A Global Study of International School Principal Recruitment

by Christopher Allen

An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler College of Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Education

Nova Southeastern University 2016

ii

Approval Page

This applied dissertation was submitted by Christopher Allen under the direction of the persons listed below. It was submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler College of Education and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at Nova Southeastern University. Donna Smith, PhD Committee Chair Marcia O’Neil, EdD Committee Member Lynne Schrum, PhD Dean

iii

Statement of Original Work

I declare the following: I have read the Code of Student Conduct and Academic Responsibility as described in the Student Handbook of Nova Southeastern University. This applied dissertation represents my original work, except where I have acknowledged the ideas, words, or material of other authors. Where another author’s ideas have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have acknowledged the author’s ideas by citing them in the required style. Where another author’s words have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have acknowledged the author’s words by using appropriate quotation devices and citations in the required style. I have obtained permission from the author or publisher—in accordance with the required guidelines—to include any copyrighted material (e.g., tables, figures, survey instruments, large portions of text) in this applied dissertation manuscript. Christopher Allen Name May 16, 2016 Date

iv

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the many people who helped me throughout the

dissertation process. First I would like to thank my wife, Hong Juan (Jenny) Wang, for

her support. Next, I would like to thank Dale Cox and Theron Mott for allowing me to

use their own research as a starting point for mine, and for providing encouraging words

and advice along the way. Thank you to Richard Gaskell and Nick Brummit of

International Schools Consultancy Research for providing data on the growth of the

international school market over time.

Thank you to Jane Larson from the Council of International Schools, Laura Light

and Paul DeMinico from International Schools Services, Jessica Magagna and Gez

Hayden from Search Associates, Devereaux McClatchey, Art Charles, and John Chandler

from Carney, Sandoe and Associates, and Bambi Betts from the Principals’ Training

Center for International School Leadership. Each of these people, as well as other

members of their organizations, were instrumental in helping me to publish my survey

instrument to their members and answering questions throughout the process. Thank you

to Peter Mott, Anne Fowles, and Harlan Lyso for speaking with me about my research

topic and giving me advice and support.

I needed a lot of support during the writing and data analysis parts of my report,

and I would like to thank Neil Kilah for providing initial editing support, Elayne Reiss for

her invaluable support with statistical analysis, and Judy Lloyd for providing the final

assistance with editing. Thank you to my colleagues for taking the pilot survey, and to

Renee Rehfeldt specifically for giving me feedback on it. Finally, thank you to my initial

Nova Kuala Lumpur cohort and our guide, Dr. Vanaja Nethi. Without all of your support

I never would have made it this far!

v

Abstract

A Global Study of International School Principal Recruitment. Christopher Allen, 2016: Applied Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S. Fischler College of Education. Keywords: International School Recruitment, International Schools, Principals, Work Experience There is increasing demand to fill division principal and head of school positions in international schools. International schools compete for the available division principal candidates, and candidates have a greater variety of division principal vacancies from which to choose. Increasing numbers of heads of school openings further decreases the division principal candidate pool as current division principals are applying for these positions to advance their career. This research study investigated the challenge for international heads of school to find the best candidates for division principal position openings in their schools. This study focused on division principal recruitment in international schools as an extension of research conducted by Cox, which focused on teacher recruitment in international schools. Division principal candidates of the major international school recruitment agencies and participants from the Principal Training Center were surveyed to determine their perceptions of the following sets of factors that have an impact on the selection of positions for application by division principal candidates: organizational factors, school characteristics, and division principal characteristics.

The results from this study found administrative experience did not significantly impact survey responses, but overseas administrative experience had a significant impact. Respondents with less overseas administrative experience placed higher expectations related to travel and culture than respondents with more overseas administrative experience. Respondents with more overseas administrative experience placed greater value upon school leadership and practices than those with less overseas experience. Results from the career path inventory found the highest percentage of respondents stated their 1st faculty position, 1st administrative position, and 1st division principal position were located in the Asia-Pacific region; were in the 46- to 55-year-old age category; became an educator before the age of 25 years old; became an administrator during the 25- to 35-year-old age category; became a division principal during the 36- to 45-year-old age category; held a master’s degree; held U.S. citizenship; and were looking for positions with schools located in Europe. A majority of respondents were male, and close to 80% of respondents classified their race as White, European, or Caucasian.

vi

Table of Contents

Page Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................1 Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................5 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................8 Summary ..................................................................................................................9 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................10 Introduction ............................................................................................................10 Recruitment in National School Settings ...............................................................12 Recruitment in International School Settings ........................................................25 Research Questions ................................................................................................30 Summary ................................................................................................................31 Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................32 Introduction ............................................................................................................32 Participants .............................................................................................................32 Instruments .............................................................................................................34 Procedures ..............................................................................................................37 Limitations .............................................................................................................40 Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................41 Introduction ............................................................................................................41 Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................41 Research Question 2 ..............................................................................................47 Research Question 3 ..............................................................................................51 Research Question 4 ..............................................................................................55 Summary ................................................................................................................62 Chapter 5: Discussion ........................................................................................................67 Introduction ............................................................................................................67 Differences in Candidate Perceptions ....................................................................67 Differences in Demographic Information ..............................................................72 Career Path of Candidates ......................................................................................74 Limitations .............................................................................................................76 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................77 Summary ................................................................................................................78 References ......................................................................................................................... 80

Appendices A ITRS ................................................................................................................93 B CCPI ...............................................................................................................98 C IPRS ..............................................................................................................104 D Item Loadings for Factors .............................................................................109

vii

Tables 1 Recruiting Fair Information, 2015-2016 .........................................................33 2 Eigenvalues and Variance Explained by Factors ............................................44 3 Correlations of Factors for Research Questions 2 and 3 ................................49 4 Levene’s Test Results for Research Question 2 .............................................49 5 One-Way ANOVA and Cohen’s d Results for Research Question 2 .............50 6 Means and Standard Deviations for Factors by Years of Total Administrative Experience .............................................................................51 7 Levene’s Test Results for Research Question 3 .............................................52 8 One-Way ANOVA and Cohen’s d Results for Question 3 ............................53 9 Means and Standard Deviations for Factors by Years of Overseas Administrative Experience .............................................................................54 10 Frequencies for Respondent Ages at Each Major Professional Milestone .....55 11 Mean Years of Employment by Job Category (N = 281) ...............................56 12 Frequencies for Country of Citizenship (N = 281) .........................................56 13 Frequencies for Gender and Ethnicity ............................................................57 14 Frequencies for Employment-Seeking Behavior ............................................58 15 Frequencies for Education and Training (N = 277) ........................................59 16 Frequencies for Positions Held (N = 277) ......................................................60 17 Frequencies for Location of First Position (N = 277) .....................................61 18 Frequencies for Location of Current and First Outside Home Country Positions(N = 277) .........................................................................................61 19 Frequencies for Career Path Taken (N = 277) ................................................62

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Statement of the Problem

The topic. The topic of this research study was international school division

principal recruitment. A division principal is the overall manager for a specific division

of a school (i.e., lower school, primary school, elementary school, upper school,

secondary school, middle school, or high school). This research study is an extension of

Cox’s (2012) research on teacher recruitment in international schools and explored three

sets of factors that division principal candidates investigate when determining which

vacancies to apply for and which job offers to accept. The first set of factors is

organizational conditions. These are the working conditions for the position of a division

principal including the compensation package, support and supervision, school

governance, and career development opportunities. The second set of factors is school

characteristics. These are the variables of a school’s enrollment size, location, the

proprietary nature of the school, and demographic makeup. The third set of factors,

division principal characteristics, cover the personal variables of the candidate including

gender, age, marital status, education, and overall experience working in education.

The research problem. The problem examined in this research study was the

difficulty in finding high-quality candidates for positions as principals in international

schools (P. DeMinico, personal communication, February 8, 2013; G. Hayden, personal

communication, February 9, 2013; A. Charles, personal communication, February 11,

2013). With the increasing number of international schools being established, there is a

parallel increase in division principal and head of school openings (Carney, Sandoe, &

Associates, 2013; The International Educator (TIE), 2013; International Schools Services

(ISS), 2013; Search Associates, 2013). A head of school is the term used for the highest-

2

level administrator with responsibilities over every division of a school (Mott, 2011).

Unfortunately, there was no hard data available from the recruitment agencies

specifically related to the total number of advertised division principal positions. There

are several recruitment agencies international schools use to recruit division principals,

including Search Associates, ISS, Council of International Schools (CIS), TIE, and

Carney, Sandoe, and Associates. Search Associates has not historically kept track of this

information, but a finding from this study could lead to this organization beginning to

track these types of data (G. Hayden, personal communication, March 7, 2014). ISS has

recorded the total number of administrative position openings but it has not subdivided

this information into the different types of positions, such as head of school, division

principal, assistant principal, and so forth (L. Light, personal communication, March 13,

2014).

From 2009 to 2014, there was an increase of almost 2,000 international schools

worldwide (N. Brummitt, personal communication, September 3, 2013; ISC Research,

2013). In addition to the increasing number of new international schools opening, a large

number of veteran heads of school and division principals are projected to be retiring

soon, leading to a rapid increase in the numbers of vacancies that will become available

(Duevel, Pfannl, Hestor, & Stern, 2013). Caffyn (2010) found there is generally a high

turnover of leadership in international schools. These factors have led to increased

pressure for current heads of schools to fill division principal vacancies with high-quality

candidates. There is also increased difficulty in retaining those currently in these

positions and restricting the rate of transfer to other schools where they would receive a

promotion to head of school. This is because the next level of career advancement in

most international schools for a division principal is a head of school position. If a

3

division principal’s current head of school is not leaving, the division principal must look

for head of school openings in other international schools in order to advance to the next

career level. Harris (2013) found that 45% of international school heads believed the

current quality level of the division principal candidate pool was adequate, with only

8.6% saying the candidate pool quality was very high.

Background and justification. The number of international schools is at a

historical high, with over 7,000 international schools by the end of 2014 versus

approximately 5,000 in 2009 (N. Brummitt, personal communication, September 3,

2013). The fastest growing sector is proprietary international schools (Benson, 2011;

International School Consultancy [ISC] Group, 2013). A proprietary international school

is a school that has been created by investors in order to generate a profit.

International school administrators tend to use several recruitment agencies to

help with recruitment of staff, including division principals. In discussions with G.

Hayden (personal communication, February 9, 2013) of Search Associates, P. DeMinico

(personal communication, February 8, 2013) of ISS, and A. Charles (personal

communication, February 11, 2013) of Carney, Sandoe and Associates, the researcher

confirmed that the pool of high-quality applicants for the number of division principals

was comparatively smaller than in the past, with the numbers declining each year.

Harris’s (2013) findings showed that 45% of international school heads of school felt the

prospective division principal candidate pool was of adequate quality, with less than 9%

saying it was of very high quality. This trend mirrored the findings from research studies

conducted in national school systems (Chapman, 2005; Eadens, Bruner, & Black, 2011;

Fraser & Brock, 2006; Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003; Hancock, Black, & Bird, 2006;

MacBeath, 2009; Normore, 2004, 2007).

4

Deficiencies in the evidence. Many research studies focused on recruitment and

retention in the fields of business and education. Studies were conducted on recruitment

and retention of international school heads. Some initial research studies (Hawley, 1994,

1995; Mott, 2011) examined specific segments of the international school population,

such as schools that were designed to incorporate American or British components and

were located in international settings. Other researchers examined the broader

international school arena (Benson, 2011; Littleford, 1999). Research was also conducted

in relation to the recruitment and retention of teachers in international schools (Cox,

2012; Chandler, 2010; Mancuso, 2010; Mancuso, Roberts, & White, 2010). According to

Broman (2008), the Association of International School Heads and the Association for

the Advancement of International Education created a task force to address the “growing

recruitment crisis for international schools” but this was specific to teachers (p. 1).

Harris (2013) conducted a research study that was designed to assist international

school heads in different regions of the world to focus on critical areas, such as skills or

knowledge, that were most important for division principal candidates in their region.

However, there was little available direct research into division principal recruitment for

international schools; this researcher aimed to fill that gap in current research.

A concept explored in relation to the problem of this research study was the theme

of wanderlust, discussed in the Cox (2012) and Mancuso (2010) research studies on

teacher recruitment and retention. The researcher examined the impact it has on division

principal recruitment. Hanks, McLeod, and Urdang (1986) originally defined wanderlust

as “a great desire to travel or roam about” (p. 1708). Cox and Mancuso focused on

teachers as the participants. This researcher has added to that body of knowledge by

focusing on division principals in international schools as a response to this existing gap

5

in the research.

Audience. The researcher anticipates the heads of school in international schools

will be able to use the research findings to better focus recruitment efforts when seeking

highly qualified candidates for their school’s vacancies. Harris (2013) found that schools

in less desirable geographic locations, such as those in areas with less infrastructure,

political unrest, high levels of poverty, remote locations, or other problems leading to it

being considered a hardship post, tend to receive the lowest quality applicants for

division principal vacancies. This research may be additionally beneficial to heads of

school in these locations by using the results to better understand and then market their

school to potential candidates for division principal positions.

Candidates interested in division principal positions in international schools will

be able to use the results of this research study to compare their own experiences to those

of other candidates. Furthermore, findings from this research study may help division

principal candidates have a better understanding of their competitiveness in the current

market place and identify areas they need to improve upon to strengthen their candidacy.

The potential value to recruitment agencies is a better understanding of the current broad

situation related to division principal recruitment and, using this information, the

potential to provide better services to both the schools and candidates in international

schools. Finally, there is a potential value to heads of school to retain their current

division principals by using the findings of this research study to help better align their

schools with the sets of factors most desired by division principals.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this applied dissertation, several terms are defined.

Administrative experience refers to the total years of experience as head of

6

department, division coordinator, whole school coordinator, vice principal, assistant

principal, deputy principal, division principal, deputy head of school, and or head of

school. Division principal candidates need a minimum level of administrative experience

in order to improve their viability as a division principal candidate.

Career path refers to “the series of professional positions held since beginning in

the education profession” (Mott, 2011, p. 23).

Division coordinator refers to the person managing daily operations for a specific

educational division in an international school setting. It is usually related to the divisions

of Primary Years Programme, Middle Years Programme, and Diploma Programme,

which are components of the International Baccalaureate (IB). It also refers to the

position of Community, Action, and Service Coordinator or other similar positions.

Division principal refers to the overall leader for a specific division of a school

(i.e., lower school, primary school, elementary school, upper school, secondary school,

middle school, or high school). This position is a higher-level position than a division

coordinator.

Head of school refers to the chief administrative officer of an international school

who is responsible for the overall operation of the school and is accountable to the board

of directors or owner of the school (Mott, 2011).

International school refers to the various interpretations of the term international

school. It may refer to a school set up for expatriate students whose parents are working

in a foreign country. It may include a school where the curriculum is either international,

such as the IB, or is from another country outside of the host nation (e.g., an American

school that follows a U.S. style curriculum and has advanced placement (AP) classes for

its students). An international school could be international based on its student and or

7

staff population. All of these have been used to define individual schools as international

and for the purpose of this research study will be used (Benson, 2011; Cambridge &

Thompson, 2004; Hayden & Thompson, 1995b; Mancuso et al., 2010; Murakami-

Ramalho & Benham, 2010; Richards, 2001; White, 2010).

National school refers to a school set up to educate local children within a country

that follows local curriculum guidelines and other rules and regulations.

Organizational condition refers to the working conditions that surround the job of

a division principal including the compensation package, support and supervision, school

governance, and career development opportunities (Cox, 2012).

Proprietary international school refers to a school that has been created by

investors in order to generate a profit. Much of the increase in the number of division

principal openings available to the sample population results from the increasing number

of proprietary international schools (Mott, 2011).

Recruitment refers to “the process of locating, identifying, and attracting capable

applicants” (Robbins & DeCenzo, 2010, p. 114).

Recruitment cycle refers to the fact that the majority of international school heads

hire teachers and administrators during a recruiting season that extends from November

to June of a given school year. Contact between candidates and international school heads

is often facilitated by recruitment agencies that sponsor hiring fairs in large cities around

the world from November to June of each year (Cox, 2012).

School characteristics refer to the variables that define the school including the

school’s enrollment numbers, location, if the school is proprietary, and its demographic

makeup (Cox, 2012).

Whole-school coordinator refers to the person responsible for a specific focus

8

throughout the entire school, including such positions as curriculum coordinator,

information technology coordinator, or other such positions.

Wanderlust refers to “a great desire to travel or roam about” (Hanks et al., 1986,

p. 1708). This variable could impact a candidate’s desire to leave his or her current

location in search of a new employment position (Cox, 2012; Mancuso, 2010).

Purpose of the Study

Due to the increasing number of international schools, there are also increasing

numbers of openings for division principal and head of school candidates. There will be

more competition amongst heads of school to find the best candidate for the division

principal openings in their schools. The purpose of this research study was to examine

specific variables that are used by division principal candidates in the international school

setting when determining which vacancies to apply for and which job offers to accept.

The research study also examined career paths taken by current division principal

candidates. This information will potentially assist future division principal candidates,

and heads of schools to be aware of current trends and better focus their own recruitment

and or application efforts.

In all organizations, the best way to be competitive is to hire and retain the best

candidates possible for the positions within the organization. In order to complete this

successfully, the leaders of organizations must create strategic recruitment and or

employment plans to ensure they hire and retain the right people for the right positions at

the right times (Robbins & DeCenzo, 2010; Society for Human Resource Management,

2006).

In schools, the core business is teaching and the main product is education; it is

critical to attract the most effective teachers who will have the most significant positive

9

impact on student achievement (Goodwin, 2011; Marzano, 2003). Stewart (2012) found

that having highly skilled, dedicated, and knowledgeable teachers employed in a school

ensured the best educational outcomes were provided to the consumers; that is, directly to

the students and indirectly to the parents who are responsible for making the decision of

which school is most appropriate for their children. Other researchers believed the

division principal is the second biggest factor in student success in a school (Palmer,

2015). This was one reason the researcher hoped to build upon these findings by

expanding the field of knowledge to division principals in this research study.

