University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Factors considered by preservice teachers in their choice of a school district

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors considered by preservice teachers in their choice of a school district

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content FACTORS CONSIDERED BY PRESERVICE TEACHERS IN THEIR CHOICE OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT by Mary Eileen Dibb Laura Schwa lm A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) December 1990 Copyright 1990 Mary Eileen Dibb and Laura Schwalm UMI Number: DP25327 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. UMI DP25327 Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-4015 This dissertation, written by Mary Eileen Dibb under the direction of h&v. Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re quirements fo r the degree of ElS L\U. DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dean of Graduate Studies Date DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairperson UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-4015 This dissertation, written by Laura # Schwalm......................... under the direction of h.&r Dissertation Committee; and approved by all its members; has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School in partial fulfillm ent of re quirements fo r the degree of DOCTORsOF PHILOSOPHY Dean of Graduate Studies D a te M “5S..A7. a.W?o DISSERTATION COMMITTE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.................................... V LIST OF FIGURES................................... xii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM................................ 1 Introduction Statement of the Problem Purposes of the Study Questions to be Answered Importance of the Study Methodology of the Study Assumptions Delimitations Limitations Definitions of Terms Organization of the Remainder of the Study II. THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............. 18 Introduction Teacher Shortage Motivation Theory Factors Involved in Teacher Motivation Teacher Recruitment Role of the Personnel Administrator Sources of Recruitment Summary of the Literature III. METHODOLOGY................................ 75 Introduction Development of a Group of Factors Influencing Preservice Teachers in District Selection Development of Survey Instruments Selection of the Sample Collection of Data from Preservice Teachers Collection of Data from Personnel Administrators Tabulation, Analysis, and Treatment of Data Chapter IV. THE FINDINGS.............................. Introduction Perceptions of Preservice Teachers as to the Importance of 13 Major Categories Considered in the Selection of a School District Factors Considered Most and Least Important in Preservice Teacher Selection of a School District in Which to Work Perceptions and the Relationships of the Perceptions of Pre service Teachers as to the Importance of Factors to be Considered When Selecting a School District in Which to Work Similarities and Differences Among the Perceptions of Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Perceptions of School District Personnel Administrators of the Importance of the 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Recruitment of Teachers to Work in a School District Perceptions and the Relationship of the Perceptions of School District Personnel Administrators of the Importance of 13 Major Categories in the Recruitment of Teachers Similarities and Differences Among the Perceptions of Preservice Teachers and Personnel Adminis trators of the Importance of 13 Major Categories Summary of Findings Page 91 Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................... 256 Summary Selected Findings Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................... 2 67 APPENDIXES......................................... 277 A. Preservice Teacher Survey.................. 278 B. Personnel Administrator Survey............ 284 C. List of Colleges and Universities Surveyed........... 287 D. Letters to Colleges and Universities............................... 289 E. List of Districts Surveyed................. 291 LIST OF TABLES Page Need for New Schools By County 24 K-12 Public School Enrollment Growth by County, 1989 to 1998 25 Demographic Characteristics of Preservice Teacher Groups...'.. 96 Demographic Characteristics of School District Personnel Administrators................ 98 Perception of the Importance of the 13 Major Categories Involved in the Selection of a School District: Preservice Teachers' Ranking by Mean and Standard Deviation.................................. 100 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: District Size......... 105 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: District Organization........................ 106 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Nature of the Community.............................. 108 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Geographic Location of the District.................. 109 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Philosophy of the District............................ Ill Table vi Pacre 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Salary............. 113 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Fringe Benefits................................... 115 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Recruitment Practices.................................. 117 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Pre selection Interview 118 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: School Plants and Facilities..................... 120 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Composition of School Staff............................ 122 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Opportunities for Professional Growth................... 123 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: District Level Support.............................. 125 Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of 13 Major Categories by Sex.............. 12 7 — Table Pacre 20. Mean Scores of Significant Differences by Sex......................... 128 21. Ranking by Mean Scores of 13 Major Categories by Male and Female Preservice Teachers................ 13 0 22. Significant Differences Between Factors by Sex............................. 132 23. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of 13 Major Categories by Credential Program......................... 13 9 24. Mean Scores of Significant Differences by Credential Program......... 140 25. Ranking by Mean of 13 Major Categories by Elementary and Secondary Preservice Teachers............. 141 26. Significant Differences Between Factors by Credential Program............. 14 3 27. Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of 13 Major Categories by Language...... ......................... 152 28. Ranking by Mean Score of 13 Major Categories by Bilingual and Non-bilingual Preservice Teachers................................... 153 29. Significant Differences Between Factors by Language....................... 155 30. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of 13 Major Categories by Marital Status.......................... 157 31. Mean Scores of Significant Differences by Marital Status............. 158 32. Ranking by Mean Score of 13 Major Categories by Married and Unmarried Preservice Teachers............. 159 33. Significant Differences Between Factors by Marital Status................. 162 Vlll Table Page 34. Perceptions of Male Elementary Preservice Teachers on the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District....................... 168 35. Perceptions of Male Secondary Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District....................... 169 36. Perceptions of Female Elementary Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District....................... 170 37. Perceptions of Female Secondary Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District....................... 171 38. Perceptions of Male Bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District....................... 173 39. Perceptions of Male Non-bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District............................ 174 40. Perceptions of Female Bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District...................... 175 41. Perceptions of Female Non-bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District............................ 176 Table Pacre 42. Perceptions of Male Married Pre service Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District.......................... 179 43. Perceptions of Male Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District............................ 180 44. Perceptions of Female Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District...................... 181 45. Perceptions of Female Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District...................... 182 46. Perceptions of Elementary Bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District............................ 189 47. Perceptions of Elementary Non bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District 190 48. Perceptions of Secondary Bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District...................... 191 49. Perceptions of Secondary Non bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District...................... 192 X Table 50. 51. 52 . 53 . 54. 55. 56. 57. Page Perceptions of Bilingual Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District...................... 197 Perceptions of Bilingual Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District...................... 198 Perceptions of Non-bilingual Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District........ 199 Perceptions of Non-bilingual Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District........ 2 00 Perceptions of Elementary Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District............................ 202 Perceptions of Elementary Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be j Considered in the Selection of a j School District............................ 203 I Perceptions of Secondary Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District............................ 2 04 Perceptions of Secondary Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District............................ 2 05 Table Page 58. Rank Order by Mean of 13 Major Categories by Personnel Directors........ 2 08 59. Personnel Directors: Importance of 13 Categories Compared by District Pupil Enrollment................. 211 60. Personnel Directors: Importance of 13 Categories Compared by Years of Employment in Personnel.......... 215 61. Personnel Directors: Importance of 13 Categories Compared by District Recruiting Practices: Elementary................................. 218 62. Personnel Directors: Importance of 13 Categories Compared by District Recruiting Practices: Secondary.................................. 222 63. Personnel Directors: Importance of 13 Categories Compared by District Recruiting Practices: Bilingual.................................. 225 64. A Comparison of the Ranking of 13 Major Categories by Preservice Teachers and Personnel Directors. 228 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Teacher Vacancies 1989/90. ........ 23 2. Public Schools: Changing Ethnic Picture.................................... 29 3. College Graduates Receive Teaching Certificates..................... 3 0 4. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs............... 42 5. Significant Difference in the Variables Sex/Language— School Plants and Facilities..................... 177 6. Significant Difference in the Variables Sex/Marital Status— District Organization..................... 184 7. Significant Difference in the Variables Sex/Marital Status— Fringe Benefits............................ 185 8. Significant Difference in the Variables Sex/Marital Status— District Level Support.................... 187 9. Significant Difference in the Variables Program/Language— Philosophy of the District................ 194 10. Significant Difference in the Variables Program/Language— School Plants and Facilities.............. 195 11. Significant Difference in the Variables Program/Marital Status— District Level Support.................... 2 07 I 1 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The attraction and retention of highly qualified teachers is key to educational progress as well as to educational reform. After a 15-year period of teacher oversupply, the United States now faces a teacher shortage (Dar1ing-Hammond, 1988; Dukakis, 1988; Heyns, 1988; Klausmeier, 1987; Lightfoot, 1986; Watts, 1986). The National Center for Educational Statistics predicts that this national teacher draught will accelerate (Klausmeier, 1987) . Projections for the next five to seven years indicate a major turnover in the teaching profession which will require a replacement of almost half of the nation's 2.2 million teachers or at least 200,000 new teachers each year (Shanker, 1988). The Department of Education's Center for Statistics projects that, by 1993, the supply of new teacher graduates will be less than two thirds (63 percent) of demand (Feistritzer, 1986). While some may suspect that these figures are overstated, in 1983, 2 3 0,000 teachers were hired. This number, significantly larger than the 164,000 that the National Center for Educational Statistics had predicted would be needed for that year, justifies i I concern (Hawley, 1989). ' One out of every ten pupils in the nation— over 4.2 4 million students— attend public schools in California i (California Commission on Educational Quality, 1988). By 1 i the year 2000 this figure is projected to rise to one out j of every eight (Hodgkinson, 1989). Following a decade of j declining enrollments, California's public schools are ! projected to add approximately 450,000 students by the year ! 1990 (California Commission on the Teacher Profession, 1985). Current figures indicate that actual enrollment growth in California is 140,000 students per year. This is 42 percent over projection and, if it continues, by the ‘ year 2 000 California enrollment will increase by 40 percent (California State Department of Education, 1989). Califor nia faces a teacher shortage of which the exact proportions are still not completely known (California Commission on Educational Quality, 1988; California State Department of Education, 1987). Projections from the California Commis- ; ] sion on the Teaching Profession indicate that the demand ' for teachers in California by 1990 may total 85,000, while the expected supply is approximately 50,000, leaving a shortage of up to 35,000 teachers (Haberman, 1989). I According to state education superintendent, Bill Honig, California will have to find at least 100,000 new teachers i in the next five years (Shanker, 1988) . In ten Southern j California counties alone, an estimated 16,500 new class rooms will be needed to simply accommodate projected enrollment growth (Lightfoot, 1986). To compound the problem, many of the teachers required in Southern Califor nia will be needed for bilingual classrooms as the popula tion of limited English students in the area burgeons (Newman, 1989). Shortages in specific fields such as mathematics and science are long standing and have been heightened by recently mandated increases in graduation requirements (Darling-Hammond, 1986; National Center for Educational Statistics, 1985; National Education Association, 1986). Demographic changes have created further specific shortages in bilingual education, while enrollment growth which begins at the elementary level has aggravated the need for elementary school teachers (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987; Heyns, 1988; Ondovcsik, 1988) . Statement of the Problem The results of the 19th annual Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes towards the nation's schools revealed that only one in five Americans thought that public education had improved despite the numerous educational reform movements that began with the publication of A Nation At Risk in 1983 (Gallup & Clark, 1987) . The results of the 21st annual Gallup Poll revealed the same attitudes ! (Gallup & Clark, 1989). j These reforms were aimed at setting tougher gradua tion and competency requirements, at lengthening the school j r day and school year, at textbook improvements, and at| t improving the teaching staff. Teacher reform was directed 1 i towards establishing minimum standards for teacher com petency and at improving salaries to attract and retain | qualified teachers. i There is little disagreement that the success of ^ any educational program is primarily a function of the j ! quality of the teaching staff. There is also little j disagreement that reforms aimed at improving the nation's teachers are needed. As this reform movement continues, however, with many reforms already in place, the biggest i challenge lies still ahead. How can the projected need for approximately 200,000 new teachers each year for the next five to seven years be met (Shanker, 1988)? This challenge is compounded by the fact that education is seeking to i attract top quality graduates in an increasingly competi- j tive job market. As career opportunities once blocked to women broaden, the large pool from which many top teachers were drawn begins to dry up. Public education must now compete for personnel in an unrestricted open market ' wherein the demand for quality candidates far exceeds the supply. Competition for teachers begins as graduate schools try to attract candidates into the field and intensifies as local districts try to entice teaching candidates into their schools. Purposes of the Study The purposes of this study were to determine and to analyze the perceptions of preservice teachers of the levels of importance of 13 major categories and 65 in dividual factors to be considered when selecting a school district in which to work? the perceptions of school district personnel administrators of the levels of impor tance of 13 major categories of factors to be considered in the recruitment of teachers to work in the school district; and the similarities/differences between the perceptions of preservice teachers and school district personnel administrators as to the levels of importance of 13 major categories to be considered by preservice teachers in their selection of a school district in which to work. A further purpose of the study was to determine the reported preferences of preservice teachers in terms of the most important factors and the least important factors in 13 major categories to be considered when selecting a school district in which to work. Questions to be Answered The study was organized to provide answers to the following questions: 1. What were the perceptions of preservice teachers as to the importance of 13 major categories to be con sidered when selecting a school district in which to work? 2. What factors in 13 major categories were most and least important for preservice teachers in their selection of a district in which to work? 3. What were the perceptions and the relationship of the perceptions of preservice teachers as to the importance of 13 major categories and 65 factors to be considered in the selection of a school district when compared as follows: a. Male/Female b. Elementary (K-6)/Secondary (7-12) c. Bilingual/Non-bilingual d. Married/Unmarried? 4. What were the relationships among the percep tions of preservice teachers of the importance of 13 major categories to be considered in the selection of a school district when compared as follows: a. Male elementary/Male secondary Female elementary/Female secondary Male elementary/Female elementary Male secondary/Female secondary b. Male bilingual/Male non-bilingual Female bilingual/Female non-bilingual Male bilingual/Female bilingual Male non-bilingual/Female non-bilingual c. Male married/Male unmarried Female married/Female unmarried Male married/Female married Male unmarried/Female unmarried d. Elementary bilingual/Elementary non-bilingual Secondary bilingual/Secondary non-bilingual Elementary bilingual/Secondary bilingual Elementary non-bilingual/Secondary non bilingual e. Bilingual married/Bilingual unmarried Non-bilingual married/Non-bilingual unmarried Bilingual married/Non-bilingual married Bilingual unmarried/Non-bilingual unmarried f. Elementary married/Elementary unmarried Secondary married/Secondary unmarried Elementary married/Secondary married Elementary unmarried/Secondary unmarried? 5. What were the perceptions of school district personnel administrators of the importance of the 13 major categories to be considered in the recruitment of teachers to work in the school district? 8 , 6. What were the perceptions and the relationship of the perceptions of school district personnel administra tors of the importance of the 13 major categories to be considered in the recruitment of teachers when compared as follows: a. District pupil enrollment (less than 5,000? 5,000-10,000? over 10,000) b. Years of school district personnel adminis tration experience (less than 3 years? 3-6 years? over 6 years) c. Actively recruiting elementary teachers/Not actively recruiting elementary teachers d. Actively recruiting secondary teachers/Not actively recruiting secondary teachers e. Actively recruiting bilingual teachers/Not actively recruiting bilingual teachers? 7. What were the similarities/differences between the perceptions of preservice teachers and school district personnel administrators of the importance of the 13 major categories to be considered when teachers select a school district in which to work and when districts attempt to recruit teachers to work in the school district? Importance of the Study California, with one tenth of the nationfs school children, will face a large challenge brought on by increasing enrollments and by the projected teacher shortage (California Commission on Educational Quality, 1985). Southern California in particular, as it is home to a large part of the state's school population, will face stiff competition between districts for teachers. Public schools in Southern California will be competing with one another, as well as with business and industry for the most qualified employees. The market for teachers will be extremely competitive overall and will be even more competitive in areas where extreme shortages exist. This fact was highlighted in a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition, wherein the struggle that county districts are facing in trying to find enough bilingual teachers was featured (Newman, 1989). Because of the impending shortage, personnel administrators will be facing candidates who may be offered a contract in every district where they apply. No longer is it a "buyer's market." Preservice teachers who have just completed teacher education programs will continue to supply the largest pool of potential candidates. Despite the fact that they form the largest group of applicants, very little is known about the factors that preservice teachers consider in choosing a district in which to teach. Recent research has tended to focus on attracting college graduates into the teaching profession and on retaining experienced teachers within the profession. In " ' 10 addition, a number of studies have been done in the area of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivators and incentives for teachers (Johnson, 1986). Recent educational reform movements have resulted in raising the beginning teacher's salary to attract qualified candidates into the field, yet little has been done to see if differences in salary affect the choice of those ready to begin their teaching careers. In a 1970 doctoral dissertation, Rosecrans surveyed elementary teachers in California to determine which factors led them to their choice of a district. Salary was not a number one factor with any of the groups in his study (Rosecrans, 1970). If personnel recruiters wish to be successful in attracting the best of the available candidates to their districts, it is critical that they understand which factors are most important to potential applicants. Because of the importance of attracting top quality teachers, findings from this study, as well as from others in this area, can provide formulative information to guide district recruitment strategies and procedures. Methodology of the Study The methodology of this descriptive study was survey research. A stratified random sample of K-12 preservice teachers and school district personnel administrators was chosen for examination. The preservice teachers were 11 selected from student teaching classes in Southern Califor nia colleges and universities. Both elementary and secondary preservice teachers were surveyed. Additional data were gathered from selected personnel administrators who were involved in teacher recruitment and selection in 201 Southern California school districts. A Likert-type four-point scale was developed to measure the degree of influence selected factors had on teacher choice of a school district in which to teach. This instrument was developed in the following manner: 1. Current literature and research was reviewed for factors considered by teachers in selection of a school district. 2. The Rosecrans survey (1970) was examined and compared with current literature and research. 3. A preliminary list of factors was developed based upon the literature, research, interviews, and the Rosecrans study (197 0). 4. The preliminary survey was submitted to a committee of experts for examination and comment. 5. A pilot study of the questionnaire was admin istered to a sample group of 40 K-12 preservice teachers and two personnel directors with requests to include additional comments or suggestions. An analysis of the results was completed and the final survey was developed. 12 6. The survey questionnaire of 65 factors was prepared and administered to the stratified random sample of K-12 preservice teachers. 7. A rank order checklist of the 13 major categor ies was prepared and administered to a stratified random sample of preservice teachers and personnel administrators. The data from the returned questionnaire were gathered for computerized data processing. The data for teachers and personnel administrators were compiled and means and standard deviations for each item were tabulated. Rank order of the 13 major categories was computed for each individual set of responses. The comparison of the groups was analyzed through the use of t tests or chi-square when the data were reported as frequencies in categories. A two-way Analysis of Variance was used to examine inter actions between groups. F ratios were computed and Tukev1s HSD was used to establish where real differences existed when three groups were examined. Assumptions The following assumptions were made for this study: 1. All respondents to the questionnaire understood what they were asked to do. 2. All respondents to the questionnaire answered the survey questions candidly and honestly. 13 3. All survey questions were understandable and interpretable. 4. All survey questions were reliable and valid for the purpose of the study. 5. The sample was sufficiently representative to afford a generalization to the Southern California area. The population and ethnicity of this area is different from the rest of the state and nation. Delimitations This study was confined by the following delimita tions . 1. The study included K-12 preservice teachers in selected colleges and universities in the Southern Califor nia counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. 2. Universities and colleges selected had a minimum enrollment of 2 0 K-12 preservice teachers. 3. The study was limited to preservice candidates within six months of completion of teacher certification requirements in the fall of 1989. J 4. Personnel administrators were selected from districts having an enrollment in excess of 1,500 students for 1989-9 0 in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. 14 5. The study focused only on the factors which were considered by preservice teachers in their choice of a school district in which to work. Limitations The following limitations appeared during the study: 1. The research was conducted in a selected geographic area and may not be generalizable to other areas of the state or nation. 2. The study may have been strengthened by the inclusion of preservice teachers from other parts of the state or nation. 3. Since less than 100 percent of the question naires were completed, the opinions and attitudes of non respondents were not known. 4. It was acknowledged that the factors influencing a preservice teacher's choice of a school district may change based upon the changing needs and continued exper iences of the individual. Definitions of Terms For the purposes of this study, the following definitions were used: Attrition: The loss of qualified teachers due to resignation or retirement. Bilingual; The ability to communicate in two languages with the fluency of a native speaker. Competition; The efforts of various agencies, both public and private, to secure the most highly qualified personnel for their specific business or industry. Enrollment; The number of students registered to attend school in a specific attendance area or school district. Extrinsic; Those factors related to external incentives such as income, security, promotion, level of prestige, power over others, working conditions, company policy, and/or administration (Sanzotta, 1977). Factors; Those elements, both intrinsic and extrinsic, which influence preservice teachers in their choice of a school district in which to teach. Intrinsic; Those factors related to internal performance incentives such as pride in a job well done, achievement, recognition, responsibility, and/or growth (Sanzotta, 1977). Preservice Teachers; Teachers who were within six months of certification and had not been employed as a certificated, full-time teacher by a school district. Qualified Teacher; A person fully certificated to teach the required subject matter and/or meet specific identified student needs. This included mathematics, science, bilingual, and all regular classroom teachers. 16 Recruitment: The total process involved in locating and attracting qualified teachers in order to meet iden tified student needs. This term does not refer to en couraging students to enter the teaching profession (Rebore, 1987). School District: A public, tax-supported agency which may be organized to include elementary, junior high, and/or high schools under the administration of one superintendent. Selection: After a district or districts has indicated an interest in hiring a teacher, the process by which the teacher makes a choice as to the district in which to teach. Shortage: The lack of qualified teachers to meet actual or expected enrolled student needs. Supply and Demand: The number of qualified teachers available to teach and the number of teachers needed or projected as needed by school districts. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter II presents a review of the existing research and literature relative to teacher supply and demand, causes of the teacher shortage, factors which served as motivators or incentives for teachers, factors which served as motivators or incentives for preservice teachers* choice of a school district in which to work, 17 and district recruitment policies and procedures to attract qualified candidates to the school district. Chapter III presents and discusses the design of the study including a description of the survey and its questionnaire, an account of the pilot study as well as the methods chosen for an analysis of the data which were gathered. Chapter IV discusses the findings obtained from an analysis of the data. Chapter V summarizes the major findings of the study and includes conclusions and recommendations for further study. A bibliography and appendix conclude the study. 18 CHAPTER II THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction A great deal of attention has focused on the need for teachers nationwide and in California in particular. Changing demographics including a burgeoning student population, the rise in minority students, the feminization of the workforce, working mothers, and a growing technolog ical society have impacted education. These demographics have led to a closer examination of factors influencing teacher choice of a school district and school district personnel recruitment policies and procedures. Following a review of current literature on the teacher shortage, this chapter examines motivation theory in relation to the educational setting and its impact on teacher recruitment. Included is an examination of both methods used in the 1950s to alleviate teacher shortages and a 1970 examination of factors involved in teacher selection of a school district. Teacher Shortage The average age of the American teacher is now 42, and, about half of the 2.1 million teachers work ing today will retire, resign, or die in the next six years. Meanwhile, only half as many college 19 students are majoring in education as did so in 1972. (Darling-Hammond, 1988, p. 5) Statistics addressing the impending national teacher shortage range from "it is likely that the crisis we are about to confront will be of historic proportions" (Hawley, 1986, p. 715), to "the teacher shortage we've been warned of has been blown out of proportion" (Feistritzer, 1986, p. A13) . Despite some disagreement on the magnitude of the problem, there is little disagreement that staffing the nation's classrooms will be one of the issues that chal lenge education in the coming decade. Evidence of the level of national concern regarding the teacher shortage was the topic's presence in a 1988 presidential campaign speech by Michael Dukakis. Dukakis highlighted the problem by pointing out that over one half of the nation's teachers will retire before the kinder- gartners of 1988 reach the tenth grade— with no replace ments in sight. To impress upon his audience that the problem is one which is already upon us, Dukakis further stated that there were 35,000 teacher vacancies nationwide, with even more severe shortages of mathematics, science, and foreign language teachers (Dukakis, 1988). Recognizing what they refer to as a "profession in crisis," Senate Democratic leaders have proposed a major legislative package of financial incentives and other programs aimed at encouraging young people to join the 20 teaching profession. Introduced by Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Claiborn Pell of Rhode Island, the measures called for $700 million in new federal spending aimed at attracting new teachers as well as retaining veteran teachers (West, 1989). Statistics from the National Center for Education forecast that the national teacher "draught" which current ly exists will accelerate, leading to schools which will be 232,000 teachers short by the year 1992 (Klausmeier, 1987) . Additional predictions from the same source indicate that there may be a need to hire as many as one million teachers between 1986 and 1994 to replace retiring teachers and to accommodate the increase in school enroll ment caused by the "baby boomlet." To this prediction, the United States' Department of Education's Center for Statistics added that by 1993 the supply of new teacher graduates will not even reach two-thirds of the demand (Feistritzer, 1986). Hawley (198 6) reminded those who saw these figures as alarmist that in 1983 approximately 230,000 teachers were hired— 66,000 more than the 164,000 the National Center for Educational Statistics had origin ally predicted would be needed. Predictions from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (198 6) mirrored a similar picture, with the demand for teachers to meet enrollment growth and teacher retirement increasing by approximately 4 percent per year. The same story was 21 foretold by a number of other authors (Darling-Hammond, 1988? Heyns, 1988; Kean, 1986; Lightfoot, 198 6) concerned with staffing the nation's schools. While the statistics, and each of the aforementioned authors, point to a national shortage, the shortages are currently, and are projected to continue to be, more pronounced in certain geographical areas, specifically in the rapidly growing regions of the South and West. Demographic Shifts California, which enrolls one tenth of the nation's pupils (over 4.2 million students) is one of the states projected to be hardest hit by the shortage. In 1988, the State Department of Finance published figures indicating that over the next five years California's public school enrollment was projected to grow by more than 500,000 students (California Commission of Educational Quality, 1988). One year later, new figures from the same department projected an average annual increase of 160,000 students, grades kindergarten through twelve. These new figures represent 2 0,000 students per year more than projected just one year ago (Tromley, 1989). The California Department of Finance projections indicate that California's enroll ment is expected to increase from approximately 4.5 million students in 1989 to almost 6.1 million students by 1998. This represents a gain of 35 percent (Tromley, 1989). In a September 1989 news release, California's State Superintendent, Bill Honig, stated, "We've known for quite a while that the state's schools faced the biggest popula tion explosion since the post-World War II baby boom, but the growth has exceeded expectations" (California State Department of Education, 1989, p. 1). Table 1 lists the need for new schools in California by county, and Table 2 shows the K-12 California Public School Enrollment Growth Projections by County from 1988 to 1998. Southern California will bear the burden of much of the state's enrollment growth and thus be hardest hit by the projected teacher shortage (Lightfoot, 1986). River side and San Bernardino Counties are expected to shoulder the largest growth with projected respective increases of 89 percent and 78 percent. San Diego County follows with a projection of a 46 percent increase, while Orange County is projected at 2 7 percent, Ventura at 2 4 percent, and Los Angeles at 23 percent (Tromley, 1989). Figure 1 indicates vacancies during the 1989-90 school year in grades K-3, 4- 6, 7-9, and bilingual education. Vacancies are also indicated for the high school level (Amenta & Amenta, 1990). 