominent reviewers haveranked Indiana as a leading model for

educational reform. For example, the State

Policy Report Card 2014, released fromStudentsFirst, founded by Michelle Rhee, placed Indiana third in the nation in “forward-thinking, student-centered education policy

ideas” (StudentsFirst, 2014, p. 9). A policy

brief by the think tank, the Sagamore Institute,summarized Indiana’s efforts by saying, “Notlong ago, no one thought of Indiana as a

national leader in education reform. Now, thestate is heralded by many as the best examplein America of expansive, full-spectrumeducation reform (Streeter, 2011, p. 2).

PurposeAs we look to the future of public

school leadership in Indiana and across thenation, it is important that we fully understandthe superintendent’s role and issues that may or

may not be influencing superintendents'

decisions to remain in the position.

Accordingly, the purpose of thisresearch was to identify specific factors thatsuperintendents recognized as having impactedtheir decisions to retire at this time. Thisinformation can be used to assist withcurricular planning and professionaldevelopment to better prepare candidates forthe challenges they will face in thesuperintedency, as well as providing a deeper

understanding of the support and assistanceneeded by those currently serving. Tworesearch questions guided this study:

1. What factors did outgoingsuperintendents agree influenced theirdecisions to retire in 2012 and in 2013?

2. Did the factors influencing retirementdecisions remain the same — or change--after removing from the analysissuperintendents who agreed that, “… it

was time to retire?”

Methodology Based on the study’s purpose and

exploratory nature, a survey approach wasdeemed most appropriate. After completing a


25/52

25


comprehensive literature review, theresearchers developed the survey instrumentemploying a quantitative design. We used the“Tailored Design Method” (TDM), which

outlines a specific set of procedures forquestion development and surveyimplementation designed to yield high qualityresults (Dillman, 2000).

Survey instrumentThe survey first gathered basic demographicinformation, such as participants’ years of

experience, age, gender, ethnicity, anddegree(s) earned. General information aboutthe superintendent’s school district was also

obtained, including the student enrollment andtype of community (rural, suburban, or urban).

Then, to determine the extent to whichvarious topics influenced retirement decisions, participants were asked to rate 26 items on afive point Likert-type scale (5=strongly agree,4=agree, 3=undecided, 2=disagree, 1=stronglydisagree).

We developed these 26 survey items

based on our review of the literature,recommendations from practicingsuperintendents, and our own knowledge ofIndiana topics and reform initiatives.

There was an additional item, whichasked superintendents to rate the statement:“There was no primary issue, I just felt that itwas time to retire.” This item was included inorder to isolate superintendents who agreedwith this statement when analyzing responses.

In other words, regardless of age, wewanted to be able to take a separate look at thesuperintendents who might not have felt readyto retire, but moved forward with retirement.

Before implementation, we asked a panel experienced in survey development toreview the survey and submit feedbackregarding face and content validity. This

seven-member panel consisted of universityfaculty members, former superintendents, and practicing superintendents in the state. Basedon the panel’s feedback, several revisions and

sequencing changes were made to the survey,which improved clarity and flow. The surveywas then pilot tested with a similar panel withfavorable results; therefore, no additionalchanges were made after the pilot tests.

Procedure and participants

We used the IAPSS website in April 2012 and2013 to gather the names of Indianasuperintendents who had announced their intentto retire. We then obtained contact informationfrom the Indiana Department of EducationWebsite (IDOE). At the end of April 2012 and2013, each retiring superintendent was sent thesurvey instrument and cover letter. Thesurveys were anonymous and no identifyinginformation was requested. Superintendentswere given 45 days to respond before the

survey data was analyzed.

Results Response ratesIn April 2012, the survey was sent to the 33superintendents who had indicated their intentto retire. Fifteen superintendents participated,for a response rate of 45.45%. In April 2013,the same survey was sent to the 23superintendents who had indicated their intentto retire (six superintendents decided to retireafter our deadline; so, we were unable toinclude them). Thirteen superintendents participated in 2013, for a return rate of56.52%. The response rates for both yearswere considered satisfactory (Babbie, 1990).


26/52

26


DemographicsDemographic results revealed that the typicalsuperintendent in this study was a white male,with 6-10 years as superintendent in their most

recent district, and 11-15 years total experienceas superintendent. Doctorate degrees had beenearned by 61%, with the remaining 39%holding Education Specialist degrees. In termsof age, 25% were in the 51-60 age group and75% were in the 61-70 age group. There wereno retiring superintendents under age 50 orover 70.

