0.3 Cook, l. (october 2011). will a twenty percent salary bonus  (Page 8/9)

Limitations

The sample selected did not include all of the Principal License Completers (PLCs) from 2007-08 and 2008-09, let alone PLCs from other colleges in Ohio or other parts of the country. Although the sample included a random selection of PLCs from five centers, including three centers in or near urban settings, results from this second year of this longitudinal study could be confirmed or argued against by sampling PLCs from other universities.

Reliability and validity are generally a concern with survey designs, especially where the survey instrument has to be created, which was the case with this study. A test for stability reliability was conducted, but there was no test for internal consistency reliability. Although considerable effort was made to construct clear, concise, commonly-understood survey statements and response explanations, the participants may not have all interpreted them the same way. Conducting several interviews and comparing the results may have improved reliability. In any self-reporting survey instrument, validity of the results is an issue. The survey responses may not have identified the real thoughts and feelings of the participating PLCs. Only the participants themselves know for certain whether their responses validly represent their real feelings. However, since there was no threat to the participants—for example, professors lowering grades because of negative feedback—in all likelihood, their responses accurately reflect their feelings, at least at this time in their careers.

Conclusion

Our faculty are not satisfied with the fact that this sample of principal license completers indicates such a weak commitment (neutral score) to accepting a principalship in a low-performing school, even with a 20% bonus above the principal salary. The overall Likert score was 3.05, where “5” meant strong agreement, “4” meant agreement, and “3” was neutral, neither agree or disagree. If this is true for other principal preparation programs around the state and nation, the likelihood of significantly increasing the quality and quantity of principals for low-performing schools seems very small. It is true that we can find ways to build on the few “outliers” for agreeing to this bonus incentive in this study, for example, females with 8-10 years of teaching experience. As discussed in a recent department meeting involving a number of faculty members who had experience working as principals in low-performing schools, including the author of this paper, we must develop new instructional practices and materials that better explain the many positives that come from successful turnaround challenges. To a person, we described those past principal experiences in low-performing schools as the most meaningful, growth-producing, efficacy-building, and personally rewarding experiences of our education careers. We need to inspire our students with those stories.

Implications for further research

EDAD faculty can seek answers from PLCs to many questions in the coming years of this 10-year, longitudinal study. For example, we can seek responses related to how their opinions and suggestions change as they obtain principal experience or take a different principalship. It will certainly give us an ongoing picture of where PLCs are employed and what their job assignments are. They will also be an excellent source of feedback regarding changes made in our principal preparation program.