23 TEACHES VACANCIES 1989/90 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 AG * Agriculture HS * Health Science ART * Art IA ■ Industrial Arts BUS = Business LS * Life Science CHI * Chinese HATH * Mathematics ENG * English MUS * Music FRE * French PE * Physical Education GER = German PHY. SCI.* Physical Science HE * Health Education RUSS * Russian HIST * History S.SCI.* Social Science SPAN = Spanish {Amenta, R. and G. Amenta, 1990) Figure 1. Teacher vacancies 1989/90 O 00 N W f N n 04 04 e SO 00 CO * CO C4 00 - 3 H « a C O hJ « E-! W M M O O b O § S8H a s CQ w (_> U . CD bO tc OH t n 3 W p! w H o Areas of Vacancies 24 Table 1 Need for New Schools bv Countv County Number of Schools Needed County Number of Schools Needed Alameda 1 Orange 40 Amador 2 Placer 19 Butte 8 Riverside 123 Calaveras 6 Sacramento 24 Colusa 3 San Benito 7 Contra Costa 20 San Bernardino 141 El Dorado 15 San Diego 59 Fresno 28 San Joaquin 29 Glenn 2 San Luis Obispo 9 Humboldt 5 Santa Barbara 14 Imperial 5 Santa Clara 4 Inyo 3 Santa Cruz 11 Kern 34 Shasta 19 Kings 1 Sierra 2 Lake 9 Siskiyou 12 Lassen 15 Solano 20 Los Angeles 130 Sonoma 31 Madera 20 Stanislaus 17 Mariposa 2 Tehama 5 Mendocino 15 Trinity 12 Merced 10 Tulare 12 Modoc 1 Tuolumne 11 Mono 3 Ventura 13 Monterey 24 Yolo 2 Napa 6 Yuba 2 Nevada 17 TOTAL 1,023 (California State Department of Education, 1989) With much of the enrollment growth caused by an increased birthrate (Tromley, 1989), the need for more classrooms and more teachers will first be felt at the elementary level. Immigration and migration also con tribute to California's rapidly rising enrollment, espe- 25 Table 2 K-12 Public School Enrollment Growth bv County. 1989 to 1998 % Change County 1989-1998 County % Change 1989-1998 Riverside 88.3 Sonoma 31.4 San Bernardino 78.4 Imperial 30.9 Calaveras 69.6 Shasta 30.3 El Dorado 68.7 Madera 29.5 Lake 61.8 Kings 28.4 Placer 56.9 Alpine 28.2 San Luis Obispo 53 .4 Napa 27.5 San Joaquin 49.1 Orange 27. 0 San Benito 49.0 Mono 24.7 San Diego 46.2 Ventura 24.0 Stanislaus 45.2 Modoc 23 . 8 Colusa 42.8 Alameda 23 . 6 Merced 42.6 Glenn 22.8 Fresno 41.6 Los Angeles 22.6 Solano 41.4 Santa Clara 22 . 5 Mariposa 40.6 Sierra 22.4 Nevada 40.0 Del Norte 20.9 Kern 39.9 Yuba 20.8 Santa Cruz 39.4 Marin 20.4 Tulare 36.1 Mendocino 19.3 Sacramento 36.0 San Mateo 19.1 Yolo 35.0 Monterey 18.5 Tehama 34.7 San Francisco 12 .8 Contra Costa 34.5 Lassen 12.2 Tuolumne 33.3 Humboldt 11.5 Santa Barbara 32.5 Siskiyou 11. 3 Butte 32.3 Trinity 9.7 Sutter 31.8 Inyo 2 . 6 Amador 31.7 Plumus . 6 (California State Department of Education, 1989) 26 cially in the southern part of the state. The resulting diversity of California's student population creates demands for specialty teachers, with shortages of bilingual teachers being especially pronounced (Newman, 1989). While California's need for bilingual teachers may be most pronounced, it is generally reflective of a nationwide need for more minority teachers. Generally, the greatest teacher shortages are in those districts that serve the most disadvantaged students (Darling-Hammond, 1988) . In addition, the long standing need for mathematics and science teachers continues to be exacerbated (Ondovc- sik, 1988) . Factors Contributing to the Shortacre Student/teacher demographics. A number of factors can be identified as contributing to the developing teacher shortage, the first of which is changing student demograph ics. In the late 1970s, following a 15-year decline in the national birthrate, the number of babies born began to increase as more women of the original "baby boom" genera tion of the 1950s decided to start families. Referred to as the "echo-boom" by demographers, this increase in birthrate is projected to continue at a moderate rate until the year 2000 (Hodgkinson, 1989). Changing student demographic trends are converging with teacher demographics to create a general shortage of teachers. From 1980 to 1984, school-age populations fell 27 5.3 percent to 44.9 million as the last of the World War II baby boomers graduated. Meanwhile, however, pre schoolers surged 9 percent to 17.8 million. They now have hit the elementary schools in force. First grade enroll ments rose to 3,079,000 from a 33-year low of 2,894,000. This is nationwide (Hodgkinson, 1989). The current teaching force has been working in a trough between the two baby booms, and thus large numbers of new teachers have not been needed. As a result, the average age of the teaching force has been rising; indeed, as many as 900,000 of the current 2.3 million teachers are likely to retire or quit teaching during the decade of the coming population bulge (Lightfoot, 198 6). Even more significant than the student birthrate demographics, according to Hodgkinson, is the fact that by the year 2 000, America will be a nation in which one in every three persons will be non-white. In California, 1988 marked the beginning of the first school year in which more than 50 percent of the students enrolled in school were of minority background. Prior to the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act which abolished the old national origin quotas, the vast majority of immigrants entering the United States came from Europe. Subsequently, increasing numbers of immigrants have come from Latin America and Asia, with up to 80 percent of the nation's legal immigrants being from those two regions as of 1980 (Klausmeier, 1987). 28 As the number of minority students attracted to other professions has increased, and the number of minority students graduating from college has declined, the result ing decline in minority teachers is inevitable (Harris, 1989). Today, fewer than 15 percent of all Asian, Black, and Hispanic baccalaureate degree candidates are obtaining teaching certificates and the number of prospective teachers who claim fluency in two languages has declined at a time when the demand for bilingual teachers has risen. In 1974, 30,000 of the college graduates with teaching credentials were fluent in two or more languages and by 1984 this number had fallen to 12,000 (Carnegie Foundation, 1986) . Specifically, recent data reflect that 90 percent of the teaching candidates are Anglo, 4.6 percent are Black, 2.8 percent are Hispanic, and 1.4 percent are Asian (Zapata, 1988). Thus, as the student population of the nationfs schools becomes increasingly Black, Latino, and Asian, the teacher and administrative staffs are becoming increasingly Anglo (Harris, 1989). Figure 2 portrays the changing ethnicity of public school students, while Figure 3 shows the percentage of college graduates receiving teaching certificates between 1977 and 1985. The increase in minority students and the decrease in minority teachers is alarmingly evident. Competition for minority teaching candidates is intense (Newman, 1989). 29 P U B LIC SCHOOLS: CHANGING E TH N IC P IC TU R E Percentage of minority and white students in public schools. Whites llinorities 1970 80. OX 1972 79. 8 1976 76. 0 1978 75. 3 1980 73. 3 1984 71. 2 1986 70. 4 SOURCE: National Center lor Educational Statistics (Harris, 1989) Figure 2, Public schools: Changing ethnic picture 30 COLLEGE GRADUATES RECEIVE TEACHING CERTIFICATE S The number of college graduates receiving teaching certificates has declined, as has the percentage of such graduates within each major ethnic group. Year Number Percentage WHITE 1977 125,148 15 . 5 1979 108,949 13 . 6 1981 93,724 11 . 6 1985 77,631 9.4 BLACK 1977 12,992 22 . 1 1979 11,509 19 . 1 1981 9, 494 15 . 6 1985 5, 456 9.5 LATINO 1977 3, 050 16.3 1979 3, 029 15 . 1 1981 2, 847 13.0 1985 2, 533 9.8 INDIAN 1977 707 21.3 1979 645 18 . 9 1981 569 15 . 8 1985 483 11 . 4 ASIAN 1977 894 6.5 1979 785 5 . 1 1981 723 3.8 1985 770 3.0 (Harris, 1989) Figure 3. College graduates receive teaching certificates 31 Added to the changing ethnicity of students is a changing socioeconomic profile. The "traditional" family — a mother, father, and two children— is vanishing. Single parent families, mostly headed by women, are becoming commonplace. Every day in America 4 0 teenagers give birth to their third child. In 1974, children became the poorest segment of American society (Klausmeier, 1987). The demands placed on education and on educators by changing ethnic and socioeconomic factors will serve to magnify the difficulty of both attracting and retaining teachers at a time when increasing birthrates alone will challenge teacher supply. On top of the factors affecting students, as previously mentioned, the changing nature of teacher demographics will magnify the shortage. Forty-one percent of today's public school teachers are between 3 5 and 44 years old, with the average age being 42. Approximately half of the 2.1 million teachers working today will retire, resign, or die in the next six years (Wong, 1990). To compound the problem, only half as many college students are majoring in education as did so in 1972 (Feistritzer, 1986) . Less than 13 percent of all baccalaureate degree recipients in 1984 obtained teaching credentials compared to 24 percent in 1974. And, in 1974 only 63 percent of college graduates who were certified to teach ended up in the classroom (Heyns, 1988). 32 Adding to the supply problem is the retention factor. A number of reports indicate that as many as 50 percent of new teachers leave the profession within five years (Lightfoot, 1986) . In a recent study by Heyns (1988) , one quarter of the teachers in the sample had completed teacher training programs, but had never taught, and 44 percent of those who had taught for one or more years were not still teaching six years later (Heyns, 1988) . The teacher supply problem is thus a two-pronged issue, with one prong being the need to retain teachers who are in the early years of the profession, and the second being to attract able candidates into the profes sion. A number of factors impinge on the ability of teaching as a professional core to attract qualified college graduates. To some extent supply and demand in the teacher labor market itself has deterred students from choosing a career in education. While the 1950s and 1960s were marked by a teacher shortage and jobs were readily available, the market changed in the 197 0s as declining student enroll ments led to a surplus of teachers. The resulting over supply and reductions in force acted as a deterrent to those considering teaching as a career (Schlechty & Vance, 1983). Because of the decreased demand in the 1970s, colleges and universities backed off efforts to recruit 33 large numbers in teacher preparation programs. The resulting decline in the number of graduates prepared to teach has collided with the enrollment growth and increased demand of the late 1980s to aggravate the supply program. The problem was further exacerbated by changes that have occurred in the job market. Competitive labor market. Education in the 1980s and 1990s must bid for talent in an increasingly competi tive labor market. Traditionally, the largest pool of highly qualified personnel from which teachers would be drawn were women who had few other career options (Shanker, 1988). As more professional opportunities became available to women, an immense shift of women into fields once closed to them— medicine, law, accounting, business management, and computer technology--education could no longer count on recruiting the best and brightest women as teachers (California Commission on the Teaching Profession, 1985). In 1970, nearly one third of freshman women were attracted to teaching. In 1985, only 10 percent of the same popula tion selected teaching as their intended occupation (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1986) As society continues its entry into what Naisbitt called the "informational age," there will be an even greater need for skilled graduates in fields of growing complexity. Thus, as the demand for students with mathe matics and science backgrounds grows in the education 34 field, it also grows in private industry where salaries are higher, working conditions often better, and opportunities for' advancement greater. As the national economy becomes increasingly international, the same situation exists for minority and bilingual graduates. Business and the professions bid so competitively for talented minority college graduates that by the time these students reach college they have often committed to a career other than that of a lower paid teacher (Carnegie Foundation, 1987). Another result of these changes is that academically capable students, particularly women and minorities, have a wide range of career opportunities. These academically capable students are the same ones who are needed to solve the "quality problem" that numerous educational reform movements are trying to address (Shanker, 1988). Educational reform. Educational reform movements at the state level have exploded in recent years and may be on a collision course with the increased demand for teachers. Roughly three fifths of the state's employees take some form of competency test for teacher certification (Sykes, 1983). Policies such as more rigorous teacher education standards and competency testing are mandated to weed out incompetents. Such tests, useful or not in solving the "quality problem," are having a direct impact on the "quantity problem" by taking their toll upon large -------------------------------------------------------- — — 3 pp numbers of candidates, both Anglo and minority. In California, only 4 6 percent of Hispanics finishing teacher i i training in 1984-85 were able to pass the California Basic Education Skills Test (Zapata, 1988) . i The changing demands of American society in the i 1980s and 1990s will require teachers to broaden and extend their base of knowledge and skills. The avowed aim of many : : I reformers is to staff schools with only the most highly qualified personnel. Recent college graduates will continue to be the main source of new teachers; however, [ the 18 to 24 year old age group today is relatively small ■ ! i and will produce a corresponding small pool of college i graduates. In order to get the best and brightest, I 1 education will need to recruit close to 50 percent of the i ' top half of every year’s graduating class. In trying to I do so, it will be competing against industry and other occupations which are most often able to offer more attractive salaries, working conditions, and opportunities 1 I | for advancement (Shanker, 1989). Historical Perspective of the Shortage This teacher shortage will take society back to the i i 1950s and 1960s when school districts throughout California j and the United States had a full-scale recruitment process in the continuing effort to find an adequate number of qualified teachers to staff the nation's schools. Creative j i and innovative strategies were used to combat the shortage, i 36 These included (Klausmeier, 1987): 1. Raising salaries to attract and retain teach ers ; 2. encouraging capable youth early in their schooling to prepare for teaching; 3. strengthening teacher preparation programs and credentialing requirements; and 4. finding ways to encourage those already successfully teaching to stay in the pro fession. During this period many individual school districts conducted extensive appraisals of recruiting practices. The knowledge of the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each individual district helped in the development of effective recruiting programs. The factors mentioned by teachers in their choice of a school district in the 1960s included many which are still considered important today. A 1967 study by the California State Department of Education listed the following factors as important in the recruitment of teachers based on studies of districts and teacher tes timony; salaries, fringe benefits, status of the profes sion, working conditions, relations with supervisors, criteria for advancement, climate, community cultural advantages, guaranteed assignment, near colleges, educa 37 tional policy and credentialing requirements (California State Department of Education, 1967). According to a 1968 article by Lang (1968) , the following items influenced teachers in their choice of a place of employment: salary, fringe benefits, medical and dental plans, geographical location, the community, philosophy of the district, opportunities for innovation, freedom in the classroom, opportunities for professional growth, availability of materials, leave policies, and the district’s image. During the same period of time, Pigors and Myers (1964) further stated that personal contacts with personnel administrators, principals, teachers, and other school district employees influenced teacher selection of a school district in which to teach. In 1970 Rosecrans surveyed 2,371 new California teachers in grades K-6 and in unified school districts with enrollments over 3,000 students as to the factors which i were important in their selection of a school district. His results indicated female teachers were more concerned with the philosophy of the school district, the amount of district level support, and the style of the pre-selection interview. Male teachers involved in the study were most concerned with the philosophy of the district, the quality of the pre-selection interview, and the salary and fringe benefit structures in place. All respondents considered the following factors important: opportunities to use a 38 variety of teaching methods, evidence of provision for individual differences, opportunities to experiment, interest shown by the personnel administrator, and the personality of the principal. Rosecrans recommended districts clearly state in recruitment materials their educational objectives and how they were meeting those objectives. An awareness of educational practices, innovative programs and curriculum in the district were considered key to successful recruit ing of new staff members. He also suggested teachers be provided the opportunity to visit school sites and meet more than one principal (Rosecrans, 1970). Good candidates needed to be 1 1 sold" on a school district during this period and selling the image of the school district was considered as important as finding out information about the candidate and his/her performance during student teaching. The ideal selection was con sidered a mutual one (Melbo, 1968). In 1968 Babcock conducted a study of factors teacher education majors considered to be important when selecting a first teaching position. He surveyed 564 college seniors graduating from State University College in Oswego, New York. The following factors were listed and are presented here in rank order from most important to least important: geographic location, philosophy of the school system, teaching freedom, grade level availability, kind of people 39 on the faculty, salary, size of school system, personality of the principal, and newness of school buildings. From his research Babcock concluded different types of can didates place different degrees of importance on like factors (Babcock, 1968) . Individual school districts in California and throughout the United States conducted surveys of their newly employed certificated staff in order to ascertain reasons for selection of the district as a place of employment. This information was then used to build a stronger recruitment program emphasizing factors considered to have a strong influence and deemphasizing factors which had the least attraction (Rosecrans, 1970). Today, the teacher shortage has again changed the role of school district personnel departments. In order to attract an adequate number of teachers, motivating factors must be identified which lead to a teacher's choice of the school district in which to teach. Motivation Theory In order to discern these factors, motivational theory must be examined. Robbins espoused the more recent view of motivational theory, "every person consciously or unconsciously asks himself, 'What's in it for me?' before engaging in any form of behavior" (Robbins, 1983, p. 67). According to this author, the principle that individuals 40 were motivated by self-interest could be found underlying almost every theory of motivation (Robbins, 1983). This self-interest has been described as key to motivation and productivity and linked to three theories. The first, expectancy theory, stated individuals were more likely to strive if there was a reward which they valued. The second, equity theory, held individuals would be unhappy if they were not justly compensated for their work. This compensation included both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. The third, job enrichment theory, held that the work had to be challenging and varied (Johnson, 1986). Each of these theories can be related to teacher selection of a school district. Expectancy Theory Vroom (in Silver, 1982) proposed the Instrumen tal ity-Expectancy Model. Vroom viewed motivation as a drive or force within individuals to perform particular actions. Individuals assessed ^the relationship between effort and then ability or likelihood of achieving desired results. The extent to which a person desired the specific outcome was called the valence (or psychological impor tance) . When an individual was relatively certain a goal was achievable, that person was likely to be a high performer. Vroom stressed individual differences and the manager's ability to motivate based upon subordinate's 41 needs. This motivation was based upon the ability of the manager to control necessary rewards (Silver, 1982). Equity Theory Some studies have indicated financial incentives can promote specific behaviors such as the taking on of difficult teaching assignments. Others have indicated that group goals and opportunities influence teacher excellence. These two variables provide examples of two types of rewards, described by Sanzotta in a 1977 study as those which were extrinsic and those which were intrinsic. "The distinction is quite simple: either the motivation comes from inside the person or it comes from outside the person" (Sanzotta, 1977, p. 17) . Extrinsic rewards, those which were material and could include money, income, level of prestige, power over others, and/or promotions, were differentiated from more subjective intrinsic rewards. These were performance related and included pride in one1s work and a sense of efficacy. The motivation theory of Abraham Maslow has been selected for brief review as this theory can be related to the educational setting and includes elements of intrinsic and extrinsic reward. Maslow considered physical, psychological, and social needs as requirements for motivation. His hierarchy of needs included the following: physiological needs (thirst, hunger, sex); safety needs (protection, stability, structure, and order) ; the need for love and belonging; the need for esteem (self-esteem and the esteem of others); and the need for self-actualization or fulfillment of potential (Figure 4). Maslow's Hierarchy of Heeds Self-a Ability to Competenc at ion potential restige Fo Love, bel onships (Hanson, 1985) Figure 4. Maslow's hierarchy of needs According to Maslow the hierarchy was not rigidly fixed. Man moved through the hierarchies and was generally partially satisfied or dissatisfied in each area (Maslow, 1954) . Once the most basic human needs had been satisfied, they no longer served as motivators. Employees then sought the satisfaction of higher level needs. This created a situation of escalating demands (Smith, 1977). Kaiser (1982) suggested that Maslow1s hierarchy of needs provided real insight into teacher motivation and morale. He believed that salary and health and welfare benefits were met in the first two stages. Districts and/or unions tried to meet the social needs of teachers through faculty groups or subgroups, but teaching was largely a lonely occupation forcing teachers to go else where for social satisfaction. Kaiser suggested that teachers became frustrated and dissatisfied when they found little in the way of individual recognition or acknowledg ment of achievement. Kaiser believed that to provide teachers with increased responsibility was to increase self-actualization. Job Enrichment Theory Herzberg (1976) considered job enrichment the application of Motivation-Hygiene Theory. Job enrichment involved "building motivators like opportunities into the job by making it more interesting and challenging" (Dess- ler, 1983, p. 121). Herzberg considered those factors ~ 44 which were motivators to be intrinsic. These included a sense of achievement, recognition, and responsibility or growth. Under Herzberg's theory, extrinsic factors or "hygienic factors" were not considered to be motivators but were thought to cause unhappiness if they were not present. These factors include: company policy, super vision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status, and security. Both motivation and hygiene theories operated on separate defined continuums. Satis faction was not considered the opposite of dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1968). This differentiation was illustrated in The Managerial Choice as follows: 4----------- > Dissatisfaction Hygiene No dissatisfaction < > No satisfaction Motivators Satisfaction (Whitsett & Winslow, 1976, p. 252) Silver (1982) applied Herzberg's theory to the classroom and stated that the intrinsic rewards of the profession should be emphasized and maximized. The sense of achievement, recognition, challenge, responsibility, advancement, and growth possibilities which could be experienced on the job should be recognized by good administrators. 45 Katz and Kahn (1978) referred to intrinsically and extrinsically significant intangible incentives. The intrinsically significant intangible incentives were related to self-esteem and included the need for self- expression, the sense of accomplishment, and the need to satisfy curiosity. Extrinsically significant intangible incentives were more social in nature and were involved with group status and promotions. Katz and Kahn also argued that the typical employee needed to receive the approval and respect of his/her boss or supervisor. Managers who realized this attempted to foster a climate of positive discussion and support. Dessler believed that job enrichment included more worker autonomy as well as worker planning and inspection normally done by the supervisor. Job enrichment required that subordinates had the opportunity to achieve and be recognized for their achievement (Rush, 1971). Hinrichs (1974) further stated job enrichment focused on two components: the work itself and the opportunity for decision making. Smith and Keith (1971) referred to the concept of job enrichment as a motivator. They stated this involved making work challenging and inviting so that the task was intrinsically worth doing. The authors stated bottom-up management as well as shared-decision making utilized this approach. The opportunity for planning was given to those 46 who did the work. Collegial activities were encouraged. All employees understood the goals and philosophies of the organization in order to obtain the greatest satisfaction in the achievement of those goals (Smith & Keith, 1971). Ellis cited the work of Pastor and Erlandson when he stated that teachers perceived their needs and measured their job satisfaction based on a series of factors. These factors included: Participation in decision making, their freedom and independence, the challenge of the job, and the opportunity for creative expression (Ellis, 1981). Factors Involved in Teacher Motivation Lortie (1975) found that teachers* primary motiva tors were intrinsic. Those considered most important dealt with having assisted students in learning. Those factors which were complained about most were extrinsic and interfered with student learning. Those included clerical duties and environmental concerns. Similarly, Goodlad found that money was not a key factor in the choice of teaching as a profession, but it was a factor in many teachers leaving the profession (Goodlad, 1984). Spuck (1974) found that extrinsic and ancillary rewards were important in inducing teachers to join the system, but intrinsic rewards— job performance satisfac tion— influenced their staying in the system. Likewise, Lortie (1975) stated that ancillary rewards such as good 47 working conditions, security of retirement benefits, and the convenience of the academic calendar were marketable factors which should be considered by both new and continu ing teachers. In a further study, McLaughlin and Marsh (1978) found the most powerful teacher attribute in continued successful teaching was the teacher's sense of efficacy. In general, teachers were found to be primarily, yet not solely, motivated by intrinsic rewards. Other types of rewards also provided incentives to educators. These included solidarity rewards or those derived from the act of associating, i.e., cooperative work with colleagues; and purposive rewards, those derived from the stated ends of the association, i.e., a commitment to school improvement or the well-being of disadvantaged students (Clark, 198 0). Mitchell, Ortiz, and Mitchell emphasized the importance of these group and organizational incentives when they stated: In schools and classrooms cultural belief systems create incentive systems for teachers by: (1) establishing work goals, (2) defining techniques to be utilized in pursuing these goals, (3) iden tifying social norms for collaboration with others, (4) disclosing presumed linkages between work activities and the flow of personal, group or organization level rewards, and (5) assigning values to the various types of rewards that are available. (1983, p. 172) Mitchell et al. observed that individual teachers, as well as a school staff, responded to purposive incentives such as the feeling that one was doing significant work or furthering worthwhile social goals. Peters and Waterman (1982) pointed out the impor tance of inclusive norms and superordinate goals in successful businesses. Deal and Kennedy (1982) examined the corporate cultures of such businesses as well as their overarching goals. The motivating factors of these businesses can be examined in relation to today*s schools. Rosenholtz argued that the effective school "relies almost exclusively on its organizational goals as incentives to attract and retain teachers" (Rosenholtz, 1985, p. 353). What does all this mean to the personnel recruiter? Better pay and higher status might draw people into the teaching profession, but intrinsic rewards will keep them in teaching. Both extrinsic and intrinsic motivators must be emphasized in school district teacher recruitment. Shanker (1988) emphasized the need for both intrin sic and extrinsic rewards if the teacher shortage was to be addressed. Shanker stated that there is a need for both professional level salaries and professional workplaces. According to Shanker, if top-notch candidates are to be recruited, they must be offered the opportunity to use their creativity and judgment, control their work lives, provide for collegial activities, and stress the sense of being part of a vital intellectual community. Shanker 49 believed a flexible school structure with an extensive and varied support staff was necessary to change. Feistritzer (1986) also stated the need for a variety of incentives to encourage teacher selection of a specific school district. These included: (1) the chance to use abilities to the optimum; (2) a chance to work with young people and see them develop to their fullest? (3) the chance to experience the appreciation of a job well done? (4) a good salary? (5) job security? (6) medical and other benefits; (7) a clean, quiet, comfortable place to work? and (8) retirement with a good pension. A further study by the Holmes Group pointed out the value structures inherent in many teaching candidates. These value structures could influence teacher recruitment. Many teachers wanted to have enough time to be good parents to their children and still do an excellent job as a teacher (Holmes Group, 1986). A 1987 Carnegie Foundation Study for the Advancement of Teaching found that raising a family was considered very important to 91 percent of education majors, while less than 80 percent of the students in other fields placed a high premium on this incentive. For these teachers with family concerns, length of school day and year could be considered a factor in occupational selection and should be emphasized in the recruitment process. 