D. Cox (personal communication, November 20, 2012), the head of school for an

international school in China, indicated that the potential findings of this research study

would be invaluable to school heads who are responsible for hiring the best leadership

candidates to fill the increasingly important role of division principal in an international

school setting.

Summary

A clear need has been expressed by both employees of the international school

recruitment agencies and heads of schools in international schools to build upon previous

research related to teacher recruitment in the international school setting by focusing on

division principal recruitment in the same setting. This research study filled the current

gap in related research literature by surveying potential candidates for division principal

positions in international schools to learn about their backgrounds, both personal and

professional, as well as their views on what was important to them when considering a

division principal position in an international school. The results of the current research

study will be a valuable resource to all stakeholders involved in division principal

recruitment in international school settings.

10

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Hiring a division principal is one of the most important decisions a head of school

will make as it can affect both teacher retention and student academic results (Clifford,

2010; DeAngelis, Peddle, & Trott, 2002; Palmer, 2015; Regional Educational Laboratory

Midwest, 2008; Walker & Kwan, 2012). High-quality principals have the largest impact

on schools that face the most challenges as well (Doyle & Locke, 2014). Concerns have

been raised about the decreasing number of division principal applicants and the

questionable quality of these applicants (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003), which has led

to an increased interest in how division principals are being recruited and chosen for

these positions (Walker & Kwan, 2009). The term division principal is not universally

used in educational systems around the world but the positions being discussed in each

country will be the equivalent of the position of division principal.

Because there has been more research done on division principal recruitment in

national school settings than international school settings, this chapter provides a detailed

overview of the research literature related to division principal recruitment and retention

policies and procedures for division principals in the following countries: England,

Germany, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America (USA).

The results of this analysis will be used as a background for the analysis of the

recruitment policies and procedures for division principals in international school

settings. The six countries chosen are located in four different continents, giving an

international perspective to the review that is more relevant in comparison with

international schools than if only one national system was used. Due to the limited

amount of current research relating to division principal recruitment in international

11

schools, the researcher has used personal communications with current employees of the

major recruitment agencies, as well as current and former heads of international schools

as a major source of information. This research process provided the researcher with the

most current information on the topic from individuals with direct knowledge and

experience of division principal recruitment in the international school setting (Cox,

2012).

In order for students and teachers in schools to reach their full potential, they need

strong and effective leadership (Stewart, 2012). Division principals are the most

important school leaders when it comes to the recruitment and assessment of teachers.

Heads of schools find it extremely important to hire the best division principals possible

so the division principal will then hire, retain, and lead the best teachers in order to get

the best student academic achievement results (Elmore & Burney, 2000). Effective

division principals are able to retain higher-quality teachers, as well as replace less

effective ones. Effective division principals are also better able to assist teachers to

improve faster, which will make the school more competitive in its individual market

place, such as within the city, country, or region the school is located (Clifford, 2010;

Beteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2009; Mancuso et al., 2010). Division principals have a

direct effect on school climate, and a positive school climate leads to better staff morale,

higher levels of student academic achievement, lower absenteeism, fewer discipline

problems, and lower school dropout rates (Guilfoyle, 2013). As Chapman (2005) stated,

[t]he recruitment, retention, and development of school principals are matters of

great importance for all school systems because effective educational leadership is

absolutely vital to bringing about improvements and advances in all those

activities, institutions, and processes that foster the provision of education and

12

student learning. (p. ii)

This research study addressed the gap in the research related to the topic of

division principal recruitment in international schools by expanding upon Cox’s (2012)

teacher recruitment study to focus on the population of division principal candidates.

Furthermore, it will also expand upon findings from Mott’s (2011) study on American-

sponsored overseas schools heads by focusing on the population of division principal

candidates. The results will be presented to both heads of schools and the employees of

recruitment agencies so they are more aware of what the sample population looks for in a

division principal position, as well as the career path they have taken to prepare for this

position.

Recruitment in National School Settings

National school systems in different countries differ with respect to the strategies

used to select school leaders. Many research findings indicated there is a recruitment

crisis for school leaders in national school settings in countries around the world and

concluded there are fewer high-quality candidates for the available positions (Brookings,

Collins, Cour, & O’Neill, 2003; Chapman, 2005; Eadens et al., 2011; Fraser & Brock,

2006; Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003; Hancock et al., 2006; Lumby, Crow, &

Pashiardis, 2008; MacBeath, 2009; Normore, 2004; Walker & Kwan, 2012). This trend is

mirrored in the international school setting.

Fink (2011) cautioned against the credibility of the findings from many research

studies discussing the lack of prospective school leaders because the information is often

politicized and questionable. Fink proposed that people can describe the situation as

worse in order to get something they desire, such as more funding. He concluded there

are more than enough people in the educational field who could fill the positions, but the

13

challenge is finding the right person, at the right time, for the right reasons. One issue

identified by a number of researchers (Barker, 2008; Barty, Thompson, Blackmore, &

Sachs, 2005; Curtis, 2008; The Learning Partnership, 2008; Pont, Nusche, & Moorman,

2008) in national school settings was the diminished interest of prospective candidates to

actually apply for positions rather than the lack of qualified candidates for division

principal openings. There are many people eligible for these positions, based on their

experience and training, but few of them actually apply for the positions, mainly due to

the increased responsibilities and accountability required for the position. Harris (2013)

concluded that although there may be a shortage of principal candidates in some areas,

this lack of high-quality candidates for these positions is of more concern. These findings

of Harris were based upon narrative data that were collected in which the respondents

noted, “There were many poor candidates and a great variability of quality and

experience in the candidate pool” (p. 69).

Division principal recruitment in England. In England, the term used for the

division principal is head teacher. The responsibility for filling a head teacher position

lies with the local school governing body, which is composed of “the school leader,

elected representatives of the parents, representatives of the teaching and the non-

teaching staff and of the LEA [local education authorities], and partly so-called ‘co-opted

members’ (invited influential representatives of politics and economy)” (Huber &

Pashiardis, 2008, p. 181). The local school governing body then informs the LEA of an

opening and then the position is advertised, most commonly using the Times Educational

Supplement, but also through online job websites and regional newspapers.

Huber and Pashiardis (2008) concluded there have been reports of local school

governing body members having difficulty filling their head teacher vacancies. Thomson

14

(2009) proposed that a major cause of this is the continued focus on examination results

or targets, such as graduation rates, and inspections from officers from the Office of

Standards in Education (OFSTED). Members of OFSTED inspect and regulate services

in the United Kingdom (UK) providing education and skills for learners of all ages. It

reports directly to Parliament on school standards. MacBeath (2009) suggested one

possible cause of the low number of applicants may be related to the fact that many

women still do not attempt to pursue the top level positions in England, limiting the

overall candidate pool.

P. Mott (personal communication, February 8, 2013), a former Head of School

and current Director of the Commission on American International Schools Abroad, a

division of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, stated that low

numbers of female applicants is also a problem in division principal recruitment in the

international school setting. The lack of women in division principal roles is also

reflected in other national settings. As a possible explanation, Sandberg (2010) suggested

that women frequently do not try to acquire leadership roles because they often

underestimate their own ability. The research findings of Barker (2008) and Curtis (2008)

called into question the fact there are not enough people for these positions. They

concluded a high number of qualified candidates are choosing not to apply for these

positions.

In terms of the general recruitment process, applicants usually submit their

applications from which school administrators create long lists that are then reviewed to

create short lists used for actual interviews (Huber & Pashiardis, 2008). Huber and

Pashiardis (2008) detailed that school leaders in England use a variety of different

methods to assess candidates, including panel interviews, presentations by the candidates,

15

and in some cases the use of external assessment centers. After candidates are screened,

references are checked for the successful candidate. The belief is that reference checks

have a low validity so they are used as an additional confirmation more than an actual

part of the decision-making process. Once this is done, the candidate is contacted and

offered a contract. In England, this is usually a lifetime contract (Huber & Pashiardis,

2008).

Head teacher recruitment in England and division principal recruitment in

international schools have some similarities, which include applicants sending their

applications directly to school administrators who then use this information to create long

lists. These are then reviewed by the current school administration to create short lists for

actual interviews. International schools are generally not able to use external assessment

centers, but the use of the recruitment agencies can and does act as a similar filtering

system during the review process. G. Hayden (personal communication, February 9,

2013), of Search Associates, emphasized that the confidential references filled out by

supervisors for their international school candidates are deemed more reliable than open

letters of reference by heads of school, thus giving them greater importance than in the

English recruitment process.

Division principal recruitment in Germany. In Germany, the education system

is administered by each state within the country and principals are given lifelong

contracts. Some states are piloting the creation of pools of candidates based on

professional development programs in which the candidates have earlier in their careers.

Once a position becomes vacant, it is advertised by the Ministry of Education (MOE)

using official publications, regional educational newsletters, and the Internet (Huber &

Pashiardis, 2008). The national average ranges from 1.3 candidates per vacancy to 5.6.

16

Even at the upper end of the range of candidates per vacancy, Huber and Pashiardis

(2008) considered the number quite a low ratio compared to what would be found in

recruitment of other positions in an educational setting. The members of each state’s

MOE conduct the principal recruitment process differently, with some using interviews

more heavily and others focused more on the candidate’s regular assessments by their

supervisors. The candidates’ professional abilities and performance as a teacher are

extremely important when determining if they will be promoted or appointed as principal.

In some states, the individual school administrators have input into who is hired but this

input is still limited (Huber & Pashiardis, 2008).

Based on the anecdotal findings of members of the major international school

recruitment agencies (ISS, Search Associates, and Carney, Sandoe, and Associates), the

number of high-quality candidates per each division principal vacancy were lower than in

the past. This number was still higher, however, than the lower end for German principal

recruitment. Unfortunately, there were no hard data to support these anecdotal findings

due to the fact that the recruitment agencies’ staff members had not collected these data.

It was based more upon feedback given to the recruiters by heads of school during the

recruiting process to fill their school’s division principal openings. Similar to the process

in Germany, the validity given to personal interviews and professional evaluations varied

for each head of school (P. Diminico, personal communication, February 8, 2013; G.

Hayden, personal communication, February 9, 2013; A. Charles, personal

communication, February 11, 2013).

Division principal recruitment in Singapore. In Singapore, members of the

MOE administer schools, with the division principals mainly following instruction given

to them by the MOE; then determining whether instruction is of a high quality; and

17

finally leading improvement efforts, when required (Huber & Pashiardis, 2008). The

results of this research study did not show how the vacancies were advertised, but the

candidates were mainly selected based on the academic achievement of students in

classes they taught and the professional teacher evaluation reports given to them. The

Singaporean education system is driven by academic results based on standardized

examinations students take on a regular basis. The candidate must hold at least a master’s

degree but that is the only postsecondary requirement. The MOE members make the final

decision on which applicant is hired, but how that decision is made is not transparent

(Huber & Pashiardis, 2008).

Student achievement results from standardized examinations from teachers would

not be used as a common criterion for division principal recruitment in international

schools because the data are not readily available. Heads of school could ask each

candidate about student results in their current school but the majority of division

principal candidates would have limited recent class teaching experience. Based on the

personal experiences of the researcher and discussions with colleagues, master’s degrees

are also not always a requirement for division principal candidates in international

schools, but a higher-level degree in some field of educational leadership is often seen by

heads of school as an indication a candidate has educational and experience levels

directly relevant to the division principal role.

Division principal recruitment in Australia. Similar to Germany, each state in

Australia has its own school system. At the division principal level, the majority of

appointments are for a specific period but there can be lifetime appointments made.

Although the number varies from state to state, a panel of members usually chooses the

new principal. In the state of Queensland, school parents, citizens associations, or school

18

councils are directly involved in the selection of principals (The State of Queensland,

2014). Vacancies are posted in the government gazette of the relevant state or territory

and, for commonwealth vacancies, in the Commonwealth Government Gazette.

Members of many schools and school systems also use career websites, online

classified advertisements, and targeted government employment websites, such as the

New South Wales Government website (N. Kilah, personal communication, May 24,

2014; New South Wales Government, 2014). Candidates send in applications, references

are checked, and external consultants are sometimes used to assist in the process of

identifying the candidates to short list for interviews. These candidates are then

interviewed by the panel. A merit-based system of assessment is used to make their final

decision (Huber & Pashiardis, 2008). The criteria for this merit-based system were not

included in the research study results.

In common with England and Germany, there has been a perceived lack of

qualified principal applicants for the number of vacancies in Australia (Gronn &

Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003). In the Catholic system of schools in Australia, some school

administrators have gone to the extent of adding such perks as a car to the benefits

package to attract applicants (Fraser & Brock, 2006). Gronn and Rawlings-Sanaei’s

findings challenged the findings of Barty et al. (2005) by concluding that the problem

was not a lack of qualified candidates for division principal openings but instead a large

number of qualified candidates chose not to apply.

Fraser and Brock (2006) examined reasons why current division principals chose

to look for new positions in other schools. They proposed a major factor was the desire

for a new location and the challenges a new community would give. Some division

principals were no longer satisfied in the current locations of employment or felt they had

19

contributed as much as possible in their current school. The overall feeling was that many

principals wanted a new challenge and “the feeling of renewal that a new school would

provide” (Fraser & Brock, 2006, p. 434). This coincided with the idea of wanderlust as

discussed by Cox (2012) and Mancuso (2010) in their study of teacher recruitment.

Division principals in Australia clearly also shared this desire to move from one location

to another. One focus of this research study was to determine the impact of this

phenomenon on division principal candidates in international schools.

Division principal recruitment in New Zealand. In the late 1980s and early

1990s, the members of the New Zealand government made a major change to how

division principals were recruited and placed. Lange’s (1988) comprehensive report,

Tomorrow’s Schools; The Reform of Education Administration in New Zealand, became

the standard guideline used to organize schools within the country, and the title of the

report has become the common name used for all of the changes that took place. One of

the most dramatic changes for the appointment of division principals was that under the

new guidelines, members of local Boards of Trustees became responsible for appointing

all staff in schools (Gusscotts, 2004). Before these changes the career paths of most

principals followed the common progression of upward mobility seen in other

educational settings, where teachers moved into senior teacher roles, then assistant

principal roles, then deputy principal roles before often becoming principal of a school

(Gusscotts, 2004). There was also horizontal movement where educators would become

principal of a small school, which was a relatively simple administrative role, and then

transfer into principal positions in larger schools (Education Review Office, 1996).

After the guidelines were initiated, members of the Boards of Trustees began

appointing division principals (Gusscotts, 2004). Experience as an assistant principal or

20

deputy principal in a large school setting, rather than having division principal experience

in a small school setting, began to be perceived as better preparation for candidates for

division principal positions in larger schools, which limited the amount of horizontal

movement for division principal candidates looking to progress into larger school settings

(Education Review Office, 1996). In an attempt to increase the interest in division

principal positions offered in areas deemed less attractive due to location or economic

reasons, school boards can apply for a Principal Recruitment Allowance, which is an

additional amount of money to the other remuneration being offered to candidates of the

position (MOE, 2016).

As with the findings of Sandberg (2010) in the UK, Lacey (2003) found that

fewer women pursue division principal positions than men. In New Zealand, there had

been a modest increase in the overall percentage of women in principal positions from

34.1% in 1999 to 37.4% in 2002 (Gusscotts, 2004). By 2007, the overall percentage had

risen to 43.2% (MOE, 2007). There was still a large imbalance between the genders

regarding the percentage of women in division principal roles compared to the percentage

of women in teaching roles, which stood at 73.0% in 2003 (MOE, 2003). The results of

Neidhardt’s (2009) research showed that women made up 82.0% of teachers in primary

schools and held 80.0% of the senior management positions in those schools yet made up

only 40.0% of the principal positions.

Fowles and Fischer (2013) identified a range of other differences between men

and women pursuing division principal positions. Men do not consistently progress from

one administrative position to another but tend to skip stages in their upwardly mobile

career paths. Women, in comparison, move up more steadily, progressing from one level

to the next more consistently. Only 48% of men were deputy principals before receiving

21

their first division principal position, while 70% of women had taken this lesser position

before achieving their first division principal position (Fowles & Fischer, 2013). On

average, men achieved their first division principal position within 11 years of beginning

their careers in education, while women took an average of 21 years to reach the same

level (Fowles & Fischer, 2013).

Similar gender discrepancies were evident for principals advancing from their

first division principal position. Men tended to move to schools with populations 2.1

times larger, while women only moved up in schools with populations that were 0.62

times larger. Men, on average, tended to have three further division principal positions

after their initial appointment, while women tended to only have one more position

before the end of their career (Fowles & Fischer, 2013).

Division principal recruitment in the United States. There was a great deal of

research available on principal recruitment in the USA. Otto (1955) conducted a

foundational research study that concluded as follows:

[m]ost large city school systems have an orderly plan for the recruitment and

selection of prospective principals, but such is not the case in the great majority of

school systems in this country. The majority of superintendents depend primarily

upon ‘the old eagle eye’ to discover those members of the local staff who might

make good principals . . . [o]bviously local standards for appointment are low or

non-existent. (p. 29)

Sixty years later these problems with finding qualified principal candidates for the

available positions are still evident (Cushing & Kerrins, 2004; Eadens et al., 2011;

Elmore & Burney, 2000; Palmer, 2015; Pounder & Young, 1996; Rammer, 2007;

Renihan, 2012; Winter, Rinehart, Keedy, & Bjork, 2004). Kowal and Hassel’s (2011)

22

research concluded that the current division principal candidate pool is stretched to

capacity. In line with the findings of Barker (2008) and Curtis (2008) in England, and

Barty et al. (2005) in Australia, Muth and Browne-Ferrigno (2004) found there were as

many as 250,000 credentialed administrators in the USA who did not accept division

principal positions when they were offered to them. Doyle and Locke (2014) found one

reason for the lack of interest in these positions from qualified candidates was the

inadequate pay and grueling work involved. High-poverty and lower-performing schools

have even more difficulty, as research showed most newly hired principals in these

schools did not have previous leadership experience; as soon as they gained this by

working in these schools, they left for more attractive locations (Finn & Northern, 2014).