The majority of the participants’ school

communities were rural or small town 61%,

with suburban 18%, and urban 21%. Thedemographics of the school communities presented an accurate representation of Indianain terms of typical population distributions andcharacteristics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).The community demographics and the ratio ofretirements per area were similar to thosereported in previous years; therefore, it did notappear that superintendents in any one type orsize of community were retiring at adisproportionate rate.

Results of perception questionsThe 26 survey questions, which askedsuperintendents to rate the influence of specifictopics on their decision to retire, were rankedfrom highest to lowest agreement per the meanresponses for each item. Similarities betweenthe two years were striking in terms of theitems showing the highest means, suggestingconsistency over the two years regarding thetopics that participants agreed influenced their

retirement decisions. The survey items withthe two highest and two lowest means for eachyear will be discussed next, with particularattention paid to the items of highest agreementin order to provide the reader with necessary background information.

Top areas that superintendents agreed

influenced retirement decisions. For both years of the survey, participantsranked funding issues as top factors influencing

their retirement decisions. Two specific topics,vouchers and budget cuts to public schools,were found to have the highest means bothyears.

Vouchers

Indiana’s school voucher program and itsimpact on funding of public schools was thesurvey question with the highest mean responsein 2012 ( M = 4.00, SD = 1.31) and 2013 ( M =4.46, SD = 0.52). These means suggested

robust agreement that Indiana’s new voucher program had influenced participants’ retirement

decisions. The voucher program is perceivedas impacting public school funding by reducingthe total amount available in the state’s fund for

disbursement to public schools and also bydrawing students away from public schools.

Indiana’s voucher program is

considered the “most open” and “fastest

growing” in the nation (Hirth & Eiler, 2014;

Simon-Reuters, 2013). In the fall of 2013,Indiana’s voucher program was the second

largest in the country with about 20,000enrollees, next only to Wisconsin’s program,

with approximately 24,000 participants (Elliot,2013). However, in fall 2013, Wisconsin’svoucher system was 20 years old, whereasIndiana’s program was only in its third year.

In terms of background, the IndianaGeneral Assembly passed three voucher

programs between 2009 and 2013, which provided tuition tax credits to students whoqualified to attend participating private schools(Billick, Hiller, & Spradlin, 2011; Indiana StateGovernment Website [ISGW], 2013). In 2009,the statewide total to be spent on vouchers was


27/52

27


capped at $2.5 million per year, of which $2.2million went unused (Indiana GeneralAssembly, 2009). However, none of theremaining balance was redirected to public

schools (CEEP, 2011).

In 2011, and again in 2013, the IndianaGeneral Assembly broadened eligibilityrequirements and increased available fundingfor vouchers, raising the cap to $5 million in2011, and then completely removing the cap in2013. In 2011-2012, there were 3,911vouchers approved, which increased to 9,135 in2012-2013. For the 2013-2014 school year,approximately 20,040 students utilized

vouchers; more than double the enrollment ofthe previous school year (Elliot, 2013; IDOE,2013). The combined financial value ofvouchers for the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years was tallied at $52 million (Legislative ServicesAgency, 2013).

Funding cutsThe survey question with the second highestmean response was also related to funding,“Cuts in state funding to public schools,” with

2012 ( M = 3.67, SD = 1.35) and 2013 ( M =4.31, SD = 0.63). These means suggestingagreement both years that public schoolfunding cuts had influenced participants’retirement decisions.

From 2009 to 2013, the Indiana fundingformula afforded three primary methods forshifting individual school funding towards atarget amount based on the Complexity Index(calculated from the percentage of

economically disadvantaged students), and theFoundation Level (the base amount provided per student). Foundation Level distributionswent from $4,825 per student in 2009, to adecrease of $4,280 per student in 2012, beforesettling at $4,405 per student in 2013 (Spradlin,Robbins, Popely, & Lara, 2011; IDOE, 2013;

ISGW, 2013). Since 2009, reductions from thechanges in the Foundation Program meant aloss of over one million dollars for the average-size district (1,857 students) in 2012, and a loss

of just under $790,000 for the average districtin 2013 (National Center for EducationalStatistics, 2012; Spradlin et al., 2011; IDOE,2013).

Also during this time period, severalIndiana grants, including the Restoration Grantand the Small Schools Grant, both of which provided additional support for public schoolswith declining enrollments, were phased out(Spradlin et al., 2011), reducing revenue for

many school districts (Adamson, 2013).