50 Hawley's assessment of alternative strategies for recruitment of teachers pointed out the need to restructure the workplace by "granting teachers more collective responsibility, maximizing the time teachers teach, fostering collegiality, and providing increased information about student performance" (Hawley, 1986, p. 716). According to Hawley, these relatively low cost strategies would have a positive effect upon both teacher recruitment and effectiveness and were important elements of the comprehensive solution to the teacher shortage. Hawley (1986) also enumerated policies currently in place which encouraged prospective candidates to enter the teaching profession and stay in it. These included: increased beginning salaries as well as increased salaries for experienced teachers; control over key decisions regarding curriculum, grading policies, and disciplinary practices; professional autonomy to make choices as to classroom organization, teaching methods, and subject emphasis; teacher, school, and district support for an emphasis on orderly teaching environments to facilitate maximum student instructional time; and encouragement of teacher interaction, teaming, shared planning, and peer observation. Studies have revealed the effectiveness of a variety of alternative incentive plans. These incorporated compensation plans, career options, enhanced professional 51 responsibilities, non-monetary recognition, and improved working conditions. Would-be teachers have stated they value intrinsic or psychological rewards; however, income and benefits become more important as financial respon sibilities increase (Swanson, 1986). Teacher salaries have been raised in an effort to attract and retain highly qualified individuals. According to national statistics, the average teacher salary in California in 1986 was over $31,000— the fifth highest in the nation. California ranked first in the nation for salaries of beginning teachers, and a mentor teacher program was created to reward California's best teachers and expand their responsibilities (California Commission on Educational Quality, 1988). There is a problem with a focus on salaries. Schools need to add several thousand dollars to each teacher's salary to begin to bridge the gap between the education industry and the private sector. As it is unlikely the huge sum needed would be allocated for just one item in the overall education budget, other alterna tives for recruitment must be examined (Shanker, 1988). All these recruitment efforts that have provided information on the improved economic status of beginning teachers and on the development of programs to assist teachers in the difficult first year helped counter the negative image of the teaching profession, thus increasing 52 the possibilities of recruiting more desirable candidates into the profession (Hanes, 1987). According to National Education Association figures, six years ago only 4 percent of college graduates were going into teaching. That figure was up to 9 percent in 1987, and it included more students from the top, rather than the bottom of the class (Ondovcsik, 1988). While some teachers have spoken of salary concerns which could lead to their exit from the teaching profes sion, other factors could be involved. Professional working conditions were widely viewed as the single most important reason for high rates of teacher attrition especially in inner city and metropolitan school districts (Heyns, 1988). Dissatisfiers that were mentioned in teacher surveys included: discipline problems, lack of student motivation, workload and paperwork, class size, lack of materials and supplies, poor equipment, school plants in disrepair, and the low status of teachers. According to Shanker (1988), a great deal could and must be done to provide both teachers and students with civil ized workplaces. For many teachers, ease of transfer and re-entry, geographic mobility, and the potential for extended leaves aided in recruitment. For others, concerns addressed regarding moving from one state to another have included the inability to move pension plans from area to area, loss of seniority and the resulting cut in pay, difficulties with recertification in another state, and the lack of a central clearing house to help teachers find out about job availability (Ondovcsik, 1988). The National Governors* Association has identified one of the concerns, pension problems, and has worked to make pension funds transfer able (Ondovcsik, 1988). Many factors have been found to positively influence the choice of teaching as a career. One's public school experiences, exposure to outstanding teacher educators prior to entering a teacher education program, and a positive relationship between master and student teacher and school principal all facilitated teacher recruitment (Hanes, 1987). According to Rebore (1982), in order to lessen the teacher shortage, both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards must be considered. The public must offer teachers a profes sional work environment and all that goes with it. That means reasonable salaries and a real voice in decisions. It means the chance to design the standards that define professional performance and the ways to assess that performance. Johnson (1986) and Lieberman and Miller (1984) stated people were drawn to the teaching profession by the intrinsic satisfaction of being able to increase subject knowledge and understanding in others. Collegiality, the importance of peer association with other educators, as 54 well as the ability to develop professionally,'were con sidered big motivators. Working conditions were listed as extrinsic motivators and included safe, clean, pleasant surroundings instead of run-down buildings, antiquated equipment, and unsafe work areas. Dissatisfiers included inadequate pay and a lack of professional options. An understanding of the aforementioned factors can be utilized by the personnel recruiter in attracting the best teachers to his/her school district. Teacher Recruitment Recruitment refers to those activities in personnel administration designed to attract the quantity and quality of personnel necessary to achieve the predetermined goals of the school district. The recruitment process has both short and long term implications. The short range function involves those activities designed to meet current person nel demands that arise due to positions being vacated or the creation of new positions. The long range function involves those activities engaged in by the school district to assure a continuous supply of qualified professional and instructional personnel (Rosecrans, 1970). Castetter (1981) emphasized the importance of the recruitment process when he stated that an extensive and aggressive program of recruitment directed toward placing and keeping a qualified and satisfied individual in every 55 position in the system was critical to the effectiveness of an organization. Likewise, Soder (1988) stressed the necessity of a profession having the capacity to replenish itself, since the quality of the newcomer was a significant variable in maintaining (or enhancing) the prestige of the profession. The critical point here was that the types of persons recruited and selected would have a direct bearing on the future of the profession. Human Resources Planning A critical preliminary step to managing the recruit ment process is the broad process of human resources planning (Castetter, 1981; French, 1982). This process includes an analysis of the level of skills in an organiza tion; an analysis of current and expected vacancies due to retirements, discharges, transfers, promotions, sick leaves, and leaves of absence; and an analysis of current and expected personnel increases or decreases in depart ments. Human resources planning must also be responsive to fast changing forces in society, such as technological innovations, labor market conditions, and governmental legislation, regulations, and court decisions. This planning process may reveal shortages or surpluses in skills, a condition that might influence organizational objectives and structures. Shortages of certain skills may indicate the need to develop specialized internal training “ ' 56 programs, to restructure jobs, or to encourage educational institutions to expand programs in certain skills (French, 1982) . Patten (1971) defined human resources planning as the "process by which a firm ensures that it has the right number of people, and right kind of people, in the right places, at the right time, doing things for which they are economically most useful" (p. 59) . (Walker (1980) referred to effective human resources planning as the process of analyzing an organization's human resource needs under changing conditions and developing the activities necessary to satisfy those needs. After human resources planning identifies current and future staffing needs, the recruitment process begins. Castetter (1981) viewed this process as a unified staffing effort involving an internal dimension (moving qualified individuals up from within), and an external dimension (moving outside personnel sources into the system), and an inte grative dimension ensuring that recruitment activ ities function harmoniously so as to reinforce each other. (p. 127) The amount of time, money, and energy put into the recruitment process by individual school districts has fluctuated greatly over the years. The baby boom years of the 1950s and the resulting rapid growth in school enroll ment triggered active recruiting during the 1950s and 1960s, especially in urban areas. 57 During the 1970s many school districts experienced a gradual decrease in pupil enrollment. School districts were forced to lay off large numbers of teachers, which in turn affected the number of college students entering schools of education. The severity of the situation increased with the large numbers of teachers reaching retirement age in the 1980s as well as by the growing number of teachers who were choosing to leave the profes sion for more lucrative careers in business (Rebore, 1987). School districts are now experiencing the effects of the past ten years which created teacher shortages, along with changing demographics and growing enrollment in urban areas in particular (Lightfoot, 1986). Recruitment is now a top priority as school districts compete to attract a limited number of teaching candidates from colleges and universities. This problem is compounded by the fact that many districts, especially large metropolitan districts, require teachers with specialized skills. The numbers of bilingual teachers and minority teachers are limited at best and decreasing. Thus, the pool of avail able candidates becomes smaller. The outlook appears more somber when it is taken into account the many difficulties inherent in today*s classrooms due to multiple languages, cultures, and single parent homes which often result in cultural and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. 58 The recruitment process has never been more impor tant to school districts as they compete for the best people available to help achieve the mission of each district. According to Rebore, the major thrust of every recruitment program is not to hire just to fill a position, but rather to acquire the number and type of people necessary for the present and future success of the school district (Rebore, 1987). Recruitment and Retention of Minorities The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (1986) estimated that between 1986 and 1992 approximately 1.3 million teachers would-be hired in the United States. Nowhere is the teacher shortage and resulting need for recruitment more pronounced than among minority and bilingual teachers (Newman, 1989). Minority teachers in America are decreasing in numbers at a time when they are needed desperately. This disturbing fact is reflected in two recent reform proposals. The Holmes Group (1986) set a goal of increasing the percentage of minorities in teacher education each year for the next ten years. The Carnegie Forum (198 6), likewise, recommended action to ensure an increasing number of minority teachers. The importance of teachers as role models for children has long been recognized, especially when the teacher is a member of the student's own minority group (Middleton et al., 1988; Zapata, 1988). The belief is 59 widely held that the teaching force should reflect commit ment to a multicultural education (Spellman, 1988). The Holmes Group report (1986) affirms the importance of a teaching staff that reflects the diversity of racial and ethnic backgrounds in this country*s population. There is strong competition among business and professions for talented minority and bilingual college graduates. This has resulted in a wide range of career opportunities for minorities in lucrative and high prestige occupations and has contributed greatly to the dwindling supply of minority teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1985; Post & Woessner, 1987). Another significant factor in the decrease of minority teachers is the increasing use of competency tests, either at the beginning or the end of teacher education programs (Case et al., 1988? Spellman, 1988). Spellman (1988) expressed the fear that minority youth, upon learning that many prospective minority teachers do not pass the tests and are judged not good enough to teach, will lose confidence in their own abilities and conclude that higher education is off limits to them. Hackley (1985) concluded that the National Teacher Examination is providing a strong deterrent to minority students because of their awareness of the poor performance rates achieved by many students on the examination. 60 A survey conducted by the Government Relations Committee of the Colleges and Schools of Education in State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and Affiliated Private Universities (ACSESULGC/APU) reported that special support services and the availability of cultural opportunities were important in the retention of minority students: Use of ESL programs, counseling, peer tutoring, individual financial aid re-evaluations, writing seminars, workshops on taking tests and study techniques, sponsoring peer study groups, the faculty conferences to discuss the progress of students in the program will not only enhance the retention effort, but will be a giant step toward increasing the pass rate of minorities on the National Teacher Examination (NTE). (Warren, 1985, p. 12) According to Haberman (1987) there is no question that the teacher shortage is primarily an urban plight. The 120 largest school districts serving between nine and ten million students have the greatest concentration of "at-risk" students; that is, those students whom teacher education graduates do not choose to teach. Statistics show that every state is utilizing the uncertified or the misassigned in major urban areas (Haberman, 1986) . The disparity between increasing enrollment of minority children and the shrinking number of minority teachers, even where traditional certification regulations are bypassed, highlights a worsening of the problem throughout the urban school districts of America (Haberman, 1988). 61 Haberman (1988) stressed that if there is a serious commitment to increasing the number of minority teachers, then improving the quality of preschool, elementary, and secondary schools in urban areas is the key, since most future minority teachers attend urban schools. Haberman cautioned not to let the complexity of improving urban schools be used as a reason for deterring minority recruit ment efforts. Four approaches were identified as realistic for recruiting and preparing more minority teachers in the short run: 1. Design strategies for recruiting more minori ties into teaching; 2. Cultivate partnerships between two and four year institutions; 3. Create new forms of post-baccalaureate teacher training programs aimed specifically at minorities; 4. Use new forms of teacher training not con trolled by universities as vehicles for attracting more minority teachers (Haberman, 1988) . Charged with a strong commitment to recruiting ethnic minorities into teacher education programs to develop a diverse teaching force, two California State University, Fullerton, education professors have launched a recruiting campaign called "The Teacher Track." The 62 project, funded by a $55,000 grant from the California State University Chancellor's Office, seeks to encourage and assist minority and bilingual community college students and teacher aides in Orange County to obtain undergraduate degrees and teacher certification (Harris, 1989) . In the College of Education at the University of Hawaii-Manoa, a program that attempts to improve the process of recruitment and retention of minority students has been developed and partially implemented. The program has three basic components: 1. A pre-college introductory program for all students, with a strong focus on minority students inter ested in pursuing a teaching career. 2. An advising and counseling program within the College of Education that provides direct services to students completing teacher training programs, currently enrolled in teacher training programs, or planning to enroll in the College. 3. A testing and tutoring system that provides direct services to those currently enrolled students facing considerable difficulties in their written and oral communication skills and other academic areas (Marcoulides & Heck, 1988). In California during the 1970s it became obvious that just admitting minorities to college was not enough to guarantee their success (Spellman, 1988). To counteract the apparent lack of preparation for college of many minority students, intervention models were developed through school and business partnerships to raise the prospects of success for minority students. In 1975 the Partnership Program supported by state funds was imple mented by the University of California. Intervention, beginning in seventh grade, included academic advising and role model representation. Recruitment of Students to Teacher Education , > Spellman (1988) pointed out successful programs at Grambling University, Norfolk State University, among others, and the Kentucky State Department of Education which provided guidelines for optimizing conditions for teacher education students on campus: 1. Involve the college faculty, both in liberal arts and in education, in developing a strong program that strengthens academic skills and demands mastery of required content. 2. Include diagnostic and tutorial services for those who do not yet meet university standards, particular ly in reading and mathematics. 3. Strengthen test-taking skills with strategies and practice. Offer guidance and mentoring throughout the program. 64 4. Be knowledgeable about and offer all available financial aid to qualified students in addition to lobbying for more from private, federal, state and local sources. Also promising is the development of programs to recruit more qualified students into education. Spellman (1988) identified the following as important components in successful programs: 1. Identify those interested in teaching early in high school through networking, questionnaires, and public school visits. 2. Invite prospective teachers and their parents to campus for exploratory programs which emphasize the rewards of teaching, the need to strengthen basic skills and take college preparatory courses, and the financial aid available. 3. Arrange follow-up contact from local alumni and friends. Current demographic trends suggest the urgent need for an immediate, unprecedented effort to recruit teachers to educate the growing population. The overall scarcity of teachers, along with the decline in enrollment of teacher education students, highlights the need for immediate policy recommendations concerning innovative recruitment and retention methods (Case et al., 1988). The results of the ACSESULGC/APU survey suggests that institutions should consider new policies aimed at 65 the recruitment and retention of teacher education can didates. These include much earlier identification, more personal recruitment methods, adequate support services, and exit criteria that do not rely so heavily on standard ized testing (Warren, 1985). Spellman (1988) stated that revitalization and innovation are necessary if teacher-training institutions are to retain credibility and if teaching professionals are to meet standards of excellence. He proposed a three- step, comprehensive program which includes early iden tification of students who have a commitment to teaching, intensive university and post-graduate training, and programs and rewards for outstanding, effective teachers once they are in the classroom. Both the Holmes Group and the Carnegie Foundation stressed that the solution to the problem of recruitment lies in improved working conditions, greater professional prestige, and higher salaries— factors beyond the immediate control of teacher education programs (Schloss, 1988). A survey of the literature revealed several innova tive education recruitment and teacher training programs. Pennsylvania State University, in cooperation with seven liberal arts colleges and universities in Pennsylvania, developed a collaborative special education recruitment and teacher education program. Its purpose was to attract highly qualified and broadly educated individuals and 66 prepare them to teach. The graduates of this program complete liberal arts majors as undergraduates before entering the graduate teacher preparation program (Schloss, 1988) . Affiliations with public school systems have also been identified as an effective approach to the recruitment and retention of students, faculty, and staff (Kortokrax- Clark, 1986). Initially, there must be early contact with the potential teacher education student. Witty (1986) concluded that recruitment efforts should start as early as the seventh grade. Witty also recommended that efforts directed to underprepared, high potential students should include explanations of available academic support, personalized instruction, and peer buddy systems; high school guidance counselors should be included as integral parts of recruitment programs; and the pool of potential applicants should be expanded to include high school graduates of several years past who did not go to college, but were identified as being academically able. "Today's Students, Tomorrow's Teachers" is the Denver Public Schools' response to the recruiting dilemma. This is a career development program designed to help to increase the number of teachers. This program includes theory, practical experience in K-12 or in special pro grams, guidance, mentorship, support services, as well as employment and development of individual career plans 67 during students' secondary school experience (National Education Association, 1986). A survey conducted at Grambling State University revealed that 41 percent of its education students made their career choice while in high school (Spencer, 1986). If these prospective teachers could be identified earlier, academic preparation could be strengthened before college (Anrig, 1985). Nakanishi (1986) gave specific suggestions of ways institutions could develop a network of alumni to help identify and recruit promising teaching candidates. A further constraint to teacher recruitment may evolve from the school district itself. Prospective candidates may not be interested in pursuing a job oppor tunity in a particular school district because of that district's reputation or policies. Does the district have a reputation for being understaffed? Does it lack support services? Is there a strong staff development program? Is there opportunity for decision making at the site level? Does it lack a well-defined appraisal process? The answer to these questions could be important considerations in selecting a school district (Rebore, 1987). Another constraint in recruiting is the attractive ness of the position to be filled. Is it viewed as a stressful position or as lacking promotion potential? Was the person previously in this position either ineffective or extremely successful? 68 A fourth constraint to recruitment is salary ad fringe benefits. Contrary to the business community, school districts usually do not have the option to nego tiate compensation to attract highly qualified employees as salaries are usually fixed on a salary schedule with fringe benefits applied to all employees in a certain category. This can be a deterrent to recruitment, espe cially if the job is unusually difficult or perceived as somewhat undesirable. Geographic location can be another constraint on recruitment. Rural and inner-city districts typically are perceived as less desirable locations in which to work. What is the length of the commute for available housing, shopping, and recreational areas? Whether or not a college or university is within an easy commute is another variable to be considered in relation to location. The relative importance of the above constraints will differ from one applicant to another. However, Rebore asserted that "in recruitment it is important from the very start to present this information to every candidate in an extremely clear format" (Rebore, 1987, p. 128) . Role of the Personnel Administrator With central responsibility for recruitment, the personnel administrator develops an organizational struc ture to implement the district's human resources plan. 69 Castetter (1981) identified the following functions as characteristic of almost all successful recruitment efforts: 1. Recruitment plans for all personnel are develop ed and coordinated in adherence to the human resources plan. 2. Central recruitment planning clarifies and formalizes types of communications that will be initiated between the district and applicants. 3. Recruitment record keeping is designed to facilitate and to control the candidate flow. 4. Scheduling of both annual and day-to-day recruitment activities are controlled at a central loca tion, preferably in the office of the personnel administra tor. 5. All correspondence is processed in a timely manner. Every applicant inquiry should receive a response. 6. Recruitment action control is organized. This refers to a scheme which is devised to check on the progress of each candidate as he or she moves through the various stages of the application process. 7. The budget is utilized to define recruitment plans and to transfer these needs into funds necessary for their support. 70 Sources of Recruitment School districts utilize a variety of recruitment sources. Referrals are a common source of applicants. Rebore (19 87) suggested that school districts should establish a policy and specific procedures that will encourage current employees to recommend people for job vacancies. A common practice is for the employee to provide the personnel department with the name or names of potential candidates. The personnel department then sends letters to the referred individuals, stating that they have been recommended to become candidates and inviting them to submit an application. Advertising through college and university placement services is another source of applicants. Most of these institutions offer this service not only to recent grad uates but also to former graduates. The most important service available in these placement departments is the maintaining of a personnel file containing references, transcripts, and other pertinent information. The place ment service duplicates the references and forwards them to prospective employers upon request of the graduate. Many districts develop a recruitment brochure to provide potential candidates with enough information about the surrounding community, a description of the district, including minimum job requirements and fringe benefits, to 71 interest potential candidates in applying for a job (Rebore, 1987). Rebore (1987) suggested that school districts follow the lead of business recruitment practices when he stated: Private business and industry has for many years capitalized on the recruitment process to fill vacancies with exceptional individuals. Private industry recognizes that talent and skills are a rare commodity. School districts too need to find the most talented and skilled people available to achieve their mandate of educating children. In practice this requires them to develop employment conditions, salary levels, and benefits that will attract the best applicants, while remaining within the fiscal constraints of the school dis tricts. The private sector's practice of overtly contacting and recruiting individuals who meet a given set of job requirements and encouraging them to become applicants should be emulated by school districts. It is recruitment in its purest form. (p. 74) Summary of the Literature The purpose of this chapter was to present a review of current writings and research related to the teacher shortage and motivational factors which could be used in the recruitment of teachers. Included in this review was a discussion of the demographics of the teacher shortage and factors contributing to the shortage, motivation theory, factors involved in motivating teacher selection of an occupation or district in which to teach, and teacher recruitment practices. The impending teacher shortage was examined statis tically. A shortage was predicted by 1992 at both the national and California State level. Factors leading to the shortage included a growth in student numbers because of a higher birthrate and immigration; a decline in the number of college students entering the profession because of competition in the labor market for the brightest and most qualified candidates, male or female; and the educa tional reform movement with its rise in standards for the profession exemplified in both national and state teacher tests. Motivation theory was viewed as those factors which influenced human behaviors and/or choices. These factors were related to the perceived chance of reaching the goal, expectancy theory, as well as extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. These intrinsic and extrinsic rewards were the basis of the theories of Maslow ad Herzberg. Maslow*s Hierarchy of Needs Theory included five levels which were not rigidly fixed. A person moved through the hierarchies based upon escalating human needs. When applied to teachers* motivation and morale, Maslow's hierarchy suggested lower level needs were being met by increased salaries, but higher level social and self- actualization opportunities needed to be provided to a greater degree. Herzberg in his Motivation-Hygiene Theory proposed that some factors were motivators while others, hygiene factors, prevented dissatisfaction but did not motivate. Satisfaction was not considered the opposite of dissatis 73 faction. Application of Herzbergfs theory to the classroom led to the development of job enrichment theory. This concept emphasized building a sense of achievement, recognition, challenge, decision making, and responsibility into the job. An examination of research on factors motivating teacher choice of an occupation or district indicated primary motivators were intrinsic rewards. These included having assisted students in learning, having worked together with colleagues in program development, and having been involved in responsible shared decision making. The personnel recruiter could and should capitalize on a knowledge of factors motivating teachers in planning recruitment procedures. These procedures to bring and keep qualified individuals in the system should be considered critical to the effectiveness of the organization. Human resources planning identified current and future staffing needs, and has been defined as the initial step in the recruitment process. Recruitment could be considered as attracting a variety of teachers to the school district through job fairs, brochures, visits to college and university placement services, personal contact, and early identification of potential candidates. Factors in recruitment included the philosophy of the district, the reputation of the district, the attrac tiveness of the specific position, geographic location, 74 salary, fringe benefits, the local community, the work place, and district level support. These factors must be clearly understood and addressed by the personnel recruiter. 75 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction This chapter reviews the procedures and methodology used to obtain answers to the specific questions of this study. The basic sources of information were question naires distributed to 897 preservice teachers in student teaching classes in Southern California colleges and universities and to personnel administrators in 2 01 Southern California school districts. The procedures used in obtaining and analyzing the data consisted of the following steps: (1) development of a group of major factors influencing preservice teachers in district selection; (2) development of the survey instruments; (3) field testing and revising the instru ments; (4) selection of the sample; (5) collection of the data; (6) tabulation, analysis, and treatment of the data. Development of a Group of Factors Influencing Preservice Teachers in District Selection To answer the basic questions posed by this study, the initial step was to determine a group of factors that preservice teachers considered when selecting a school district. To select the basic factors for investigation and validation, the following procedures were used: Review of the Literature Current literature and research were reviewed to assist in the compilation of factors considered by teachers in selecting a school district. The literature review focused on factors which have led to a teacher shortage, factors in teacher motivation, and personnel recruitment strategies. From this review a preliminary list of factors was compiled. Review of Recruiting Materials Recruiting literature and brochures prepared by 10 representative Southern California school districts were analyzed. From this analysis, a group of common factors was compiled. Review of Rosecrans, 1970 Study of Factors Considered by Elementary School Teachers in Selecting a District Rosecrans (1970), as part of a doctoral disserta tion, compiled a list of 10 major factors used by elemen tary teachers in their selection of a school district. For each of the 10 major areas, five subareas were also listed. The areas used in the Rosecrans study were reviewed in light of current literature, research, and practice. A 77 number of the factors identified by Rosecrans were thought to be still applicable and were incorporated into the final list. Selection of a Committee of Experts The preliminary list of factors was submitted to a group of qualified persons for further validation. The following persons were asked to review and critique the preliminary list: Dr. Lou Cangiano, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, Garden Grove Unified School District Mr. Frank Noe, California State University Long Beach Ms. Erlene Krebs, California State University, Fullerton Ms. Karen McBride, Chapman College Dr. Robert Ferris, University of Southern Cali fornia Using all of the sources discussed, the results were analyzed and compiled into 13 major categories, as follows: 1. District Size - Includes enrollment of the district (small, average, large, and very large). 2. District Organization: Includes elementary, high school, and unified districts. 3. Nature of the Community: Includes socioeconomic level and size of minority population. 78 4. Geographic Location: Includes climate, recrea tion, and cultural centers. 5. District Philosophy: Includes opportunities for using a variety of teaching methods, experimentation, clearly defined educational objectives, and clearly defined expectations for teachers. 6. Salary: Includes beginning salary, maximum salary, credit for master's degree, credit for doctoral degree, and number of years to the top salary. 7. Fringe Benefits: Includes comprehensive paid insurance, wellness/fitness programs, dental insurance, provision for sabbatical leaves, and provision for mater nity/paternity leaves. 8. Recruitment Practices: Includes printed district brochure, interview held at the college, oppor tunity to visit district/prospective school, and follow-up from personnel recruiter. 9. Pre-Selection Interview: Includes interest shown by district administrator, friendliness of district staff, choice of grade level, and guarantee of assignment. 10. School Plants and Facilities: Includes modern buildings, air conditioning, availability of supplies, audio-visual equipment, computers, and recent technological equipment. 11. Composition of School Staff: Includes age, experience level of the staff, balance of men and women on 79 the staff, personality of the building principal, and friends working in the district. 12. Opportunities for Professional Growth: Includes district's provision for in-service orientation, professional organizations, and opportunity for promotion. 13. District Level Support: Includes the avail ability of a teachers' handbook, up-to-date textbooks, professional library, and curriculum/media center. Five related factors were listed under each major category. The result was a total of 65 factors which became the basis of the research data. Chapter IV discus ses the results of this portion of the study in detail. Development of the Survey Instruments Several alternative methods of assessment were considered for this descriptive study of the factors considered by preservice teachers in their selection of a school district in which to work. The most complete and reliable procedure was considered to be the personal interview. This procedure was eliminated for several reasons: 1. Since the survey was planned to cover a large sample of preservice teachers throughout Southern Califor nia, the problem of expense and travel made personal interviews difficult. 80 2. The large number of preservice teachers to be sampled made personal interviews impractical in terms of time. 3. The decision was made by the doctoral committee chair and the investigators that the desired information could be obtained from a written questionnaire. The use of a questionnaire in descriptive research has been widely implemented in the field of education. Borg (1989) stated that the questionnaire survey can be a very valuable technique in helping to understand the current situation in a given educational area. According to Borg "among the various methods of descriptive research, the questionnaire survey is by far the most widely used in education" (Borg, 1989, p. 418). According to Isaac and Michael (1981), the use of a questionnaire in descriptive research is well known and supportable. While questionnaires are basically designed for fact finding, the results may be used in making predictions, comparisons, and as a source of important information to map educational change and planning. Isaac and Michael (1981) further justified the use of questionnaires by indicating: The questionnaire procedure normally comes into use when one cannot readily see personally all of the people from whom he desires responses. (p. 132) Desicrn of the Questionnaire for Preservice Teachers A Likert-type four-point scale was developed to measure the degree of influence selected factors had on preservice teacher's selection of a school district in which to work. The format of the questionnaire was developed through an extensive refining process. Criteria suggested by Borg (1989), including the basic principles of questionnaire design to assure validity, clarity, simplicity, and relevancy to the basic problem, were carefully considered. The basic content for the questionnaire was develop ed from the group of factors determined to be important in the selection of a district in which to work by all sources discussed in the previous section. The responses were grouped into 13 major categories with five factors under each category. The result was a total of 13 major categor ies and 65 factors from which to elicit responses. The questionnaire was designed to ask the respondents to rate the individual factors in accordance with the degree of influence each would have on the decision to select a school district. The criteria used was a four-point scale from most important, important, somewhat important, to not important. In addition, for each of the five factors within the 13 major categories, the respondents were asked to indicate which factor was: (a) most important, and (b) 82 least important. The 13 major categories were placed in the questionnaire on a random basis, A through M. The order upon which the items appeared on the questionnaire was not considered to be a relevant part of the study. The second part of the questionnaire was designed to have the respondents place the 13 major categories in rank order of importance. Space was provided at the end of the questionnaire for respondents to list any other factors that would influence their selection of a district in which to work. The questionnaire was designed to tabulate the results from the following categories of teachers: 1. Male/Female 2. Elementary (K-6)/Secondary (7-12) 3. Bilingual/Non-bilingual 4. Married/Unmarried A space was included in which the respondents were asked to indicate the college or university of current attendance. This information was used to determine the rate of return from participating schools and the need for a second distribution of questionnaires, but was not tabulated for purposes of the study. A copy of the final questionnaire is contained in Appendix A. 83 Pilot Study and Pre-Test of the Questionnaire The preliminary questionnaire was submitted to the "committee of experts" to locate ambiguities and to elicit suggestions for improvement of the instrument and proce dures. The chairman of the investigators* doctoral committee made a number of helpful suggestions for the final format. A pilot study of the questionnaire was conducted using preservice teachers completing their student teaching during the summer session of a year-round school district. A total of 40 student teachers, including both K-6 and 7- 12 candidates, were asked to complete the preliminary questionnaire. An analysis was made of the results, as well as the comments supplied about the questionnaire's design. The reactions from the student teachers involved in the pilot and from the two college supervisors of these respondents supplied valuable suggestions for the develop ment of the final questionnaire and for the refinement of the administration procedures. The positive response and indications of interest in the final results and recommen dations provided strong impetus to pursue the study. 