0.2 Beach, g., & Keiser, k. (october 2011). to be or not to be..  (Page 5/10)

Not only are principals expected to be the educational leaders of their schools, but under the increasing managerialistic models of school operations, their role has emerged into something akin to a CEO in the private sector (Cranston, 2007). When asked to identify what they feel are the most important aspects of their jobs, more than 80% of principals surveyed in Massachusetts noted all aspects of staff development, 66% noted curriculum development and implementation, and 65% noted dealing with parent concerns. When asked how they actually spent their time, the most-often cited task (51%) was implementing state mandated initiatives (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2007).

What is being done to ensure that America’s school will have strong leaders? At the state and district levels, the focus is on aggressive recruitment of likely candidates, support of new principals, redefinition of priority tasks, and implementing competitive pay rates (NAESP, 2007). Principal recruitment is also a concern for education researchers because despite the existence of empirical studies about teacher recruitment, the education literature is virtually devoid of empirical research about administrator recruitment (Winter&Morgenthal, 2002). One of the key drivers in assuring a pool of candidates will be determined by the motives and intentions of potential building level administrators, depending in large part on what candidates actually think about school leadership, and the principalship in particular (Cranston, 2003).

Method

To determine the self-perceptions of administrator candidates’ decision to seek or not seek a position as a school assistant principal/principal, the Administrator Index of Motivators (AIM), a self-administered questionnaire, was completed by EDAD graduate candidates at a Midwestern university during the spring of 2010 (see Appendix). The AIM adapted an Ohio study of teacher perspectives of the conditions that affect the decision to seek or not seek a position as an assistant principal or principal for educational administration candidates (Howley, Andrianaivo,&Perry, 2005).

The AIM measured candidates’ responses in a career dimension, a professional reputation dimension, and a legacy dimension. For each item, candidates were asked to mark their level of agreement on a scale (1=very low extent, 2=low extent, 3=high extent, or 4=very high extent). The career dimension of the AIM consisted of items such as, “expectation for the principal to spend more time in the building,” and “lack of clarity about job expectations of principals.” The reputation dimension included items such as, “improved annual salary as a principal,” and “higher status as a school leader.” The legacy dimension included items such as, “increased opportunities for professional growth as a principal,” and “anticipated satisfaction associated with ‘making a difference’ as a principal.”

Validity and reliability

Content validity was provided through the original study by Howley, Andriananivo, and Perry (2005) of 1,381 educational administration graduates and 433 teachers who were not educational administration graduates. Construct validity of the AIM was then evaluated with a factor analysis using a principal axis factoring followed by a varimax rotation of the number of factors extracted. The career factor had an eigenvalue of 6.71 and accounted for 19.73% of the total variance. The reputation factor had an eigenvalue of 3.67 and accounted for 10.79% of the total variance. The legacy factor had an eigenvalue of 2.79 and accounted for 8.20% of the total variance.