Areas that superintendents disagreed

influenced retirement decisions.At the other end of the spectrum, there wereseveral survey questions that superintendentsconsistently “disagreed” influenced theirretirement decisions. One specific questionshowed the lowest mean both years, “Employeequality in your district,” with 2012 ( M = 1.73,SD = 0.88) and 2013 ( M = 1.46, SD = 0.52).

These results indicated disagreement both yearsthat employee quality was an area influencingretirement decisions and could be seen as a“vote of confidence” from participants

regarding their employees.

The second lowest-rated item in 2012was “The threat of your school or district being

taken over by the state” ( M = 1.87, SD = 1.25).We included this item on the survey because in2011, in a highly controversial decision, the

IDOE took over five “failing” schools andturned these schools over to private companies(Indiana State Board of Education, 2011).Despite ongoing public debate surrounding thisissue, our survey results implied that the threatof school takeover was not an issue influencing participants’ retirement decisions.


28/52

28


The second lowest-rated survey item in2013 was, “Your relationship with your school

board members” ( M = 1.54, SD = 0.88). Thisindicated that respondents did not see their

relationships with board members asinfluencing their retirement decisions,suggesting the possibility of constructiverelationships between the superintendents andtheir boards.

We included this item due to reportsfrom individual superintendents regardingdifficulties in dealing with board members.However, our results supported previousresearch by Glass and Franceschini (2007),

who found that contrary to popular rhetoric,many superintendents have good relationshipswith their school boards.

In summary, to address our firstresearch question, we investigatedsuperintendents’ perceptions regarding topics

that might have influenced their decisions toretire. The survey questions with the highestmeans, indicating agreement, were the Indianavoucher program (2012 and 2013) and funding

cuts (2012 and 2013).

Areas with the lowest means, indicatingdisagreement, included employee quality (2012and 2013), threat of school takeover (2012),and superintendent relationship with school board members (2013). A comprehensivelisting of the survey items with mean responsescan be found as an Appendix.

Analysis after Removing

Superintendents Who Were “Ready toRetire” To address our second research question, weremoved all survey responses fromsuperintendents who agreed to the item: “Therewas no primary issue, I just felt that it was time

to retire.” We did this because we recognized

that if respondents agreed to this item, theywere feeling ready to retire irrespective of anyschool-related issues they might be facing.

By removing all responses from thesuperintendents who agreed with this question,we eliminated six superintendents’ data from

the 2012 results and four from the 2013 results,leaving nine respondents each year, or acombined total of 18 superintendents. Thisgave us two groups, one group that containedall superintendents (n = 28), and the othergroup that contained only the superintendentswho did not agree that, “… it was time to

retire” (n = 18).

We compared these two groups’

responses on each question using t-testanalysis, but no statistically significantdifferences were found at the p < .05 level.

Although no significant differenceswere revealed, this analysis provided valuableinformation because it suggested that the twogroups held fairly compatible attitudes. In

examining these data descriptively, weobserved that the same cluster of surveyquestions consistently rose to the top of theagree-and-disagree ranges with only slightvariations in means. These cluster areasincluded school vouchers and funding issuesfor the agree range, and employee quality,threat of school takeovers, and relationshipswith school boards for the disagree range.

We found these data telling because

they suggested that even after pulling out thesuperintendents who felt that it was time toretire, the same topics were indicated as eitherinfluencing or not influencing retirementdecisions. Table 1 presents the items with thethree highest and lowest means for both groups.


29/52

29


Table 1

Survey Items with Highest and Lowest Mean Responses Before and After Removing SuperintendentsWho Did Not Agree “It Was Time to Retire”

________________________________________________________________________All superintendents Superintendents who did not

agree “it was time to retire”

_______________________________________________________________________

n M Category n M Category

________________________________________________________________________

Highest Mean Response

Indiana voucher program 28 4.21 A 18 4.11 A

Cuts in state funding 28 3.96 A 18 4.06 A

Changes in school funding 28 3.86 A 18 4.11 A

Lowest Mean Response

Relationship school board 28 1.89 D 18 1.89 D

Threat of school takeover 28 1.82 D 18 1.72 D

Employee quality 28 1.61 D 18 1.56 D

________________________________________________________________________ Note: Categories: A=Agree, U=Undecided, D=Disagree

DiscussionPaul Houston, the former Executive Director ofAASA, talked about the “killer B’s” for school

district administrators: boards, buses, and budgets (Education Writers Association, 2003).As we examined responses from Indianasuperintendents who decided to retire in 2012and 2013, we found that for our participants thedominant “killer B” was budgets— or morespecifically, vouchers and state cuts in funding.Indiana’s voucher program recorded the highestmean for both years, suggesting concerns from

the 28 respondents regarding the influence ofthe vouchers on public school budgets. Cuts instate funding recorded the second highest mean both years. Even after pulling outsuperintendents who agreed “it was time to

retire” and leaving the 18 superintendents who

might not have been ready for retirement,vouchers and public school funding remainedthe top-rated issues.