84 Desicrn of Questionnaire for Personnel Administrators Following the refinement and approval of the initial preservice teacher questionnaire, it was necessary to consider the means by which data would be obtained from personnel administrators. A two page instrument was designed in which the respondents were asked to place the 13 major categories in rank order in accordance with their perceptions of how each would influence potential teaching candidates. A brief explanation was given as to the purpose of the investigation. A listing of the five factors used in the preservice teacher*s questionnaire was included under each of the 13 major categories. The first page of the questionnaire requested information to allow tabulation of the data in the follow ing categories: 1. District pupil enrollment (less than 5,000; 5,000 to 10,000; over 10,000); 2. Years of experience as a personnel administrator (less than 3 years; 3 to 6 years; over 6 years); 3. Actively recruiting/not actively recruiting (elementary teachers; secondary teachers; bilingual teachers). Following approval by the committee chair, this instrument was put in final form for mailing. A copy of 85 the questionnaire for personnel administrators is contained in Appendix B. Selection of the Sample Preservice Teachers Student teachers, within six months of completing their credentials, were chosen for sampling in order to acquire the data for this study. The preservice teachers selected represented colleges and universities, both public and private, in the Southern California counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. A total of 34 colleges and universities was contacted, each with a minimum of 2 0 student teachers. Of these, six declined to participate with 28 agreeing to distribute the question naires . Personnel Administrators Personnel administrators were selected from dis tricts having an enrollment in excess of 1,500 students for 1989-90 in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. The 1989 California Public School Directory was used as the source for final selection of the districts. There were 201 districts meeting the criteria established. The districts were categorized by ADA as follows: 86 Returned Percentage 1 A. 1,500 - 5,000 B. 5,000 - 10,000 ■ C. 10,000 - over Total Collection of Data From Preservice Teachers Each of the 28 colleges and universities which agreed to participate was asked to indicate the number of student teachers meeting the criteria of the study (Appen dix C) . This number of questionnaires was sent to the college student teacher supervisors along with a letter regarding administration of the instrument (Appendix D) . A note of explanation and instructions for completion were printed on the front page of each questionnaire for preservice teachers. A self-addressed, stamped envelope was included with each questionnaire. A request was made that the questionnaire be returned by December 15, 1989, allowing one month for distribution and completion. A second mailing followed to second semester student teachers with a return data of March 1, 199 0. A total of 897 questionnaires was sent out and 709 questionnaires were returned. This constituted a return rate of 79 percent which was determined sufficient for purposes of the study. Collection of Data from Personnel Administrators Questionnaires were mailed to personnel administra tors in each of the 2 01 districts selected for the sample N = 78 N = 55 N = 68 N =201 72 43 52 167 93.5% 78.0% 76. 0% 83.5% (Appendix E). A letter of explanation was printed on the questionnaire itself. Space was also provided for the administrator to request the results of the completed study. Self-addressed stamped envelopes were included with each questionnaire. One hundred and sixty eight question naires were returned constituting an 84 percent return rate. It was determined that this rate of return was high enough to provide sufficient data and thus a second mailing was not necessary. Tabulation, Analysis, and Treatment of the Data A tentative plan for tabulating, analyzing, and reporting the data was formulated before the questionnaires were sent out. When responses were incomplete or any items omitted, the questionnaires were considered to be invalid and discarded. The design of the study required compiling, testing, and analyzing the 13 major categories and 65 factors which preservice teachers considered in selecting a school district. A further determination was made as to which factors were considered most and least important in each of the 13 major categories. The data on perceptions of preservice teachers as to the importance of the 13 major categories were analyzed and the means for the five individual factors in each J 88 category were used to compute the total mean for the i category. Group mean scores and standard deviations are presented in rank order in tables and discussed in narra tive form in Chapter IV. 1 Next, the responses concerning the factors con sidered most and least important by preservice teachers in their selection of a school district were analyzed. A series of tables was used to present information including frequencies and the percentage of responses relative to each subfactor. To answer the third question of the study, the mean score on a one to four point scale, with one being not important and four being most important, along with standard deviations and rankings, were listed for each of the 13 major categories, t values were calculated for each category for all groups: male/female, elementary/second ary, bilingual/non-bilingual, and married/unmarried. A two-tailed test of probability was conducted and sig nificance established at the .05 level. The five factors comprising each of the 13 major categories were also examined for significant differences by sex, program, language, and marital status. Chi-square was used to determine significance at the .05 level. This information is listed in Chapter IV in tabular form and discussed in the narrative. 89 The fourth research question examined the similari ties and differences among the perceptions of preservice teachers using a two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Comparisons were made by sex and program, sex and language, sex and marital status, program and language, language and marital status, and program and marital status. Means were computed and F ratios used to ascertain the level of significance and the interaction of perceptions. All information is presented in tabular form. Figures are used to display interactions when significant differences were established at the .05 level. To answer question five regarding personnel admin istrators* ranking of the perceived importance of the 13 major categories, means and standard deviations were obtained and presented in rank order in tabular form. The sixth question examined the relationship of the perceptions of school district personnel administrators. Personnel administrators were asked to check the descrip tive category that best exemplified his or her district enrollment, years of experience in personnel, and district recruiting status. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if the differences in the observed means were statistically significant. When significance was shown between three group means, Tukev1s HSD was used as a follow-up test to the Analysis of Variance to distinguish which pair was significant at the .05 level. The final question of the survey addressed the similarities and differences of perceptions of preservice teachers and personnel administrators as to the importance of the 13 major categories of factors involved in the selection of a school district. Each group was asked to rank the 13 factors, mean scores were computed and t values and a two tailed test of probability used to determine significance at the .05 level. The set of factors influencing preservice teachers and the questionnaire developed to test the factors were assumed to have construct validity. Details of all responses are reported in Chapter IV. 91 CHAPTER IV THE FINDINGS Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings in relation to each of the questions posed in the study. The study was conducted for four purposes. The first was to analyze the perceptions of preservice teachers as to the levels of importance of 13 major categories and 65 individual factors considered in the selection of a school district in which to teach. The second purpose was to determine the most and least important factors for preservice teachers in each of the 13 major categories. The third purpose was to determine the perceptions of school district personnel administrators as to what preservice teachers considered important in their selection of a school district, and finally the fourth purpose was to examine the relationship between the perceptions of preservice teachers and school district personnel admin istrators as to the rank order of importance of the 13 major categories. The questions developed for the purposes of this study were the following: 92 1. What were the perceptions of preservice teachers as to the importance of 13 major categories to be con sidered when selecting a school district in which to work? 2. What factors in 13 major categories were most and least important for preservice teachers in their selection of a school district in which to work? 3. What were the perceptions and the relationship of the perceptions of preservice teachers as to the importance of 13 major categories and 65 individual factors to be considered in the selection of a school district when compared as follows: a. Male/Female b. Elementary (K-6)/Secondary (7-12) c. Bilingual/Non-bilingual d. Married/Unmarried? 4. What were the similarities/differences among the perceptions of preservice teachers of the importance of 13 major categories to be considered in the selection of a school district when compared as follows: a. Male elementary/Male secondary Female elementary/Female secondary Male elementary/Female elementary Male secondary/Female secondary b. Male bilingual/Male non-bilingual Female bilingual/Female non-bilingual Male bilingual/Female bilingual Male non-bilingual/Female non-bilingual c. Male married/Male unmarried Female married/Female unmarried Male married/Female married Male unmarried/Female unmarried? d. Elementary bilingual/Elementary non-bilingual Secondary bilingual/Secondary non-bilingual Elementary bilingual/Secondary bilingual Elementary non-bilingual/Secondary non bilingual e. Bilingual married/Bilingual unmarried Non-bilingual married/Non-bilingual unmarried Bilingual married/Non-bilingual married Bilingual unmarried/Non-bilingual unmarried f. Elementary married/Elementary unmarried Secondary married/Secondary married Elementary unmarried/Secondary unmarried? 5. What were the perceptions of school district personnel administrators of the importance of the 13 major categories to be considered in the recruitment of teachers to work in the school district? 6. What were the perceptions and the relationships of the perceptions of school district personnel administra tors of the importance of the 13 major categories to be 94 considered in the recruitment of teachers when compared as follows: a. District pupil enrollment (less than 5,000; 5,000-10,000? over 10,000) b. Years of experience in school district personnel administration (less than 3 years; 3-6 years? over 6 years) c. Actively recruiting elementary teachers/ Not actively recruiting elementary teach ers . d. Actively recruiting secondary teachers/ Not actively recruiting secondary teachers e. Actively recruiting bilingual teachers/ Not actively recruiting bilingual teach ers? 7. What were the similarities/differences between the perceptions of preservice teachers and school district personnel administrators of the importance of the 13 major categories to be considered when teachers select a district in which to work and when districts attempt to recruit teachers to work in the school district? Preservice Teacher Sample Two surveys were developed to collect the data necessary to derive answers to the questions of the study. The first survey, distributed to 897 student teachers who 95 were within six months of completing their credentials in public and private universities in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties, focused on factors involved in teacher selection of a school district in which to work and sought the answers to the first four questions. Seven hundred and nine surveys or 79 percent of the preservice teacher surveys were returned. The characteristics of preservice teachers were defined by sex, marital status, credential program, and language skill and are shown in Table 3. Using the information from Table 3, it was possible to conclude that four times as many preservice teachers were female as were male. Approximately two-thirds of the preservice respondents were unmarried and/or pursuing a career in elementary education. Preservice teachers with bilingual language skills were less than 14 percent of the respondents. Personnel Administrator Sample The second survey was designed to acquire the necessary information from personnel administrators to answer questions five, six, and seven of the study. 96 Table 3 Democrraohic Characteristics of Preservice Teacher Groups N % Sex Male 138 19.5 Female 571 80.5 Credential Program Elementary 483 68.1 Secondary 226 31.9 Language Bilingual 97 13.7 Non-Bilingual 612 86.3 Marital Status Married 283 39.9 Unmarried 426 6 0.1 Note; N = 709 Personnel administrators in 2 01 Southern California school districts were surveyed to determine their perceptions of the importance of 13 major categories influencing pre service teachers' choice of a district in which to work. Responses were received from 167 districts constituting an 8 3.5 percent return rate. Table 4 shows the demographic characteristics of the personnel administrators who responded. In terms of district size, the largest per centage of respondents (44.3 percent) was from districts with an average daily enrollment under 5,000. The second largest group of respondents (36.5 percent) was from districts with an enrollment over 10,000. The respondents were also asked to indicate their number of years of experience as a personnel administrator. The largest number of personnel administrators (46.1 percent) reported having between three and six years of experience, and the smallest number, 25.1 percent, reported having less than three years experience. Finally, the survey asked that respondents indicate the areas for which their district was currently recruiting new teachers. Out of the 167 personnel administrators who responded, 122, or 73.1 percent, indicated that they were actively recruiting elementary teachers, while only 2 6.9 percent responded that they were not recruiting in this area. These figures are consistent with the review of the literature which docu mented the largest need for new teachers in the elementary area (Hodgkinson, 1989). Of the respondents, 53.3 percent indicated a need for secondary teachers, while 43.7 percent indicated they were not recruiting in this area. Finally, 71.3 percent responded that they were actively bilingual teachers, while only 28.7 percent indicated they were not actively recruiting this group of teachers. These figures 98 are also consistent with the information presented in Chapter II which revealed that the shortage of secondary teachers is not as great (Ondovcsik, 1989); however, there is an extreme shortage of minority and bilingual candidates (Darling-Hammond, 1988; Harris, 1989; Newman, 1989). Table 4 Demographic Characteristics of School District Personnel Administrators N District Pupil Enrollment Less than 5,000 74 44.3 5,000 - 10,000 32 19.2 Over 10,000 61 36.5 Years Experience in Personnel Administration Less than 3 years 42 25.1 3 to 6 years 48 28.8 Over 6 years 77 4 6.1 Actively Recruiting Elementary Teachers No 45 26.9 Yes 122 73.1 Actively Recruiting Secondary Teachers No 73 43.7 Yes 94 56.3 Actively Recruiting Bilingual Teachers No 48 28.7 Yes 119 71.3 Note; N = 167 99 Perceptions of Preservice Teachers as to the Importance of the 13 Major Categories Considered in the Selection of a School District The first question in this study was designed to determine the perceptions of teachers as to the importance of 13 major categories in the selection of a school district in which to teach. Responses were given on a scale from one to four with one being not important and four being most important. The means for the five indi vidual factors in each category were used to compute the total mean for the group. Mean scores and standard deviations for the 13 major categories are presented in rank order in Table 5. Within all groups of preservice teachers, the most important category influencing the selection of a district when compared by total mean for the category was district philosophy with a mean of 3.25. This category included the following five individual factors: opportunity to use a variety of teaching methods, evidence of district provision for individual differences, opportunities for experimenta tion, clearly defined educational objectives, and clearly defined expectations for teachers. Placement of district philosophy as number one by total mean score corroborates the findings of Rosecrans in his 1970 California study. Philosophy of the district ranked as the number one factor in this study of the elements influencing K-6 teachers in California unified districts with enrollments over 3,000 in their selection of a district in which to teach. Table 5 Perception of the Importance of the 13 Major Categories Involved in the Selection of a School District— Pre- service Teachers * Rankincr bv Mean and Standard Deviation Category X SD Philosophy of the District 3.25 .53 District Level Support 3.24 .52 Pre-selection Interview 3.20 .50 Fringe Benefits 3 . 06 .59 Salary 3 . 04 . 63 School Plants and Facilities 2 . 91 .54 Opportunities for Professional Growth 2.87 .55 Geographic Location of the District 2.85 .57 Recruitment Practices 2.85 . 61 Composition of School Staff 2.40 .58 District Organization 2.28 .67 Nature of the Community 2.22 .76 District Size 1.99 .75 Note: Range of Scale was 1.0 to 4.0 X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 101 In the literature on teacher motivation, Mitchell stated the importance of district philosophy, goals, objectives, and methods of organization and instruction. According to Mitchell this factor acts as an incentive or satisfier for teachers, and is important to keep many educators in the occupation. Responses to this study indicated these factors were also important in preservice teachers1 initial choice of the school district in which to work. District Support including up-to-date textbooks, teacher handbooks, professional libraries, media centers, and consultants ranked second with a mean of 3.24. The category, Pre-selection Interview, including friendliness of district staff, interest shown by interviewing admin istrator, opportunity to talk with the building principal, guarantee of assignment, and availability of grade level of choice, with a mean of 3.20, ranked third. This category, second in the Rosecrans study (1970), continues as a major factor in teacher selection of a school dis trict. Ranked fourth, the category, Fringe Benefits, included comprehensive paid medical insurance, wellness/ fitness program, dental insurance, provisions for sabbat ical leave, and provisions for maternity/paternity leave. The mean for this category was 3.06. Salary ranked a close fifth with a mean of 3.04. High beginning salary, high 102 maximum salary, credit for a master*s degree, credit for ! a doctorate, and number of years to top salary were the component factors of the salary category. Four of the 13 categories clustered close to the total mean of 2.78. These included School Plants and Facilities, Opportunities for Professional Growth, Geo graphic Location of the District, and Recruitment Prac tices. Both Geographic Location of the District and Recruitment Practices shared the same mean, 2.85, with a slight difference in standard deviation, .57 and .60, respectively. These categories were of less importance than the first five rankings. Composition of School Staff (2.40), District Organization (2.28), Nature of the Community (2.22), and District Size (1.99) ranked well below the total mean. Based on this information, it is possible to conclude that these categories were of lesser importance to those responding. In the Rosecrans study (1970) the category Nature of the Community was ranked relatively higher— sixth by all respondents? but the rankings for district size and organization were consistent with the responses in this study. 103 Factors Considered Most: and Least Important: in Preservice Teacher Selection of a School District in Which to Work The second question to be answered by the study concerned the factors considered most and least important by preservice teachers in their selection of a school district in which to work. These factors were grouped in 13 major categories: District Size, District Organization, Nature of the Community, Geographic Location of the District, Philosophy of the District, Salary, Fringe Benefits, Recruitment Practices, Pre-selection Interview, School Plants and Facilities, Composition of School Staff, Opportunities for Professional Growth, and District Level Support. Respondents were asked to indicate which of the five factors in each category was of most importance and which was of least importance in the selection of the school district. A series of tables has been used to present informa tion as to which factors were considered most and least important to preservice teachers in the selection of a school district. This information is presented in tabular form including frequencies and percentages. Table 6 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to the factors which were perceived to be most and least important relative to District Size. Of the respondents, 3 39 or 49.1 percent indicated they 104 would most like to work in a district which was of average size (5,000 - 10,000). A further 34.8 percent were grouped just below and above average sizes. For the preservice i teachers, 13 5 or 19.6 percent indicated they would most like to work in a small district (under 5,000) and 105 teachers or 15.2 percent preferred districts with large enrollments (10,000 - 20,000). The districts of very small and very large size were marked most important by the smallest number of respondents. Respondents were also asked to respond to, ”1 would least like to work in a school district described as. . .” There were 413 respondents or 61.0 percent who would least like to work in a very large district (over 20,000); 228 or 33.7 percent would least like to work in a very small district (under 1,000). Two factors tied at 2.2 percent of the responses, district enrollment is average (5,000 - 10,000) or large (10,000 - 20,000). District enrollment is small (under 5,000) received the lowest percentage of choices (.9) as the least important factor. Table 7 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to the factors which were perceived to be most and least important relative to District Organization. District organizational preference varied with two specific choices dominating the responses. For teachers, 2 61 or 37.8 percent preferred an elementary district, K-6. Closely following, 37.5 percent or 259 105 Table 6 Factors Considered Most and Least Important bv Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District; District Size District Size Most Important Least Important Freq. Percent Freq. Percent A. District enroll ment is very small (under 1,000) 58 8.4 228 33 . 7 B. District enroll ment is small (under 5,000) 135 19.6 6 .9 C. District enroll ment is average (5,000-10,000) 339 49.1 15 2.2 D. District enroll ment is large (10,000-20,000) 105 15.2 15 2.2 E. District enroll ment is very large (over 20,000) 53 7.7 413 61. 0 Note: N = 709 teachers indicated an interest in unified districts (K-12). The preponderance of these choices can be explained by the higher number of elementary teachers responding to the survey (see Table 3). 106 In terms of those factors considered to be least important in this category, a high school district 9-12 was described as least desirable by 2 29 or 3 4 percent of the preservice teacher. An elementary district (K-6) ranked second at 2 6 percent, and a unified district (K-12) third. High school districts 7-12 and elementary districts K—8 were marked as least desirable by a smaller percentage of the respondents, 16.3 and 5.5 percent, respectively. Table 7 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: District Organization District Organization Most Important Least Important Freq. Percent Freq. Percent A. Elementary District (K-6) 261 B. Elementary District (K-8) 55 C. High School District (7-12) 38 D. High School District (9-12) 78 E. Unified District (K-12) 259 37.8 175 26.0 8.0 37 5.5 5.5 110 16.3 11.3 229 34.0 37.5 123 18.2 Note; N = 709 107 Table 8 shows the frequency and percentage of i responses in relation to those factors considered most and least important relative to Nature of the Community. Over half of the preservice teacher respondents or 61.4 percent preferred to work in a community characterized as middle socioeconomic. Interestingly, the lowest preference was for communities described as low minority (25 or 3.7 percent) and high socioeconomic (53 or 7.9 percent). Only 14.1 percent of the respondents reported they would most like to work in a high minority community. The review of the literature in Chapter II indicates that the greatest teacher shortage is, however, and will continue to be, in high minority communities (Dariing-Hammond, 1988; Harris, 1989; Newman, 1989). The factors of least importance in this category as reported by preservice teachers were high socioeconomic community, 4 6.8 percent or 315 responses, and high minority community, 24.1 percent of 162 responses. Low minority community with 15.2 percent of the responses ranked third as least desirable followed by low socioeconomic community with 66 responses or 9.8 percent. The factor that received the fewest responses as least desirable was middle socio economic community which was identified as the choice of only 28 or 4.2 percent of the respondents. Table 8 Factors Considered Most and Least Important bv Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District; Nature of the Community Nature of the Community Most Important Least Important Freq. Percent Freq. Percent A. High socio economic community 53 7.9 315 46.8 B. Middle socio economic community 414 61.4 28 4.2 C. Low socio economic community 87 12.9 66 9.8 D. Low minority community 25 3.7 102 15.2 E. High minority community 95 14.1 / 162 24.1 Note: N = 709 Table 9 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to those factors considered most and least important relative to the Geographic Location of the District. In this time period of freeway gridlock, respondents reported that the most important factor influencing their selection of the school district within 109 this category was the ease of the commute. There were 291 or 41.2 percent who reported this as the most important factor. A further 129 respondents or 26.8 percent indi cated it was most important to work in their hometown or area of residence. Another reflection of the current economic situation can be found in the third choice: 125 or 17.7 percent indicated that the availability of afford able housing was the most important factor in this cate- Table 9 Factors Considered Most and Least Important bv Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Geograph ic Location of the District Geographic Location of the District Most Important Least Important Freq. Percent Freq. Percent A. Climate 60 B. Ease of commute 291 C. Near recreation and culture centers 41 D. Availability of affordable housing 125 E. Hometown or area of residence 189 8.5 221 31.3 41.2 20 2.8 5.8 240 34.0 17.7 78 11.0 26.8 147 20.8 Note: N = 709 110 gory. As reported in the review of the literature, rising costs of homes have forced teachers to move to less urban areas in Southern California (Newman, 1989). The factors receiving the fewest responses were climate (8.5 percent) and near recreation and cultural centers (5.8 percent). Consistent with the previously mentioned data, near recreation and cultural centers was considered as least important by 240 or 34 percent of the preservice teachers. Climate followed with 221 or 31.3 percent of the responses. Ranked third was hometown or area of residence with 147 or 2 0.8 percent of the responses. Availability of affordable housing with 78 or 11 percent of the responses was fourth, and last was ease of commute with 20 or 2.8 of the respon ses . Table 10 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to those factors considered most and least important relative to the Philosophy of the District. Over 48.2 percent of the respondents indicated as most important the opportunity to use a variety of teaching methods. As stated in Chapter II, Shanker (1988) felt strongly that teachers need the opportunity to use their creativity and judgment. Hawley (1986) also specifically addressed the choice of teaching methods as a motivating factor in teacher recruitment and selection of a school Ill Table 10 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Philo sophy of the District Philosophy of the District Most Important Least Important Freq. Percent Freq. Percent A. Opportunity to use a variety of teaching methods 333 48.2 31 4.9 B. Evidence of district pro vision for individual differences 96 13.9 99 15.6 C. Opportunities for experimen tation 75 10.9 157 24.7 D. Clearly defined educational objectives 103 14.9 118 8.6 E. Clearly defined expectations for teachers 84 12.2 230 36.2 Note: N = 709 district. The remaining factors in this category were clustered in a much lower range. Clearly defined educa tional objectives ranked second at 14.9 percent, the choice of 103 teachers. Evidence of district provision for 112 individual differences (13.9 percent), clearly defined expectations for teachers (12.3 percent), and opportunities for experimentation (10.9 percent) all fell within a range of three percentage points. •The factor perceived as least important in the category, Philosophy of the District, was clearly defined expectations for teachers which was selected by 23 0 or 3 6.2 percent of those surveyed. Opportunities for experimenta tion was selected as least important by 24.9 percent of the respondents. Ranked third was clearly defined educational objectives which was chosen by 118 or 18.6 percent of the respondents, followed by 99 or 15.6 percent of the respon dents who indicated that evidence of provision for indi vidual differences was least important. Of lowest rank in the category of least importance was opportunity to use a variety of teaching methods with 31 respondents or 4.9 percent of those sampled. Table 11 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to those factors considered most and least important relative to salary. As indicated in this table, high beginning salary was of primary importance within the salary category to 311 of the 709 respondents. This is to be expected as those surveyed were preservice teachers, the majority of whom would be begin ning on the lowest step of the salary schedule. High 113 Table 11 Factors Considered Most and Least Important bv Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District; Salary Most Freq. Salary Important Percent Least Freq. Important Percent A. High beginning salary 311 44.7 83 11.8 B. High maximum salary 181 26.0 42 6.0 C. Credit for a master's degree 129 18.6 16 2.3 D. Credit for a doctorate 14 2 . 0 416 59.8 E. Number of years to top salary 60 8.6 140 20.1 Note: N = 709 maximum salary and credit for a master's degree were of most importance to 2 6 percent of the respondents. As indicated in Chapter II, Feistritzer (198 6), Shanker (1988), and Swanson (1986) examined the importance of salary as a teacher motivator and found it important. Klausmeier's (1987) study of factors used in 1953 to alleviate the teacher shortage and attract teachers found providing salary recognition for professional service a key 114 motivator. The California Commission on Educational Quality (1988) further emphasized the importance of raising salaries to attract and retain highly qualified teachers. More than half or 59.8 percent of those surveyed indicated credit for a doctorate was of least importance. Second in rank as least important with 2 0.1 percent of the responses was number of years to top salary. Next was ranked high beginning salary with 83 or 11.8 percent of the responses followed by high maximum salary chosen by 6 percent of those surveyed. Of lowest rank was credit for a master1s degree with 16 responses or 2.3 percent. Table 12 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to those factors considered most and least important relative to Fringe Benefits. As shown in this table, 515 or 73.6 percent of the preservice teacher respondents listed comprehensive paid medical insurance as most important to them within the category of fringe benefits, while only 4.2 percent listed this factor as least important. To fewer respondents, 14.7 percent, the factor of most importance was provisions for maternity/ paternity leave while it was least important to 2 6.2 percent of those responding. In terms of being most important, provisions for sabbatical leave, wellness/fit ness programs, and dental insurance were grouped with percentages of 5.7, 3.7 and 2.3, respectively. Conversely, provisions for sabbatical leave was least important to 32.5 115 Table 12 Factors Considered Most and Least Important bv Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Frincre Benefits Fringe Benefits Most Freq. Important Percent Least Freq. Important Percent A. Comprehensive paid medical insurance salary 515 73.6 29 4.2 B. Wellness/ fitness program 26 3.7 217 31.1 C. Dental insurance 16 2.3 42 6.0 D. Provisions for sabbatical leave 40 5.7 227 32.5 E. Provisions for maternity/ paternity leave 103 14.7 183 26.2 Note: N = 709 percent of the respondents, wellness/fitness was least important to 31.1 percent, and dental insurance was least important to only 6 percent of those responding. The high percentage of preservice teachers respond ing that medical insurance coverage was most important may 116 be a result of a growing awareness of the rapidly rising costs associated with illness or hospitalization. As more than one-half of the respondents were unmarried, paid maternity/paternity leave would be expected to be con sidered most important by a smaller group. Table 13 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to those factors considered most and least important relative to Recruitment Practices. Opportunity to visit the prospective school was considered most important by 428 or 61.1 percent of the respondents. Of the preservice teachers, 117 or 16.7 percent indicated that the opportunity to visit the district most important. Follow-up letters from personnel recruiters, interviews held at the college, and printed district brochures were considered as most important by only a small percentage of the respondents. Conversely, a printed district brochure was least important to the largest group indicated by 3 39 or 48.8 percent of the respondents. Grouped more closely together as least important were interviews held at the college (26.3 percent) and follow-up letter from the personnel recruiter (17.1 percent). Ranked lowest in least impor tance were opportunity to visit the district (5.2 percent) and opportunity to visit prospective school (2.6 percent). 