As in Germany and Australia, educational policy is controlled by members of

individual state governments with varying expectations of principal candidates. There is a

close connection between the university system in the USA and the route to becoming a

principal. In every state in the USA there is a requirement to be certified to become a

principal and the route to this certification is usually through a university program of

study (Finn & Northern, 2014; Huber & Pashiardis, 2008). Most of the training

prospective principals receive is completed outside of their own school context and is

therefore more generic, instead of being specific to the challenges they would face in

their own schools (Elmore & Burney, 2000). Many division principal preparation

programs consist of courses related to management principals, school law, administrative

requirements, and procedures (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2010).

The requirements for division principals in the USA vary from state to state. Forty-four

states require a graduate degree, 30 states require teaching certification, and 39 states

require teaching experience, among other requirements (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth,

23

2008). There are often state-issued licenses for principals as well as required internships

(Education Portal, 2015).

Hammond, Muffs, and Sciascia (2001) estimated that 40% of the current division

principals in the USA would retire by 2014. Battle and Gruber (2010) reported that 45%

of public school principals and 22% of private school principals who left their jobs retired

in the 2008-2009 school year. Gates, Ringel, Santibanez, Ross, and Chung (2003) stated

that the increased amount of stress from the job of being a division principal will lead to

an even higher number of current division principals retiring. In response to

superintendents’ claims about the shortage of qualified candidates for available division

principal positions, some state education officials have initiated alternative methods to

achieve certification, recognizing the university route is both time-consuming and

expensive.

Government officials in California created the School Leaders’ Licensure

Assessment test designed to increase the number of potential principal candidates

(Cushing & Kerrins, 2004). In Florida, officials in Broward County Public Schools

partnered with officials in Florida Atlantic University to create an intensive principal

internship program (Palmer, 2015). The New Leaders for New Schools program was

created to strengthen the leadership skills of potential division principal candidates (Finn

& Northern, 2014). As in other countries, evidence showed there were also a low number

of female candidates, which reduced the size of the pool of possible candidates. An

additional factor in the USA is the low number of candidates from minority groups

(Cushing & Kerrins, 2004; MacBeath, 2009). The New York City (NYC) Leadership

Academy was founded in 2003, in cooperation with the NYC Department of Education,

to help fill the need for new principals in the city within a short period of time (NYC

24

Leadership Academy, 2015). The Relay Graduate School of Education, also found in

New York, also offers job-embedded practicum for prospective division principals (Finn

& Northern, 2014).

In general, leaders of individual school districts are responsible for recruiting

division principals. The recruitment policies of many school districts appear to limit the

candidate pool, decreasing their ability to attract the best candidates (Clifford, 2010).

Typically, a hiring or selection committee from an individual school has the power to

interview and hire candidates for a division principal position. When a vacancy occurs, it

is usually posted on the school district vacancy website, on various professional

association websites, and or in newspapers (Huber & Pashiardis, 2008). Clifford’s (2010)

research findings indicated the hiring requirements and policies in large school districts in

the USA led to delays of up to 1 year to hire a new division principal, while smaller

districts on average took less time to fill openings. This hiring process does not match the

process used in international schools for division principal recruitment. The outcome,

however, of widely varying times taken for the process does resemble the situation for

head of school recruitment in large international schools compared to smaller ones

(Carney, Sandoe, & Associates, 2013; CIS, 2013; ISS, 2013; Search Associates, 2013).

Most previous research studies focused on candidate attraction to administrative

positions in education in the USA, which was similar to the focus of this research study.

Winter, Rinehart, Keedy, and Bjork (2004, 2007) conducted two research studies as a

response to Pounder and Young’s (1996) call for more empirical studies examining

factors that influence administrator recruitment. The results of this study, which focused

on principal recruitment, indicated there was an even distribution of participants based on

gender in administrator preparation programs (Winter et al., 2004, 2007). This was in

25

dramatic contrast to the empirical evidence for international schools. P. Mott (personal

communication, February 8, 2013) emphasized there is a lack of female candidates. Mr.

Mott is a former head of school and current head of the Commission on American

International Schools Abroad, a division of the New England Association of Schools and

Colleges. However, the results of Winter et al.’s (2004, 2007) research did show the

majority of participants were Caucasian, which supported the conclusion by P. Mott that

there is a lack of minority candidates (personal communication, February 8, 2013).

Another direct connection between the research findings of the USA studies and

this research was the focus on career paths of the participants looking for principal

positions. Winter et al. (2004) found that 56% of the participants had administrative

experience, including assistant principal experience, and all had the minimum

requirements for the position of principal. In contrast, the findings showed very few

candidates were able to convince school administrators to interview them for principal

vacancies, and even fewer were given a job offer. One potential benefit of this current

research study was to determine whether the same situation was applicable in the

international school setting.

Recruitment in International School Settings

Unlike the division principal position in national education systems, international

schools do not have to meet any overriding governmental or school district requirements.

In order to understand the division principal position, it is crucial to define an

international school. This is a complex issue and there is no common agreement on the

topic. As White (2010) concluded, there are nearly as many definitions as there are

international schools in the world. The international school market doubled from 2003 to

2013, resulting in almost 7,000 international schools; the expectation is that this number

26

will also double by 2023 (Brummitt, 2013). By the end of 2014, it was expected there

would be approximately 7,200 international schools, and within 10 years, the number was

expected to be close to 11,000 (Keeling, 2014). This is an exponential increase from an

estimated 50 schools in 1964 (Bereday & Lauwerys, 1964) and an estimated 1,000 in the

1990s (Hayden & Thompson, 1995a). In the year 2000, there were 2,584 international

schools (N. Brummitt, personal communication, September 2, 2013).

Over the past 10 to 15 years, there has been a dramatic change in the types of

international schools in terms of governance and ownership. Through the 1990s, most

international schools were either connected to the embassies or consulates of foreign

countries or founded by expatriate families living in a location and in need of a school for

their children. The proprietary status of these schools tended to be not-for-profit and the

schools were usually governed by a school board (Benson, 2011). Much of the increase in

the number of division principal openings available to the sample population resulted

from the increasing number of proprietary international schools (Mott, 2011). R. Gaskell

(personal communication, November 8, 2012) of ISC Research confirmed this. The

current ratio between proprietary international schools and nonproprietary international

schools is 2:1. The proprietary school sector is projected to double in size in the next 10

years; this ratio will be closer to 4:1 (N. Brummitt, personal communication, February

13, 2014). D. Cox (personal communication, November 20, 2012) informed the

researcher this new dynamic is having a substantial impact on the recruitment of both

teachers and administrators in international schools and is worthy of ongoing research.

International schools tend to use recruitment agencies to hire teachers and

administrators. The major companies used are Search Associates, ISS, the CIS, and TIE.

Another company, Carney, Sandoe and Associates, is a consulting agency involved in

27

higher-level administrative searches in international schools. Search Associates, ISS, and

CIS have online databases of member candidates and member schools with electronic

versions of biographical professional data, as well as confidential references that the

member schools can use when looking for candidates to fill positions. Each company also

conducts job fairs in various locations around the world where international school

administrators and teaching and administrative candidates come together for face-to-face

interviews. TIE, in contrast, is exclusively an online position vacancy board where

member schools can post openings and member candidates can e-mail the schools

directly to apply for the positions. The researcher collected quantitative data through a

survey, which was administered to division principal candidates listed with Search

Associates; CIS; ISS; Carney, Sandoe, and Associates, as well as from past participants

in the Principal Training Center (PTC). Cox (2012) found this methodology to be the

most effective approach for data collection, and the researcher aimed to replicate this

approach with division principal candidates rather than teacher candidates.

Although division principal recruitment can be conducted using the process, many

division principal vacancies are filled through targeted searches specifically contracted

with one of the recruitment organizations. This typically takes several months. Generally,

the recruitment organization creates a short list of candidates, which is then reduced to

two to four finalists who are invited to the school for onsite interviews. A common

outcome is a final offer being made by the head of school to one of the finalists (Russell

& Larsson, 2000). G. Hayden (personal communication, February 9, 2012) of Search

Associates stated there is also a more recent trend towards schools increasingly hiring

division principals directly.

Because there are generally no external supervising bodies determining what

28

candidates require in order to be qualified for the position of division principal in an

international school, administrators in each individual school determine what is required

for their opening. These requirements will include any work visa requirements of the host

country’s government for any employees who are not a citizen of the country or when

there is no cross-border employment agreement in place, such as in the European Union.

Some governments may require specific education credentials from candidates in order to

secure this visa. Some schools may require an advanced degree in leadership.

An alternative form of certification has been created specifically for international

schools. The PTC was created by a former head of school to help people get training

more relevant to the role of a principal in an international school than that provided by

programs from universities in national systems. It was seen that university programs

primarily focused on preparation for administrative positions in their own national

education systems (Jahr, 2014; PTC, 2012). The PTC offers a variety of weeklong

courses that are taught by current and former international school administrators in

London and Miami during June and July each year. Upon successful completion of four

courses chosen from four separate categories, a Certificate of International School

Leadership is awarded. With the successful completion of four more courses, an

Advanced Certificate of International School Leadership is awarded. Many international

schools now accept these qualifications as relevant training for the role of division

principal (Stucker, 2012).

In discussions with employees of the major recruitment agencies, A. Fowles

(personal communication, February 14, 2013), the head of an international school in

Malaysia, and H. Lyso (personal communication, February 23, 2013), the former head of

an international school in South Korea and consultant for ISS, the consensus was there

29

was a larger overall number of applicants but a smaller percentage of high-quality

applicants for division principal openings. The research findings of Harris (2013)

confirmed this finding. Similar to the pattern in some of the examples of national

principal recruitment, P. DeMinico (personal communication, February 8, 2013) of ISS

and P. Mott (personal communication, February 8, 2013) highlighted there are few

minority and female applicants for these positions. Given these factors, the logical

conclusion is that with the ever-increasing number of international school openings each

year, there will be a greater demand on this candidate pool, which will be proportionally

smaller into the future.

In a discussion with the researcher focusing on recent trends in international

schools, P. Mott (personal communication, February 8, 2013) stressed that institutional

loyalty appears to be a diminishing factor in international school employment. Teachers

and school administrators are no longer imagining themselves staying in one place for an

extended period, leading to “a certain restlessness” among international school educators.

This lack of institutional loyalty is a topic to consider when further researching

international school division principal recruitment from the perspective of both

candidates and the heads of schools conducting the recruiting. This concept of

restlessness was given the term wanderlust in Mancuso’s (2010) research on teacher

recruitment and retention and was further discussed in Cox’s (2012) research findings

related to teacher recruitment in international schools.

When searching for international school employment, most educators tend to

select a country as well as a specific school. According to Chandler (2010), the same is

true in reverse when leaving a school with educators often actively choosing to leave a

country. The location of the school is as much a part of the decision to take a job as it is

30

to leave it, and it is reasonable to assume this factor is common for division principals

and teachers in international schools.

School administrators must prepare for this variable when recruiting principal

candidates. Heads of schools must determine what is attractive about their school and

what is not. Heads of schools are in competition with each other over the same candidates

and they must be able to attract, and hopefully retain, recruits for as long as possible.

Hardman (2001) concluded that 3 years was the minimum period needed for teachers to

implement change successfully in an international school and can be reasonably assumed

this would also be the absolute minimum needed for a principal.

Research Questions

The research questions were adapted from Cox’s (2012) study, which focused on

teacher recruitment in the international school setting. The researcher was given written

permission from Cox to use his research questions and adapt accordingly for the current

research study. The current research study differed in that the focus was on international

school division principal recruitment and the time frame focused on the initial stages of

recruitment only, rather than the initial and final stages of recruitment. The research study

also explored the career paths of the international school division principal candidates,

which was an adaption from the research study of Mott (2011). The researcher was given

written permission from Mott to use his research questions in this research study as well.

As the current study only focused on the candidates’ responses at the beginning of the

recruitment process, the number of research questions was reduced from seven to four

and revised to focus on division principals instead of teachers or heads of American

overseas schools. The research questions were as follows:

1. What factors impact international school division principal candidate

31

perceptions of school and job variables?

2. What is the relationship between the perceptions of international school

division principal candidates regarding these factors and total administrative experience?

3. What is the relationship between the perceptions of international school

division principal candidates regarding these underlying factors and international

administrative experience?

4. What is the most common career path for international school division

principal candidates?

Summary

This chapter presented a review of research findings relating to division principal

recruitment in the national school settings of England, Australia, Singapore, Germany,

and New Zealand, as well as in the international school setting. A common finding of

research studies was that the pool of high-quality applicants was inadequate to meet the

current and projected demand for division principals in both national and international

school settings. Researchers varied in identifying the reason for this shortage. Some

concluded there was an insufficient number of qualified candidates and others that

insufficient qualified candidates were actually applying for the positions when they

became available. The research questions guiding this research study were provided. Due

to the limited number of peer-reviewed reference sources available related to this topic,

personal communications between the researcher and experienced professionals in the

international school community and international school recruitment industry were used.

32

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

The intent of this research study was to add to the research regarding division

principal recruitment in international school settings by adapting previous research

studies that related to teacher recruitment in international schools and heads of American

overseas schools (Cox, 2012; Mott, 2011). This chapter will provide a description of the

participants involved in the research study, as well as the survey instrument the

researcher used to collect their responses, the procedures for its use, the data analysis

methods used to analyze participant responses, and the possible limitations of the study.

Participants

The target population for this research study was candidates applying for division

principal vacancies in international schools during the 2015-2016 recruitment cycle. The

sample used division principal candidates that responded to the survey request sent out by

members of the recruitment agencies and the PTC on the researcher’s behalf who were in

the databases of the major international school recruitment agencies (Search Associates;

ISS; CIS; and Carney, Sandoe and Associates), as well as past participants of the PTC

who were actively searching for division principal positions during this period.

Recruitment agencies organize recruitment fairs where school administrators can

meet and interview prospective employees. There are often heads of schools interviewing

people for division principal openings in these fairs. The schedules and locations for the

recruitment fairs offered by Search Associates, ISS, and CIS during the 2015-2016

recruitment cycle are listed in Table 1. Most of the locations listed represented only one

recruitment fair. Where a number is given in parentheses after the location, this

represents the number of recruitment fairs hosted by the company in that location but at

33

different times during the year. The information in Table 1 is provided to show the

typical recruitment cycle followed by heads of international schools to fill vacancies in

their schools and does not represent data collection opportunities for this research study.

Table 1

Recruiting Fair Information, 2015-2016 _____________________________________________________________________________

Agency

No. of

Fairs Fair locations Fair season

_____________________________________________________________________________

Council of International Schools 1 London, UK January

International Schools Services 4 Atlanta, USA December-January

Doha, Qatar

Bangkok, Thailand

Seattle, USA

Search Associates 13

Cape Town, South Africa November-April

Melbourne, Australia

Bangkok, Thailand (3)

Hong Kong, China

London, UK (2)

Toronto, Canada

Cambridge, USA

Bogota, Colombia

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

_____________________________________________________________________________Note. Number in parentheses after the location represents number of recruitment fairs hosted by the company in that location but at different times during the year; UK = United Kingdom; USA = United States of America.

Other respondents included educators who participated in PTC courses in Miami

and London and were members of the PTConnection online network. As PTC courses are

created for current and aspiring international school principals, these participants were

ideal research subjects due to their interest in division principal positions within

34

international schools (PTC, 2012).

The sample population included both male and female participants. A voluntary

sampling method was used in the research study because potential participants self-

selected as to whether they participated in the survey (Stattrek, 2014). This replicated the

data collection process Cox (2012) used in his research study but was modified to add

potential respondents from Carney, Sandoe, and Associates and the PTC; additions

suggested to the researcher by D. Cox (personal communication, November 20, 2012) in

a conversation the researcher had with him on how to modify his research study for

division principal candidates instead of teacher candidates in international school

settings. The estimated sample size in Cox’s study was 3,428 potential respondents, with

the total number of actual respondents 1,543. The total number of potential respondents

to the current research study was less, as there were fewer candidates looking for division

principal positions than there were for teaching positions in international schools (D.

Cox, personal communication, November 20, 2012; G. Hayden, personal communication,

February 9, 2013; P. DeMinico, personal communication, February 8, 2013; A. Charles,

personal communication, February 11, 2013).

A conservative estimate for potential respondents to the research study would be

25% of the number of Cox’s potential respondents. This would equal 857 potential

respondents. If a similar response rate to Cox’s research followed, this would be equal to

approximately 385 respondents. In the end, the researcher received 281 responses to the

survey instrument.

Instruments

The research study used an online survey instrument, called the International

Principal Recruitment Survey (IPRS) to collect data from the sample candidates. This

35

survey was a modified version of the International Teacher Recruitment Survey (ITRS)

used in Cox’s (2012) research study on teacher recruitment, with the addition of career

path questions taken from Mott’s (2011) Characteristics and Career Paths Inventory

(CCPI). The researcher received written approval to use both Cox’s and Mott’s survey

instruments. The modifications made for this research study related to the focus being on

division principal candidates in the international school setting rather than teachers (Cox,

2012) or heads of overseas American schools (Mott, 2011). Responses were collected

through the online survey instrument SurveyMonkey, which provided a link to the online

survey instrument that was e-mailed to potential respondents by members of the

recruitment agencies and the PTC on the researcher’s behalf. The respondents’ responses

were analyzed based on two dimensions of experience: total administrative experience

and overseas administrative experience. The sample included those participants who

completed all elements of the survey (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996).

The IPRS was divided into four sections that collected different categories of

data. The first three sections were adapted directly from the ITRS (Cox, 2012). The first

category collected demographic information including gender, marital status, age, highest

academic degree, overall administrative experience, overseas administrative experience,

and nationality. Cox’s (2012) findings using these variables were shown to be helpful in

better understanding the decision making of each group. This was important information

for heads of school when reviewing candidates for openings in their schools and was

identified to increase the probability of success in their recruitment efforts. Based on

Cox’s findings, it was assumed this information would also be important in the

recruitment of division principals.