These findings suggested that thedifficulties superintendents were facing in


30/52

30


funding their school districts were influential intheir decision-making about retirement. Inaddition, these results corresponded withdiscourse in some other states regarding

superintendent retirement. For example, between 2011 and 2013, Kentucky had aturnover of approximately one-third of thestate’s superintendents. Fiscal concerns were

noted as a potential factor, specifically,difficulties of managing state reform effortswith fewer resources (Coldiron, 2013).

Waters and Marzano (2006) found thatone of the specific areas related tosuperintendent effectiveness was focused on

the allocation and use of fiscal resources tosupport achievement and instructional goals.

Given the decline of state fiscalresources, it is noteworthy that Indiana’sretiring superintendents ranked high the issueof school funding in their reasons to retire,especially considering that these were veteransuperintendents with school budgetingexperience.

This perspective is problematic whenconsidering the importance of stability andtenure in the superintendent’s position for

bringing about district improvement (Cooper etal., 2000; Fullan, 2002) and also in dealing witha district’s economic challenges (Trevino et al.,

2008).

On a brighter note, our participantswere affirming in several areas, including thequality of their employees and their

relationships with their school board members.The superintendents consistently disagreed thattheir relationships with board members were areason to retire. Even more strongly,superintendents disagreed both years thatemployee quality influenced retirementdecisions.

From a “people perspective” these

results were encouraging as they suggested thatthe superintendents felt positive about the people they worked with on a daily basis.

Conclusions and RecommendationsIndiana is a state highly engaged in educationalreform. An unusually high number ofIndiana’s school superintendents retired in

2012 and 2013.

Considering the age demographics ofthe nation’s superintendents, it is easy to

dismiss high retirement numbers as simply age-related. However, no recent studies had been

conducted to capture superintendents’ voiceson this topic. Consequently, this researchattempted to identify factors that influencedsuperintendents’ decisions to retire, thusincreasing our understanding of current issuesin the superintendency.

Twenty-eight superintendents participated in this study over two years, providing a well-defined snapshot of specificareas of concern and interest. Ten of the 28

participants agreed that “it was time to retire,”while 18 did not. It was revealed that Indiana’s

voucher program and its impact on publicschools was a reform initiative that participantsagreed had an influence on their retirementdecisions, followed closely by state cuts andchanges in school funding.

In the last several years, Indianalegislators have extensively changed the schoolfunding process (Hiller & Spradlin, 2010).

Some changes were intended to reduce property taxes, lessen school funding inequitiesacross the state, and increase parents’educational choice options. However, thestate’s level of funding has fallen consistently

below what many school districts received


31/52

31


prior to the changes (Adamson, 2013). ForIndiana’s public school districts, survival now

requires that fund-raising efforts are animportant focus of the superintendent’s office.

This constant and strained effort towardssecuring adequate funding can divert time andattention away from vital areas like instruction,curriculum, student programs, facilitymanagement, and professional development.

Therefore, in terms ofrecommendations, two themes clearly emergefrom this paper. The first finding is thatIndiana legislators and state-level governmentofficials need to recognize the importance of

adequately funding all public school districts inthe state, especially the districts mostnegatively affected by recent funding changes,those that have lost students through vouchers,and those whose referendums to raiseadditional funds have been unsuccessful.

Increased performance expectations for public schools are realistic and viable, but onlyif schools receive adequate funding that allowsthem to push towards their mission of helping

every child succeed. In order to provide the best possible education for Indiana’s publicschool students, the state cannot continue toexpect more for less. Can effective leadershipovercome ineffective funding? The relationship between leadership and school effectivenessmight also be tied to the effective funding.Legislators need to recognize the importance ofand fulfill the need for adequate funding.

The second recommendation generated

by the results of this study involves increasedtraining and professional development forcurrent and future superintendents regardingfundraising and budgeting. We recommendthat organizations such as local universities, theIDOE, the Indiana Superintendent’s

Association, and other professional associations

provide opportunities for superintendents toreceive ongoing professional development andsupport designed to address specific fundingconcerns.