117 Table 13 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection < □f a School District: Recruit- ment Practices Recruitment Practices Most Freq Important Percent Least Freq. Important Percent A. Printed district brochure 33 4.7 339 48.8 B. Interview held at the college 58 8.3 183 26.3 c. Opportunity to visit district 117 16.7 36 5.2 D. Opportunity to visit prospective school 428 61.1 18 2.6 E. Follow-up letter from personnel recruiter 64 9.1 119 17.1 Note: N = 709 Table 14 displays the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to those factors considered most and least important relative to the Pre-selection Interview. The factors considered most important in this category were more closely grouped. Guarantee of assignment was designated ■ ' 118 Table 14 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Pre- Selection Interview Pre-Selection Interview Most Important Least Important Freq. Percent Freq. Percent A. Friendliness of district staff 113 16.2 156 22.8 B. Interest shown by interviewing administrator 93 13.3 134 19.6 C. Opportunity to talk with building principal 121 17.4 94 13.7 D. Guarantee of assignment 219 31.4 86 12.6 E. Availability of grade level of choice 151 21.7 215 31.4 Note: N = 709 by 219 or 31.4 percent of the respondents. Availability of grade level of choice was reported as most important by 21.7 percent of those sampled. In terms of numbers of respon dents, determination of importance, opportunity to talk with building principal, and friendliness of district staff ranked third and fourth with percentages of 17.4 and 16.2, respec 119 tively. The interest shown by the interviewing administrator was considered most important by the smallest number of respondents, with only 13.3 percent giving this response. On the other hand, perceived as least important by the greatest number of respondents, was availability of grade level of choice with 215 or 31.4 percent of the responses. Next, friendliness of district staff was listed least important by 156 or 22.8 percent of those surveyed. There were 134 or 19.6 percent who indicated as least important interest shown by the interviewing administrator. And finally, grouped more closely together, were opportunity to talk with building principal, 94 responses or 13.7 percent, and guarantee of assignment, 86 responses of 12.6 percent. Table 15 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to those factors considered most and least important in the category, School Plants and Facili ties. More than one-half of the respondents, 52.8 percent, indicated that the availability of supplies and audio-visual equipment was the most important factor while only 1.6 percent perceived it as least important. Of second rank, though at a lower level, 14.7 percent of the respondents indicated that availability of computers and recent tech nological equipment was most important, and an almost equal percentage, 14.0, perceived this to be of least importance. 120; Table 15 i Factors Considered Most and Least Important bv Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: School Plants and Facilities School Plants and Facilities Most Important Least Important Freq. Percent Freq. Percent A. Modern school buildings 69 9.8 320 45.8 B. Air conditioned classroom 74 10. 6 135 19. 3 C. Availability of supplies and audio-visual equipment 370 52.8 11 1.6 D. Availability of computers and recent techno logical equipment 103 14.7 98 14.0 E. Availability of teacher's work room 85 12 .1 135 19.3 Note: N = 709 This ranking coincides with that of teachers surveyed in 1953 as reported by Klausmeier. This study, reported in the review of the literature, cited the importance of "making equipment readily available to teachers" (Klausmeier, p. 12). 121' The availability of a teachers' workroom was per-j ceived as most important by 85 teachers, 12.1 percent, and as least important by 135 or 19.3 percent of the respon dents. Air conditioned classrooms and modern school buildings were perceived as most important by a smaller percentage of the respondents (9.8 and 10.6, respectively), while 19.3 percent and 45.8 percent, respectively, considered this factor of least importance. Table 16 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to those factors perceived as most and least important relative to Composition of School Staff. As indicated by this table, personality of the school principal was considered most important by 3 94 or 56.7 percent of the 709 respondents, while only 5.2 percent perceived this factor as least important. This ranking reiterates the importance of the school principal in teacher recruitment as outlined by Hanes (1987). Ex perienced faculty were seen as most important by 141 or 2 0.3 percent of those surveyed and as least important by only 1.7 percent. Predominately young faculty and balance of men and women on the staff were most important to a smaller percentage of respondents as was the factor of friends working in the district. The former was considered least important by 22.4 percent and the latter was least important to 41.3 percent of those surveyed. 122 j Table 16 Factors Considered Most, and Least Important, by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Composition of School Staff Composition of School Staff Most Important Least Important Freq. Percent Freq. Percent A. Predominately young faculty 64 9.2 184 26.4 B. Predominately experienced faculty 141 20.3 33 4.7 C. Balance of men and women on staff 62 8.9 156 22.4 D. Friends working in school district 34 4.9 288 41.3 E. Personality of principal 394 56.7 36 5.2 Note: N = 709 Table 17 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to those factors perceived as most and least important relative to Opportunities for Profes sional Growth. No single factor in this category ranked well above the others in terms of that which was considered Table 17 Factors Considered Most, and Least. Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: Oooor- tunities for Professional Growth Opportunities for Professional Growth Most Important Least Important Freq. Percent Freq. Percent A. Preschool orientation program for teachers 124 17.6 158 22 . 6 B. Planned inservice program 210 29.9 59 8.9 C. Active profes sional organi zation 49 7.0 166 23.7 D. College or extension classes offered nearby or in the dis trict 191 27.2 78 11.1 E. Opportunities for promotions to administrative or supervisory positions 129 18.3 239 34.1 Note: N = 709 "most important." Both planned inservice programs, the choice of 29.9 percent of the respondents, and college or extension classes offered nearby or in the district, the response of 27.2 percent, were closely grouped while 8.4 percent and 11.1 percent, respectively, perceived these 124: j factors to be least important. Opportunity for promotions; to administrative or supervisory positions was not impor tant to 18.3 percent of the respondents and least important to 34.1 percent, while preschool orientation programs for teachers was most important to 17.7 percent of the respon dents and least important to 22.6 percent. An active professional organization was most important to only 7.0 percent of the respondents and least important to 2 3.7 percent of those surveyed. Table 18 shows the frequency and percentage of responses in relation to those factors considered most and least important relative to District Level Support. Of the preservice teachers surveyed, 289 or 41.6 percent con sidered up-to-date textbooks most important, while only 6.5 percent considered this factor least important. Following closely was the availability of a curriculum laboratory or instructional materials/media center, with 31.4 percent indicating this factor was most important and only 10.0 percent indicating it was least important. Curricular consultants were most important to 13.8 percent and least important to 25.8 percent of the respondents. Up-to-date teachers • procedural handbook was most important to 7.2 percent and least important to 24.7 percent of those surveyed. Finally, professional libraries were most important to 6.0 percent and least important to 32.9 percent of those responding. Table 18 Factors Considered Most and Least Important by Preservice Teachers in the Selection of a School District: District Level Surroort District Level Support Most Freq. Important Percent Least Freq. Important Percent A. Up-to-date textbooks 289 41.6 44 6.5 B. Up-to-date teachers' procedural handbook 50 7.2 168 24.7 C. Consultants available in special curricu lar areas 96 13.8 176 25.8 D. Availability of professional library 42 6.0 224 32.9 E. Curriculum labora tory or instruc tional materials/ media center available 218 31.4 69 10.1 126 Perceptions and the Relationships of the Perceptions of Preservice Teachers of the Importance of Factors to be Considered When Selecting a School District in Which to Work The third question of the study concerned the perceptions and the relationships of the perceptions of preservice teachers relative to the importance of factors in the selection of a school district. Table 3 shows the demographic characteristics of the teachers who responded. The percentage of responses within each group was predictable based on the review of the literature in Chapter II. The fact that the majority of preservice teaching candidates were female, preparing for an elemen tary teaching credential and not bilingual, is consistent with what was reported by a number of authors (Darling- Hammond, 1988; Harris, 1989; Newman, 1989). Male Versus Female Table 19 shows the relationship of the perceptions of male and female preservice teachers for each of the 13 major categories included in the study. The mean score on a one to four point scale, with one being not important and four being most important, along with the standard devia tion, are listed for each category. Table 19 Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of 13 Major Categories bv Sex Category X Male SD Female X SD 1. District Size 1.98 .81 1.99 .73 2 . District Organization 2.28 . 65 2.28 . 68 3. Nature of the Community 2.31 .69 2.19 .78 4. Geographic Location of the District 2.86 .55 2.84 .57 5. Philosophy of the District 3 .18 .55 3.27 . 52 6. Salary 2.98 .62 3.06 .63 7. Fringe Benefits 2 .98 . 60 3 . 08 . 58 8. Recruitment Practices 2 .68 .62 2.89 .60 9. Pre-selection Interview 3.12 .53 3.23 .49 10. School Plants and Facilities 2 . 88 .54 2.92 .55 11. Composition of School Staff 2.43 .59 2 . 39 .58 12 . Opportunities for Professional Growth 2.75 .52 2.90 .^55 13. District Level Support 3.09 .54 3 . 25 .51 Note: X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 128 t values were calculated for each category for both groups and a two-tailed test of probability was conducted with significance being established at the .05 level. Using the .05 level of significance, only four of the 13 categories had significant differences in preference reported by males versus females. Table 2 0 lists those four categories with the mean score and standard deviation for each group. Table 20 Mean Scores of Significant Differences bv Sex Category X Male SD X Female SD Recruitment Practices 2.68 . 62 2 . 89 .60 Pre-selection Interview 3.12 .53 3.23 .49 Opportunities for Professional Growth 2.75 .52 2.90 .55 District Level Support 3.08 .54 3.25 .57 Note: X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation P< . 05 129 Using the information from Table 20, it appears that District Recruitment Practices, the Pre-selection Inter view, Opportunities for Professional Growth, and District Level Support were significantly more important to female preservice teachers than to male preservice teachers. Recruitment Practices, Opportunities for Professional Growth, and District Level Support were significant beyond the .05 level. Table 21 shows a ranking by mean scores of the 13 major categories by male and female preservice teachers. Philosophy of the District was ranked first by mean score for both males and females. The Pre-selection Interview was ranked second according to the mean score of males and third according to the mean score of females. The mean score of this category for females was, however, as previously mentioned, significantly higher than that of males. District Level Support ranked second by mean score for females. Fringe Benefits, Salary, and School Plants and Facilities were ranked fourth, fifth, and sixth, respectively, by both males and females. Differences between the rankings of the remaining categories were not of enough significance to warrant discussion, although it should be mentioned that District Size was ranked last by mean for both males and females. These findings were consistent with those of Rosecrans (1970) who examined the relationship of the 130 Table 21 Ranking bv Mean Scores of 13 Major Categories bv Male and Female Preservice Teachers Preservice Teachers Male Category Rank X SD Preservice Teachers Female Rank X SD Philosophy of the District 1 3.18 .55 1 3.27 .52 Pre-selection Interview 2 3 . 12 . 53 3 3.23 .49 District Level Support 3 3 . 09 .54 2 3 .25 .51 Fringe Benefits 4 2.98 .60 4 3 . 08 .58 Salary 5 2.98 . 62 5 3 . 06 .63 School Plants and Facilities 6 2 . 88 .57 6 2.92 .55 Geographic Location of the District 7 2.86 .54 9 2.84 .57 Opportunities for Professional Growth 8 2 . 75 . 52 7 2.90 .55 Recruitment Practices 9 2 . 68 . 62 8 2.89 . 60 Composition of School Staff 10 2.43 . 59 10 2 . 39 .58 Nature of the Community 11 2 . 31 . 69 12 2 .19 .78 District Organization 12 2 . 28 . 65 11 2 . 28 .68 District Size 13 1.98 .81 13 1.99 .73 Note: X = Mean P <.05 SD = Standard Deviation perceptions between male and female teachers in the first three years of teaching. Philosophy of the District was ranked first by male and female preservice teachers in Rosecran’s study, while District Size ranked last with both groups. The five factors comprising each of the 13 major categories were also examined for significant differences between the sampled groups. Chi-square was used to determine significance at the .05 level. Table 22 shows those factors for which significant differences between male and female respondents were found. From the data presented in Table 22, it is possible to determine the following regarding the relationship of the perceptions of male versus female preservice candidates on the factors where areas of significance were found: 1. There were significant differences in the importance of 15 out of 65 factors between males and females. 2. For females, there were 28.9 percent, and 13.6 percent of males, who indicated that working in an elemen tary district (K-6) was most important, while only 13.6 percent of the males indicated that it was most important and 47.7 percent indicated that working in an elementary district was not important. 3. Only 11.4 percent of females and 8.4 percent of males indicated that it was most important to work in an Table 22 Significant Differences Between Factors bv Sex Factor Sex Responses Not Somewhat Most Important Important Important Important ! 2A ! Preference for I Elementary ! (1^-6) District Male N Female N 63 47.7 47 26.0 24 18.2 92 16.6 27 20.5 154 27.8 18 13.6 160 28.9 2B Preference for Elementary (K-8)District 2C Preference for High School District (7-12) 2D Preference for High School District (9-12) Male N Female N % Male N % Female N Male N Female N % 58 44.3 146 26.5 48 36.4 271 50.0 39 29.1 269 49.7 32 24.4 143 26.0 29 22.0 109 20.1 24 17.9 93 17.2 30 22.9 199 36.1 37 28.0 105 19.4 43 32.1 104 19.2 11 8.4 63 11.4 18 13.6 57 10.5 28 20.9 75 13.9 132 Table 22-continued Factor 4A Importance of Climate 5B Evidence of District Provision for Individual Differences 5D Clearly Defined Educational Objectives 5E Clearly Defined Expectations of Teachers Sex Male N % Female N % Male N % Female N % Male N % Female N % Male N % Female N % Responses Not Somewhat Most Important Important Important Important 20 14.7 111 19.7 3 2.2 9 1.6 1 .7 19 3.4 5 3.7 22 3.9 32 46 38 23.5 33.8 27.9 160 204 89 28.4 36.2 15.8 23 63 47 16.9 46.3 34.6 44 267 242 7.8 47.5 43.1 33 63 39 24.3 46.3 28.7 73 262 209 13.0 46.5 37.1 31 54 46 22.8 39.7 33.8 70 272 199 12.4 48.3 35.3 133 Table 22-continued Factor Sex 6E Number of Years to Top Salary Male N % Female N 8B Interview Held at the College Male Female N 8C Opportunity to Visit the District Male Female 8E Follow-up Letter from Personnel Recruiter Male Female o \ ° 5 5 o \ o 5 5 o \ o 5 5 o \ o 5 5 o \ < > 5 5 o \ ° Responses Not Somewhat Most Important Important Important Important 15 10.9 _ 29 5.2 39 28.5 110 19.6 9 6.6 21 3.8 17 12.5 43 7.7 22 16.1 100 17.8 48 35.0 157 28.0 22 16.1 50 8.9 34 25.0 122 21.8 55 40.1 268 47.8 37 27.0 203 36.3 64 46.7 269 48.0 63 46.3 243 43.5 45 32.8 164 29.2 13 9.5 90 16.1 42 30.7 220 39.3 22 16.2 151 27.0 134 T a b le 2 2 -c o n tin u e d Factor Sex Not Important Responses Somewhat Important Important Most Important 10E Availability Male N 6 37 65 27 of Teachers' % 4 . 4 27.4 48.1 20.0 Workroom Female N 27 10 258 178 % 4 . 8 17 .9 45.7 31.6 12B Planned Male N 10 32 73 4 Inservice % 7.4 23.5 53.7 15. 4 Program Female N 22 79 283 183 % 3.9 13 .9 49.9 32 . 3 12C Active Male N 18 44 57 17 Professional % 13 .2 32 .4 41.9 12 .5 Organization Female N 25 179 263 97 % 4 . 4 31.7 46.6 17 . 2 12E Curriculum Male N 2 21 61 49 Lab or % 1.5 15.8 45.9 36.8 Instructional Female N 5 46 224 276 Material/Media % . 9 8 . 3 30.7 50.1 Center Available Note: p< . 0 5 136 elementary district (K-8), while 26.5 percent of the females and 44.3 percent of the males indicated that this was not important. 4. Fifty percent of females and 3 6.4 percent of males indicated that working in a high school district (7- 12) was not important, while only 10.5 percent of the females versus 13.6 percent of the males indicated that this was most important. 5. Of the females, 49.7 percent, and 29.1 percent of males, indicated that working in a high school district (9-12) was not important, while only 13.9 percent of females versus 20.9 percent of males indicated this was most important. 6. Climate was marked most important by 27.9 percent of the males but only by 13.9 percent of the females. Climate was marked not important by 14.7 percent of males and 19.7 percent of females. 7. Of females, 43.1 percent, but only 34.6 percent of males, rated district provision for individual differen ces as most important. 8. Of the females, 3 7.1 percent, but only 27 percent of the males, rated clearly defined educational objectives as most important. 9. Only 29.2 percent of the females indicated that the number of years to the top salary was most important, 137 while 32.8 percent of the males indicated that this was most important. 10. Of the females, 52.4 percent indicated that it was important or most important to have an interview held at the college, while only 3 6.5 percent of the males responded similarly. 11. Of the females, 3 9.3 percent versus 3 0.7 percent of the males indicated it was most important to have an opportunity to visit the district. 12. Of the females, 27.0 percent versus 16.2 percent of the males indicated that a follow-up letter from the personnel recruiter was most important. 13. Of the females, 31.6 percent versus 20 percent of the males indicated that the availability of a teachers* workroom was most important. 14. Twice as many females as males (32.3 percent versus 15.4 percent) indicated that a planned inservice program was most important, while almost twice as many males as females (7.4 percent versus 3.9 percent) indicated that a planned inservice program was not important. 15. Three times as many males as females (13.2 percent versus 4.4 percent) indicated that it was not important to have an active professional organization, while 17.2 percent of the females and 12.5 percent of the males indicated that this factor was most important. 138 i 16. Of the females, 50.1 percent, versus 3 6.8 I | percent of the males, indicated that having a curriculum 1 laboratory or instructional materials/media center avail able was most important. Elementary Versus Secondary Table 2 3 shows the relationship of the perceptions of elementary versus secondary preservice teachers for each of the 13 major categories included in the study. The mean score on a one to four point scale, with one being not important and four being most important, along with the standard deviation, are listed for each category. t values were calculated for each category for both groups and a two-tailed test of probability was conducted with significance established at the .05 level. Using the .05 level of significance, only four of the 13 categories had significant differences in preference reported by elementary versus secondary preservice teachers. Table 2 2 lists these four categories with the mean score and standard deviation for both groups. Using the information from Table 24 it is apparent that District Recruitment Practices, the Pre-selection Interview, Opportunities for Professional Growth, and District Level Support were significantly more important to elementary preservice teachers than to secondary preservice teachers. All four of these categories were significant beyond the .05 level. This parallels the 139 ' Table 23 I . . . i Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of 13 Manor Categories bv Credential Program Category Elementary X SD Secondary X SD 1. Philosophy of the District 1.99 .74 2.01 .77 2 . Pre-selection Interviews 2.26 . 68 2 . 32 . 65 3. District Level Support 2 . 20 .77 2.24 .75 4. Fringe Benefits 2 . 82 . 58 2.89 .55 5. Salary 3.28 .52 3.22 .55 6. School Plants and Facilities 3 . 05 .66 3 . 02 .55 7. Geographic Location of the District 3.07 .58 3.02 . 60 8. Opportunities for Professional Growth 2.91 .59 2.70 .62 9. Recruitment Practices 3.24 .48 3.12 . 52 10. Composition of School Staff 2.93 .54 2.88 .54 11. Nature of the Community 2.40 .59 2.39 .56 12. District Organization 2.92 .55 2.76 .54 13. District Size 3.27 .50 3.09 .54 Note: X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation P< .05 140 I ■ differences found between the groups of male and female teachers. Table 24 Mean Scores of Significant Differences bv Credential Program Elementary Secondary Category X SD X SD Recruitment 2.91 .59 2.70 .62 Pre-selection 3.24 .48 3.12 .52 Opportunity for Growth 2.92 .55 2.76 .54 District Level Support 3.27 .50 3.09 .54 Note: X = Mean P <.05 SD = Standard Deviation Table 25 shows a ranking by mean scores of the 13 major categories for elementary and secondary preservice teachers. Philosophy of the District was ranked first by mean score for both groups. District Level Support was ranked second according to the mean score of elementary preservice teachers and third according to the mean scores of secondary preservice teachers. The Pre-selection 141 Table 25 Ranking bv Mean of 13 Manor Categories bv Elementary and Secondary Preservice Teachers Preservice Teachers Preservice Teachers Elementary Secondary Category Rank X SD Rank X SD Philosophy of the District 1 3.28 .51 1 3.22 .55 District Level Support 2 3.27 .50 3 3.09 .54 Pre-selection Interview 3 3.24 .48 2 3.12 .52 Fringe Benefits 4 3.07 .58 4 3. 04 .60 Salary 5 3.05 . 66 5 3. 02 .60 School Plants and Facilities 6 2.93 .54 7 2.88 .55 Opportunities for Professional Growth 7 2.92 .55 8 2.76 .54 Recruitment Practices 8 2.91 .59 9 2.70 .62 Geographic Location of the District 9 2.82 .58 6 2.89 .55 Composition of School Staff 10 2.40 .59 10 2. 39 .56 District Organization 11 2.26 .68 11 2.01 .77 Nature of the Community 12 2.20 .77 12 2 .24 .75 District Size 13 1.99 .74 13 2.01 .77 Note: X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 142 Interview was ranked third according to the mean score of this category for elementary preservice teachers, while it was ranked second for secondary preservice teachers. Although the Pre-selection Interview ranked higher by mean for the secondary group, the actual mean score of this category was significantly higher for the elementary group as previously reported. Fringe Benefits and Salary ranked fourth and fifth, respectively, for both groups. It should also be noted that Geographic Location of the District was ranked ninth by mean scores of the elementary group and sixth by the mean score of the secondary group. District Size was ranked last by the mean of both groups. Table 2 6 shows those factors comprised in each of the 13 major categories for which significant differences between elementary and secondary preservice teachers were found. From the data presented in Table 26, it is possible to determine the following regarding the relationship of the perceptions of elementary versus secondary preservice candidates on factors where significant differences were found: 1. There were significant differences in the importance of 22 out of 65 factors between preservice teachers working on an elementary credential and preservice teachers working on a secondary credential. Table 26 Significant Differences Between Factors bv Credential Not Factor Cred. Important 2A Preference for Elementary (K-6) District 2B Preference for Elementary (K-8)District 2C Preference for High School District (7-12) 2D Preference for High School District (9-12) Elem Sec N > N 71 15.1 139 65.0 Elem Sec N % N 92 19.7 112 52.1 Elem Sec N % N 0- 271 59.4 48 22.1 Elem Sec N % N 272 59.5 36 16.6 Responses Somewhat Most Important Important Important 79 153 167 16.8 32.6 35.5 37 28 10 17.3 13.1 4.7 116 197 61 24.9 42.3 13.1 59 32 12 27.4 14.9 5.6 94 57 34 20.6 12.5 7.5 43 86 40 19.8 39.6 18.4 82 56 47 17.9 12.3 10.3 35 92 54 16.1 42.4 24.9 143 Table 26— continued Factor Cred. 2E Preference for Elem Unified District (K-12) Sec 3B Preference for Elem Middle Socio- Econ. Community Sec 7E Provision for Elem Maternity/ Paternity Leave Sec 8A Printed Elem District Brochure Sec o \ o 2 o \ o 2 o \ ° 2 o \ o 2 , o \ « 3 o \ ° 2 o \ o 2 < < * P SJ Responses Not Somewhat Most Important Important Important Important 110 23.6 27 12.4 102 21.7 37 16.7 76 15.9 47 21.1 83 17.5 62 27.8 105 27.5 35 16.1 121 23.8 48 21.6 40 8.4 31 13.9 172 36.2 91 40.8 124 26.6 76 35.0 177 37.7 84 38.3 136 28.4 59 26.5 170 35.8 53 23.8 127 27.3 79 36.4 69 14.7 52 23.4 227 47.4 86 38.6 50 10.5 17 7.6 144 Table 26— continued Factor Cred. 8C Opportunity to Elem Visit District Sec 8E Follow-up Elem Letter From Personnel Sec Recruiter 9A Friendliness Elem of District Staff Sec 9B Interest Shown Elem Interviewing by Administrator Sec 9C Opportunity to Elem Talk with Building Sec Principal o \ o 2 5 o \ o 2 5 o \ o 2 5 o \ o 2 5 o \ ° 5 3 o \ < > 2 5 o \ < > g o \ < > 2 5 o \ < > 3 3 Responses Not Somewhat Most Important Important Important Important 12 2.5 18 8.1 30 6.3 30 13.6 8 1.7 15 6.7 3 .6 9 4.0 7 1.5 5 2.3 45 9.5 27 12.2 100 21.1 56 25.3 57 12.0 31 13.9 50 10.5 25 11.2 39 8.2 39 17.7 230 48.5 103 46.4 217 45.9 90 40.7 257 54.0 115 51.6 249 52.3 101 45.3 228 48.1 96 43.6 187 39.5 74 33.3 126 26.6 45 20.4 154 32.4 62 27.8 174 36.6 88 39.5 200 42.2 80 36.4 145 Table 26— continued Factor Cred. 9E Availability of Elem Grade Level of Choice Sec i 10E ! Availability of Elem 1 Teacher Workroom Sec 1 11C Balance of Men Elem and Women on Staff Sec i I HE Personality of Elem Principal Sec Responses Not Somewhat Most Important Important Important Important 17 3.6 15 6.8 17 3.6 15 6.7 150 31.4 49 21.9 9 1.9 14 6.3 79 204 176 16.6 42.9 37.0 49 94 64 22.1 42.3 28.8 78 232 148 16.4 48.8 31.2 59 91 58 26.5 40.8 26.0 156 121 50 32.7 25.4 10.5 64 79 32 28.6 35.3 14.3 47 193 228 9.9 40.5 47.8 39 98 73 17.4 43.8 32.6 146 Table 26— continued Factor Cred • Not Important Responses Somewhat Important Important Most Important 12A Pre-school Elem N 43 119 194 118 Orientation % 9.1 25.1 40.9 24.9 Meeting Sec N 32 56 97 36 % 14.5 25.3 43.9 16.3 12B Planned Elem N 14 56 244 165 Instructional % 2.9 11.7 50.9 34.4 Program Sec N 18 54 112 39 % 8.1 24.2 50.2 17.5 13C Consultants Elem N 7 68 241 160 Availability % 1.5 14.3 50.6 33.6 Sec N 10 54 111 49 % 4.5 24.1 49.6 21.9 13D Availability of Elem N 9 74 240 150 Professional % 1.9 15.6 50.7 31.7 Library Sec N 10 47 111 55 % 4.5 21.1 49.8 24.7 13E Availability of Elem N 5 29 184 245 Curriculum Lab % 1.1 6.3 39.7 52.9 Sec. N 2 38 v 100 80 % .9 17.3 45.5 36.4 , Note: p < . 05 I 148 2. The first four factors where a significant difference was reported dealt with preferences for working in elementary versus high school districts and thus were predictable and somewhat forced due to the nature of the groups. 3. Almost twice as many elementary versus secondary preservice teachers (23.6 percent and 12.4 percent, respectively) indicated that working in a unified district was not important, while 36.4 percent of secondary versus 27.3 percent of elementary candidates indicated working in a unified district was most important. 4. Of secondary preservice teachers, 23.4 percent versus 14.7 percent of elementary preservice teachers indicated that it was most important to work in a middle socioeconomic level community. 5. Of elementary candidates, 75.8 percent versus 65.1 percent of secondary candidates indicated that provision for maternity/paternity leaves was either important or most important. 6. Of elementary candidates, 35.8 percent versus 23.8 percent of secondary candidates indicated that a printed district brochure was important, while 27.8 percent of the secondary candidates versus 17.5 percent of the elementary candidates indicated that this factor was not important. 149 7. Of elementary, 88.0 percent, and 79.0 percent of secondary candidates, indicated that having an oppor tunity to visit the district was important or most impor tant . 8. Of elementary, 2 6.6 percent versus 2 0.4 percent of secondary candidates indicated that a follow-up letter from the personnel administrator was most important, while twice as many secondary versus elementary candidates (13.6 and 6.3, respectively) indicated that this factor was not important. 9. Of elementary, 86.4 percent versus 79.4 percent of secondary candidates indicated that friendliness of the school staff was important or most important? however, 6.7 percent of secondary candidates versus 1.7 percent of elementary candidates indicated that this factor was not important. 10. Of elementary, 88.9 percent, and 84.8 percent of secondary candidates, rated the interest shown by the interviewing administrator as important or most important, while only 0.6 percent of elementary and 4.0 percent of secondary candidates indicated this factor was not impor tant. 11. Of elementary, 90.3 percent candidates indi cated that having an opportunity to talk with the building principal was important or most important, while only 80 percent of secondary candidates responded similarly. 12. Of elementary candidates, 80.0 percent versus only 66.8 percent of secondary candidates indicated that the availability of a teachers' workroom was important or most important. 13. Only 35.9 percent of elementary candidates indicated that having a balance of men and women on the staff was important or most important, while 39.6 percent of secondary candidates responded in this manner. Conver sely 31.4 percent of elementary candidates indicated this factor was not important, while only 21.9 percent of secondary candidates indicated that this factor was not important. 14. Of the elementary candidates, 47.8 percent indicated that the personality of the principal was most important, while only 32.6 percent of the secondary candidates indicated that this factor was most important. 15. Of the elementary candidates, 24.9 percent indicated that a preschool orientation was most important, while only 16.3 percent of the secondary candidates indicated that this factor was most important. 16. of elementary candidates, 85.3 percent versus 67.6 percent of the secondary candidates indicated that a planned inservice program was important or most important. 17. Of elementary candidates, 31.7 percent versus only 24.7 percent of secondary candidates rated the availability of a professional library as most important. 151 18. Of the elementary candidates, 52.9 percent indicated that having a curriculum lab or instructional materials/media center available was most important, while only 3 6.4 percent of the secondary candidates marked this factor as most important. Bilingual Versus Non-Bilingual Table 27 shows the relationship of the perceptions of bilingual versus non-bilingual preservice teachers for each of the 13 major categories included in the study. The mean score and standard deviation are noted for each category and for both groups. t values were calculated for each category for both groups and a two-tailed test of probability was conducted with significance established at the .05 level. Using the .05 level of significance, no significant differences were found between means of preferences of bilingual versus non bilingual preservice teachers for any of the 13 categories. Table 28 lists a ranking by mean scores of the 13 major categories by bilingual and non-bilingual preservice teachers. Philosophy of the District, District Level Support, Pre-selection Interview, Salary, and Fringe Benefits ranked first through fifth, respectively, for both groups, with no noteworthy differences in ranking appearing for the remaining categories. While no significant differences were found between bilingual versus non bilingual preservice teachers in terms of the 13 major 152 Table 27 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of 13 Major Categories bv Language Bilingual Non-Bilingual Category X SD X SD 1. District Size 1.97 .70 1.99 .76 2. District Organization 2.26 .64 2.28 . 67 3. Nature of the Community 2.21 . 80 2.21 .75 4. Geographic Location of the District 2.84 . 58 2.85 . 57 5. Philosophy of the District 3.27 .54 3.25 .53 6. Salary 3.08 . 60 3 . 03 . 64 7. Fringe Benefits 3.07 .62 3 . 06 . 58 8. Recruitment Practices 2.86 .58 2.84 .61 9. Pre-selection Interview 3.16 .50 3 . 20 .50 10. School Plants and Facilities 2.94 .56 2.90 .55 11. Composition of School Staff 2.47 .56 2.39 .59 12. Opportunities for Professional Growth 2.94 .48 2.86 .56 13. District Level Support 3.21 .53 3.21 .51 Note: X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 153 Table 28 Ranking bv Mean Score of 13 Maior Categories bv Bilingual and Non-Bilingual Preservice Teachers Preservice Teachers Preservice Teachers Category Bilingual Rank X SD Non- Rank Bilingual X SD Philosophy of the District 1 3.27 .54 1 3 . 25 . 53 District Level Support 2 3.21 .53 2 3.21 .51 Pre-selection Interview 3 3.16 .51 3 3.20 .50 Salary 4 3.08 .59 4 3.06 .58 Fringe Benefits 5 3.07 . 62 5 3.03 .64 Opportunities for Professional Growth 6 2.95 .47 7 2.85 .56 School Plants and Facilities 7 2.94 .56 6 2.90 .55 Recruitment Practices 8 2.86 .58 9 2.84 .57 Geographic Location of the District 9 2.83 .58 8 2.85 .57 Composition of School Staff 10 2.47 . 56 10 2.39 .59 District Organization 11 2.26 . 64 11 2.28 .69 Nature of the Community 12 2.22 .80 12 2.21 .75 District Size 13 1.97 .70 13 1.99 .76 Note: X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation r 1 154 ! i categories, Table 29 lists those factors within the 13 major categories where significant differences were . reported. From the data presented in Table 29 it is possible to determine the following regarding the relationship of the perceptions of bilingual and non-bilingual preservice candidates on factors where areas of significance were found: 1. There were significant differences in only three out of 65 factors between bilingual and non-bilingual candidates. 2. Of bilingual preservice teachers, 21.5 percent indicated that working in a high minority community was most important, while only 13.6 percent of the non-bilin- gual teachers indicated this factor was most important. Conversely, however, 33.3 percent of bilingual preservice teachers indicated that it was not important to work in a high minority community, while only 3 0.7 percent of the non-bilingual preservice teachers indicated this factor was not important. 3. Of the bilingual preservice teachers, 51.1 percent versus only 38.7 of non-bilingual indicated that having a balance of men and women on the staff was impor tant or most important. Conversely, 29.7 percent of non bilingual preservice teachers versus only 19.1 bilingual Table 29 Significant Differences Between Factors bv Language Factor Language Not Important Responses Somewhat Important Important Most Important 3E High Minority Bil N 31 15 27 20 Community % 33.3 16.1 29.0 21.5 N-Bil N 180 170 157 80 % 30.7 29.0 26.7 13.6 11C Balance of Bil N 18 28 37 11 Men and Women % 19.1 29.8 39.4 11.7 N-Bil N 178 189 160 72 % 29.7 31.6 26.7 12.0 12C Active Bil N 8 19 53 14 Professional % 8.3 20.2 56.4 14.9 Organization N-Bil N 34 203 260 100 % 5.7 34.0 43.6 16.8 Note: p < .05 155 156 preservice teachers indicated that this factor was not important. 