The second category collected data using a 5-point Likert-type scale focusing on

36

the characteristic of wanderlust. These questions determined the relative importance of

travel opportunities, cultural enrichment, and working with international students. The

third category also used a 5-point Likert-type scale that focused on the importance of

school and job variables including salary, benefits, work conditions, job security, safety,

and school location.

Each of the first 3 categories were adapted from Cox’s (2012) ITRS survey

instrument, which was adapted from Mancuso’s (2010) International Teacher Mobility

Survey (ITMS). Mancuso adapted the ITMS from the National Center for Educational

Statistics’ Schools and Staffing Survey and Teacher Follow-up Survey (Mancuso et al.,

2010). Each of these survey instruments had been tested thoroughly for their validity and

reliability (Cox, 2012). Adaptations made to the survey questions (see Appendix A) on

the IPRS from the ITRS were in response to the focus of the current research study being

division principal candidates in international school settings rather than teachers in

international school settings.

The fourth category was adapted from Mott’s (2011) CCPI (see Appendix B),

which was designed to examine the topic of the career path of candidates. The CCPI’s

validity and reliability was based upon its alignment with survey instruments used in

previous studies (Brewitt, 1993; Glass & Franceschini, 2007; Hawley, 1991; Vogel,

1992). To further test its validity Mott used a test-retest data collection process with two

separate pilot groups. The survey questions used on the IPRS are in Appendix C.

The researcher field-tested the IPRS with several colleagues to gather feedback on

the survey instrument. The researcher created the survey using the SurveyMonkey

website and then sent the link for the survey to 10 colleagues who held leadership

positions within the international school in which he was currently employed, asking

37

them to complete it and then give any comments or suggestions for improvements to him.

The feedback received was positive. The researcher was initially concerned the overall

length of the survey instrument might be too long, but the respondents to the field-test

reported it took them approximately 15 minutes to complete and that it was “very click

friendly” (R. Rehfeldt, personal communication, December 14, 2014).

One area for improvement mentioned was around the wording for some of the

questions. One question combined potential recognition and support from the head of

school but it was noted that these two were not synonymous with each other, so they

might need to be separated into two different questions. There were two questions about

safety, with one related to the expected safety of the environment and the other the

expected personal security and safety of the host country. It was noted these were very

similar and might not need to be given as two separate questions. Although the researcher

agreed that both of these observations were valid points, he had taken the questions

directly from the survey instrument used by Cox (2012) and did not change the questions

beyond the main focus (i.e., division principal positions instead of teaching positions) to

limit any potential negative effect on the instrument.

Procedures

Design. The design of the research study was based on a correlational approach

with an explanatory design. This provided the researcher with the ability to measure the

extent to which two or more variables covaried (Creswell, 2008). This design was

appropriate for this research study because the purpose of this research study was to

investigate the relationship of the variables of overall administrative experience and

international administrative experience to the respondents’ answers for the school-

specific, job-specific, and career path variables in order to determine causal relationships.

38

In the research design, a link to an online survey conducted by the researcher

using SurveyMonkey was sent via e-mail to potential participants from the major

recruitment agencies and the registered PTC participants in the autumn of 2015. Personal

information about respondents was confidential and secure because SurveyMonkey

allows the creator of the survey to choose not to show the respondents’ details, such as e-

mail address, name, or other identifying information. Survey research is valuable due to

the ability of a researcher to use data collected from it to express the principles of

correlational research, as well as providing people’s thoughts, opinions, and feelings

accurately and efficiently (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Zechmeister, 2002).

This design was adapted from the design used in Cox’s (2012) study, which

surveyed teacher candidates of the three main recruitment agencies (Search Associates,

ISS, and CIS) international schools. The adaptations made were to send the survey

instrument to potential respondents in these three recruitment agencies, as well as a fourth

recruitment agency, Carney, Sandoe, and Associates, and past participants of the PTC. D.

Cox (personal communication, November 20, 2012) recommended these changes to the

researcher in discussions on how best to expand the initial research study for the different

population. Instead of focusing on teacher candidates in each of these organizations, this

research study focused on division principal candidates by changing the wording of the

survey questions to reflect this focus.

Another adaptation was that the researcher collected data from potential

respondents once, whereas Cox (2012) collected data over two separate periods. This

change was made based on the conclusion by Cox that during his research the additional

round of data collection was unnecessary, as it did not give any added value, and he

suggested that it be eliminated in future research (D. Cox, personal communication,

39

November 20, 2012).

The final adaptation was the addition of Mott’s (2011) CCPI to the survey

instrument. The researcher believed that data from this instrument would be valuable as it

permitted heads of schools to compare the relationship between the career paths taken by

respondents and their responses to the questions in the survey. The resultant

discrepancies would inform the research study with regard to the candidate pool when

selecting a new division principal for their school. Analyzing the trends in the findings of

this section of the research study also would allow future international school division

principal candidates to compare their own career paths in order to determine their

competitiveness in the marketplace.

Cox (2012) received a response rate of 45% to his initial survey administration

from the estimated sample size of 3,428 potential respondents. Because some candidates

registered with more than one recruitment agency, as well as registering for PTC courses,

potential respondents could receive more than one survey. In order to limit multiple

responses, the researcher requested prospective respondents at the beginning of the IPRS

to complete the survey no more than once, regardless of how many times they received it.

SurveyMonkey has an option that limits the number of times a person using an Internet

Protocol (IP) address can respond, helping to ensure this requirement. This coincided

with the process used for administering the ITRS (Cox, 2012).

A cover letter was provided to potential participants in the e-mail explaining the

purpose of the research study and how the results would be used. Participation was

voluntary and anonymous and candidates were able to stop participating at any time. The

research study followed all accepted procedures and expectations for human-subject

research required by Nova Southeastern University.

40

Data analysis. The data from each respondent were analyzed based on total

administrative experience, overseas administrative experience, and the career path taken.

Replicating the work of Cox (2012), the researcher separated respondents into two

groups: those with 5 or fewer years of international schools experience and those with

more than 5 years of international schools experience. The researcher conducted two

MANOVA tests with an alpha level set at .05 in order to establish any differences

between total administrative experience and international school administrative

experience in relation to the responses given in the IPRS. The researcher then conducted

an ANOVA test to identify which factors accounted for the most significant differences

and, finally, Cohen’s d was used to calculate effect size from these results (Cox, 2012).

Limitations

Mott’s (2011) study compared his survey results to previous surveys completed

almost 20 years earlier by Brewitt (1993) and Vogel (1992). Mott’s research focused on

heads of American-sponsored overseas schools and, consequently, this study did not

produce directly comparable results. Therefore, it was not possible to use the two-sample

z-test to compare the results with those found in Mott’s original research results.

A further limitation was that the potential respondents from the four recruitment

agencies (ISS; Search Associates; CIS; and Carney, Sandoe, and Associates), as well as

the participants in the PTC courses, did not include every possible candidate for

international school division principal positions. It was possible for candidates to learn

about openings in a variety of ways, including viewing individual schools’ websites,

other recruitment agencies, or through word of mouth. Due to these factors, collecting

data from the entire potential population was not practical, but the sample was relatively

large and highly representative.

41

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

This chapter provides the detailed results of the survey that was administered to

potential division principal candidates for job openings in international schools. The

statistical analysis of the survey responses was completed using statistical software to

answer the following questions:

1. What factors impact international school division principal candidate

perceptions of school and job variables?

2. What is the relationship between the perceptions of international school

division principal candidates regarding these factors and total administrative experience?

3. What is the relationship between the perceptions of international school

division principal candidates regarding these underlying factors and international

administrative experience?

4. What is the most common career path for international school division

principal candidates?

Findings for each question are reviewed. Displays of the results, in the form of

tables, are provided and quantitative findings are reported. The chapter ends with a brief

conclusion of the reported findings.

Research Question 1

The first research question was designed to explore the factors that impacted

international school division principal candidate perceptions related to their schools and

jobs. Cox (2012) used a principal component analysis with Varimax rotation to identify

seven underlying factors among the Likert-type variables in the survey: relationship with

school leadership, external work conditions, professional satisfaction, personal well-

42

being, professional growth, compensation and career advancement, and wanderlust.

However, the current study utilized a slightly expanded version of the survey used by

Cox. Specifically, additional questions asked respondents to indicate the level of

importance of having opportunities for increased travel and cultural exposure in both

work and family life. The addition of these eight questions, as well as the difference in

populations between Cox’s study (teachers) and the current study (school leaders),

prompted the need to run an exploratory factor analysis to discover the underlying factors

among the survey items.

SPSS, Version 22, was used to conduct the factor analysis, which utilized

principal component method with a Varimax rotation. Principal component method

results in the uncovering of the greatest amount of variability between items, which

allows for ease in the interpretation of underlying factors. Furthermore, because total

correlation between all extracted factors could not be expected, the orthogonal Varimax

rotation method was selected, as an oblique rotation such as Promax assumes correlation

among every factor (Rencher, 2002). Prior to interpreting the variable groupings from the

factor analysis, the appropriateness of the analysis with this data set was examined via the

results of the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measure for sampling adequacy. According to Schwab

(2007), the test’s value of .84 indicates a solid level of acceptability in interpreting the

results of the factor analysis.

The standard for defining a grouping of variables as a factor was through the

examination of a scree plot and eigenvalues (Rencher, 2002). An eigenvalue represents

the variance of a factor (Institute for Digital Research and Education, 2016), while the

scree plot is a visual representation of these eigenvalues. Only the extracted components

with an eigenvalue greater than 1 would be interpreted as a factor. An eigenvalue of 1 is

43

equivalent to the variability explained by a single survey item (Rencher, 2002) and

therefore does not represent the creation of a factor or group of items. Additionally,

factors should be clearly interpretable from a conceptual perspective and typically have at

least three variables to be considered desirable (Yong & Pearce, 2013)

Using these standards, nine factors were created and retained. An additional two

factors were initially created with eigenvalues greater than 1; however, they were

dropped for not meeting other criteria for the retention of variables. The item for

perceived professional prestige loaded onto its own factor, which was well below the

recommendation of a minimum of three variables. Furthermore, the items of (a) job

description or responsibilities and (b) desire to share Western-style education with the

people of other countries loaded onto their own factor, but the recommendation of clear

interpretation from a conceptual perspective could not be followed. The factor analysis

results regarding these items will be presented within this section; however, results for

subsequent research questions will not involve these two additional factors.

Table 2 presents the eigenvalues and percentage of variance explained for each

factor. The factors, in descending order of strength of influence, were (a) cultural/travel

expectations, (b) work conditions, (c) school leadership and practices, (d)

accomplishment, (e) professional development, (f) school demographics, (g) school

environmental factors, (h) personal and family benefits, (i) monetary benefits, (j)

prestige, and (k) other. Across all 11 factors, 66.5% of the variability in responses could

be explained. Among the nine retained factors, all except prestige and other, 61.5% of the

variability in responses, could be explained. The greatest amount of variability in

responses could be explained by the cultural/travel expectations factor (21.6%), while the

smallest amount of variability in responses among retained factors could be explained by

44

the monetary benefits factor (2.9%).

Table 2

Eigenvalues and Variance Explained by Factors ________________________________________________________________________

Factor Eigenvalue % Variance explained

Cumulative % variance

explained ________________________________________________________________________

Cultural/travel expectations 9.06 21.6 21.6

Work conditions 3.68 8.8 30.3

School leadership and practices 2.60 6.2 36.5

Accomplishment 2.40 5.7 42.2

Professional development 2.15 5.1 47.4

School demographics 1.81 4.3 51.7

School environmental factors 1.57 3.7 55.4

Personal and family benefits 1.37 3.3 58.6

Monetary benefits 1.21 2.9 61.5

Prestige 1.10 2.6 64.1

Other 1.01 2.4 66.5

________________________________________________________________________

Appendix D contains the rotated component matrix with the factor loadings of

each item. These factor loadings represent the strength of correlation of each item with

the factor; for example, the item of “travel opportunities for myself and my family” had a

factor loading of .81, which represented a stronger loading than that of the item for

“desire to work/live in different cultures often supersedes other reasons to move from one

school to another,” which had a factor loading of .68. A minimum loading of .40 had to

be reached to appear on a factor at all (Yong & Pearce, 2013); therefore, the school

facilities item, with a loading of .39 on Factor 11, did not appear at all. Several instances

45

of cross loading occurred, in which an item yielded a correlation of at least .40 with more

than one factor. In most cases, the stronger correlation determined the final factor of

association; however, the interpretability of the loading also factored into the decision.

The first factor was cultural/travel expectations. Five items loaded onto this

factor. From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “travel opportunities for

myself and my family,” (b) “anticipated opportunities for travel and cultural exploration,”

(c) “desire to experience as many cultures and countries as possible in my career,” (d)

“cultural enrichment for myself and my family,” and (e) “desire to work/live in different

cultures supersedes other reasons to move from one school to another.” The highest

factor loading was .81 and the lowest was .68.

The second factor was work conditions. Six items loaded onto this factor. From

strongest to weakest loading, these were (a) “expected manageability of workload,” (b)

“expected general work conditions,” (c) “expected ability to balance personal life and

work,” (d) “anticipated availability of resources and materials/equipment for doing job,”

(e) “expected job security,” and (f) “expected procedures for performance evaluation.”

The last item cross loaded with the 11th factor, other, but was retained within the second

factor due to more logical interpretation. The highest factor loading was .73, and the

lowest was .42.

The third factor was school leadership and practices. Eight items loaded onto this

factor. From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “the way the head of

school communicates respect for the value of division principals,” (b) “expected support

from head of school,” (c) “perception of the way things are run at the school,” (d)

“anticipated autonomy over my division of the school,” (e) “expected autonomy or

control over your own work,” (f) “expected influence over workplace policies and

46

practices,” (g) “potential recognition and support from head of school,” and (h) “desire to

work in a school with a more international student body.” Two of the variables,

“expected autonomy or control over your own work” and “potential recognition and

support from head of school,” cross loaded onto other factors but were retained within

this factor due to more logical interpretation and strength of loading. The highest factor

loading was .67, and the lowest factor loading was .43.

The fourth factor was accomplishment. Three items loaded onto this factor. From

strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “expected sense of personal

accomplishment,” (b) “anticipated intellectual challenge,” and (c) “expected opportunity

to make a difference in the lives of others.” The highest factor loading was .84, and the

lowest factor loading was .76.

The fifth factor was professional development. Four items loaded onto this factor.

From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “opportunities for learning from

colleagues,” (b) “expected opportunities for professional development,” (c) “potential

social relationships with colleagues,” and (d) “opportunities for professional

advancement or promotion.” The highest factor loading ranged was .81, and the lowest

factor loading was .41.

The sixth factor was school demographics. Four items loaded onto this factor.

From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) size of school, (b) type of school

(nonprofit, proprietary, company-sponsored, etc.), (c) curriculum offered (i.e., American,

IB, AP, etc.), and (d) reputation of school. The highest factor loading ranged was.78, and

the lowest factor loading was .63.

The seventh factor was school environmental factors. Three items loaded onto this

factor. From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “expected personal

47

security and safety in the host country,” (b) “expected safety of environment,” and (c)

“school location.” The highest factor loading ranged was .78, and the lowest factor

loading was .64.

The eighth factor was personal and family benefits. Three items loaded onto this

factor. From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “desire to have a better

education for my children,” (b) “desire to pursue better professional opportunities than

are available in my country of origin,” and (c) “employment for partner.” The highest

factor loading ranged was .78, and the lowest factor loading was .65.

The ninth factor was monetary benefits. Although only two variables were

included, it was considered a viable factor due to its usefulness in content. The two items

that loaded onto it were (a) salary, with a factor loading of .84, and (b) benefits (e.g.,

health insurance, retirement plan), with a factor loading of .77.

The 10th factor only consisted of a single item, “perceived personal prestige,”

with a loading of .72. The final factor, known as other due to its lack of cohesiveness,

contained the items (a) “desire to share Western-style education,” with a factor loading of

.60, and (b) “job description or responsibilities,” with a factor loading of .53. One final

item, school facilities, did not achieve a factor loading of at least .40 with any factor and

was therefore unassociated.

Research Question 2

The second research question explored the relationship between perceptions of

international school division principal candidates, as measured by the retained factors

from Research Question 1, and the total amount of administrative experience earned by

these individuals. A one-way MANOVA was utilized to explore this research question.

The nine retained factors from Research Question 1 served as the dependent variables.

48

IPRS Question 6, to which respondents provided their amounts of administrative

experience, served as the independent variable.

Standardization occurred in the creation of the dependent variables. Each factor

variable consisted of differing numbers of items, so adding the item values and dividing

by the number of items created the factor. By utilizing this approach, each survey

question’s value was equally weighted and averages for the factors could be compared on

the same scale, where 1 represented not at all important, 2 represented slightly important,

3 represented somewhat important, 4 represented very important, and 5 represented

extremely important. This approach created a good level of understandability in the

interpretation. In staying consistent with Cox’s (2012) research, the independent variable

representing amount of administrative experience was categorized into two groups

consisting of respondents who had (a) 5 or fewer total years of administrative experience

and (b) over 5 total years of administrative experience. All tests were conducted at the α

= .05 level of statistical significance.

Prior to interpretation of the MANOVA results, critical assumptions were

checked. First, correlations between dependent variables were calculated for any signs of

multicollinearity. These correlations should remain below a value of r = .90 (Verma,

2015). Correlations between factors are provided in Table 3. The correlations ranged

from a low of .01 to a high of .57, so none were particularly strong. Box’s test checks for

equality of covariance matrices (Rencher, 2002). Box’s test, F(45, 31,196) = 1.17, p =

.20, was not statistically significant, which indicated the assumption was not violated.

Equality of error variances for each of the nine individual factors was checked as well

through Levene’s test (Verma, 2015); results are presented in Table 4. None of the tests

were statistically significant at α = .05, so there was no indication of this assumption

49

being violated.

