<< Chapter < Page | Chapter >> Page > |
See Table 5 for the results from the Tukey tests used to determine where the differences were located.
IN A PRINCIPAL JOB | Mean Square | F (df,Error) | Significance |
Gender and Teaching Experience | 4.446 | F (2,17) = 5.095 | .018* |
Teaching Experience | |||
Women | 3.467 | F (2,17) = 3.973 | .038* |
Men | 1.301 | F (2,17) = 1.491 | .253 |
Gender | |||
0-7 Years | 1.042 | F (1,17) = 1.194 | .290 |
8-12 Years | 7.756 | F (1,17) = 8.682 | .009* |
13+ | 1.333 | F (1,17) = 1.528 | .233 |
NOT IN A PRINCIPAL JOB | Mean Square | F (df,Error) | Significance |
Gender and Teaching Experience | 3.984 | F (1,27) = 2.247 | .145 # |
# Since there is no statistically significant interaction between Gender and Teaching ( p = .145; not significant at .05 level) when participants are not in a principal job, there is no need to do any further Tukey testing to identify where the interaction occurs. |
For PLCs who are currently in a principal position: 1) Men’s teaching experience did not affect their interest in accepting the incentive ( p = .253). no statistically significant differences. 2) Women with 8-12 years teaching experience were the participants most interested in accepting the incentive. Differences are statistically significant ( p = .038). See both Table 5 and Table 2. 3) At the level of 0-7 years of teaching experience, men and women are equally likely to accept the incentive ( p = .290). No statistically significant difference. See both Table 5 and Table 2. 4) At the level of 8-12 years of experience, women are more likely to accept the incentive than men. Statistically significant difference ( p = .009). See both Table 5 and Table 2. 5) At the level of 13+ years of experience, men and women are equally likely to accept the incentive. no statistically significant difference ( p = .233). See both Table 5 and Table 2.
For PLCs who are not in a principal position, the tests revealed no statistically significant interaction between Gender and Teaching ( p = .145, not significant at the .05 level). See Table 5. Therefore, there is no need to do further Tukey testing to identify where the interaction occurs.
In February 1976, Vincent Gallo, who at the time was a professor of Educational Administration at Chapman College in Orange, California, presented a paper titled “Administrative Bonus Pay” at the Annual Convention of the American Association of School Administrators (Gallo, 1976). The subject of the paper was primarily related to principal bonuses. Even though there has been periodic discussion concerning fair and attractive compensation for school employees over the ensuing three decades since that presentation, the subject of bonus pay has only been a more serious topic for school employees in the past five to ten years. Those discussions have been primarily related to teacher bonus pay or performance pay. It seems the subject of bonus pay for principals has only surfaced in a significant way in the past few years, as the importance of principal leadership, combined with the often difficult task of recruiting high quality principals for low-performing schools, has made national headlines and been included in grant applications for federal stimulus money (Perlmutt, 2010; Mellon, 2010; Kowal, 2009; Travers, 2010).
Notification Switch
Would you like to follow the 'Education leadership review special issue: portland conference, volume 12, number 3 (october 2011)' conversation and receive update notifications?