4. Of bilingual preservice teachers, 71.3 percent versus only 60.4 percent of the non-bilingual preservice teachers indicated that an active professional organization was important or most important. Married Versus Unmarried Table 3 0 shows the relationship of the perceptions of married versus unmarried preservice teachers for each of the 13 major categories included in the study. The mean score and standard deviation are listed for each category and four both groups. t values were calculated for each category for both groups and a two-tailed test of probability was conducted with significance established at the .05 level. Using this level of significance, significant differences were found between the preferences of married and unmarried preservice teachers in four of the 13 major categories included in the study. Table 31 lists the four categories in which sig nificant differences were found with the mean score and standard deviation given for both the married and un married. 157 Table 3 0 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of 13 Major Categories bv Marital Status Married Unmarried Category X SD X SD 1 . District Size 1.96 .79 2 .02 .72 2. District Organ i z at i on 2.28 . 69 2.29 . 66 3 . Nature of the Community 2.19 .78 2.24 .75 4 . Geographic Location of the District 2.83 .55 2.85 .58 5. Philosophy of the District 3.23 .58 3 . 27 .49 6 . Salary 3.01 .66 3.05 .61 7. Fringe Benefits 2.95 . 63 3 .14 . 54 8. Recruitment Practices 2.79 . 62 2 .89 .59 9. Pre-selection Interview 3.16 .53 3.24 .48 10. School Plants and Facilities 2.86 .57 2.94 .53 11. Composition of School Staff 2.32 .55 2 .45 .60 12. Opportunities for Professional Growth 2.81 . 52 2.90 .56 13 . District Level Support 3. 18 .53 3.23 .52 Note; X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 158 Using the information from Table 31, it appears that Fringe Benefits were more important in the selection of a school district for unmarried candidates than married ones with significance established at the .01 level. This may be explained by the fact that married candidates are often covered by the benefits of the spouse, while unmarried candidates have no such advantage. Recruitment Practices, Composition of School Staff, and Opportunities for Profes sional Growth were also more important to unmarried candidates than to married candidates. Table 31 Mean Scores of Significant Differences bv Marital Status Married Unmarried Category X SD X SD 1. Fringe Benefits 2.95 .63 3 .14 .54 2. Recruitment Practices 2.79 .62 2.89 .59 3. Composition of School Staff 2.32 .55 2 .45 . 60 4. Opportunity for Professional Growth 2.81 .52 2.90 .56 Note: X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation p <. 05 159 Table 3 2 shows a ranking my mean scores of the 13 major categories by married and unmarried preservice teachers. Philosophy of the District was ranked first according to the means of both groups. District Level Support ranked second by the mean score of married and third by the mean score of unmarried preservice teachers. Table 32 Ranking bv Mean Score of 13 Manor Categories bv Married and Unmarried Preservice Teachers Preservice Teachers Preservice Teachers Married Unmarried Category Rank X SD Rank X SD Philosophy of the District 1 3 .23 .58 1 3.27 .49 District Level Support 2 3.18 .53 3 3.23 . 52 Pre-selection Interview 3 3.16 .53 2 3.24 .48 Salary 4 3 . 02 . 66 5 3.05 . 61 Fringe Benefits 5 2.94 . 63 4 3.13 .54 School Plants and Facilities 6 2.86 .57 6 2.94 .53 Geographic Location of the District 7 2.83 .55 9 2.85 .58 Opportunities for Professional Growth 8 2.81 .51 7 2.90 .56 160 Table 32— continued Preservice Teachers Preservice Teachers Married Unmarried Category Rank X SD Rank X SD Recruitment Practices 9 2.79 .62 8 2.89 .59 Composition of School Staff 10 2.32 .55 10 2.45 .59 District Organization 11 2.28 . 69 11 2.29 . 66 Nature of the Community 12 2 .19 .78 12 2.24 .75 District Size 13 1.99 .79 13 2.02 .72 Note: X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation Pre-selection Interview ranked third by mean score of married and second for unmarried groups. Salary ranked fourth by mean score for married preservice teachers and Fringe Benefits ranked fifth. This ranking was reversed for unmarried teachers for whom mean scores placed Salary fifth and Fringe Benefits fourth. School Plants and Facilities ranked sixth for both groups. Geographic Location of the District ranked seventh by mean score of married teachers and ninth by mean score of unmarried teachers. District Size ranked 13 with both groups as it did with all other groups reported. Table 3 3 lists those factors within the 13 major categories for which significant differences betweenj married and unmarried groups were found. I From the data presented in Table 3 3 it is possible to determine the following regarding the relationship of the perceptions of married versus unmarried preservice; candidates for those factors where areas of significance were found: 1. There were significant differences in the! i importance of 10 out of 65 factors between married and unmarried preservice teachers. I 2. Only 46.3 percent of married preservice teachers versus 56.3 percent of unmarried preservice teachers! 1 indicated that working in an elementary district (K-6) was important or most important. 3. Of married preservice teachers, 42.1 percent versus only 28.3 percent of unmarried teachers indicated that it was most important to work in the hometown or area of residence. 4. Of married preservice teachers, 61.1 percent indicated that comprehensive paid medical insurance was most important, while 70.6 percent of unmarried preservice teachers indicated that this factor was most important. Conversely, only 1.4 percent of unmarried versus 5 percent of married respondents indicated comprehensive paid medical insurance was not important. Table 33 Significant Differences Between Factors bv Marital Status Responses Marital Not Somewhat Most Factor Status Important Important Important Important 2A Elementary District (K-6) Program Marr Unmar N % N % 87 32.2 121 29.6 58 21.5 58 14.2 69 25.6 109 26.7 56 20.7 121 29.6 4E Hometown or Area of Residence Marr Unmar N % N % 32 11.5 70 16.9 42 15.1 91 22.0 87 31.3 136 32.9 117 42.1 117 28.3 7A Comprehens ive Paid Medical Insurance Marr Unmar N % N % 14 5.0 6 1.4 33 11.8 19 4.5 62 22.1 98 23.4 171 61.1 295 70.6 70 Dental Insurance Marr Unmar N % N 12 4.3 6 1.4 42 15.0 35 8.4 99 35.4 162 38.8 127 45.4 214 51.3 Table 33— continued Marital Factor Status 7E Number of Years to Top Salary Marr Unmar N 8E Follow-up Letter from Personnel Recruiter 9A Friendliness of District Staff Marr Unmar Marr Unmar 11C Balance of Men and Women on the Staff Marr Unmar o \ ° t s ; © \ o t Z j o \ o ^ o \ ° ^ o \ o t Z j o \ o ^ o \ < > 2J o\© Not Important 76 27.2 47 11.3 33 12.0 25 6.0 12 4.3 11 2.6 96 34.4 99 23.8 Responses Somewhat Most Important Important Important 34 56 113 12.2 20.1 40.5 36 136 198 8.6 32.6 47.5 64 124 53 23.4 45.3 19.3 91 180 118 22.0 43.5 28.5 45 148 71 16.3 53.6 25.7 40 223 143 9.6 53.5 34.3 89 71 23 31.9 25.4 8.2 132 126 59 31.7 30.3 14.2 163 Table 33— continued Factor Marital Status Not Important Responses Somewhat Important Important Most Important 12A Preschool Marr N 33 75 124 44 Orientation % 12.0 27.2 44.9 15.9 Program for Unmarr N 42 99 165 107 Teachers % 10.2 24.0 40.0 25.9 12D College or Marr N 12 44 145 77 Extension % 4.3 15.8 52.2 27.7 Classes Offered Unmar N 8 78 179 152 Nearby or in % 1.9 18.7 42.9 36.5 District Note: o < .05 165 5. Of married preservice teachers, 45.4 percent1 indicated that dental insurance was most important, while 51.3 percent of unmarried preservice teachers marked this factor as most important. 6. Only 60.6 percent of married respondents versus 80.1 percent of unmarried respondents indicated that the number of years to top salary was important or most important. 7. A follow-up letter from the personnel recruiter was most important for 19.3 percent of married respondents, while 28.5 percent of unmarried respondents indicated this factor was not important. 8. Fewer married respondents (25.7 percent) than unmarried respondents (34.3 percent) indicated that the friendliness of the district staff was most important. 9. Of unmarried preservice teachers, 44.5 percent versus only 3 3.6 percent of those who were married indi cated that a balance of men and women on the staff was most important. 10. Of unmarried preservice teachers, 2 5.9 percent versus only 15.9 percent of married respondents indicated that a preservice orientation program was most important. 11. Of unmarried preservice teachers, 3 6.5 percent versus 27.7 percent of married preservice teachers indi cated that college or extension classes offered nearby or in the district was most important. 166 Similarities and Differences Among the Perceptions of Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories Considered in the Selection of a School District The fourth research question examined the similari ties and differences among the perceptions of preservice teachers of the importance of 13 major categories to be considered when selecting a school district in which to work. Perceptions of preservice teachers were compared as follows: 1. male elementary/male secondary female elementary/female secondary male elementary/female elementary male secondary/female secondary 2. male bilingual/male non-bilingual female bilingual/female non-bilingual male bilingual/female bilingual male non-bilingual/female non-bilingual 3. male married/male unmarried female married/female unmarried male married/female married male unmarried/female unmarried 4. elementary bilingual/elementary non-bilingual secondary bilingual/secondary non-bilingual elementary bilingual/secondary bilingual 167 ' elementary non-bilingual/secondary non bilingual 5. bilingual married/bilingual unmarried non-bilingual married/non-bilingual unmarried bilingual married/non-bilingual married bilingual unmarried/non-bilingual unmarried 6. elementary married/elementary unmarried secondary married/secondary unmarried elementary married/secondary married elementary unmarried/secondary unmarried. In order to answer this question the perceptions reported by preservice teachers were compared. Each preservice teacher was asked to mark the appropriate descriptive category as to sex, marital status, credential program, and language ability. Total means were computed for responses to each category and analyzed using a two- way Analysis of Variance and F ratios in order to ascertain the level of significance of interaction between groups. Significance was established at the .05 level. Comparison of Perceptions of Preservice Teachers by Sex and Program as to the Importance of the 13 Major Categories Tables 34 through 37 display frequencies, means, and standard deviations for the following types of preser vice teachers: male elementary, male secondary, female elementary, and female secondary. An Analysis of Variance 168 (ANOVA) using F probability was conducted to determine if significant differences existed between the groups by sex and program. No significant differences were found in the Table 34 Perceptions of Male Elementary Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Mai or Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 47 1.91 .76 District Organization 45 2.19 .66 Nature of the Community 45 2.22 .84 Geographic Location of the District 46 2.75 .57 Philosophy of the District 46 3.17 .49 Salary 47 2.97 . 68 Fringe Benefits 46 3.06 . 63 Recruitment Practices 46 2.88 .54 Pre-selection Interview 46 3.19 .45 School Plants and Facilities 45 2.95 . 56 Composition of School Staff 46 2.46 .65 Opportunities for Professional Growth 45 2.84 . 53 District Level Support 42 3 .14 .53 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 169 perceptions of the groups male elementary, male secondary,. female elementary, and female secondary in relation to any of the 13 major categories. Table 35 Perceptions of Male Secondary Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Catecrories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 86 2.03 .84 District Organization 85 2.33 • 64 Nature of the Community 89 2.36 .60 Geographic Location of the District 88 2.95 .55 Philosophy of the District 90 3 .18 .58 Salary 88 2.98 .58 Fringe Benefits 90 2.94 .58 Recruitment Practices 90 2.57 . 63 Pre-selection Interview 89 3.08 .56 School Plants and Facilities 90 2.81 .52 Composition of School Staff 90 2.42 .56 Opportunities for Professional Growth 90 2.71 .51 District Level Support 89 3.05 .55 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 17 0 Table 3 6 Perceptions of Female Elementary Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 manor Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 406 2 . 00 .74 District Organization 407 2 . 27 . 68 Nature of the Community 413 2.20 .76 Geographic Location of the District 420 2.83 .58 Philosophy of the District 428 3.27 .52 Salary 425 3 . 06 . 66 Fringe Benefits 431 3 . 07 .58 Recruitment Practices 425 2.92 .59 Pre-selection Interview 426 3.25 .49 School Plants and Facilities 429 2.91 .54 Composition of School Staff 424 2.39 .59 Opportunities for Professional Growth 428 2.93 .55 District Level Support 414 3.28 .50 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 171 Table 37 Perceptions of Female Secondary Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 128 2.00 . 72 District Organization 126 2.31 . 66 Nature of the Community 131 2. 18 .83 Geographic Location of the District 129 2.86 .54 Philosophy of the District 131 3.25 .53 Salary 132 3.05 .53 Fringe Benefits 132 3.10 . 60 Recruitment Practices 130 2.78 . 60 Pre-selection Interview 129 3.16 .48 School Plants and Facilities 132 2.92 .55 Composition of School Staff 133 2.37 .56 Opportunities for Professional Growth 129 2.79 .56 District Level Support 129 3.12 .53 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 172 Comparison of Perceptions of Preservice Teachers bv Sex and Language as to the Importance of the 13 Major Categories Tables 38 through 41 display frequencies, means, and standard deviations for the following types of preser vice teachers: male bilingual, male non-bilingual, female bilingual, and female non-bilingual in relation to their perceptions of the importance of the 13 major categories involved in teacher selection of a school district. No significant differences were found in the perceptions of preservice teachers by sex and language as to the importance of the factors in 12 of the 13 categor ies. A two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant difference at the .05 level in the perception of preservice teachers by sex and language with regard to the importance of the category, School Plants and Facili ties . The following criteria were ranked not important, somewhat important, important, or most important by each of the groups for this category: modern school buildings, air-conditioned classrooms, availability of supplies and audio-visual equipment, availability of computers and recent technological equipment, and availability of teachers' workroom. Male bilingual teachers perceived School Plants and Facilities as more important than did male non-bilingual preservice teachers (X = 2.81). The mean scores for female, bilingual and non-bilingual preservice teachers were closely grouped, X = 2.90 and X = 2.92, respectively. Figure 5 exhibits in graphic form the relationship of the perceptions of the groups by sex and language. Table 3 8 Perceptions of Male Bilincrual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Mai or Catecrories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District f Category N X SD District Size 21 1.94 .71 District Organization 21 2.13 . 63 Nature of the Community 22 2.32 .78 Geographic Location of the District 21 2 .90 .54 Philosophy of the District 22 3.25 .54 Salary 22 3 .15 .58 Fringe Benefits 22 3.12 .55 Recruitment Practices 22 2.79 .59 Pre-selection Interview 22 3.01 .71 School Plants and Facilities 21 3 .10 .55 Composition of School Staff 22 2.45 . 66 Opportunities for Professional Growth 21 2.95 .42 District Level Support 20 3.12 .50 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation Table 39 Percent ions of Male Non-Bilincrual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Mai or Catecrories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 110 2.00 .84 District Organization 107 2.29 .64 Nature of the Community 110 2.29 . 66 Geographic Location of the District 111 2.88 .58 Philosophy of the District 112 3.15 .55 Salary 111 2.94 .62 Fringe Benefits 112 2.95 .60 Recruitment Practices 112 2.66 .62 Pre-selection Interview 112 3.13 .48 School Plants and Facilities 113 2.81 .53 Composition of School Staff 113 2.43 .58 Opportunities for Professional Growth 113 2.72 .52 District Level Support 109 3 .07 .55 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation - I 175 Table 40 Perceptions of Female Bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 69 1.98 .70 District Organization 67 2 . 30 .64 Nature of the Community 71 2.19 .82 Geographic Location of the District 70 2.82 . 60 Philosophy of the District 70 3.27 .54 Salary 71 3.06 . 60 Fringe Benefits 72 3.05 .65 Recruitment Practices 69 2.88 .58 Pre-selection Interview 71 3.21 .43 School Plants and Facilities 71 2.90 . 56 Composition of School Staff 72 2.45 .54 Opportunities for Professional Growth 72 2.94 .50 District Level Support 71 3.24 .54 Note; N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation Table 41 Perceptions of Female Non-Bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Mai or Cateaories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 459 1.99 .74 District Organization 459 2.27 . 68 Nature of the Community 467 2.20 .77 Geographic Location of the District 480 2.85 . 56 Philosophy of the District 482 3.27 . 52 Salary 479 3 . 06 .64 Fringe Benefits 484 3 . 09 .58 Recruitment Practices 480 2.89 . 60 Pre-selection Interview 477 3.23 .50 School Plants and Facilities 483 2.92 .55 Composition of School Staff 478 2 . 38 .59 Opportunities for Professional Growth 478 2.89 .56 District Level Support 466 3.25 .51 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 177 SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE VARIABLES SEX/LANGUAGE - SCHOOL PLANTS AND FACILITIES 4 3 • Males 2 1 1 I I 1 Bilingual Non-Bilingual Bilingual Non-Bilingual Males x = 3.10 x = 2.81 SD = .5463 SD = .5284 N = 21 N = 113 Females x = 2.90 x = 2.92 SD = .553 SD .5477 N = 71 N = 483 — (F = 3.819; df = 1,654; p<.05 Figure 5. Significant difference in the variables sex/language - School plants and facilities 178' Comparison of Perceptions of Preservice ( Teachers by Sex and Marital Status as to ■ •the Importance of the 13 Manor Categories Tables 42 through 45 display frequencies, means, and standard deviations for the following types of preser vice teachers: male married, male unmarried, female married, and female unmarried as to the importance of the 13 major categories involved in preservice teacher selec tion of the school district in which to work. No significant differences were found in the perceptions of preservice teachers by sex and marital status as to importance in 10 of the 13 categories. A two- way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) found significant dif ferences in the perceptions of preservice teachers for the following three categories: District Organization, Fringe Benefits, and District Level Support. The category, District Organization, elicited information regarding preference for these factors: elementary district K-6, elementary district K-8, high school district 7-12, high school district 9-12, and unified district K-12. Male married preservice teachers (X = 2.11) considered this category less important than did male unmarried preservice teachers (X = 2.39). Female married preservice teachers (X = 2.33) perceived district organization more important than did female unmarried preservice teachers (X = 2.26). 179 Table 42 Perceptions of Male Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Mai or Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 57 2 . 00 . 88 District Organization 54 2.10 . 54 Nature of the Community 57 2.21 .76 Geographic Location of the District 57 2.82 . 57 Philosophy of the District 58 3.20 . 51 Salary 57 2.99 .62 Fringe Benefits 57 2.98 . 62 Recruitment Practices 57 2.61 .59 Pre-selection Interview 56 3.08 .50 School Plants and Facilities 57 2.80 .55 Composition of School Staff 57 2.29 .54 Opportunities for Professional Growth 57 2.68 .48 District Level Support 55 3.20 .52 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 180 Table 43 Perceptions of Male Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Mai or Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 74 1.97 .77 District Organization 74 2.39 . 69 Nature of the Community 76 2.38 .63 Geographic Location of the District 75 2.92 .55 Philosophy of the District 76 3 .16 .59 Salary 76 2.96 .62 Fringe Benefits 77 2.97 .59 Recruitment Practices 77 2.71 .64 Pre-selection Interview 77 3 . 14 .55 School Plants and Facilities 76 2.89 .53 Composition of School Staff 77 2.52 . 61 Opportunities for Professional Growth 76 2.78 .53 District Level Support 74 2.98 . 55 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 181 Table 44 Perceptions of Female Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Maior Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 211 1.95 .77 District Organization 204 2.33 .72 Nature of the Community 210 2.18 .78 Geographic Location of the District 218 2 .83 .55 Philosophy of the District 219 3.23 .59 Salary 218 3.03 .67 Fringe Benefits 221 2 .94 .63 Recruitment Practices 217 2.83 .62 Pre-selection Interview 216 3 .18 .53 School Plants and Facilities 220 2 . 88 .58 Composition of School Staff 219 2.33 .56 Opportunities for Professional Growth 218 2.85 .52 District Level Support 210 3.18 .53 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 182 Table 45 Perceptions of Female Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Mai or Catecrories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 319 2.03 .71 District Organization 326 2.26 .65 Nature of the Community 320 2.21 .77 Geographic Location of the District 335 2.84 .58 Philosophy of the District 336 3.29 .47 Salary 335 3.07 .61 Fringe Benefits 338 3.18 .52 Recruitment Practices 334 2.93 .57 Pre-selection Interview 335 3.26 .45 School Plants and Facilities 337 2.94 .52 Composition of School Staff 334 2.44 .59 Opportunities for Professional Growth 335 2.93 .57 District Level Support 330 3.29 .49 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 183 Figure 6 exhibits in graphic form the relationship of the perceptions of preservice teachers by sex and marital status to the importance of the category, District Organization. These perceptions were found significantly different at the .005 level. Significant differences were also identified by sex and marital status in the perceptions of preservice teachers in the category, Fringe Benefits. This category included the following factors: comprehensive paid medical insurance, wellness/fitness program, dental insurance, provisions for sabbatical leave, and provisions for maternity/paternity leave. While the mean scores of male married (X = 2.98, male unmarried (X = 2.97) and female married (X = 2.94) preservice teachers were closely grouped, those of female unmarried (X = 3.18) preservice teachers differed. Male married, male unmarried, and female married preservice teachers perceived Fringe Benefits less important than did female unmarried preservice teachers. Figure 7 presents in graphic form the relationship of the perceptions of preservice teachers by sex and marital status regarding the importance of Fringe Benefits. These differences were found significant at the .015 level. Finally, in the category, District Level Support, significant differences were found in the perception of preservice teachers by sex and marital status. Included 184 SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE VARIABLES SEX/MARITAL STATUS - DISTRICT ORGANIZATION 4 3 Males Females 2 1 Married Unmarried Married Unmarried Males x = 2.11 SD = .5449 N = 54 x = 2.39 SD = .6928 N = 74 Females x = 2.33 SD = .7175 N = 204 x = 2.26 SD .6468 N = 326 (F = 7.853; df = 1,604; p<.05) Figure 6, Significant difference in the variables sex/marital status - District organization 185 SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE VARIABLES BY SEX/MARITAL STATUS - FRINGE BENEFITS 4 Females 3 • Males 2 1 1 1 1 Married 1 Unmarried Married Unmarried Males x = 2.98 x = 2.97 SD = .6214 SD = .5880 N = 57 N = 77 Females x = 2.94 x = 3.18 SD = .6338 SD .5241 N = 221 N = 338 (F = 5.900; df = 1,655; p<.05) Figure 7. Significant difference in the variables by sex/marital status - Fringe benefits 186 in the category were the following factors: up-to-date textbooks, up-to-date teachers1 procedural handbook, consultants available in special curricula areas, avail ability of professional library, and curriculum laboratory of instructional materials/media center available. Male married preservice teachers (X = 3.2 0) perceived District Level Support more important than did male unmarried preservice teachers (X = 2.98). Female married preservice teachers (X = 3.18) perceived district support less important than did female unmarried preservice teachers (X = 3.29). The means for the two groups of married respondents were much more closely aligned than those of the unmarried preservice teachers. Significant differences were found in the responses by sex and marital status at the .002 level. Figure 8 displays in graphic form the interaction of the responses of the groups of preservice teachers by sex and marital status with regard to District Level Support. Means, standard deviations, number of respondents as well as statistical, computational information are displayed. 187 SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE VARIABLES BY SEX/MARITAL STATUS - DISTRICT LEVEL SUPPORT 4 3 ____— Females Males 2 1 1 1 1 Married 1 Unmarried Married Unmarried Males x = 3.20 SD = .5200 N = 55 x = 2.98 SD = .54 65 N = 74 Females x = 3.18 SD = .5349 N = 210 x = 3.29 SD .4948 N = 330 (F = 9.751; df = 1,650; p<.05) Table 8• Significant sex/marital difference in the variables by status - District level support 188 Comparison of Perceptions of Preservice Teachers bv Procrram and Language as to the Importance of the 13 Major Categories Tables 46 through 49 display frequencies, means, and standard deviations for the following types of preser vice teachers: elementary bilingual, elementary non bilingual, secondary bilingual, and secondary non-bilingual as to the importance of the 13 major categories involved in preservice teacher selection of a district. No sig nificant differences were found in the perceptions of preservice teachers by program and language in 11 of the 13 categories. In the categories, Philosophy of the District and School Plants and Facilities, a two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differen ces . The category, Philosophy of the District, included the following factors: opportunity to use a variety of teaching methods, evidence of district provision for individual differences, opportunities for experimentation, clearly defined educational objectives, and clearly defined expectations for teachers. Elementary bilingual preservice teachers (X = 3.36) perceived Philosophy of the District as more important than did elementary non-bilingual preservice teachers (X = 3.26). Secondary bilingual preservice teachers (X = 3.08) ranked this category less 189 important than did secondary non-bilingual preservice teachers (X = 3.24), Secondary bilingual preservice teachers, while considering this category important, perceived Philosophy of the District as less important than did the other three groups. Table 46 Perceptions of Elementary Bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Maior Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 58 1.98 .70 District Organization 57 2.25 . 69 Nature of the Community 61 2.23 .84 Geographic Location of the District 59 2.78 . 62 Philosophy of the District 60 3.36 .53 Salary 60 3.14 .64 Fringe Benefits 61 3.12 .67 Recruitment Practices 58 2.99 .59 Pre-selection Interview 60 3.25 .48 School Plants and Facilities 59 3.03 .55 Composition of School Staff 61 2.54 .54 Opportunities for Professional Growth 60 3.05 .49 District Level Support 58 3.29 .45 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation Table 47 Perceptions of Elementary Non-Bilincrual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 389 1.98 .75 District Organization 389 2.26 .67 Nature of the Community 392 2 .20 .76 Geographic Location of the District 409 2.83 .56 Philosophy of the District 408 3.26 .52 Salary 406 3.04 . 66 Fringe Benefits 410 3.07 .57 Recruitment Practices 407 2.90 .59 Pre-selection Interview 407 3 . 24 .49 School Plants and Facilities 410 2.91 .54 Composition of School Staff 404 2 . 38 . 60 Opportunities for Professional Growth 408 2.90 .56 District Level Support 393 3.27 .51 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation Table 48 Perceptions of Secondary Bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Maior Cateaories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 32 1.97 .72 District Organization 31 2.30 . 53 Nature of the Community 32 2.20 .75 Geographic Location of the District 32 2.94 .50 Philosophy of the District 32 3.08 .51 Salary 33 2.99 .50 Fringe Benefits 33 2.97 . 53 Recruitment Practices 33 2.64 .50 Pre-selection Interview 33 3 .01 .53 School Plants and Facilities 33 2.79 .54 Composition of School Staff 33 2.32 .59 Opportunities for Professional Growth 33 2.75 .40 District Level Support 33 3.08 . 65 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 192 Table 49 Perceptions of Secondary Non-Bilingual Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Manor Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 179 2.02 .78 District Organization 176 2.30 .65 Nature of the Community 184 2.26 .74 Geographic Location of the District 181 2.89 .56 Philosophy of the District 185 3.24 .55 Salary 183 3 . 02 .57 Fringe Benefits 185 3.05 . 61 Recruitment Practices 184 2.71 .64 Pre-selection Interview 181 3.15 .52 School Plants and Facilities 185 2.89 .55 Composition of School Staff 186 2.40 .56 Opportunities for Professional Growth 182 2 . 76 .56 District Level Support 181 3 .10 .51 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 193 Figure 9 exhibits in graphic form the relationship and interaction that occurred between the perceptions of preservice teachers by program and language status as to the importance of the category, Philosophy of the District. These perceptions were found significantly different at the .011 level. The category, School Plants and Facilities, was also perceived in a significantly different manner by the groups by program and language. Included in this category were the following factors from which total means were computed: modern school buildings, air conditioned classrooms, availability of supplies and audio-visual equipment, availability of computers and recent technological equip ment, and availability of teachers* workroom. Elementary bilingual preservice teachers (X = 3.03) considered School Plants and Facilities more important than did all other groups reported by program and language. The total mean for elementary non-bilingual preservice teachers was X = 2.91 while that of secondary bilingual preservice teachers was X = 2.79 and secondary non-bilingual preser vice teachers, X = 2.89. Secondary bilingual preservice teachers perceived this category less important than did secondary non-bilingual teachers. Figure 10 displays in graphic form the relationship of the perceptions of preservice teachers by program and language in the category, School Plants and Facilities. 194 SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE VARIABLES PROGRAM/LANGUAGE - PHILOSOPHY OF THE DISTRICT 4 Secondary Elementary 3 2 1 Non-bilingual Bilingual Bilingual Non-biingual Elementary x = 3.36 SD = .5304 N = 60 x = 3.26 SD = .5156 N = 408 Secondary x = 3.08 SD « .5152 N = 32 x = 3.24 SD .5535 N = 185 (F = 6.585; df = 1,600; p<.05) Figure 9. Significant difference in the variables Program/Language - Philosophy of the district 195 SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE VARIABLES PROGRAM/LANGUAGE - SCHOOL PLANTS AND FACILITIES 4 • 3 ‘ — Secondary 2 ------- 1 1 1 I Bilingual 1 Non-bilingual Bilingual Non-bilingual Elementary x = 3.03 SD = .5539 N = 59 x = 2.91 SD = .5440 N = 410 Secondary x = 2.79 SD = .5396 N = 33 x = 2.89 SD .5501 N = 185 (F = 3.780/ df = 1/653; p<.05) Figure 10, Significant difference in the variables Program/Language - School plants and facilities 19 6 Means, standard deviations, and frequencies are presented as well as statistical data used in establishing the significance of F at <.05. Comparison of Perceptions of Preservice Teachers bv Language and Marital Status as to the Importance of the 13 Major Categories Tables 50 through 53 display frequencies, means, and standard deviations for the following types of preser vice teachers: bilingual married, bilingual unmarried, non-bilingual married, and non-bilingual unmarried as to the importance of the 13 major categories involved in preservice teacher selection of the school district in which to work. A two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) found no significant differences in the perceptions of preservice teachers by language and marital status. Table 50 Perceptions of Bilincrual Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Manor Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 29 2.02 .75 District Organization 29 2.28 .55 Nature of the Community ' 32 2.28 .85 Geographic Location of the District 30 2.85 .39 Philosophy of the District 30 3.27 . 61 Salary 31 3 . 06 . 65 Fringe Benefits 32 2.93 .69 Recruitment Practices 32 2.73 .52 Pre-selection Interview 31 3.17 .56 School Plants and Facilities 31 2.99 .57 Composition of School Staff 32 2.43 .57 Opportunities for Professional Growth 32 2.91 .43 District Level Support 31 3.20 .55 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD « Standard Deviation Table 51 Perceptions of Bilingual Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 60 1.97 .68 District Organization 59 2.25 . 68 Nature of the Community 60 2.21 .77 Geographic Location of the District 60 2.82 . 66 Philosophy of the District 61 3.25 .50 Salary 61 3.09 .57 Fringe Benefits 61 3.12 .58 Recruitment Practices 58 2.94 .59 Pre-selection Interview 61 3.16 .49 School Plants and Facilities 60 2.91 .55 Composition of School Staff 61 2.51 .54 Opportunities for Professional Growth 60 2.96 . 51 District Level Support 59 3.20 .52 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 199 Table 52 Perceptions of Non-Bilingual Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Mai or Catecrories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 232 1.94 .80 District Organization 221 2.26 .70 Nature of the Community 228 2.17 .76 Geographic Location of the District 237 2.83 .56 Philosophy of the District 239 3.22 .57 Salary 236 3.01 • 66 Fringe Benefits ^ 238 2.95 . 63 Recruitment Practices 235 2.79 .64 Pre-selection Interview 234 3 .16 .53 School Plants and Facilities 239 2 .84 .58 Composition of School Staff 237 2.31 .56 Opportunities for Professional Growth 236 2.79 .53 District Level Support 227 3 .17 .53 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 200 Table 53 Perceptions of Non-Bilingual Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Manor Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 331 2. 03 .73 District Organization 339 2.29 . 65 Nature of the Community 344 2.25 .75 Geographic Location of the District 348 2.86 .57 Philosophy of the District 349 3.27 .49 Salary 348 3.04 .62 Fringe Benefits 352 3. 14 .54 Recruitment Practices 351 2.88 .59 Pre-selection Interview 349 3.25 .47 School Plants and Facilities 351 2.94 . 52 Composition of School Staff 348 2.45 . 60 Opportunities for Professional Growth 349 2.90 .57 District Level Support 343 3.24 .51 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 201 Group 6 - Comparison of Perceptions of Preservice Teachers by Program and Marital Status as to the Importance of the 13 Major Categories of Factors Tables 54 through 57 display frequencies, means, and standard deviations for the following types of preser vice teachers: elementary married, elementary unmarried, secondary married, and secondary unmarried. This informa tion is reported in relation to preservice teachers' perceptions of the importance of the 13 categories involved in the selection of a school district in which to work. No significant differences were found in the perceptions of preservice teachers by program and marital status in 12 of the 13 categories. In the category, District Level Support, a two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) found significant differences in the total means computed for each of the groups. This category included the following factors: up-to-date textbooks, up-to-date teachers' procedural handbook, consultants available in special curricular areas, availability of professional library, and curriculum laboratory or instructional materials/media center available. Elementary married preservice teachers (X = 3.20) perceived District Level Support less important than did elementary unmarried preservice teachers (X = 3.32). Secondary married preservice teachers (X = 3.14) ranked 202 Table 54 Perceptions of Elementary Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Manor Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 185 1.94 .78 District Organization 178 2.23 .70 Nature of the Community 183 2 .20 .78 Geographic Location of the District 191 2.83 .55 Philosophy of the District 192 3.25 .59 Salary 191 3 . 