Table 3

Correlations of Factors for Research Questions 2 and 3 ____________________________________________________________________

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ____________________________________________________________________

1. Cultural/travel expectations 2. Work conditions .24 3. School leadership and

practices

.12

.57

4. Accomplishment .08 .29 .46 5. Professional development .23 .47 .50 .35 6. School demographics .13 .35 .35 .11 .30 7. School environmental factors .31 .45 .24 .14 .18 .33 8. Personal and family benefits .12 .21 .19 -.02 .30 .29 .09 9. Monetary benefits .20 .30 .17 .01 .21 .10 .31 .07 ____________________________________________________________________

Table 4

Levene’s Test Results for Research Question 2 ____________________________________________________

Factor F p ____________________________________________________

Cultural/travel expectations 0.04 .85 Work conditions 0.71 .40 School leadership and practices 0.21 .65 Accomplishment 0.30 .58 Professional development 0.24 .63 School demographics 0.01 .94 School environmental factors 0.33 .57 Personal and family benefits 0.93 .34 Monetary benefits 0.91 .34 ____________________________________________________ Note. df1 = 1, df2 = 279 for all tests. *p < .05. **p < .01.

The first portion of the MANOVA run in SPSS indicated the presence of any

50

multivariate significance. Of the indicators generated by the test, Wilks’ Lambda was

selected due to its appropriateness with two independent groups (Verma, 2015). The test,

Wilks’ λ = 0.97, F(9, 271) = 1.03, p = .42, did not indicate statistical significance. The

amount of total administrative experience did not indicate significantly different

behaviors within the factors.

One-way ANOVA tests were run for each factor to verify the lack of significant

statistical differences between the two groups. The results of these tests are shown in

Table 5. The table also presents values for Cohen’s d, which is a measure of effect size.

The greatest effect size was .23, which was not large by Cohen’s (1988) standards, but

could yield greater interest in the magnitudes of the factors of cultural/travel expectations

and accomplishment as compared to school environmental factors and school leadership

practices, which had very small effect size values.

Table 5

One-Way ANOVA and Cohen’s d Results for Research Question 2 ______________________________________________________________________

Factor F p d ______________________________________________________________________

Cultural/travel expectations 2.34 .13 -.23 Work conditions 1.12 .29 -.16 School leadership and practices 0.02 .88 .02 Accomplishment 2.09 .15 .23 Professional development 1.53 .22 -.19 School demographics 0.11 .74 .05 School environmental factors 0.01 .94 .01 Personal and family benefits 0.50 .48 -.11 Monetary benefits 0.11 .74 -.05 ______________________________________________________________________Note. df = 1 for all tests. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Although statistical significance was not found, basic descriptive results can be

51

presented. Personal and family benefits were rated the least important for the 5 years or

fewer group (M = 3.23, SD = 1.03) and the more than 5 years group, which valued them

even less (M = 3.12, SD = 1.13). On the other end of the spectrum, respondents in the 5

years or fewer group valued accomplishment the most (M = 4.19, SD = 0.56), as did the

more than 5 years group (M = 4.33, SD = 0.67), which valued the concept even greater.

All means fell below 3 (somewhat important) and 4 (very important), with the exception

of accomplishment. However, as stated earlier, none of these differences were

statistically significant. All of the means and standard deviations, as well as the values for

Cohen’s d, are shown for each factor in Table 6.

Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations for Factors by Years of Total Administrative Experience ______________________________________________________________________________

< 5 years’ experience (n = 54)

_________________

> 5 years’ experience (n = 227)

_________________ Factor M SD M SD ______________________________________________________________________________

Cultural/travel expectations 3.49 0.84 3.29 0.83 Work conditions 3.67 0.65 3.56 0.70 School leadership and practices 3.93 0.51 3.95 0.58 Accomplishment 4.19 0.56 4.33 0.67 Professional development 3.78 0.60 3.65 0.68 School demographics 3.39 0.77 3.43 0.76 School environmental factors 3.82 0.78 3.83 0.76 Personal and family benefits 3.23 1.03 3.12 1.13 Monetary benefits 3.84 0.80 3.81 0.70 ______________________________________________________________________________

Research Question 3

Research Question 3 was analyzed using a one-way MANOVA, in which the nine

factors identified in Research Question 1 served as the dependent variables, and Survey

Question 7 in the demographics section of the IPRS (“How many total years of overseas

52

administrative experience do you have?”) was used to create the independent variable.

The interdependent variable was constructed in the same fashion as in Research Question

2 (5 or fewer years versus more than 5 years) but using the overseas specific question

instead. All tests were conducted at the α = .05 level of significance.

As in Research Question 2, assumptions were first run to ensure the

appropriateness of the test. The correlation of the dependent variables, displayed in Table

3, was checked in the Research Question 2 analysis, and because this had nothing to do

with the independent variable, this check did not have to be rerun for Research Question

3. Box’s test checked for equality of covariance matrices, with F(45, 253,571) = 1.14, p =

.25 was not statistically significant, which indicated the assumption was not violated. The

equality of error variances for each of the nine individual factors was checked as well,

with the results shown in Table 7. None of the tests were statistically significant at α =

.05, so there was no indication of this assumption being violated either.

Table 7

Levene’s Test Results for Research Question 3 _____________________________________________________________

Factor F p _____________________________________________________________

Cultural/travel expectations 0.14 .71 Work conditions 0.41 .52 School leadership and practices 0.35 .56 Accomplishment 2.25 .14 Professional development 2.55 .11 School demographics 1.54 .22 School environmental factors 0.01 .93 Personal and family benefits 0.39 .54 Monetary benefits 1.55 .21 _____________________________________________________________ Note. df1 = 1, df2 = 279 for all tests. *p < .05. **p < .01.

The MANOVA first tested for multivariate significance. Wilks’ Lambda was used

53

as the selected multivariate test again because only two groups were being compared.

This time a statistically significant difference, Wilks’ λ = 0.88, F(9, 271) = 3.97, p <

.001, was indicated, showing the amount of total overseas administrative experience did

indicate significantly different behaviors within the factors.

Because statistical significance was found in the multivariate test, individual

between-subject tests were run for each factor. The results of these tests are shown in

Table 8. Interpretations of these results work best when coupled with the means shown in

Table 9.

Table 8

One-Way ANOVA and Cohen’s d Results for Question 3 __________________________________________________________

Factor F p d

__________________________________________________________

Cultural/travel expectations 11.43 .001** -.40

Work conditions 0.83 .36 -.11

School leadership and practices 4.12 .04* .24

Accomplishment 3.49 .06 .22

Professional development 0.36 .55 .07

School demographics 2.92 .09 .20

School environmental factors 0.34 .56 -.07

Personal and family benefits 5.28 .02** .27

Monetary benefits 0.12 .73 .04

__________________________________________________________Note. df = 1 for all tests. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Means differed significantly between the two groups for three dependent

variables. First, respondents with less overseas administrative experience placed higher

expectations in travel and culture more (M = 3.50, SD = 0.84) than did those with greater

54

overseas administrative experience (M = 3.17, SD = 0.80). Second, respondents with

greater overseas administrative experience placed greater value upon school leadership

and practices (M = 4.01, SD = 0.53) than did those with less overseas administrative

experience (M = 3.87, SD = 0.59). Finally, respondents with greater overseas

administrative experience valued personal and family benefits to a greater extent (M =

3.29, SD = 1.08) than did those with less overseas administrative experience (M = 2.98,

SD = 1.13).

Table 9

Means and Standard Deviations for Factors by Years of Overseas Administrative Experience _______________________________________________________________________

< 5 years experience (n = 54)

________________

> 5 years experience (n = 227)

________________ Factor M SD M SD _______________________________________________________________________

Cultural/travel expectations 3.50 0.84 3.17 0.80

Work conditions 3.62 0.67 3.54 0.72

School leadership and practices 3.87 0.59 4.01 0.53

Accomplishment 4.23 0.70 4.37 0.59

Professional development 3.65 0.63 3.70 0.70

School demographics 3.34 0.79 3.49 0.73

School environmental factors 3.86 0.75 3.80 0.78

Personal and family benefits 2.98 1.13 3.29 1.08

Monetary benefits 3.80 0.76 3.83 0.69

_______________________________________________________________________

As with Research Question 2, accomplishment provided both the highest means

and the only ones that exceeded 4 (very important). Personal and family benefits

provided the lowest means. Almost all factors were between 3 (somewhat important) and

55

4 (very important). In terms of effect sizes, cultural/travel expectations indicated a

moderate one, with an effect size of d = .40, which was notably higher than those of the

other factors. Again, school environmental factors showed indications of not being

valued particularly differently by either group, with an effect size of d = -.07.

Research Question 4

This research question was addressed by examining basic trends among all of the

demographic questions in the IPRS. Each question will be discussed individually.

Age. Respondents were asked to provide their current age, as well as the age at

which they achieved three different professional milestones: becoming a full-time

educator, becoming an administrator, and becoming a division principal. The latter two

milestones were not applicable to all respondents, so the percentages were calculated out

of all applicable respondents. The results for this question are shown in Table 10.

Table 10

Frequencies for Respondent Ages at Each Major Professional Milestone ______________________________________________________________________________________

Years of age _____________________________________________________________

< 25

_________ 25-35

________ 36-45

_______ 46-55

_______ 56-65

________ 65+

______

Milestone N No. % No. %

No. % No. % No. %

No. % ______________________________________________________________________________________

Current 281 0 0.0

11 3.9

96 34.2

126 44.8

44 15.7

4 1.4 Became educator 281 172 61.2

99 35.2

7 2.5

3 1.1

0 0.0

0 0.0

Became administrator 278 9 3.2

150 54.0

94 33.8

22 7.9

3 1.1

0 0.0 Became division principal 222 1 0.5 66 29.7 112 50.5 36 16.2 7 3.2 0 0.0 ______________________________________________________________________________________

Years of experience. Respondents were asked to provide the number of years of

employment experience they had in a variety of categories. Because responses were

open-ended and not in explicitly defined categories, exact means and standard deviations

56

could be calculated. Values of zero were provided for respondents who did not hold the

position. The results of this question are shown in Table 11.

Table 11

Mean Years of Employment by Job Category (N = 281) _________________________________________________________________

Employment category M SD Min Max

_________________________________________________________________Total overseas education 11.6 9.0 0 40 Administrative 11.5 7.2 0 43 Overseas administrative 6.9 6.3 0 38 Division principal 5.7 6.0 0 33 Overseas division principal 3.5 4.5 0 29 _________________________________________________________________

Nationality. Respondents provided their country of citizenship. Most provided a

single country but some respondents were dual citizens. Eighty-four percent of

respondents were from the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, or New Zealand. The total

breakdown of nationalities is shown in Table 12.

Table 12

Frequencies for Country of Citizenship (N = 281) ________________________________________________

Nationality No. % ________________________________________________

American 141 50.2 British/UK 44 15.7 Canadian 31 11.0 Australian 20 7.1 New Zealand 10 3.6 South African 6 2.1 Other 18 6.4 Dual citizenship 11 3.9 ________________________________________________

Gender and ethnicity. Gender results were clear, with the majority being male.

57

In total, 56.9% of the respondents were male, and 43.1% were female. For ethnicity,

respondents had a free response box in which to provide their ethnic background. Some

suggestions were given (e.g., European, African, etc.) but some data cleanup and

categorization had to take place in order to yield any sort of usable results. A number of

respondents gave ethnic backgrounds of American or Canadian, which are more

traditionally recognized as nationalities rather than ethnicities (with the exception of

Native American or First Nations people). These responses were grouped to avoid

confusion with the other category, which addressed multiracial respondents. The majority

of respondents (79.5%) who provided an answer to this question identified as White,

European, or Caucasian. The results for the question regarding gender and ethnicity are

shown in Table 13.

Table 13

Frequencies for Gender and Ethnicity __________________________________________________

Category No. % __________________________________________________

Gender (N = 281) Male 160 56.9 Female 121 43.1 __________________________________________________

Ethnicity (N = 278) White/European/ Caucasian 221 79.5 African/Black 10 3.6 Asian 10 3.6 Hispanic/Latino 11 4.0 American/Canadian 15 5.4 Other 11 4.0 __________________________________________________

Employment seeking behavior. Almost half (45.9%) of respondents expressed

58

that their partner would be seeking employment at the same school, while a similar

percentage of respondents (47%) noted they would have dependent children coming with

them to their new place of employment. The same percentage of respondents (47.0%)

expressed having a specific region of interest they would target in their job search, which

they were allowed to then specify up to two regions in their response. Of the 132

respondents who noted having a specific region of interest, over half were most interested

in working in either Europe (60.6%) and or in the Asia-Pacific region (53.8%). Africa

(9.1%) was the region in which respondents were the least interested in working. The

results of this survey question are shown in Table 14.

Table 14

Frequencies for Employment-Seeking Behavior ____________________________________________________________________

Category No. % ____________________________________________________________________

Partner seeking employment in school (N = 281) Yes 129 45.9

No 152 54.1

Accompanying dependent children (N = 281) Yes 132 47.0

No 149 53.0

Specific region targeted (up to two; N = 132) Europe 80 60.6

Asia-Pacific 71 53.8 South America 33 25.0 Middle East 26 20.0 North America 18 13.6 Other 13 9.8 Africa 12 9.1

____________________________________________________________________

Education and training. A majority of respondents held either a master’s or a

doctoral degree (86.7%), with most holding a master’s degree (68.6%). Furthermore,

59

most of the responses to the other category were from individuals who held multiple

master’s degrees, an educational specialist degree, or were All But Dissertation (ABD)

for their doctoral degree, meaning this rate of postbaccalaureate completion is even

greater than it was initially believed to be. Respondents were also able to select as many

applicable certifications as they had earned. Most respondents (90.3%) had or currently

held a teacher certification, while a majority (76.2%) held a principal/administrator

certification. The results from this survey question can be seen in Table 15.

Table 15

Frequencies for Education and Training (N = 277) __________________________________________________

Category No. % __________________________________________________

Highest degree earned

Bachelor's 14 5.1

Master's 190 68.6

Doctorate 50 18.1

Other 23 8.3

__________________________________________________

Certifications earned

Teacher 250 90.3

Principal/Administrator 211 76.2

Superintendent 35 12.6

Counselor 11 4.0

N/A 6 2.2

Other 32 11.6

__________________________________________________

Positions held. Table 16 shows the distribution of the positions held by

respondents. The largest number of respondents either was, or is currently, a high school

60

teacher or counselor (65.0%).

Table 16

Frequencies for Positions Held (N = 277) ______________________________________________________________

Position No. % ______________________________________________________________

Elementary teacher/counselor 144 52.0

Middle/junior teacher/counselor 171 61.7

High teacher/counselor 180 65.0

Elementary administrative 124 44.8

Middle/junior administrative 122 44.0

High administrative 146 52.7

Kindergarten-Grade 8 administrative 76 27.4

Grades 6-12 administrative 89 32.1

Head of school (combined w/other position) 39 14.1

Head of school (not combined w/other position) 65 23.5

Other 71 25.6

______________________________________________________________

Locations of positions of employment. Tables 17 and 18 explore trends related

to respondents’ locations of their first positions along their individual career paths. Table

17 provides the distribution of whether respondents’ first administrative and

nonadministrative positions were inside or outside of their home countries. Table 18

shows both the location of respondents’ current positions as well as the locations of their

first faculty, administrative, and division principal positions outside of their home

countries.

Career path. Table 19 displays the career paths respondents took to their current

positions. Not all paths were listed; in fact, the other option received the most responses

61

(23.1%). However, of the specific paths that were listed, the path of teacher to assistant

principal to division principal was the most common (21.7%).

Table 17

Frequencies for Location of First Position (N = 277) ______________________________________________________________________________

Home country

_____________

Outside home country

___________

NA ___________

Position No. %

No. %

No. % ______________________________________________________________________________

First nonadministrative 223 80.5

54 19.5

0 0.0

First administrative 132 47.7

140 50.5

5 1.8

First division principal 83 30.0 135 48.7 59 21.3

______________________________________________________________________________Note. NA = not applicable.

Table 18

Frequencies for Location of Current and First Outside Home Country Positions (N = 277) ______________________________________________________________________________

Current

___________ First faculty

___________ First admin __________

First div principal ______________

Region No. % No. % No. % No. % ______________________________________________________________________________

Africa 21 7.6 18 6.5

18 6.5

18 6.5

Asia-Pacific 80 28.9 75 27.1

90 32.5

67 24.2

Europe 48 17.3 55 19.9

39 14.1

36 13.0

Middle East 30 10.8 42 15.2

35 12.6

29 10.5

North America 55 19.9 24 8.7

20 7.2

20 7.2

South America 18 6.5 19 6.9

23 8.3

15 5.4

Other 25 9.0 44 15.9

16 5.8

13 4.7

NA 0 0.0 0 0.0 36 13.0 79 28.5

______________________________________________________________________________ Note. admin = administrative; div = division; NA = not applicable.

Respondents were also asked whether their first division principal positions were

62

internal promotions within the same school in which they were previously employed. Of

the 277 respondents, 103 (37.2%) noted it was an internal move, while 124 (44.8%) noted

it was an external move. The question was not applicable to the remaining 50 respondents

(18.1%).

Table 19

Frequencies for Career Path Taken (N = 277) __________________________________________________________________________

Position No. % __________________________________________________________________________

Teacher, assistant principal, division principal 60 21.7

Teacher, HOD/HOG, assistant principal 28 10.1

Teacher, coordinator, division principal 26 9.4

Teacher, HOD/HOG, coordinator, division principal 26 9.4

Teacher, HOD/HOG, division principal 25 9.0

Teacher, coordinator, assistant principal 16 5.8

Teacher, HOD/HOG, coordinator, assistant principal 14 5.1

Teacher, HOD/HOG 7 2.5

Teacher, HOD/HOG, coordinator 6 2.2

Teacher, coordinator 5 1.8

Other 64 23.1

__________________________________________________________________________Note. HOD = head of department. HOG = head of grade.