Many of today’s public schoolsuperintendents must seek outside fundingsources through opportunities such as grants,federal aid, community partnerships, local fundraising efforts, and education foundations, butthey need help in making these efforts as time-efficient and successful as possible. However,the issue of finite grant resources and decliningexternal grant awards raise serious issues aboutthe stableness of outside funding.

Limitations and Implications This study has several limitations, including being limited to one state, which presents arelatively small sample size. Anotherlimitation is that we cannot assess the degree towhich some of the identified factors, such asfunding concerns, are unique to 2012 and 2013.

This study also raises questions, forexample, what will be the long-term effects of

the voucher program on Indiana school fundingand will this reform initiative remain a topissue among school superintendents in years tocome? Follow-up studies of Indiana’ssuperintendents are needed. In addition,studies encompassing wider geographic areasand using larger sample sizes of retiringsuperintendents are necessary in order to betterunderstand motivating factors towardsendurance in the role.

In summary, this study contributes tothe literature on the superintendency throughthe identification of mitigating factors thatmight influence longevity in the position. Thisresearch also generates implications regarding potential unintended consequences of certainreform initiatives on funding and leadership of


32/52

32


public schools, as well as professionaldevelopment, training, support, and resourcesneeded for those serving in the important roleof superintendent. We hope these results will

increase awareness regarding current issues

considered positives and challenges in the position, as well as provide information thatcan be used to prepare and educate futuresuperintendent candidates.

Author Biographies

Lori Boyland is assistant professor of educational leadership at Ball State University in Muncie,Indiana, with research interests in principal and superintendent preparation. She previously served 22years as a teacher and administrator in Indiana’s public schools. E-mail: [email protected]

John Ellis is assistant professor of educational leadership at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana.His research focuses on district leadership and policy. Ellis formerly served 30 years as superintendentand executive director of the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents. E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


33/52

33


References

Adamson, M. (2013). Financing increasing expectations: Dollars & sense. The Journal . TheIndiana School Board Association, Summer issue, 13-15.

Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Billick, R. L., Hiller, S. C. & Spradlin, T. E. (2011). School choice issues in Indiana: SiftingThrough the rhetoric. Education policy brief, 9(3). The Center for Evaluation and EducationPolicy. Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V9N3_2011_EPB.pdf

Björk, L. G., & Keedy, J. (2003). Guest Editors introduction: Who will lead? Examining thesuperintendent shortage. Journal of School Leadership, 13(3), 256-263.

Björk, L. G., & Kowalski, T. J. (Ed.). (2005). The contemporary superintendent. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP), (2011). Perspectives on the key K-12education legislation of 2011. Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu/

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP), (2012). Perspectives on the key K-12education legislation of 2012. Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu/

Coldiron, M. (2013, July/August). Superintendent exodus: Natural or man-made. KentuckySchool Board Association e-newsletter . Retrieved fromhttp://www.ksba.org/0708-13Superintendentturnover.aspx

Cooper, W. (2013, September 16). Salary caps may fuel trend of school business administrators becoming superintendents. NJN Com. Retrieved from http://www.nj.com/education/

Cooper, B., Fusarelli, L., & Carella, V. (2000). Career crisis in the superintendency?The results of a national survey. Arlington, VA: AASA.

Cordeiro, P. A., & Cunningham, W. G. (2013). Educational leadership: A bridge to improved practice. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method . New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Education Writers Association (EWA), (2003). Effective superintendents, effective boards. EWA Special Report. Retrieved from http://www.ewa.org/docs/leadership.pdf

Elliot, S. (2013, October 1). Explosive growth soon could make Indiana top state for schoolvouchers. The Indianapolis Star. Retrieved from www.indystar.com

http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V9N3_2011_EPB.pdfhttp://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V9N3_2011_EPB.pdfhttp://ceep.indiana.edu/http://ceep.indiana.edu/http://ceep.indiana.edu/http://ceep.indiana.edu/http://www.ksba.org/0708-13Superintendentturnover.aspxhttp://www.ksba.org/0708-13Superintendentturnover.aspxhttp://www.nj.com/education/http://www.nj.com/education/http://www.ewa.org/docs/leadership.pdfhttp://www.ewa.org/docs/leadership.pdfhttp://www.indystar.com/http://www.indystar.com/http://www.ewa.org/docs/leadership.pdfhttp://www.nj.com/education/http://www.ksba.org/0708-13Superintendentturnover.aspxhttp://ceep.indiana.edu/http://ceep.indiana.edu/http://ceep.in

Principal Dispositions Regarding the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System”; “Superintendent ...

Documents

Transcript of Principal Dispositions Regarding the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System”; “Superintendent ...