02 .70 Fringe Benefits 193 2.94 .62 Recruitment Practices 196 2.87 .59 Pre-selection Interview 190 3.20 .52 School Plants and Facilities 191 2.85 .57 Composition of School Staff 190 2.34 .57 Opportunities for Professional Growth 191 2.86 .54 District Level Support 180 3.20 .54 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD == Standard Deviation 203 Table 55 Perceptions of Elementary Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Mai or Catecrories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 263 2.02 .72 District Organization 269 2.29 . 66 Nature of the Community 271 2.21 .76 Geographic Location of the District 278 2.81 .59 Philosophy of the District 277 3 . 28 .46 Salary 276 3.07 .64 Fringe Benefits 279 3.17 .53 Recruitment Practices 276 2.95 .58 Pre-selection Interview 277 3.28 .45 School Plants and Facilities 278 2.97 .52 Composition of School Staff 275 2.45 .60 Opportunities for Professional Growth 277 2 .97 .55 District Level Support 271 3 .32 .47 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 204 Table 56 Perceptions of Secondary Married Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Manor Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 82 2 . 01 .82 District Organization 79 2 . 37 . 63 Nature of the Community 83 2.15 .77 Geographic Location of the District 83 2.82 .56 Philosophy of the District 84 3.17 .53 Salary 83 3.01 .56 Fringe Benefits 84 2.95 .65 Recruitment Practices 83 2.59 . 65 Pre-selection Interview 81 3.08 .53 School Plants and Facilities 85 2.89 .57 Composition of School Staff 85 2.28 .52 Opportunities for Professional Growth 83 2.71 .45 District Level Support 84 3.14 .51 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 205 Table 57 Perceptions of Secondary Unmarried Preservice Teachers of the Importance of 13 Major Categories to be Considered in the Selection of a School District Category N X SD District Size 130 2.03 .74 District Organization 131 2 .29 .66 Nature of the Community 135 2.32 .72 Geographic Location of the District 132 2.94 .54 Philosophy of the District 135 3.24 .56 Salary 135 3.01 . 55 Fringe Benefits 135 3.08 .56 Recruitment Practices 135 2.76 .60 Pre-selection Interview 135 2.15 .52 School Plants and Facilities 135 2.86 .53 Composition of School Staff 136 2.46 .57 Opportunities for Professional Growth 83 2.71 .44 District Level Support 133 3.05 .56 Note: N = Number X = Mean SD = Standard Deviation this category more important than did secondary unmarried preservice teachers (X = 3.05). Secondary unmarried j i preservice teachers perceived this category much less . important than did elementary unmarried preservice teach- ; ers. i Figure 11 presents in graphic form the relationship ! i of the perceptions of preservice teachers by program and i marital status in the category, District Level Support. ' i Means, standard deviations, and frequencies are presented | as well as the statistical data used in establishing the j significance of F at .013. ; ► Perceptions of School District Personnel Administrators of the Importance of the 13 \ I Major Categories to be Considered in the j i Recruitment of Teachers to Work in a School District j i The fifth question in this study was designed to j I determine the perceptions of school district personnel j administrators as to the importance of 13 major categories i to be considered in recruiting teachers to a school district. Questionnaires were sent to personnel adminis- i trators in 201 Southern California school districts with j responses received by 167 or 8 3.5 percent of those sur- ^ veyed. Personnel administrators were asked to rank order ! ! the 13 major categories from one to 13, with one being the ! most important factor and 13 being the least important j 207 SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE VARIABLES PROGRAM/MARITAL STATUS - DISTRICT LEVEL SUPPORT 4 Elementary Secondary 3 2 1 Unmarried Married Married Unmarried Elementary x = 3.20 SD = .5402 N = 180 x = 3.32 SD = .4743 N = 271 Secondary x = 3.14 SD = .5071 N = 84 x = 3.05 SD .5559 N = 133 <F = 6.259; df = 1,649; p<.05) Figure 11. Significant difference in the variables program/marital status - District level support 208 factor. Table 58 lists the mean and standard deviation for the 13 major categories as ranked by the personnel admin- istrators who returned the survey. Table 58 Rank Order of 13 Mai or Categories bv Personnel Directors Category Rank X SD Salary 1 2.68 2 . 06 Geographic Location 2 3.62 2.83 Fringe Benefits 3 4.74 2.83 Nature of the Community 4 4.98 2.92 District Philosophy 5 5.98 3.54 Pre-selection Interview 6 6.89 3.38 Opportunity for Profes sional Growth 7 7.05 2.85 District Level Support 8 7.60 3 .27 Recruitment Practices 9 8.28 3.38 School Plants and Facilities 10 8.45 2.70 District Size 11 9.57 3 . 07 Composition of School Staff 12 9.65 2.75 District Organization 13 10.26 3 .13 Note: Range = 2.68 to 10.26 Rank 1 to 13 ' 209, Salary, with a mean score of 2.68, was ranked number one by personnel administrators in terms of recruiting I teachers. Geographic Location ranked second with a mean of 3.62, and Fringe Benefits ranked third with a mean of 4.74. Nature of the Community ranked a close fourth with a mean of 4.98. District Philosophy ranked fifth with a mean of 5.98, Pre-selection Interview was sixth with a mean of 6.89, and Opportunity for Professional Growth was seventh with a mean of 7.05. Eighth was District Level Support with a mean of 7.60, while ninth was Recruitment Practices with a mean of 8.28. School Plants and Facilities (8.45), District Size (9.57), and Composition of School Staff (9.65) ranked tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, respectively. Finally, District Organization, with a mean of 10.26 was ranked thirteenth in terms of its importance in recruiting teachers by personnel administrators. Perceptions and the Relationships of the Perceptions of School District Personnel Administrators as to the Importance of the 13 Major Categories in the Recruitment of Teachers The sixth research question examined the relation ships of the perceptions of school district personnel administrators of the importance of the 13 major categories to be considered in the recruitment of teachers to work in 210. a district. Perceptions of personnel directors were1 compared as follows: 1. Importance of 13 factors by district pupil enrollment— less than 5,000 students, 5,000-10,000 stu dents, over 10,000 students? 2. importance of 13 categories by years of employ ment in personnel— less than 3 years, 3 to 6 years, over 6 years; 3. importance of 13 categories by district recruit ing status— elementary? 4. importance of 13 categories by district recruit ing status— secondary; and 5. importance of 13 categories by district recruit ing status— bilingual. To answer this question, personnel directors were asked to check the descriptors that best exemplified their school district enrollment, their years of experience, and district recruiting practices. A statistical procedure, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), was used to establish statistical significance. When three groups were compared, Tukev's HSD was used to ascertain between which two groups statistically significant differences existed. The level of significance set for this procedure was <.05. Table 59 displays the mean and standard deviation for the 13 categories by district student enrollment— less than 5,000; 5,000 to 10,000; and over 10,000. The Analysis Table 59 Personnel Directors1 Importance of 13 Categories Compared bv District Pupil Enrollment Categories Less Than 5,000 X SD 5,000 To 10,000 X SD Over 10,000 X SD Sig. <.05 District Size 8.82 3.35 9.32 3.09 10.20 2.78 District Organization 9.46 3.50 10.54 2.55 10.58 2.95 Nature of the Community 5.30 3.15 4.52 2.96 4.74 2.73 Geographic Location 3.69 3.05 3.21 2.66 3.62 2.83 District Philosophy 5.53 3.45 6.41 3.64 6.64 3.78 Salary 2.53 1.91 3.31 2.42 2.76 2.13 Fringe Benefits 4.81 2.95 5.17 2.62 4.96 2.85 Recruitment Practices 8.63 3.61 8.75 3.19 7.24 3.14 Pre-selection Interview 7.16 3.41 8.52 3.84 6.29 3.10 Table 59— continued Categories Less X Than 5,000 SD 5,000 X To 10,000 SD Over X 10,000 SD Sig. <.05 School Plants and Facilities 8.32 2.93 9.11 2.35 8.76 2.34 Composition of School Staff 9.12 3.03 9.75 2.58 10.43 2.44 ** Opportunities for Professional Growth 7.56 3.05 5.79 2.78 6.80 2.65 ** District Level Support 8.00 3.43 7.31 3.32 7.49 3.27 Note: ♦significance established using F ratio ♦♦significance established using F ratio and Tukey*s HSD X=Mean SD=Standard Deviation Sig.=Significant Difference 213 of Variance test (ANOVA) was performed to determine if the differences of the three observed group means were statis tically significant. Using F ratios, only three categories were identified as statistically significant: Recruitment Practices, Composition of School Staff, and Opportunities for Professional Growth. However, further analysis using Tukev's HSD to establish specifically which two of the three groups differed significantly revealed significant differences at the .05 level in only two categories, Composition of School Staff and Opportunity for Professional Growth. First, using the initial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), the differences in responses were found to be significant in the category, Composition of School Staff, with the significance of F established at .0354 (F=3.417; df=2, 147; p < .05). Further testing using the Tukev's HSD established that personnel directors of large school districts (over 10,000 students) perceived composition of school staff as less important than did personnel directors of small school districts (less than 5,000 students). Using F ratios, Opportunities for Professional Growth was found to be significant at the .026 level (F-3.735? df=2, 147; p<.05). The Tukev1s HSD was run to determine between which groups significant differences could be found in means. It was established that personnel directors of small school districts (less than 5,000 214 students) perceived Opportunities for Professional Growth significantly less important than did personnel directors of school districts with enrollment between 5,000-10,000 students. No other category was found statistically sig nificant when considered in relation to district enroll ment. The effect of the number of years of experience in personnel administration on the perception of importance of the 13 categories was also analyzed. Three groups were created from the data. The first group consisted of those personnel directors reporting less than three years experience in personnel administration, the second group three to six years, and the third group over six years of experience. The mean and standard deviation were derived for each of the groups. The Analysis of Variance test was performed to determine if the difference in the three group means was statistically significant. The results of that analysis are reported in Table 60. No significant differences were found at the .05 level between the perceptions of personnel directors in 11 of the 13 categories. In two of the categories, Geographic Location and Pre-selection Interviews, the table demon strates significant differences between groups. An Analysis of Variance using F ratios computed the level of significance for the perceptions of the category, Table 60 Personnel Directors1 Importance of 13 Categories Compared bv Years of Employment in Personne1 Categories Less X Than 3 Years SD 3 to X 6 Years SD Over 6 X Years SD Sig <.05 District Size 9.11 3.15 9.73 2.89 9.39 3.30 District Organization 10.08 2.96 9.89 3.24 10.20 3.28 Nature of the Community 4.68 3.22 5.53 3.08 4.70 2.72 Geographic Location of the District 4.76 3.29 3.45 2.79 3.08 2.62 * Philosophy of the District 6.00 3.77 6.36 3.46 5.96 3.66 Salary 2.39 2.02 2.93 2.36 2.83 1.97 Fringe Benefits 5.00 3.26 5.14 3.09 4.73 2.44 Recruitment Practices 8.41 3.42 8.09 3.48 8.10 3.41 215 Table 60— continued Categories Less X Than 3 Years SD 3 to X 6 Years SD Over 6 X Years SD Sig <.05 Pre-selection Interview 6.26 3.48 5.98 3.41 7.51 3.25 * School Plants and Facilities 8.35 2.81 9.27 2.35 8.31 2.67 Composition of School Staff 9.30 3.04 9.98 2.72 9.70 2.73 Opportunities for Professional Growth 6.68 2.77 6.52 2.93 7.35 2.95 District Level Support 7.84 3.68 6.89 2.96 8.10 3.32 Note: X=Mean SD=Standard Deviation Sig.=Significant Difference * p <.05 216 217 Geographic Location, by all three groups at the .0141 level (F ratio=4.39; F probability =.0141). The Tukevfs HSD was run to determine which of the mean differences was sig nificant at the .05 level and indicated significant differences between groups one and three. Personnel directors with less than three years of experience per ceived Geographic Location significantly less important than did personnel directors with over six years of experience. The category, Pre-selection Interview, was also found to be significantly different. In the Analysis of Variance, F ratios were computed and a significance level of .0367 demonstrated (F ratio=3.38; F probability .0367). The Tukev1s HSD indicated that the only significance was between groups two and three. Personnel directors with three to six years experience perceived the Pre-selection Interview significantly more important than did personnel directors with over six years of experience. Further analysis was conducted of the perceptions of personnel directors based upon district recruiting practices. The first of these is displayed in Table 61. Two groups of personnel directors were established: those actively recruiting elementary teachers and those not actively recruiting elementary teachers. Means and standard deviations were computed. Additional analysis using t values as well as pooled or separate variance Table 61 Personnel Directors' Importance of 13 Categories Compared bv District Recruiting Practices: Elementary Category Actively Recruiting Elementary Teachers X SD Not Actively Recruiting Elementary Teachers X SD Sig, District Size District Organization Nature of the Community Geographic Location of District Philosophy of the District Salary Fringe Benefits Recruitment Practices Pre-selection Interview School Plants and Facilities 9.29 9.89 5.06 3.60 6.41 2.89 5.13 8.14 6.43 8.69 3.17 3.24 2.97 2.98 3.66 2.20 2.89 3.52 3.41 2.46 10.32 11.27 4.75 3.66 4.80 2.11 3.66 8.66 8.16 7.80 2.67 2.60 2.81 2.41 2.88 1.50 2.37 2.96 3.00 3.20 218 Table 61— continued Category Actively Recruiting Elementary Teachers X SD Not Actively Recruiting Elementary Teachers X SD Sig. Composition of School Staff 9.83 2.77 9.16 2.68 Opportunities for Professional Growth 6.92 2.92 7.43 2.66 District Level Support 7.64 3.41 7.48 2.86 Note; *2 < .05 X =Mean SD =Standard Deviation Sig. =Significant Difference 220 estimates were completed. In eight of the 13 categories no significance was found in differences of perceptions between groups. In the following five categories sig nificant differences were found at the .05 level: 1. District Organization was perceived as sig nificantly more important by those personnel directors actively recruiting elementary teachers than by those not actively recruiting elementary teachers (t value = 2.55; df = 161; 2-tail probability = .012). 2. Philosophy of the District was perceived as significantly more important by those personnel directors not actively recruiting elementary teachers than by those actively recruiting elementary teachers (t value = 2.64; df = 164; 2-tail probability = .009). 3. Salary was perceived as significantly more important by those personnel directors not actively recruiting elementary teachers than by those actively recruiting elementary teachers (t value = -2.56; df = 111.97; 2-tail probability = .012). 4. Fringe Benefits were perceived as significantly more important by those personnel directors not actively recruiting elementary teachers than by those actively recruiting elementary teachers (t value = 3.03; df= 164; P<.05). 5. Pre-selection Interview was perceived as significantly more important by those personnel directors 221 not actively recruiting than by those actively recruiting elementary teachers (t value = 2.98; df = 164; 2-tail probability = .003). The ranking of the 13 categories was then compared based upon information supplied by personnel directors relative to their recruitment of secondary teachers. Two groups were formed. Those actively recruiting secondary teachers and those not actively recruiting secondary teachers. Means and standard deviations were computed and significance established at the .05 level through the use of t tests. This information is displayed in Table 62. In 11 of the 13 categories, no significant differen ces were found in the perceptions of the two groups of personnel directors. In the following two categories the level of significance was found to be at the .05 level; 1. Philosophy of the District was perceived as significantly more important by those personnel directors not actively recruiting secondary teachers than by those actively recruiting secondary teachers (t = 3.31; df = 164; 2-tail probability = .001). 2. Pre-selection Interview was perceived as significantly more important by those personnel directors actively recruiting secondary teachers than by those not actively recruiting secondary teachers (t = 2.07; df = 164; 2-tial probability = .040). Table 62 Personnel Directors1 Importance of 13 Categories Compared bv District Recruiting Practices: Secondary Category Actively Recruiting Secondary Teachers X SD Not Actively Recruiting Secondary Teachers X SD Sig. District Size District Organization Nature of the Community Geographic Location of District Philosophy of the District Salary Fringe Benefits Recruitment Practices Pre-selection Interview 9.59 10.34 4.59 3.44 6.76 2.90 5.10 7.88 6.41 3.16 3.04 2.91 2.76 3.60 2.30 2.91 3.42 3.18 9.54 10.17 5.47 3.85 4.97 2.39 4.28 8.79 7.50 2.98 3.26 2.88 2.93 3.19 1.68 2.66 3.27 3.56 222 Table 62— continued Category Actively Recruiting Secondary Teachers X SD Not Actively Recruiting Secondary Teachers X SD Sig. School Plants and Facilities 8.74 2.49 8.08 2.93 Composition of School Staff 9.59 2.85 9.72 2.64 Opportunities for Professional Growth 6.68 2.97 7.54 2.63 District Level Support 7.66 3.37 7.51 3.15 Note: X=Mean SD=Standard Deviation Sig.=Significant Difference * p <.05 223 224 The final table related to question six exhibits the analysis of responses of personnel directors in two groups. These groups included those actively recruiting bilingual teachers and those not actively recruiting bilingual teachers. Means and standard deviations were computed and significance established at the .05 level. Table 63 displays this data. In 11 of the 13 categories, no significant differen ces were found in the perceptions of the two groups of personnel directors. In the following three categories a significant difference was present at the .05 level: 1. Nature of the Community was perceived as significantly more important by those personnel directors actively recruiting bilingual teachers than by those not actively recruiting bilingual teachers (t = 2.04? df = 162? 2-tail probability = .043). 2. Philosophy of the District was perceived as significantly more important by those personnel directors not actively recruiting bilingual teachers than those actively recruiting bilingual teachers (t = -2.11? df = 164? 2-tail probability = .036). Table 63 Personnel Directors' Imoortance of 13 Catecrories Compared bv District Recruitincr Practices: Bilincrual Category Actively Bilingual X Recruiting Teachers SD Not Actively Recruiting Bilingual Teachers X SD Sig. District Size 9.60 3.10 9.50 3.05 District Organization 10.05 3.25 10.77 2.78 Nature of the Community 4.68 2.82 5.70 3.07 * Geographic Location of District 3.52 2.93 3.85 2.61 Philosophy of the District 6.35 3.54 5.08 3.41 * Salary 2.86 2.20 2.25 1.61 Fringe Benefits 4.96 2.86 4.21 2.71 Recruitment Practices 7.97 3.37 9.02 3.31 Pre-selection Interview 6.74 3.39 7.25 3.38 to DO U1 ,Table 63— continued Category Actively Recruiting Bilingual Teachers X SD Not Actively Recruiting Bilingual Teachers X SD Sig. School Plants and Facilities 8.63 2.43 8.02 3.24 Composition of School Staff 9.77 2.82 9.35 2.58 Opportunities for Professional Growth 6.97 2.84 7.27 2.91 District Level Support 7.69 3.45 7.36 2.78 Note: *p < .05 X=Mean SD=Standard Deviation Sig.=Significant Difference 226 227 Similarities and Differences Among the Perceptions of Preservice Teachers and School District Personnel Administrators of the Importance of the 13 Major Categories The final question of the study was concerned with the similarities and differences of the perceptions of preservice teachers and personnel administrators as to the relative importance of 13 major categories involved in the selection of a district in which to teach. The information needed to answer this question was obtained by asking both groups to rank order the 13 major categories from one to 13, with one being the most important and 13 being the least important. The mean score for each of the 13 categories for both groups was calculated and t values and a two-tailed test of probability were used to determine significance at the <.05 level. Using these criteria, a number of areas of significance were found. Table 64 provides a comparison of the rankings of both groups along with mean scores and standard deviations. Salary was ranked first in importance by both preservice teachers and personnel administrators. Although salary was ranked number one by both groups, there was a significant difference at the .034 level between the mean score this category received from each group. Personnel directors perceived salary, with a mean of 2.68, as 1------------- Table 64 n i ! A Comparison of the Ranking of 13 Major Categories by Preservice Teachers and Personnel Directors Preservice Teachers Personnel Directors Category Rank X SD Rank X SD Sig Salary 1 3.67 2.55 1 2.68 2.06 * Philosophy of the District 2 4.32 3.12 5 5.98 3.54 * Geographic Location of the District 3 4.91 3.55 2 3.62 2.83 * Fringe Benefits 4 5.12 2.69 3 4.74 2.83 .105 Opportunities for Professional Growth 5 6.58 3.36 7 7.05 2.85 .062 District Level Support 6 6.59 3.36 8 7.60 3.27 * Nature of the Community 7 6.60 4.18 4 4.98 2.92 * Composition of the School Staff 8 7.39 3.29 12 9.65 2.75 * School Plants and Facilities 9 8.20 3.09 10 8.45 2.70 .289 228 | I I Table 64— continued Preservice Teachers Personnel Directors Category Rank X SD Rank X SD Sig. District Organization 10 8.31 4 . 39 13 10.26 3.13 * District size 11 8.95 3.41 11 9.57 3.07 i t Pre-selection Interview 12 9.77 2.75 6 6.87 3.38 i t Recruitment Practices 13 10.54 2.69 9 8.28 3.38 i t Note: *]D< .05 X =Mean SD =Standard Deviation Sig. =Significant Difference 229 230 significantly more important than did preservice teachers for whom the mean score was 3.67. District philosophy was ranked second in importance by preservice teachers with a mean of 4.32. The mean of this category for preservice teachers was significantly different (at the .000 level) from the mean of 5.98 for personnel administrators. District philosophy was ranked fifth by personnel directors, and thus was of significantly less importance in their perception than in the perception of preservice teachers. This is consistent with the findings of Rosecrans (1970) as presented in Chapter II where the district philosophy was ranked first by new teachers and sixth by personnel directors. Geographic Location of the district ranked third in the perception of preservice teachers with a mean of 4.91, significantly lower (at the .000 level) than the second place ranking of personnel administrators for whom this category had a mean of 3.62. Fringe Benefits was ranked fourth by preservice teachers and third by personnel directors; however, there was not a significant difference in the mean scores for this category between the two groups. Opportunities for Professional Growth ranked fifth by the mean score of preservice teachers and seventh by the mean score of personnel administrators. Again, 231 however, a significant difference was not found in the comparison of the mean scores of the two groups. Preservice teachers ranked District Level Support sixth in importance, while personnel administrators ranked it eighth. There was a significant difference, at the .000 level, in the mean scores for this category, with the mean for preservice teachers being 6.59 and for personnel administrators 7.60. Nature of the Community was ranked significantly lower, again at the .000 level, by preservice teachers for whom a mean score of 6.60 ranked it seventh in importance. The mean of 4.98 given to this category by personnel directors ranked it fourth for this group. Composition of School Staff had a mean of 7.39 for preservice teachers which ranked it eighth in importance to this group. Personnel administrators ranked this category as twelfth, with a mean of 9.65. The significance of the difference between the two groups for this category was established at the .000 level. School Plants and Facilities was ranked ninth by mean for preservice teachers and tenth by mean for person nel administrators. There was not, however, a significant difference between the means of the two groups for this category. Preservice teachers ranked District Organization tenth in importance while personnel administrators ranked 232 this factor last, or thirteenth. The mean of 8.31 for preservice teachers was significantly different at the .000 level from the mean of 10.26 for personnel administrators in terms of the relative importance of district organiza tion in teacher selection of a school district. District Size was ranked eleventh by both groups; however, the mean of 8.95 for preservice teachers made it significantly more important to this group (at the .024 level) than to personnel administrators for whom the mean was 9.57. The Pre-selection Interview was ranked twelfth by preservice teachers and sixth by personnel administrators. Preservice teachers ranked this category significantly lower (at the .000 level) with a mean of 9.77 than did personnel directors for whom the mean was 6.87. Preservice teachers ranked Recruitment Practices thirteenth, or last in importance with a mean of 10.54. This was significantly different (at the .000 level) from personnel directors who ranked this category as ninth with a mean of 8.28. Summary of Findings The sample in this study consisted of 709 preservice teachers from Southern California colleges and universities in eight counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, River side, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and 233 Ventura. In addition to supplying personal data the respondents were asked to rate the importance of 65 factors in terms of their influence on the choice of a school district in which to work. These 65 factors were grouped into 13 major categories which the respondents were asked to rank in order of importance from one to 13. The sample also included 167 personnel administrators from Southern California school districts in the same eight counties. The respondents in this sample were asked to rank the 13 major categories from one to 13 in terms of their perceived importance in attracting teachers to a school district. The major findings of this study were: 1. Within all groups of preservice teachers, the most important category influencing the selection of a school district was Philosophy of the District when compared by the average mean for the category. 2. Within all groups of preservice teachers, the category District Level Support, was second in importance when compared by the total mean of the contributing factors. This category included the factors of up-to-date textbooks, teacher handbooks, professional libraries, media centers, and consultants. 3. Within all groups of preservice teachers, the Pre-selection Interview was placed slightly higher than Fringe Benefits and Salary, which were fourth and fifth, 234 respectively, when compared by total mean of the factors within the categories. 4. Within all groups of preservice teachers District size was of least importance in the selection of a school district when compared by total mean of the factors within the categories. 5. For all groups of preservice teachers within the category, District Size, more than 49 percent of the respondents indicated they would most like to work in a district of average size (5,000-10,000) . Sixty-one percent of the same group indicated they would least like to work in a very large district (over 20,000). 6. For all groups of preservice teachers within the category, District Organization, working in an elemen tary or unified school district was the preferred choice. Working in a high school district was the least preferred choice of 34 percent of the respondents. 7. Within the category, Nature of the Community, for all groups of preservice teachers, 61 percent reported a preference for working in a middle socioeconomic com munity, while 47 percent reported they would least like to work in a high socioeconomic community. 8. Within the category, Geographic Location of the District, ease of commute was considered most important by 41 percent of the preservice teachers who responded, while 235 the least important factor was the proximity to recreation and cultural centers. 9. For all groups of preservice teachers within the category, Philosophy of the District, the opportunity to use a variety of teaching methods was most important to 48 percent of the respondents. Clearly Defined Expecta tions for teachers^was the least important factor for the largest percentage of the respondents. 10. Within the category, Salary, for all groups of preservice teachers a high beginning salary was most important. Credit for a doctorate was least important for the majority of the respondents. 11. Within the category, Fringe Benefits, for all groups of preservice teachers, 74 percent of the respon dents indicated that comprehensive paid medical insurance was the most important factor, while a wellness and fitness program was least important for the largest group of respondents. 12. For all groups of preservice teachers within the category, Recruitment Practices, the opportunity to visit the prospective school was the most important factor for the majority (61 percent) of the respondents. A printed district brochure was least important for 49 percent of the respondents. 13. For all groups of preservice teachers within the category, Pre-selection Interview, the largest per- - 236 ~ centage (31 percent) of the respondents indicated that a guaranteed assignment was the most important factor. The availability of grade level of choice was least important to the largest percentage (31 percent) of those responding. 14. Within the category, School Plants and Facili ties, for all groups of preservice teachers, the availabil ity of supplies and audio-visual equipment was the most important factor for the majority (52 percent) of respon- i dents, while modern school buildings was least important to the largest percentage (46 percent) of those responding. 15. Within the category, Composition of School I Staff, for all groups of preservice teachers, the majority ; of those responding (57 percent) indicated that the j ; | personality of the school principal was the most important i factor. The presence of friends working in the district * i - was the least important factor to 41 percent of the ; respondents. 16. For all groups of preservice teachers within I I the category, Opportunities for Professional Growth, the i i majority of respondents indicated that a planned inservice program, or college or university classes offered nearby or in the district were the most important factors. A pre school orientation program and active professional organ izations were considered least important by the largest percentage of respondents. 17. For all groups of preservice teachers within t the category, District Level Support, up-to-date textbooks j was the most important factor for the largest percentage of respondents (42 percent), while the availability of a ( i professional library was least important to the largest ! percentage of those responding (33 percent). 18. Significant differences between male and female preservice teacher responses were found for four of the 13 major categories when compared by the total mean score. 1 District Recruitment Practices, the Pre-selection Inter- ; view, Opportunities for Professional Growth, and District > Level Support were significantly more important to the ' female preservice teachers who responded than to the male , preservice teachers who responded. j 19. Significant differences between elementary and \ secondary preservice teacher responses were found in four ; of the 13 major categories of factors when compared by the . total mean score of the factors. Recruitment Practices, I i the Pre-selection Interview, Opportunity for Professional i Growth, and District Level Support were significantly more important to the elementary preservice teachers who responded than to the secondary preservice teachers who i responded. j 20. No significant differences were found between the responses of bilingual and non-bilingual preservice ■ teachers for the 13 major categories of factors when compared by the total mean score of the factors. 21. Significant differences between the responses of married and unmarried preservice teachers were found for four of the 13 major categories when compared by the total mean score. Fringe Benefits, Recruitment Practices, Composition of School Staff, ad Opportunities for Profes sional Growth were all significantly more important to unmarried respondents than to married respondents. 22. Between male and female preservice teacher respondents, significant similarities and/or differences were found between the mean scores in 15 out of the 65 individual factors as follows; a. The mean score for the responses of females was significantly higher than that of male respondents for the factor measuring the importance of working in an elementary district (K-6) or an elemen tary district (K-8). b. The mean score for the responses of females was significantly lower than that of male respondents in terms of the importance of working in a high school district (7-12) or a high school district Climate was most important to a higher percentage of male preservice teacher i respondents than to female respondents. District provisions for individual dif ferences were most important to a higher percentage of female preservice teacher respondents than to male respondents. Clearly defined educational objectives were most important to a significantly i I higher percentage of female preservice 1 teacher respondents than to male respon- ; dents. I i The number of years to top salary was I most important to a significantly higher - I percentage of male preservice teacher respondents than to female respondents. | i The opportunity to be interviewed at the . I college or university was important or i most important to a significantly higher percentage of female preservice teacher respondents than to male respondents. An opportunity to visit the prospective i district was most important to a sig- j ! nificantly higher percentage of female ■ i preservice teacher respondents than to I male respondents. A follow-up letter from the personnel administrator was most important to a significantly higher percentage of j female preservice teacher respondents than to male respondents* The availability of a teachers' workroom was most important to a significantly higher percentage of female preservice teacher respondents than to male respondents. i A planned inservice program was most | important to a significantly higher percentage of female preservice teacher respondents than to male respondents. An active professional organization was of least importance to a significantly j higher percentage of male preservice teacher respondents than to female respondents. I The availability of a curriculum labora- i tory or instructional materials and media : i center was most important to a signifi- j cantly higher percentage of female pre- j i i service teacher respondents than to male respondents. I ----- - 241 23. Between the responses of elementary and i secondary preservice teachers, significant similarities or 1 I differences were found in the mean scores for 22 out of the ■ * 65 individual factors as follows: a. The mean score for the responses of secondary preservice teachers was sig nificantly higher than that of elemen- j i i tary respondents in terms of the impor- i tance of working in a unified school i i district (K-12). b. Working in a middle socioeconomic com munity was most important to a signifi- cantly higher percentage of secondary ! preservice teacher respondents than to elementary respondents. c. Provisions for maternity or paternity leaves were important or most important to a significantly higher percentage of elementary preservice teacher respondents than to secondary respondents. d. Printed district recruitment brochures | I were important to a significantly higher j higher percentage of elementary preser- ! i vice teacher respondents than to second- dary respondents. ! The opportunity to visit the prospective district was most important to a high percentage of both elementary and second ary respondents, but significantly more important to elementary preservice respondents than to secondary respon dents . A follow-up letter from the personnel administrator was most important to a significantly higher percentage of I elementary preservice teacher respon- | dents than to secondary respondents. Friendliness of the school staff was important or most important to a sig nificantly higher percentage of elemen- i tary preservice respondents than to j secondary respondents. j The interest shown by the interviewing j administrator was rated at a high level ' level of importance by both elementary i and secondary preservice teacher respon- i dents. ! The opportunity to talk with the build- I ing principal was important or most I important to a higher percentage of I i elementary preservice respondents than 243 to secondary respondents ? however, it was considered extremely important by both groups. j. The availability of a teachers* workroom was important or most important to a higher percentage of elementary preser vice teacher respondents than to second ary respondents. k. A balance of men and women on the staff was important or most important to a sig nificantly higher percentage of second ary preservice teacher respondents than to elementary respondents. 