Summary

The four research questions were answered using the results from statistical

analysis software and a variety of statistical tests. For Research Question 1, SPSS was

used to conduct the factor analysis, which utilized principal component method with a

Varimax rotation. The results of this led to the creation of 11 initial factors: (a)

cultural/travel expectations, (b) work conditions, (c) school leadership and practices, (d)

63

accomplishment, (e) professional development, (f) school demographics, (g) school

environmental factors, (h) personal and family benefits, (i) monetary benefits, (j)

prestige, and (k) other. The final two factors were dropped from further inclusion due to

not meeting all criteria for the retention of variables.

Research Question 2 utilized a one-way MANOVA, using the total amount of

administrative experience earned by respondents as the independent variable, which was

divided into (a) having 5 or fewer total years of administrative experience and (b) having

over 5 total years of administrative experience. The results showed the amount of total

administrative experience did not indicate significantly different behaviors within the

factors.

Research Question 3 also utilized a one-way MANOVA, using the total amount

of overseas administrative experience as the independent variable, which was also

divided into 5 or fewer years versus more than 5 years. The results showed the total

amount of overseas administrative experience did indicate significantly different

behaviors within the factors. First, respondents with less overseas administrative

experience placed higher expectations on travel and culture than respondents with a

greater amount of overseas administrative experience. Second, respondents with a greater

amount of overseas administrative experience placed greater value upon school

leadership and practices than those with less overseas administrative experience. Finally,

respondents with a greater amount of overseas administrative experience valued personal

and family benefits to a greater extent than those with less overseas administrative

experience.

Research Question 4 asked what the most common career path was for

international school division principal candidates. The results were based upon a

64

combination of demographic data and respondents’ answers to questions about their

individual career paths. When determining the “most common career path,” the

researcher used the highest percentage response rate for each subquestion. The most

common responses for each subquestion were as follows:

• Current age: 46-55 years old (44.8%)

• Age became an educator: <25 years old (61.2%)

• Age became an administrator: 25-35 years old (54%)

• Age became a division principal: 36-45 years old (50.5%)

• Years of total overseas education employment experience: 11.6 years

• Years of total administrative experience: 11.5 years

• Years of overseas administrative experience: 6.9 years

• Years of division principal experience: 5.7 years

• Years of overseas division principal experience: 3.5 years

• Nationality of respondents: USA (50.2%)

• Gender of respondents: Male (56.9%)

• Ethnicity of respondents: White/European/Caucasian (79.5%)

• 45.9% of respondents had a partner/spouse who was also seeking employment

in the same school.

• 47% of respondents had dependent children coming to their new place of

employment.

• 47% of respondents expressed having a specific region of interest they would

target in their job search. Of these respondents, 60.6% listed Europe as a region

upon which they would focus, while 53.8% gave Asia-Pacific as a region upon

65

which they would focus.

• 68.6% of respondents had a master’s degree.

• 90.3% of respondents had teacher certification.

• 76.2% of respondents had principal or administrative certification.

• 65% of respondents held a high school teacher/counselor position during their

career; 61.7% of respondents held a middle school teacher/counselor position

during their career; and 52.7% of respondents held a high school administrative

position during their career.

• The vast majority of respondents (80.5%) received their first nonadministrative

position in their home country.

• The majority of respondents (50.5%) received their first administrative position

outside their home country.

• Most respondents (48.7%) received their first division principal position

outside their home country.

• Most respondents (28.9%) were employed in the Asia-Pacific region.

• Most respondents (27.1%) received their first faculty position outside their

home country in the Asia-Pacific region.

• Most respondents (32.5%) received their first administrative position in the

Asia-Pacific region.

• Most respondents, who held a division principal position, received their first

one in the Asia-Pacific region. The largest percentage of respondents (28.5%)

has not held a division principal position yet.

• Finally, the survey question specifically about the career paths taken by

66

respondents listed 11 possible options, of which “other” was a choice. The

highest percentage of respondents who chose a specific career path chose

“teacher-assistant principal-division principal” (21.7%). However, the highest

percentage of respondents chose the other option (23.1%).

67

Chapter 5: Discussion

Introduction

In this chapter the researcher presents a discussion of the research findings

reported in Chapter 4. Similarities and differences between the findings in this research

study and those of Cox (2012) and Mott (2011) in the areas of candidate perceptions and

demographic information will be discussed, as well as limitations of the study and

recommendations for future research. This study addressed the gap in the research

literature related to international school division principal recruitment. By extending the

findings of the Cox’s research study related to international school teacher recruitment,

and using Mott’s Career Path Inventory, international heads of school will now be able to

use the findings of this research study to inform their recruitment efforts in the areas of

attracting candidates and selecting candidates for their schools. Similar to the

implications in Cox’s study, being able to create a recruiting strategy and craft

recruitment messages for potential candidates has not been widely available, and the

findings of this research study could be used to help inform this for heads of school.

Differences in Candidate Perceptions

Although the labels and groupings of this research study are not exactly the same,

there is still the ability to compare results between the research studies. When Cox (2012)

examined the relative strength of factors, he confirmed “that the relationship between

school leadership and teachers is the most important to candidates” (p. 55). As with

Cox’s study, this study explored the difference of perceptions between respondents’

overall experience, in this case overall administrative experience and overall experience

working outside of their home country, again specifically the amount of overseas

administrative experience. This research study found that accomplishment was the most

68

important factor for division principal candidates, both for respondents with less than 5

years of administrative experience and those with 5 or more years of administrative

experience. This difference could be caused by the candidates’ desire to apply for a

leadership position in a school, specifically the division principal position, which one

would assume would be connected to an individual’s level of personal accomplishment

within a school setting.

The least important factor found in this research study was personal and family

benefits, which was even lower for respondents who had more administrative experience.

This seems to demonstrate that people who were exploring administrative positions,

especially those who already had more experience in this area, did not see international

schools as more attractive for these types of positions than they might otherwise have

found in national or independent schools in their home country.

The researcher concluded that when the amount of overseas administrative

experience was used as the dependent variable, there was greater difference between

respondents, which mirrored Cox’s (2012) findings. Similar to the findings above,

personal and family benefits had the lowest overall response for respondents with less

than 5 years of overseas administrative experience. International school heads of school

should take note of this, as focusing on this factor will have the least impact on

candidates looking to work overseas for the first time. Although still low in relation to the

other factors, personal and family benefits were more important for people who already

had a higher amount of overseas administrative experience. This showed that once they

had left their home of origin for several years, these factors tended to become more

important. The subfactors that made up the personal and family benefits factor were (a)

desire to have a better education for my children, (b) desire to pursue better professional

69

opportunities than are available in my country of origin, and (c) employment for partner.

It is possible that respondents with a higher amount of overseas experience had a better

understanding of what was available in international schools than respondents with less

overseas experience, and therefore appreciated them to a higher degree.

School leadership and practices was rated as being more important for candidates

with a higher amount of overseas administrative experience than those without. A

possible cause for this could be that respondents for this research study had more

experience working in international schools, which tended to be smaller than schools in

national school systems, and had seen the greater level of influence individual school

leaders can have upon a school and the employees in it. They are therefore more likely to

pay attention to this area than someone coming more recently from a national school

system where individual school leaders tend to have less of an impact due to the various

layers of bureaucracy seen in those settings. Cox (2012) also found that leadership was

more important to more experienced teachers in his research as well.

Cox (2012) specifically focused on the topic of wanderlust, which he hoped to

expand upon from Mancuso’s (2010) findings. This research study found similar results

to Cox in this respect, where cultural/travel expectations, which fit the wanderlust

context, were less important to candidates with a higher amount of overseas

administrative experience. In fact, it was the lowest scoring factor of all nine for the

respondents with 5 or more years of overseas administrative experience. International

school heads of school should also pay close attention to this finding, as they can modify

their recruitment conversations when trying to convince individual division principal

candidates to come work in their schools. Research findings from this study indicated that

international school heads of school should focus more on the job itself, and specifically

70

the accomplishments that come with the job, for candidates with more overseas

administrative experience, and they can focus more on the travel and adventure

opportunities available to candidates with less overseas administrative experience.

Based on the results of this research study, it would be beneficial when preparing

advertisements for the division principal positions in their schools that heads of school

focus on the areas found to be most important in the results of this report. If a head of

school wants to attract candidates with more overall administrative experience, they

should highlight slightly different things than if they are looking for a less experienced

candidate. A head of school looking to attract candidates with more overseas experience

would therefore highlight different areas than one looking for a candidate with less

overseas experience. Because the results indicated there is greater differentiation based

upon the amount of overseas administrative experience than overall administrative

experience, focusing on these results would have a higher likelihood of success in finding

the desired candidate. Conversely, as Cox (2012) stated, you cannot sell what you do not

have.

Based on this research study, it can be concluded that if a head of school is having

difficulty attracting and or retaining the desired division principal candidates, then he or

she could review his or her own leadership practices and culture in the school for which

he or she is and then attempt to make changes to better fit the desires of these types of

candidates. It was shown that accomplishment was the most important factor overall for

division principal candidates, which consisted of expected sense of personal

accomplishment, anticipated intellectual challenge, and expected opportunity to make a

difference in the lives of others. If a head of school determines there is less opportunity

for a division principal to be directly involved in what is happening in the school, and

71

therefore less likely to be able to feel the desired sense of accomplishment, then changes

could be made to increase opportunities for this to take place.

If the desire is to attract and or retain candidates with more overseas

administrative experience, then utilizing the factor of school leadership and practices

could be beneficial due to the high level of importance placed upon it by respondents.

This factor included eight subfactors: the way the head of school communicates respect

for the value of the division principal, the expected support from the head of school, the

perception of the way things are run at the school, the expected autonomy over your

division of school, the expected autonomy or control over your own work, the expected

influence over workplace policies and practices, potential recognition and support from

the head of school, and the desire to work in a school with a more international student

body. This factor fits quite well with Cox’s (2012) factor of relationship with school

leadership, which he found to be the most important factor for teacher candidates.

Furthermore, if a head of school sees he or she is not empowering his or her

leadership team (and specifically the division principals) with autonomy, or is not giving

them adequate recognition and support, then this can be changed. Once this positive

culture has been established, it can be conveyed to recruits using different methods, such

as testimonials on the school website and in presentations on the school’s strengths and

weaknesses (Cox, 2012).

Although focusing specifically on the recruitment of division principal candidates

in international schools, the results of this research study can also be used by

international heads of school to try to retain their division principals instead of losing

them to other schools. Seeing what is most important to candidates, based upon their

overall amount of administrative experience, but more so upon the amount of overseas

72

administrative experience, will help a head of school see the areas of strength for his or

her school and or location. Furthermore, it will enhance the use of these areas to focus

retention conversations with their division principals when the time comes for them to

either renew their contract with the school or look for a position in another school.

Differences in Demographic Information

With regard to demographic details of respondents, it will be beneficial to

compare these with the results of Cox’s (2012) and Mott’s (2011) studies in order to

provide valuable findings. When combined with the Career Path Inventory, this will help

give the full description of the candidate pool, which will better inform all stakeholders.

Candidates will be able to assess their own competitiveness within the overall candidate

pool; the recruitment agencies will better know their potential client base, which can then

be used to try to target specific groups to increase diversity; and international school

heads of school will be better able to compare the candidates who have applied for

division principal positions in their school in relation to the overall candidate pool.

This research study’s findings fit the researcher’s expectation that candidates for

division principal positions would have a higher average age than those who were

applying for teaching positions in Cox’s (2012) study. Cox’s respondents averaged

approximately 40 years in age, while 61.9% of respondents to this research study were

aged 46 and above.

Mott (2011) found the average age of respondents in his study, which focused on

current heads of school, was 56 years old, which was appropriate because a person would

most likely become a division principal and gain several years of experience before

becoming a head of school. There was also a strong similarity for the nationality of

division principal candidates, where 84% of respondents were from the USA, Canada, the

73

UK, Australia, or New Zealand. This mirrored the findings of Cox (2012), whose

research found 84.5% of respondents citing citizenship from these five nations and

Mott’s findings where 94.0% of respondents came from the USA, UK, Canada, or

Australia. A possible reason for this could be that the majority of international schools

use English as the language of instruction, and these are the majority of the English

speaking nations in the world.

The gender results showed that 56.9% of the respondents were male. This differed

from Cox’s (2012) results, where almost 60.0% of respondents were female, but it does

fit the pattern shown in the literature review of national division principal recruitment

(Lacey, 2003; Sandberg, 2010), where the majority of applicants were male. It also

confirms the anecdotal evidence with which the researcher was presented for

international schools (P. Mott, personal communication, February 8, 2013). As Fowles

and Fischer (2013) presented, this could be because many female educators feel the need

to spend more time at home with their family in the “traditional care giver role,” and

therefore are not willing to spend the additional time outside of normal operational hours

of a school that are required in the division principal role. Because of this, there would be

fewer female applicants for division principal positions, even though, as Cox found, there

was a larger number of female applicants for teaching positions.

The majority of respondents (79.5%) who provided an answer to this question of

ethnicity responded as White, European, or Caucasian. This followed both the same trend

found in national schools (Cushing & Kerrins, 2004; MacBeath, 2009; Winter et al.,

2004, 2007) and anecdotal evidence from international schools (P. DeMinico, personal

communication, February 8, 2013; P. Mott, personal communication, February 8, 2013).

Mott (2011) also found the vast majority of respondents (94.3%) cited European ancestry

74

in his study on head of American overseas schools, which would be considered the next

level above division principal on the career path inventory.

These results may be disappointing for anyone hoping there would be a more

diverse candidate pool for international school division principals. Unfortunately, it

seems the stereotypical middle-aged, White male continues to be overly represented in

division principal roles in international schools as well as in national ones (Cushing &

Kerrins, 2004; MacBeath, 2009; Winter et al., 2004, 2007).

Career Path of Candidates

The final section of the research study focused on the career path candidates had

taken before applying for division principal positions in international schools. Mott

(2011) found that his respondents were around 24 years old when they became educators.

The majority of respondents in this research study (61.2%) were also less than 25 years

old when they began working in education. Mott found that respondents were

approximately 35 years old upon becoming an administrator, whereas this research study

found 54.0% of respondents became an administrator between the ages of 25 and 35

years old, while another 33.8% became one between the ages of 36 and 45 years old.

A major factor that impacts a candidate’s career path is his or her education level.

Mott (2011) found 63.1% of respondents held a master’s degree, and 36.3% held a

doctorate degree, whereas 68.6% of respondents to this research study held a master’s

degree, and 18.1% held a doctorate degree. The higher percentage of doctorate degrees

found in Mott’s research study was most likely due to those respondents holding a head

of school position, which could have come with the requirement that people in this

position hold this degree.

Candidates’ certification to hold specific positions can also impact a candidate’s

75

career path. Mott (2011) found 93.0% of respondents held teacher certification, 75.2%

held principal/administrative certification, and 38.9% held superintendent certification.

This research study found 90.3% of respondents held teacher certification, 76.2% held

principal/administrator certification, and 12.6% held superintendent certification. Similar

to respondents holding a doctorate degree, superintendent certification could be a

requirement to hold the head of school position in some schools, which could be the

reason for the respondents to Mott’s research study having a higher percentage than the

respondents to this research study.

Candidates’ career paths included specific positions they held throughout their

career. Mott’s (2011) research study asked respondents what was their first position in

education, as well as administrative positions held, while this research study asked

respondents to list all previous positions held. Although the two sets of questions were

not identical, comparisons could still be made between each research studies’ results.

Mott found 24.8% of respondents’ first position was as an elementary school teacher,

31.8% was as a middle school teacher, and 31.2% was as a high school teacher. This

research study found 52.0% of respondents had been an elementary school teacher or

counselor, 61.7% had been a middle school teacher or counselor, and 65.0% had been a

high school teacher or counselor. Both studies reported former elementary school

teachers being the least represented. From the researcher’s prior experience, elementary

divisions in international schools have relatively fewer administrative positions than

secondary divisions (which are composed of middle schools and high schools). Having

fewer administrative opportunities could lead to a lower number of elementary teachers

advancing to higher positions in their career paths than colleagues in secondary schools,

which could be the reason this group was less represented in both research studies.

76

Finally, both Mott’s (2011) research study and this research study included a

question on their survey instruments asking respondents to give their exact career path

and gave respondents a list of possible career paths from which to choose, including an

option of other if the respondent’s career path was not listed. The positions listed in each

research study were not identical but, as with the teaching positions mentioned earlier,

comparisons could be made. The focus of each research study was different, with Mott

investigating heads of school, and this study investigating division principals. Because of

this, the highest position listed was the focus of the research study (i.e., head of school for

Mott’s investigation and division principal for the current research study). Regardless, it

was still possible to compare some of the data, such as how Mott found 31.8% of

respondents had followed a career path that included teacher, vice principal, and

principal, and the current research study found 21.7% of respondents listing a career path

that included these positions.

Limitations

This research study had several limitations in its data collection and statistical

analysis of the data, which could impact upon the results and conclusions presented by

the researcher. The first limitation related to the survey question asking respondents to

give their ethnicity. Respondents were given a free response box, rather than a list of

specific ethnicities. Some suggestions were given for respondents (e.g., Caucasian,

African, etc.), but a number of respondents indicated their ethnic backgrounds were

American or Canadian. These responses are more traditionally recognized as nationalities

rather than ethnicities. As a result, these responses were grouped with the other category.

This resulted in a limitation because these respondents’ actual ethnicities were not given,

so the results are not as accurate as desired. These responses only accounted for 5.4% of

77

total responses so this should have little statistical impact upon the findings, which

showed a lack of ethnic diversity amongst respondents.

Another limitation pertained to the survey question asking respondents to choose

the career path option that best fit their own career path. Respondents were given 11

options from which to choose, including an “other” option for those whose career paths

did not match a choice listed. Although a spread of responses was given to this question,

the option with the highest response rate (23.1%) was the other option. The findings from

this survey question were, therefore, much less statistically relevant due to the fact almost

one quarter of respondents were not able to select their actual career path.

The third limitation related to the adaptations made to the career path question

and the prior experience question in the current research study from the original questions

found in Mott’s (2011) study. The questions were adapted in an attempt to increase

relevance of the data to the current research study, but one consequence of this was the

inconsistency of results to those found in Mott’s study.

A fourth limitation could be length of the survey instrument, which could have

resulted in respondent fatigue due to the large number of questions. Combining the ITRS

of Cox (2012) with a section of the CCPI of Mott (2011) in order to create the IPRS

resulted in a longer survey instrument. The decision to use all of the questions from the

ITRS instead of creating a completely independent survey instrument was related to this

limitation as well. The decision to use only a survey instrument instead of including other

instruments, such as focus groups or interviews, could also have been a limitation.

Recommendations for Future Research

It would be beneficial if future research could be designed to address the

limitations that pertained to this research study. It may be beneficial to use other data

78

collection instruments such as interviews or focus groups in order to help limit

respondent fatigue. It may be beneficial not to adhere as closely to the ITRS and CCPI as

the IPRS did but instead create questions and response options that allow more accurate

data to be collected. A research study could be designed to provide further information

about the fact that accomplishment was the most important factor for division principal

candidates.

Summary

In conclusion, the findings from this research study provide insight into the

perceptions and experiences of international school division principal candidates, which

could be beneficial to international school heads hoping to hire people for these positions

in their schools, as well as the candidates themselves. One finding was that

accomplishment was the most important factor for division principal candidates, both for

respondents with more overseas experience as well as for those with less overseas

experience. The least important factor for both groups of respondents found in this

research study was personal and family benefits.

The researcher concluded that when the amount of overseas administrative

experience was used as the dependent variable, the difference between respondents was

more, which mirrored Cox’s (2012) findings. Cox specifically focused on the topic of

wanderlust, which he hoped to expand upon from Mancuso’s (2010) findings. This

research study found similar results to Cox in this respect, where cultural/travel

expectations, which fit the wanderlust context, were much less important to candidates

with a higher amount of overseas administrative experience.

When comparing the findings of the demographic information and career path

inventory sections of this research study with the corresponding sections of Cox’s (2012)

79

and Mott’s (2011) research studies, a number of similarities are found. The majority of

respondents in each research study was ethnically White/Caucasian and came from either

the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. Respondents to this research study

tended to be older than those in Cox’s study but of a similar age to those in Mott’s study.

Although Cox’s study found the majority of respondents were female, this study mirrored

the findings of Mott’s study, where the majority was male. The majority of respondents

to both Mott’s study and this one held a master’s degree, and respondents with

experience as elementary teachers were the least represented in both studies.

80

References

Barker, I. (2008, May 11). Headship trainees to be halved. Times Educational

Supplement. Retrieved from https://www.tes.com/article.aspx?storycode=

2602456

Barty, K., Thompson, P., Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2005). Unpacking the issues:

Researching the shortage of school principals in two states of Australia. The

Australian Educational Researcher, 32, 1-18. doi:10.1007/BF03216824

Battle, D., & Gruber, K. (2010). Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2008-

09 principal follow-up survey (NCES 2010-37). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of

Education Sciences.

Benson, J. (2011). An investigation of chief administrator turnover in international

schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 10(1), 87-103.

doi:10.1177/1475240911398779

Bereday, G. Z. F., & Lauwerys, J. A. (Eds.). (1964). The yearbook of education 1964:

Education and international life. London, England: Evans Brothers.

Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2009). Effective schools: Managing the

recruitment, development, and retention of high-quality teachers (Working

paper). Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in

Education Research: Urban Institute.

Brewitt, R. W. (1993). A study of the career paths of the heads of American style

international schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(12), 4312.

Broman, F. (2008). AAIE and AISH to tackle recruitment crisis: Task force being formed

81

to address candidate shortages. The International Educator, 22(4), 1, 13.

Brookings, K., Collins, G., Cour, M., & O’Neill, J. (2003). Getting below the surface of

the principal recruitment ‘crisis’ in New Zealand primary schools. Australian

Journal of Education, 47, 146-158. doi:10.1177/000494410304700204

Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2008). Recruitment and retention of quality principals:

Essential for successful schools. CAPEA Education Leadership and

Administration, 20, 19-45.

Brummitt, N. (2013, October 17). International school market intelligence reports.

Available from http://www.iscresearch.com/services/isc-market-intelligence-

reports.aspx

Caffyn, R. (2010). Enabling long-term effective school leadership: Nine ways to

understand and utilize micropolitics in international schools. International

Schools Journal, 29(2), 50-59.

Cambridge, J., & Thompson, J. (2004). Internationalism and globalization as contexts for

international education. Compare, 34(2), 161-175. doi:10.1080

/0305792042000213994

Carney, Sandoe, & Associates. (2013). Global faculty recruitment, leadership search and

strategic consulting services for independent and like-kind schools. Retrieved

from http://www.carneysandoe.com

Chandler, J. (2010). The role of location in the recruitment and retention of teachers in

international schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 9, 214-226.

doi:10.1177/1475240910383917

Chapman, J. D. (2005). Recruitment, retention, and development of school principals

[Education policy series]. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/iiep

82

Clifford, M. (2010). Hiring high quality school leaders: Challenges and emerging

practices. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/resource/hiring-quality-school-

leaders-challenges-and-emerging-practices

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Council of International Schools. (2013). Shaping the future of international education.

Retrieved from http://www.cois.org

Cox, D. S. (2012). A global study of international teacher recruitment (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI No. 3510077)

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curtis, P. (2008, June 19). Schools “timebomb: As 55 percent of heads near retirement.

Guardian.

Cushing, K. S., & Kerrins, J. A. (2004, Fall). Simple but incorrect solutions to complex

problems. Educational Leadership and Administration, 16, 11-21.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. T. (2010). Preparing

principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership

programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

DeAngelis, K. J., Peddle, M. T., & Trott, C. E. (2002). Teacher supply in Illinois:

Evidence from the Illinois teacher study [Policy Research Report]. Retrieved from

http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/kdReport1202_Teacher_Supply.pdf

Doyle, D., & Locke, G. (2014). Lacking leaders: Challenges of principal recruitment,

selection, and placement. Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws

83

.com/publication/pdfs/Lacking-Leaders-The-challenges-of-Principal-Recruitment-

Selection-and-Placement-Final.pdf

Duevel, L., Pfannl, B., Hestor, C., & Stern, E. D. (2013). Closing the gender gap: Female

heads urge future leaders to step forward. International School, 16(1), 27.

Eadens, D., Bruner, D., & Black, W. (2011). The intentions of Florida educational

leadership graduate students to pursue administrative positions. Retrieved from

ERIC database. (EJ971504)

Education Portal. (2015). School principal: Educational requirements to become a

principal. Retrieved from http://education-portal.com/articles/School_

Principal_Educational_Requirements_to_Become_a_Principal.html

Education Review Office. (1996). Professional leadership in primary schools (Education

Evaluation Reports No. 7). Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (2000). Leadership and learning: Principal recruitment,

induction and instructional leadership in Community School District #2, New

York City. Unpublished manuscript.

Fink, D. (2011). Pipelines, pools, and reservoirs: Building leadership capacity for

sustained improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 670-684.

doi:10.1108/09578231111174811

Finn, C., Jr., & Northern, A. M. (2014). Foreword. In D. Doyle & G. Locke, Lacking

leaders: Challenges of principal recruitment, selection, and placement (pp. 1-5).

Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs

/Lacking-Leaders-The-Challenges-of-Principal-Recruitment-Selection-and-

Placement-Final.pdf

Fowles, A., & Fischer, D. (2013, November). An interactive discussion on leadership

84

styles. In D. Krajczar (Chair), Learning without limits. Symposium conducted at

the meeting of East Asia Regional Council of Schools Leadership Conference,

Bangkok, Thailand.

Fraser, J., & Brock, B. L. (2006). Catholic school principal job satisfaction: Keys to

retention and recruitment. Catholic Education, 9(4), 425-440. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1335&context=ce

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction.

White Plains, NY: Longman.

Gates, S., Ringel, J., Santibanez, L., Ross, K., & Chung, C. (2003). Who is leading our

schools? An overview of school administrators and their careers. Santa Monica,

CA: RAND.

Glass, T. E., & Franceschini, L. A. (2007). The state of the American school

superintendency: A mid-decade study. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield

Education.

Goodwin, B. (2011). Simply better: Doing what matters most to change the odds for

student success. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Gronn, P., & Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (2003). Principal recruitment in a climate of leadership

disengagement. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 172-184. doi:10.1177

/000494410304700206

Guilfoyle, C. (2013). Principal evaluation and professional growth. ASCD Policy

Priorities, 19(2), 1-3, 5-7.

Gusscotts, S. (2004). Roads to principalship: A study of the career paths, effectiveness

and leadership styles of principals in Auckland primary schools (Unpublished

85

master’s thesis). University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Hammond, J., Muffs, M., & Sciascia, S. (2001, November). The leadership crisis: Is it for

real? Principal, 8(2), 28-29, 31-32.

Hancock, D. R., Black, T., & Bird, J. J. (2006). A study of factors that influence teachers

to become school administrators. Journal of Educational Research and Policy

Studies, 6(1), 91-105.

Hanks, P., McLeod, W. T., & Urdang, L. (Eds.). (1986). Collins dictionary of the English

language. London, England: Collins.

Hardman, J. (2001). Improving recruitment and retention of quality overseas teachers. In

S. Blandford & M. Shaw (Eds.), Managing international schools (pp. 123-135).

London, England: Routledge Falmer.

Harris, D. W. (2013). Perceptions of international school heads towards the

identification of quality principal candidates (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3589904)

Hawley, D. B. (1991). Factors associated with the employment duration of

superintendents of overseas schools. Boston, MA: Harvard Graduate School of

Education.

Hawley, D. B. (1994). How long do international school heads survive? A research

analysis (Part I). International Schools Journal, 14(1), 8-21.

Hawley, D. B. (1995). How long do international school heads survive? A research

analysis (Part II). International Schools Journal, 14(2), 23-36.

Hayden, M. C., & Thompson, J. J. (1995a). International education: The crossing of

frontiers. International Schools Journal, 15(1), 13-20.

Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (1995b). International schools and international education:

86

A relationship reviewed. Oxford Review of Education, 21, 327-345. doi:10.1080

/0305498950210306

Huber, S., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). The recruitment and selection of school leaders. In J.

Lumby, G. Crow, & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), International handbook on the

preparation of school (pp. 176-202). New York, NY: Routledge.

Institute for Digital Research and Education. (2016). Annotated SPSS output: Factor

analysis. Retrieved from the University of California, Los Angeles website:

http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/output/factor1.htm

The International Educator. (2013). Fostering entrepreneurship globally. Retrieved from

http://www.tie.org

International School Consultancy Group. (2013). ISC research. Retrieved from

http://www.iscresearch.com/

International Schools Services. (2013). About us. Retrieved from http://www.iss.edu

Jahr, R. (2014). Qualities desired in international heads of school. Retrieved from

http://www.searchassociates.com/News-Events/News.aspx?id=109

Keeling, A. (2014). ISC research: Market growth is imminent. The International

Educator, 28(3), 1, 13.

Kowal, J., & Hassel, E. A. (2011). Importing leaders for school turnarounds: Lessons

and opportunities. University of Virginia, Richmond.

Lacey, K. (2003). Understanding principal class leadership aspirations: Policy and

planning implications. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Education and

Training School Leadership Development Unit.

Lange, D. (1988). Tomorrow’s schools: The reform of education administration in New

Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer.

87

The Learning Partnership. (2008). Final report: Succession planning: Schools and school

boards. Retrieved from http://www.thelearningpartnership.ca

Littleford, J. (1999). Leadership of schools and the longevity of school heads.

International Schools Journal, 19(1), 23-35.

Lumby, J., Crow, G., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). International handbook on the

preparations and development of school leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.

MacBeath, J. (2009). Recruitment and retention of senior school leaders: meeting the

challenge. European Educational Research Journal, 8, 407-417. doi:10.2304

/eerj.2009.8.3.407

Mancuso, S. (2010). An analysis of factors associated with teacher turnover in American

overseas schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lehigh University,

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Mancuso, S. V., Roberts, L., & White, G. P. (2010). Teacher retention in international

schools: The key role of school leadership. Journal of Research in International

Education, 9, 306-323. doi:10.1177/1475240910388928

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ministry of Education. (2003, 13 May). Statistics on teaching staff at March 2002.

Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2007). Education counts. Retrieved from http://www

.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/ts/teaching_staff/teaching_staff_apri

l_2007/teaching-staff-april07.xls

Ministry of Education. (2016). Principal recruitment allowance. Retrieved from

http://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/specific-initiatives/investing-

88

in-educational-success/principal-recruitment-allowance-2/

Mott, T. J. (2011). The American sponsored overseas school headship: Two decades of

change and the road ahead. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database. (UMI No. 3510114)

Murakami-Ramalho, E., & Benham, M. (2010). Around the fishing net: Leadership

dynamics for change in an American international school. Educational

Management Administration and Leadership, 38, 625-643. doi:10.1177

/1741143210373736

Muth, R., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2004). Why don’t our graduates take administrative

positions, and what’s the cost? In C. S. Carr & C. L. Fulmer (Eds.), Educational

leadership: Knowing the way, showing the way, going the way (pp. 294-306).

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

Neidhardt, C. (2009). Speed bumps and l-plates: Female deputy principals’ perceptions

of the barriers in aspiring to primary principalship (Unpublished master’s thesis).

University of Waikato, New Zealand.

New South Wales Government. (2014). Teach. Retrieved from http://www.dec.nsw.gov

.au/about-us/careers-centre/school-careers/jobfeed

Normore, A. (2007). A continuum approach for developing school leaders in an urban

district. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3), 1-45. doi:10.1177

/194277510700200305

Normore, A. H. (2004). Recruitment and selection: Meeting the leadership shortage in

one large Canadian school district. Canadian Journal of Educational

Administration and Policy, 30. Retrieved from https://www.umanitoba.ca

/publications/cjeap/articles/normore.html

89

NYC Leadership Academy. (2015). What is NYCLA’s history? Frequently asked

questions. Retrieved from http://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/about/faqs

/index

Otto, H. J. (1955, October). Principal preparation at the crossroads. Educational

Leadership, 28-32. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals

/ed_lead/el_195510_otto.pdf

Palmer, B. (2015). Principal selection methods matter: Common core implementation

means human resource managers should update principal selection methods.

District administration. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com

/article/0815-palmer?utm_content=bufferca773&utm_medium=

social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership: Policy and

practice: Executive summary. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development.

Pounder, D. G., & Young, I. P. (1996). Job desirability of the high school principalship:

A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 27-

57. doi:10.1177/0013161X01371003

Principal Training Center. (2012). The principals training center for practicing &

aspiring principals in international schools. Retrieved from http://theptc.org

/principals-training-center/

Rammer, R. A. (2007). Call to action for superintendents: Change the way you hire

principals. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 67-76. doi:10.3200/JOER.101.2

.67-77

90

Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. (2008). REL Midwest task 1.1: Regional

education needs analysis [Year 2 Report]. Naperville, IL: Author.

Rencher, A. C. (2002) Methods of multivariate analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John

Wiley and Sons.

Renihan, P. J. (2012). Leadership succession for tomorrow’s schools. Procedia—Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 138-147. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.487

Richards, N. (2001). The emperor’s new clothes? The issue of staffing in international

schools. In M. Hayden & J. Thompson (Eds.), International schools and

international education: Improving teaching management and quality (pp. 173-

183). London, England: Kogan Page.

Robbins, S. P., & DeCenzo, D. A. (2010). Supervision today! Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Russell, D. D., & Larsson, J. (2000). School staff: Recruitment and experiences. In R. J.

Simpson & C. R. Duke (Eds.), American overseas schools (pp. 123-180).

Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International.

Sandberg, S. (2010, December). Why we have too few women leaders [Video podcast].

Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_

too_few_women_leaders.html

Schwab, A. J. (2007). Measures of appropriateness of factor analysis. Retrieved from the

University of Texas website: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/schwab/sw388r7

/Tutorials/PrincipalComponentsAnalysisintheLiterature_doc_html/027_Measures

_of_Appropriateness_of_Factor_Analysis.html

Search Associates. (2013). Leadership vacancies. Retrieved from http://www

.searchassociates.com/Leadership-Vacancies/Default.aspx

91

Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., & Zechmeister, J. S. (2002). Research methods in

psychology. Retrieved from http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/psychology

/shaugh/ch04_summary.html

Society for Human Resource Management. (2006). The essentials of strategy. Boston,

MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Stattrek. (2014). Survey sampling methods. Retrieved from http://stattrek.com/survey-

research/sampling-methods.aspx

Stewart, V. (2012). A world-class education: Learning from international models of

excellence and innovation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Stucker, J. (2012, November). Seeking your next (or maybe your first) principal position.

In D. Krajczar (Chair), The “why” of school in 2030. Symposium conducted at

the meeting of East Asia Regional Council of Schools Leadership Conference,

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The State of Queensland. (2014). Principal recruitment. Retrieved from

http://education.qld.gov.au/hr/recruitment/teaching/principal-recruitment.html

Thomson, P. (2009). School leadership: Heads on the block. London, England:

Routledge.

Verma, J. P. (2015). Repeated measures design for empirical researchers. Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley and Sons.

Vogel, K. R. (1992). A longitudinal study of the selected characteristics of chief

administrative officers in American-sponsored overseas schools. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 53(11), 3771.

Walker, A., & Kwan, P. (2009). Are we looking through the same lens? Principal

92

recruitment and selection. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 51-

61. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2009.03.003

Walker, A., & Kwan, P. (2012). Principal selection panels: Strategies, preferences, and

perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 188-205. doi:10.1108

/09578231211210549

White, A. (2010). Missions impossible? An examination of how international schools

utilize their mission statements within recruitment and selection processes

(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom.

Winter, P. A., Rinehart, J. S., Keedy, J. L., & Bjork, L. G. (2004). Recruiting certified

personnel to be principals: A statewide assessment of potential job applicants.

Planning and Changing, 35(1 & 2), 85-107.

Winter, P. A., Rinehart, J. S., Keedy, J. L., & Bjork, L. G. (2007). Superintendent

recruitment: A statewide assessment of principal attraction to the job. Planning

and Changing, 38(1 & 2), 35-59.

Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on

exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology,

9(2), 79-94. Retrieved from http://www.tqmp.org/RegularArticles/vol09-

2/p079/p079.pdf

93

Appendix A

ITRS

94

International Teacher Recruitment Survey (ITRS) This survey will be distributed by several recruiting agencies near the beginning and again near the end of the recruiting season. Candidates registered with more than one recruiting agency may receive this survey more than once. Each candidate should complete this survey only once near the beginning and only once near the conclusion of the recruiting process. If you have already responded through another recruiting agency, to prevent duplication please close your browser and do not continue. Indicate the level of importance that EACH of the following plays in your decision to apply to a particular international school. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely important important important important important Salary Benefits (e.g. health insurance, retirement plan) Expected opportunities for professional advancement or promotion Expected opportunities for professional development Potential opportunities for learning from colleagues Potential social relationships with colleagues Potential recognition and support from administration Expected influence over workplace policies and practices Expected autonomy or control over your own work Perceived professional prestige Expected procedures for performance evaluation Expected manageability of workload Expected ability to balance personal life and work Anticipated availability of resources and materials/equipment for doing job Expected general work conditions Expected job security

95

Anticipated intellectual challenge Expected sense of personal accomplishment Expected opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others Anticipated opportunities for travel and cultural exploration Class size Perception of the way things are run at the school The way the principal/head communicates respect for the value of teachers Teaching assignment (subject or grade level) Expected classroom resources Facilities Expected support from administrators Job description or responsibilities Anticipated autonomy over my classroom Expected safety of environment School location Expected personal security and safety of the host country Employment for partner How significant a role do the following factors play in your desire to work and live overseas? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely Important important important important important Travel opportunities for myself and my family Cultural enrichment for myself and my family

96

Desire to experience as many cultures and countries as possible in my career Desire to work in a school with more worldly students Desire to have a better education for my children Desire to pursue better opportunities than are available at home Desire to share Western education with the people of other countries My desire to work and live in different cultures often supersedes other reasons to move from one school to another What is your gender? Male Female What is your age? What is your nationality? US Canadian British Australian New Zealand UK Other How many total years of full-time teaching experience do you have? How many total years of full-time overseas teaching experience do you have? Do you have a partner who is also seeking teaching employment at the same school with you? Yes No Do you have dependent children who would accompany you to your next job? Yes No What is your single most preferred school level to teach? Elementary Middle School High School

97

High School IB or AP Are you targeting a specific region or regions as you look for a position? If you are targeting specific regions for employment, please indicate your top choices (maximum of two) from the following: Africa Asia-Pacific Europe Middle East North America South America Other, please specify If you are targeting specific schools in your job search, please indicate your top two below (please use full names of schools). How many recruiting agencies have you registered with this recruiting season?

98

Appendix B

CCPI

99

Characteristics & Career Paths Inventory (CCPI) Personal Characteristics If you served as a head of school while also serving as a teacher or principal at the same time, please answer the following questions as the head of school, not as a teacher or as a principal (i.e. don’t include those years as both teaching experience and as head of school experience. Only count those years as head of school experience).

1. Demographic Data a. Current Age b. Age upon becoming a full-time educator c. Age upon becoming an administrator d. Age upon becoming a school head

2. Additional Demographic Data a. Gender b. Nationality c. Ethnic Heritage (European, Latino, Asian, Middle Eastern, African, etc.)

3. Please indicate ALL DEGREES that you have earned: a. Bachelors b. Masters c. Doctorate d. Other (please describe here)

4. Please indicate ALL CERTIFICATIONS that you have earned (both current and no longer current):

a. Teacher b. Counselor c. Principal/Administrator d. Superintendent e. Other (please describe here)

5. Please indicate ALL of the positions you have held in education including your first position (teacher includes librarian and other support positions). If you served in multiple roles at the same time, please note that in the “Other” section.

a. ES Teacher or Counselor b. MS/Jr. High Teacher or Counselor c. HS Teacher or Counselor d. ES Administrator e. MS/Jr. High Administrator f. HS Administrator g. K-8 Administrator h. 6-12 Administrator i. Central Office Administrator j. Head of School (combined with another position) k. Head of School (NOT combined with another position l. Other (please describe here)

6. Please indicate the FIRST position you held in education (teacher includes

100

librarian and other support positions) a. ES Teacher b. MS/Jr. High Teacher c. HS Teacher d. Counselor e. Assistant Principal f. Principal g. Central Office h. Head of School i. Other (please describe here)

7. Where was your FIRST position in education held (non-administrative)? a. Home Country b. Outside of Home Country c. N/A

8. Where was your FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE position held (non-head of school)?

a. Home Country b. Outside of Home Country c. N/A

9. Where was your FIRST HEAD OF SCHOOL position held? a. Home Country b. Outside of Home Country c. N/A

10. Please list the total number of years you have served as a TEACHER (includes positions like counseling, librarian, other support positions, etc.- do not count here if you served as a teacher/principal or a teacher/head).

11. Please list the total number of years you served as an ADMINISTRATOR (not including Head of School- do not count here if you served as principal/head or any other position combined with head of school).

12. Including this year, please list the total number of years you served as a HEAD OF SCHOOL (include years spent as a teacher/head of school or a principal/head of school).

13. Which of the following BEST describes your career path in education (Teacher includes positions like counseling, librarian, etc. and Central Office includes positions like curriculum director, business manager, HR director, deputy head, etc.)?

a. Teacher-Principal-Head of School b. Teacher-Principal-Central Office-Head of School c. Teacher-Assistant Principal-Principal-Head of School d. Teacher-Assistant Principal-Principal-Central Office-Head of School e. Teacher-Central Office-Head of School f. Teacher-Head of School g. Other (please describe here)

14. In each box below, please write the approximate STUDENT POPULATION of the school(s) where your:

a. CURRENT head’s position is held (do not duplicate below) b. First head’s position was held

101

c. Second head’s position was held d. Third head’s position was held e. Fourth head’s position was held f. Fifth head’s position was held g. Sixth head’s position was held

15. In each box below, please write your LENGTH OF STAY AS HEAD at the school where your:

a. CURRENT head’s position is held (do not duplicate below) b. First head’s position was held c. Second head’s position was held d. Third head’s position was held e. Fourth head’s position was held f. Fifth head’s position was held g. Sixth head’s position was held

16. Contract Length a. What was the length (in years) of the INITIAL CONTRACT for your

current position? b. If your current contract is a RENEWAL CONTRACT, what is the length

(in years) of your current contract? 17. Will you be leaving your current position as head of school at the end of the

2010-2011 school year? a. Yes, I will be leaving my current position at the end of this school year. b. No, I will not be leaving my current position at the end of this school year.

18. Was your first head’s position in the same school in which you served prior to obtaining that position (internal move)?

a. Yes b. No

19. Please provide any information that you feel is important to clarify your responses on this page.

Recruitment & Retention The following questions are designed to inform current heads and prospective heads who will be seeking positions over the next few years. These data will also inform Boards of Directors and recruiters seeking highly qualified head of school candidates. Please answer as honestly and accurately as possible keeping in mind that your responses will only be reported anonymously and in aggregate with other respondents.

20. In which region was your: a. First FACULTY position OUTSIDE of your home country b. First ADMINISTRATIVE position OUTSIDE of your home country c. First HEAD position OUTSIDE of your home country

21. Regional Preference a. Given the choice, in which region would you most prefer to serve as a

school head? 22. At this point in your career, what school and community conditions would most

affect your decision to apply for a school head position? Please rate the following

102

(you may use the same rating more than once) a. Living conditions in the city and country b. Size of school c. Salary and benefits as compared to cost of living d. Curriculum offered (international, American, IB, AP, etc.) e. Position available for spouse f. Quality of education for your own children g. Reputation of school h. Type of school (non-profit, proprietary, company-sponsored, etc.) i. Comments (optional)

23. Please indicate the principal reason(s) why you left your most recent position (These are drop down box options)

a. Reason: b. Reason: c. Reason: d. Other (please specify)

24. Given that most overseas school heads do not remain in a single school for their whole career, what might be the principal reason(s) why you might leave your current position? (These are drop down box options)

a. Reason: b. Reason: c. Reason: d. Other (please specify)

25. Salary a. Is your salary performance-related (i.e. merit pay)? b. How is your salary determined (i.e. negotiated, fixed scale, etc.)? c. What is your annual salary for this year (in US Dollars not including

benefits)? d. Do you feel your salary is appropriate for your position given the cost of

living in the city where your school is located? 26. Where do you see yourself in 5 years? Choose the one option that most reflects

your thinking today (This is a drop down box option) a. I see myself: b. Other (please specify)

27. In your opinion what is the most important reason your current board hired you? (This is a drop down box option)

a. The board hired me for my: b. Other (please specify)

28. In your opinion which of the following is your current board’s primary expectation of you as a head of school? (This is a drop down box option)

a. The board’s primary expectation is that I served as: b. Other (please specify)

29. Please provide any information that you feel is important to clarify your responses on this page.

Current School Name & Region

103

The following information is needed to facilitate targeted follow-up for non-responders. Your school name will be removed from the data to ensure the anonymity of your responses once you’ve been marked as a responder. Researchers will take measures to ensure full confidentiality of information contained in this survey.

30. What is the name of the organization & city where you currently serve as head of school?

31. In what region is your school located?

104

Appendix C

IPRS

105

International Principal Recruitment Survey (IPRS) 1. Indicate the level of importance that each of the following factors plays in your decision to apply to a particular international school for a division principal position.

1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely important important important important important

1. Salary 2. Benefits (e.g. health insurance, retirement plan) 3. Opportunities for professional advancement or promotion 4. Expected opportunities for professional development 5. Opportunities for learning from colleagues 6. Potential social relationships with colleagues 7. Potential recognition and support from head of school 8. Expected influence over workplace policies and practices 9. Expected autonomy or control over your own work 10. Perceived professional prestige 11. Expected procedures for performance evaluation 12. Expected manageability of workload 13. Expected ability to balance personal life and work 14. Anticipated availability of resources and materials/equipment for doing job

15. Expected general work conditions 16. Expected job security 17. Anticipated intellectual challenge 18. Expected sense of personal accomplishment 19. Expected opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others 20. Anticipated opportunities for travel and cultural exploration 21. Perception of the way things are run at the school 22. The way the head of school communicates respect for the value of division

principals 23. School facilities 24. Expected support from head of school 25. Job description or responsibilities 26. Anticipated autonomy over my division of the school 27. Expected safety of environment 28. School location 29. Expected personal security and safety in the host country 30. Employment for partner 31. Curriculum offered (American, IB, AP, etc.) 32. Size of school 33. Type of school (non-profit, proprietary, company-sponsored, etc.) 34. Reputation of school

106

2. Indicate the level of importance the following factors play in your desire to work and live overseas?

1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely important important important important important

1. Travel opportunities for myself and my family 2. Cultural enrichment for myself and my family 3. Desire to experience as many cultures and countries as possible in my career 4. Desire to work in a school with a more international student body 5. Desire to have a better education for my children 6. Desire to pursue better professional opportunities than are available in my country

of origin 7. Desire to share Western style education with the people of other countries 8. Desire to work and live in different cultures often supersedes other reasons to

move from one school to another 3. Demographic Data: Please select the best response for each question

1. Current age- Below 25, 25-35, 35-45, 45-55, 55-65, 65+ 2. Age upon becoming a full-time educator- Below 25, 25-35, 35-45, 45-55, 55-65,

65+ 3. Age upon becoming an administrator (defined as any position of responsibility

above that of a classroom teacher, i.e. Head of Department, Curriculum Coordinator, Assistant Principal, etc.)- Below 25, 25-35, 35-45, 45-55, 55-65, 65+

4. Age upon becoming a division principal (if you have not been a division principal, select N/A).- Below 25, 25-35, 35-45, 45-55, 55-65, 65+

5. How many total years of overseas (i.e. outside your home country) full time employment in education do you have?

6. How many total years of administrative experience do you have? 7. How many total years of overseas administrative experience do you have? 8. How many years of division principal experience do you have? 9. How many years of overseas division principal experience do you have? 10. Gender- Male____ Female____ 11. Nationality- 12. Ethnicity (European, Latino, Asian, Middle Eastern, African, etc.) 13. Do you have a partner who is also seeking employment in the same school as

you? 14. Do you have dependent children who would accompany you to your next job? 15. A.) Are you targeting a specific region or regions as you look for a position?

B.) If you are targeting specific regions for employment, please indicate your top choices (maximum of two) from the following:

a. Africa b. Asia-Pacific c. Europe d. Middle East e. North America

107

f. South America g. Other: ___________________________________________

C.) How many recruiting agencies have you registered with this recruiting season?

D.) Please indicate the highest level degree that you have earned: a. Bachelors b. Masters c. Doctorate d. Other (please describe here)

E.) Please indicate ALL CERTIFICATIONS that you have earned (both current and no longer current):

a. Teacher b. Counselor c. Principal/Administrator d. Superintendent e. Other (please describe here)

F.) Please indicate ALL of the positions you have held in education, including your first position (teacher includes librarian and other support positions). If you served in multiple roles at the same time, please note that in the “Other” section.

a. Elementary School Teacher or Counselor b. Middle School/Junior High Teacher or Counselor c. High School Teacher or Counselor d. Elementary School Administrator e. Middle School/Junior High Administrator f. High School Administrator g. K-8 Administrator h. 6-12 Administrator i. Head of School (combined with another position) j. Head of School (NOT combined with another position) k. Other (please describe here)

G.) Where was your FIRST position in education held (non-administrative)? a. Home Country b. Outside of Home Country

H.) Where was your FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE position held? a. Home Country b. Outside of Home Country c. N/A

I.) Where was your first DIVISION PRINCIPAL position held? a. Home Country b. Outside of Home Country c. N/A

J.) Which of the following BEST describes your career path in education (Teacher includes positions such as counselor and librarian. Coordinator includes any position in charge of a specific curricular division of the school, i.e. Primary Years Programme Coordinator, Middle Years Programme Coordinator, Diploma Programme Coordinator, Curriculum Coordinator,

108

etc.). HOD/HOG includes any middle management positions, such as Head of Department, Head of Grade, etc.)

a. Teacher – Head Of Department/Head Of Grade b. Teacher- Coordinator c. Teacher- Head Of Department/Head Of Grade- Coordinator d. Teacher- Head Of Department/Head Of Grade- Assistant Principal e. Teacher- Coordinator- Assistant Principal f. Teacher- Head Of Department/Head Of Grade- Coordinator- Assistant

Principal g. Teacher- Head Of Department/Head Of Grade- Division Principal h. Teacher- Coordinator- Division Principal i. Teacher- Assistant Principal- Division Principal j. Teacher- Head Of Department/Head Of Grade- Coordinator- Division

Principal k. Other (please describe here)

K.) Please write your average length of stay in the following positions: a. Division Principal b. Other administrative position (non-division principal)- c. Other educational position (i.e. teacher, counselor, etc.)

L.) Was your first division principal position in the same school in which you served prior to obtaining that position (i.e. was it an internal move)?

M.) In which region (i.e. Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle East, North America, South America, Other) was your first FACULTY position OUTSIDE of your home country?

N.) In which region was your first ADMINISTRATIVE position OUTSIDE of your home country (write N/A if you have not held an administrative position)?

O.) In which region was your first DIVISION PRINCIPAL position OUTSIDE of your home country (write N/A if you have not held a division principal position)?

P.) In which region are you currently employed?

109

Appendix D

Item Loadings for Factors

110

Factor Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Travel opportunities for myself and my family

.81

Anticipated opportunities for travel and cultural exploration

.78

Desire to experience as many cultures and countries as possible in my career

.76

Cultural enrichment for myself and my family

.75

Desire to work/live in different cultures supersedes other reasons to move from one school to another

.68

Expected manageability of workload .73 Expected general work conditions .72 Expected ability to balance personal life and work

.68

Anticipated availability of resources and materials/equipment for doing job

.68

Expected job security .54 Expected procedures for performance evaluation

.42 .46

The way the head of school communicates respect for the value of division principals

.67

Expected support from head of school .66 Perception of the way things are run at the school

.62

Anticipated autonomy over my division of the school

.62

Expected autonomy or control over your own work

.54 .41

Expected influence over workplace policies and practices

.49

Potential recognition and support from head of school

.46 .44

Desire to work in a school with a more international student body

.43

Expected sense of personal accomplishment

.84

Anticipated intellectual challenge .83 Expected opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others

.76

Opportunities for learning from colleagues

.81

Expected opportunities for professional development

.76

Potential social relationships with colleagues

.57

Opportunities for professional advancement or promotion

.41

Factor Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Size of school .78

111

Type of school (non-profit, proprietary, company-sponsored, etc.)

.71

Curriculum offered (i.e. American, IB, AP, etc.)

.64

Reputation of school .63 Expected personal security and safety in the host country

.78

Expected safety of environment .76 School location .64 Desire to have a better education for my children

.78

Desire to pursue better professional opportunities than are available in my country of origin

.71

Employment for partner .65 Salary .84 Benefits (e.g. health insurance, retirement plan)

.77

Perceived personal prestige

.72 Desire to share Western style education

.60

Job description or responsibilities .53 Note. Factor loadings < .40 were suppressed. Factor 1 = Cultural/travel expectations. Factor 2 = Work conditions. Factor 3 = School leadership and practices. Factor 4 = Accomplishment. Factor 5 = Professional development. Factor 6 = School demographics. Factor 7 = School environmental factors. Factor 8 = Personal and family benefits. Factor 9 = Monetary benefits. Factor 10 = Prestige. Factor 11 = Other.