1., The personality of the school principal ^ was most important to a significantly higher percentage of elementary pre service teacher respondents than to j secondary respondents. I l m. A pre-school orientation program was most important to a higher percentage of elementary preservice teacher i respondents than to secondary respon- j dents. n. A planned inservice program was impor tant or most important to a signifi cantly higher percentage of elemen- 244 | I tary preservice teacher respondents 1 than to secondary respondents. ■ o. The availability of a professional | library was most important to a sig nificantly higher percentage of elemen tary preservice teacher respondents than to secondary respondents, p. The availability of a curriculum labora tory or instructional materials and media center was most important to a signifi cantly higher percentage of elementary preservice teacher respondents than to I secondary respondents. j 24. Between the responses of bilingual and non- ■ bilingual preservice teachers surveyed, significant | differences were found in the mean scores of only three of 1 the 65 individual factors as follows: I a. A significantly higher number of bilin gual preservice teacher respondents than non-bilingual respondents indicated that j i working in a high minority district was most important. j b. Having a balance of men and women on the I staff was most important to a higher ; percentage of bilingual preservice teacher respondents than to non- lingual respondents, c. An active professional organization was i most important to a significantly higher | percentage of bilingual preservice j teacher respondents than to non-bilingual j respondents. | i 25. Between the responses of married and unmarried preservice teachers, significant differences were found in| i the mean scores for 10 out of the 65 individual factors as I i follows: | a. Working in an elementary district was i i most important to a significantly higher percentage of married preservice teacher i respondents than to unmarried respon- i dents. i i b. Working in the hometown or area of resi dence was most important to a signifi cantly higher percentage of married pre service teacher respondents than to I unmarried respondents. c. Comprehensive paid medical insurance was 1 most important to a significantly higher ! percentage of unmarried preservice ! i teacher respondents than to married I respondents. ! Dental insurance was most important to a | significantly higher percentage of | unmarried preservice teacher respondents j than to married respondents. The number of years to top salary was important or most important to a signifi cantly higher percentage of unmarried preservice teacher respondents than to married respondents. A follow-up letter from the personnel | i administrator was most important for a j significantly higher percentage of unmar- j i maried preservice teacher respondents than to married respondents. i Friendliness of district staff was most i i important to a significantly higher per- ! centage of unmarried preservice teacher respondents than to married respondents, j i A balance of men and women on the staff | was most important to a significantly I higher percentage of unmarried preser vice teacher respondents than to married , respondents. I A pre-school orientation program was most ^ important to a significantly higher per- -------------------------------------- “247- 1 , centage of unmarried preservice teacher ' respondents than to married respondents, j. Proximity of college or university classes was most important for a sig nificantly higher percentage of unmarried preservice teacher respondents than to married respondents. 26. No significant differences were found in a comparison of the perceptions of the importance of the 13 ! i major categories between the following groups of preservice ! ! * i teachers: male elementary, male secondary, female elemen- I tary, and female secondary. i i 27. A significant difference was found in the : responses of male bilingual, male non-bilingual, female 1 bilingual, and female non-bilingual preservice teachers J for one of the 13 major categories. Male bilingual ; preservice teacher respondents considered School Plants j I I and Facilities significantly more important than did male | 1 non-bilingual, female bilingual, and female non-bilingual i respondents. j 28. A comparison of the perceptions of male 1 . . i married, male unmarried, female married, and female j unmarried preservice teacher respondents revealed sig- ! nificant differences in the perceptions of these four 1 groups regarding the importance of the three major categor- ! ies as listed: 248 a. District Organization was considered more 1 i important by male unmarried and female j i married preservice teacher respondents j than by male married or female unmarried | t respondents. j i b. Fringe Benefits was considered signifi- I I cantly more important to female unmarried j i preservice teacher respondents than to ; female married, male married, or male | unmarried respondents. I c. District Level Support was considered significantly more important to male 1 i married and female unmarried preservice ! teacher respondents than to male unmar- maried and female married respondents. , 29. A comparison of the perceptions of elementary bilingual, elementary non-bilingual, secondary bilingual, I and secondary non-bilingual preservice teacher respondents j revealed significant differences in the perceptions of I i i these four groups regarding the importance of two major categories as listed: j i a. District Philosophy was significantly more important to elementary bilingual | preservice teacher respondents than to ) \ elementary non-bilingual, secondary j bilingual, and secondary non-bilingual respondents. b. School Plants and Facilities was con- 1 sidered significantly more important to ' elementary bilingual preservice teacher 1 respondents than to elementary non bilingual, secondary bilingual, and secondary non-bilingual respondents. I 30. No significant differences were found in a comparison of the perceptions of the importance of the 13 i major categories between the following groups of preservice teachers: bilingual married, bilingual unmarried, non bilingual married, and non-bilingual unmarried. j i 31. A significant difference was found in a 1 i comparison of the perceptions of elementary married, ; elementary unmarried, secondary married, and secondary unmarried preservice teacher respondents for one of the 13 major categories. Elementary unmarried and secondary married preservice teacher respondents considered District 1 i * Level Support more important than did elementary married i and secondary unmarried respondents. ' 32. Personnel administrators in 201 Southern i i \ California school districts were asked to rank the 13 major ! categories in order of their perception of the importance 1 of each in recruiting teaching candidates. Responses were I received from 167 or 84 percent of those surveyed. An analysis of the mean scores for the responses revealed that Salary was ranked as the number one factor in attracting teachers, with Geographic Location of the District and Fringe Benefits ranked second and third, respectively. Nature of the Community and Philosophy of the District ranked fourth and fifth. District Organization was perceived as least important to personnel administrator respondents. 33. The responses of personnel administrators when j i compared by district size— less than 5,000; 5,000-10,000? j and over 10,000— noted significant differences as follows: a. Personnel administrators of large school districts (over 10,000) indicated Compo- | sition of School Staff was less important ' i than did personnel directors of small i school districts (less than 5,000). b. Personnel administrators of small school i districts (less than 5,000) indicated ' that Opportunities for Professional ! i i Growth were significantly less important I 1 than did respondents from districts with | an enrollment between 5,000 and 10,000 students. 34. The effect of the number of years of experience in personnel administration on the respondents* perception ------------------------------------------------— 251" of the importance of the 13 categories was analyzed with | the following significant differences noted: a. Personnel administrators with less than three years of experience indicated that Geographic Location of the District was significantly less important than did personnel administrators with more than six years of experience. i b. Personnel administrators with between | i three and six years of experience indi cated the Pre-selection Interview was i significantly more important than did | personnel administrators with over six ^ years of experience. I j 35. The responses of personnel administrators in | I 1 districts actively recruiting elementary teachers when i | i I compared with those of personnel administrators in dis- j ! tricts not actively recruiting this group revealed the i I following significant differences. I a. District Organization was significantly | i more important to personnel administra- | i tors in districts recruiting elementary | i teachers. j I b. Philosophy of the District, Salary, | I Fringe Benefits, and the Pre-selection 1 Interview were indicated as signifi- . . 252 , cantly more important by personnel ! l directors in districts not actively . . i recruiting elementary teachers. 1 , i 36. The responses of personnel administrators in | districts actively recruiting secondary teachers when 1 ♦ compared with those of personnel administrators in dis tricts not actively recruiting this group of teachers revealed the following significant differences: j a. Philosophy of the District was indi- | \ cated as significantly more important by personnel administrators not actively ; recruiting secondary teachers. ! I b. The Pre-selection Interview was indi cated as significantly more important by personnel administrators actively recruiting secondary teachers. i 37. The responses of personnel administrators ini districts actively recruiting bilingual teachers when I I compared with those of personnel administrators in dis- j tricts not actively recruiting this group of teachers j i revealed the following significant differences: 1 a. Nature of the Community was indicated as j significantly more important to personnel administrators actively recruiting bilin gual teachers. \ ------------------------ - 2 5 3 -j t b. Philosophy of the District was indicated ! as significantly more important to per- | sonnel administrators not actively J recruiting bilingual teachers. 38. The similarities and differences between the i i perceptions of preservice teachers and personnel adminis- i trators as to the importance of the 13 major categories \ l were examined with significance noted as follows: | I a. Salary was ranked first in importance by , ! both preservice teacher and personnel administrator respondents. b. Philosophy of the District was ranked second in importance for preservice teacher respondents, significantly higher than its fifth place rank by ! i i personnel administrators. j c. Geographic Location of the District was i ranked third by preservice teachers and i second by personnel administrators. \ I d. Fringe Benefits was ranked fourth by preservice teachers and third by person- I nel administrators. e. Opportunities for Professional Growth was ' perceived as significantly more important | by preservice teachers who ranked it j i j — — 2 5 - 4 - fifth than for personnel administrators who ranked it seventh. District Level Support was perceived as significantly more important to pre service teachers who ranked it sixth than to personnel administrators who ranked it eighth. Nature of the Community was perceived as significantly less important to pre service teachers who ranked it eighth than to personnel administrators who ranked it fourth. Composition of School Staff was signifi cantly more important to preservice teachers who ranked it eighth than to personnel administrators who ranked it twelfth. District Organization was perceived as significantly more important to pre service teachers who ranked it tenth than to personnel administrators who ranked it thirteenth. District size was ranked eleventh by both preservice teachers and personnel administrators. The Pre-selection Interview was perceived as significantly more important to per- | i j sonnel administrators who ranked it I sixth than for preservice teachers who j i ranked it twelfth. j District Recruitment Practices were perceived as significantly less impor tant to preservice teachers who ranked it thirteenth than to personnel adminis- i trators who ranked it ninth. i CHAPTER V SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS i AND RECOMMENDATIONS j I i Summary | Presented in this chapter are a review of the problem, the procedures followed, the selected findings, the conclusions, and the recommendations. I The Problem Following a 15-year period of teacher oversupply, i I j the nation now faces a teacher shortage. California, which ■ | by the year 2000 will enroll one in eight of the nation's l 1 I h ; school age children, will need approximately 100,000 new | r ! I teachers within the next five years. Recruitment of j j teachers in an increasingly competitive job market will j . 1 j require proactivity on the part of school district person- \ ! nel administrators. j j The focus of this study was to determine and to analyze the perceptions of preservice teachers regarding , the importance of 13 major categories and 65 individual factors to be considered in the recruitment of teachers to ! work in a district; and the similarities and differences j between the perceptions of preservice teachers and person- : -------------------- . - 257 nel administrators regarding the importance of 13 major i 1 ! categories in choosing a school district in which to work. i The study was further focused by identifying seven j questions to be answered: 1. What were the perceptions of preservice teachers as to the importance of 13 major categories to be con sidered when selecting a school district in which to work? i i 1 2. What factors in 13 major categories were most ' I ! and least important for preservice teachers in their i selection of a district in which to work? i 3. What were the perceptions and the relationship i 1 of the perceptions of preservice teachers as to the | importance of 13 major categories and 65 factors to be i i j considered in the selection of a school district when I compared as follows: j ■ i j a. Male/Female j i I b. Elementary (K-6)/Secondary (7-12) , i c. Bilingual/Non-bilingual 1 d. Married/Unmarried? 4. What were the relationships among the percep- ! tions of preservice teachers of the importance of 13 major categories to be considered in the selection of a school i district when compared as follows: i a. Male elementary/Male secondary ! Female elementary/Female secondary Male elementary/Female elementary Male secondary/Female secondary Male bilingual/Male non-bilingual Female bilingual/Female non-bilingual Male bilingual/Female bilingual Male non-bilingual/Female non-bilingual? Male married/Male unmarried Female married/Female unmarried Male married/Female married Male unmarried/Female unmarried? Elementary bilingual/Elementary non bilingual Secondary bilingual/Secondary non bilingual Elementary bilingual/Secondary bilingual Elementary non-bilingual/Secondary non-bilingual? Bilingual married/Bilingual unmarried Non-bilingual married/Non-bilingual unmarried Bilingual Married/Non-bilingual married Bilingual unmarried/Non-bilingual unmarried? Elementary married/Elementary unmarried Secondary married/Secondary unmarried 259 Elementary married/Secondary married Elementary unmarried/Secondary unmarried? I 5. What were the perceptions of school district personnel administrators of the importance of the 13 major categories to be considered in the recruitment of teachers to work in the school district? i 6. What were the perceptions and the relationship 1 i of the perceptions of school district personnel administra- j tors of the importance of the 13 major categories to be ■ considered in the recruitment of teachers when compared as follows: a. District pupil enrollment (less than 1 5,000? 5,000-10,000; over 10,000)? b. Years of school district personnel administration experience (less than 3 years? 3-6 years? over 6 years)? c. Actively recruiting elementary teach- i ers/Not actively recruiting elemen- i i tary teachers? d. Actively recruiting secondary teachers/ Not actively recruiting secondary teachers? e. Actively recruiting bilingual teachers/ Not actively recruiting bilingual v teachers? ! --------------- 26Cp i I i 7. What were the similarities/differences between the perceptions of preservice teachers and school district personnel administrators of the importance of the 13 major categories to be considered when teachers select a school j district in which to work and when districts attempt to recruit teachers to work in the school district? ! The Procedure j A four-page questionnaire, utilizing a Likert-type four-point scale and designed to determine the importance I of 13 major categories and 65 related factors in choosing j a school district, was administered to preservice teachers | in 28 Southern California colleges and universities. From 1 the 897 preservice teachers in the sample, responses were obtained from 7 09, representing a 79 percent return. j I . . . . 1 Personnel administrators in 2 01 Southern California ; school districts were mailed questionnaires and asked to 1 t I indicate their perceptions of the importance of 13 major ' I i j categories in recruiting teachers to work in a district. I Responses were received from 167, or 84 percent, of the personnel administrators surveyed. i ! The data from the questionnaires of preservice ! teachers and personnel administrators were then subjected j i to statistical analysis in order to answer the seven ! , I questions posed in this study. — 261 1 i i Selected Findings j i The following findings were selected to summarize ! i i the most important data of the study and to answer the | questions posed by the study: I 1. For all groups of preservice teachers, the j j factors relating to the category, Philosophy of the j District, which included opportunities for using a variety j of teaching methods, clearly defined educational objec- ( tives, and clearly defined expectations for teachers, were j perceived as being most important to their choice of a i school district in which to work. i 2. For all groups of preservice teachers, the * factors related to the category, District Size, were of ! least importance to their choice of a district in which to work. \ i I 3. For all groups of preservice teachers the following individual factors were perceived as most important: a. The majority of preservice teachers 1 i reported a preference for working in a middle socioeconomic community, b. Ease of commute was reported as the most important factor in the category, Geographic Location of the District. ! 2 62 c. The freedom to use a variety of teach ing methods was perceived as the most important factor related to the cate- i gory, Philosophy of the District. | d. A high beginning salary was perceived ! as more important than any other related i i Salary factor. e. Nearly three-fourths of the respondents indicated that comprehensive paid medical insurance was the most important of all i i i Fringe Benefit factors. f. The majority of preservice teachers indicated that an opportunity to Visit the Prospective School was of prime importance. ! I g. A majority of preservice teachers indi cated that the availability of supplies i and audio-visual equipment was a very j i important factor. ; h. Personality of the School Principal was j I perceived as highly important to the majority of preservice teachers who responded. 4. Salary was perceived by personnel administrators as most important in the recruitment of teachers to work 1 in a district. 263 5. When ranked by major categories, both preservice teachers and personnel administrators perceived Salary as the most important consideration in the choice of a school district. 6. Preservice teachers perceived the category, Philosophy of the District, as much more important than did personnel administrators. 7. Fringe Benefits were very important in the perceptions of both preservice teachers and personnel administrators. i Conclusions The following conclusions were based upon the findings presented in Chapter IV: 1. Preservice teachers are motivated in their choice of a school district by both intrinsic factors such i as those included in the category, Philosophy of the District, and extrinsic factors such as those included in ! the category, Salary. 2. Preservice teachers are influenced in their selection of a school district by many variables such as opportunity to visit the prospective school, the per sonality of the school principal, the availability of up- l to-date instructional materials, provisions for individual differences, as well as salary and fringe benefits. 264 | 3. There are significant differences between the perceptions of male versus female and elementary versus j secondary preservice teachers. Females and elementary j * preservice teachers consider all factors as more important than do male and secondary teachers. The findings of this study support research which indicates high beginning salary is a very important factor in attracting teachers to work in a school district. 5. Personnel administrators accurately perceived i the importance of salary and fringe benefits in the i recruitment of teachers to a district. [ 6. Years of personnel experience, the size of the I i i j district, and recruiting status have little effect on ! personnel administrators1 perceptions of the importance of ■ major categories related to teacher recruitment. j 7. The findings of the study indicate that person nel administrators may underestimate the importance of i emphasizing the district philosophy to prospective teacher candidates. I I I Recommendations ■ i Recommendations from the Study i From the findings and conclusions, the following ! recommendations regarding recruitment of preservice teachers are made: 1. Based on preservice teacher interest in the philosophy of the district, personnel recruitment materials should clearly outline the district educational goals, objectives, and expectancies. 2. It is recommended that in recruiting preservice teachers personnel administrators emphasize salary, particularly beginning salary when it is at a high level. 3. It is recommended that preservice teachers be given the opportunity to visit school sites and/or meet with site principals as each of these was considered most important by the majority of the respondents. 4. Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that recruiting efforts emphasize comprehensive paid medical benefits. 5. Personnel recruitment materials should emphasize the availability of up-to-date instructional materials including textbooks, supplies, and audio-visual equipment. 6. It is recommended that personnel administrators make themselves aware of the variety of factors, both extrinsic and intrinsic, that attract teachers to a district and emphasize those factors in their recruiting efforts. Recommendations for Further Study Regarding the need for further study the following recommendations are made: 2661 I 1. This study should be replicated to determine if the same factors are important to preservice teachers throughout the State of California. | 2. This study should be replicated with preservice teachers from colleges and universities outside the State of California to determine what factors would attract them j to districts within the state. 3. It is recommended that additional studies be conducted to determine the factors that were most important ' ■ to first and second year teachers in their choice of a i school district in which to work, BIBLIOGRAPHY 260 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aguayo, A. L., Cabrera, R. G., & Griego, I. C. (1989, March). Today*s students may be tomorrow's teachers. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. 73.(5 (, 98-101. Amenta, R., & Amenta, G. (1990, April). Survey points to staffing shortage. Thrust. 19(6), 12-15. Anrig, G. R. (1985). Educational standards, testing and equity. Phi Delta Kappan. 66(3), 623-625. ' Babcock, R. J. (1968). The first teaching position: Attitudes of college seniors. VA: Mid Atlantic Association for School, College and University Staff ing. Bennis, W. (1976). The unconscious conspiracy: Why leaders can't lead. New York: AMACOM. Berry, A. L. (1958). Factors determining the selection of teaching positions. Berkeley, CA: Bureau of School and College Placement. Borg, W. R., & Fale, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman. California Commission on Educational Quality. (1988, June). Report to the governor. Sacramento, CA: Office of State Printing. California Commission on the Teaching Profession. (1985, November). Who will teach our children? Sacramento, CA: Office of State Printing. California State Department of Education. (1976). Teacher supply and demand in California. 1965-1975. Sacramento, CA: Bureau of Publications, State Department of Education. California State Department of Education. (1987). Agenda for the twentv-first century: A blueprint for K-12 education. Sacramento, CA: Office of State Printing. California State Department of Education. (1989). California public school directory. Sacramento, CA: Bureau of Publications, State Department of Education. 2'69"| Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Foundation. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1986, September/October). Future teachers: Will there be enough good ones? Change, 18(5), 27-30. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1987, March/April). Prospective teachers: Career choices. Change, 19.(2), 31-35. Case, C. W., Shive, R. J., Ingebreton, K., & Speigel, V. M. (1988, July/August). Minority teacher educa tion: Recruitment and retention methods. Journal of Teacher Education. 3.3(6), 54-56. Castetter, W. B. (1981). The personnel function in educational administration. New York: Macmillan. Darling-Hammond, L. (1985). Equality and excellence: The educational status of Black Americans. New York: The College Board. Darling-Hammond, L. (1986, April). Teacher supply and demand: A structural perspective. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA. Darling-Hammond, L. (1988, November). The future of teaching. Educational Leadership. 46(3), 4-10. Deal, t. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cul tures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Deci, E. L. (1972). The effects of contingent and non contingent rewards and controls or intrinsic motiva tions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8(3), 217-229. Dessler, G. (1983). Improving productivity at work. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company. Dukakis, M. (1988, October). The Dukakis strategy for excellence in education. Phi Delta Kappan. 70(2), 113-117. Ellis, J. R., & Matthews, G. (1981). Beginning teach ers' perception of their difficulties with perfor mance and professional roles. Journal of the Associa tion for the Study of Perception. 17, 22-28. Feistritzer, C. E. (1986). Educational vital signs: Teachers. American School Board Journal. 173(10), A12-A16. French, W. L. (1982). The personnel management process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Gallup, C., & Clark, D. (1987, September). The 19th j annual Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward I the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan. j69(1), 17-30. i Gallup, C., & Clark, D. (1989, September). The 21st annual Gallup poll of the public's attitude toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 73.(1), 41-45. I Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A place called school. St. | Louis, MO: McGraw-Hill. Haberman, M. (1986). Alternative teacher certification programs. Teacher Education. 8(3), 14-15. Haberman, M. (1987). The recruitment and retention of teachers in urban schools. New York: Association of Teacher Educators and ERIC Clearinghouse in Urban j Education. Haberman, M. (1988, July/August). Proposals for recruiting minority teachers: Promising practices and attractive detours. Journal of Teacher Education. 33(5), 38-42. Haberman, M. (1989, June). More minority teachers. Phi Delta Kappan. 70(10), 771-776. Hackley, L. V. (1985). The decline in the number of Black teachers can be reversed. Education Measure ment— Issues and Practice. 4(1), 17-19. Hanes, M. L., & Hanes, M. L. (198 6, Winter). A broader perspective for teacher recruitment. Action in Teacher Education. 8.(4), 1-5. Hanson, E. M. (1985). Educational administration and organizational behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Harris, R. (1989, September). The search for minority ( teachers. Los Angeles Times. Orange County Edition, p. 1. Hawley, W. D. (1986, June). Toward a comprehensive strategy for addressing the teacher shortage. Phi Delta Kappan. 67(10), 712-718. j i Herzberg, F. (1979, October). Herzberg on motivation for the 80s: Piecing together generations of values, j Industry Week. 3.(5), 305-312. , I Heyns, B. (1988, April). Educational defectors: A ; first look at teacher attrition in the NLS-72. Educational Researcher. 17(3), 24-32. I Hinrichs, J. R. (1974). The motivation crisis. New York: AMACOM. i Hodgkinson, H. (1989, November). The demo man. j Teacher. 1(2), 60-64. Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group. Honig, W. (1989, September). California unprepared for tidal wave of students, Honig warns. California State , Department of Education News Release #89-72, 1-5. 1 Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation (2nd ed). San Diego: Edits Publishers. Johnson, S. M. (1986, Summer). Incentives for teachers: What motivates, what matters. Educational Adminis tration Quarterly. 22.(3), 54-79. Kaiser, J. S. (1981). Motivation deprivation: No j reason to stay. Clearing House. 55(1), 35-38. Kaiser, J. S., S c Polczynski, W. (1982). Educational f stress: Sources, reactions, preventions. Peabody Journal of Education. 59(2), 127-136. Katz, D. , S c Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons. ! Kean, T. H. (1986, November). Who will teach? Phi ' Delta Kappan. 68(4), 205-207. 1 ------ 272 Klausmeier, R. (1987, Spring). Lessons from the past. j Action in Teacher Education. 9.(1) , 9-20. , I Kortokrax-Clark, D. (1986). The minority teacher shortage: An overview and a solution. Action in Teacher Education. 8.(4), 7-13. 1 Lang, C. L. (1968). Teacher recruiting— Problems. promises and proven methods. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall. Lieberman, J., & Miller, G. (1984). Teachers: Their world and their work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ! Lightfoot, A. (1986, Autumn). The changing realities of teacher needs. Teacher Education Quarterly. 13.(4) , ; 87-95. j Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological j study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ; Maeroff, G. I. (1983). School and college: Partner- ! ship in education (Carnegie Foundation Special j Report). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction | Service No. ED 238 325) i | Marcoulides, G. E., & Heck, R. H. (1988, Summer), j Teacher educational reform: Issues of equity and | accountability. Urban Review. .20(2), 125-134. Maslow, A. J. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row. ! Maslow, A. H. (1965). Eupsvchian management: A i journal. Homewood, IL: Irsen. E I I | McCormick, K. (1984, November). A.F.T. turns down its i i rhetoric. American School Board Journal. 171(11), ! | 34-55. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill. McLaughlin, M. W., & Marsh, D. D. (1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers College Record. £0(1), 75. Melbo, I. R., & Others (1968). Report of the survey— j Colton Joint Unified School District. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. 273n I Middleton, E. J., Mason, E. J., Stillwell, W. E., & Parker, W. C. (1988). A model for recruitment and retention of minority students in teacher preparation * programs. Journal of Teacher Education. 39.(4), 14-18. Minium, E. M., & Clarke, R. (1982). Elements of statis- I tical reasoning. New York: John Wiley and Sons. | Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mitchell, D. E., Ortiz, F. I., & Mitchell, T. K. (1983). Work orientation and iob performance: The cultural bases of teaching rewards and incentives. Riverside, CA: University of California. j Naisbitt, J. (1984). Megatrends: Ten new directions j transforming our lives. New York: Warner Books. j i Nakanishi, D. T. (1986). The untapped recruiters: ! Minority alumni and undergraduate admissions. I Journal of College Admission. 112. 15-19. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1985). Projections of educational statistics to 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Education Association. (1986, September). j Teacher supply and demand. Washington, DC: Author. Needham, N. (1990, April). What makes teachers cross j state lines? National Education Association Today. 8(8), 4-5. Newman, M. (1989, July 17). Orange County District | search for bilingual teachers. Los Angeles Times. ' Orange County Edition, p. 1. | Ondovcsik, M. (1988, May/June). Is the teaching profession growing up? Learning. .16(9), 46-50. Oppenheim, A. N. (19 66). Questionnaire design and I attitude measure. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Patten, T. H., Jr. (1971). Manpower planning and development of human resources. New York: Wiley. Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America1s best-run com panies . New York: Warner Books. , , ----- . — . --- „ — 27- 4 Pigors, P., & Meyers, C. A. (1964). Management of human resources: Readings in personnel administra- I tion. New York: McGraw-Hill. ! i Post, L. M., & Woessner, J. (1987). Developing a recruitment and retention support system for minority students in teacher education. Journal of Negro Education. 56(1), 203-211. Rebore, R. W. (1987). Personnel administration in education. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. i Robbins, S. P. (1983). Organizational behavior: ! Concepts, controversies, and applications. Englewood ; Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. j Rosecrans, F. R. (1970). Factors considered by elemen- ! tary school teachers in selecting a district. Unpub- j lished dissertation, School of Education, University of Southern California. j i Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Political myths about educa- 1 tion reform: Lessons from research on teaching. Phi i Delta Kappan. 66(5), 353. i Rush, H. M. F. (1971). Job design for motivation. New York: The Conference Board. Sanzotta, D. (1977). Motivational theories and appli- i cations for managers. New York: AMACOM. j I Schlechty, P. C., & Vance, V. S. (1983, March). ! Recruitment, selection and retention: The shape of ! the teaching force. Elementary School Journal. 83.(4) , 469-486. Schloss, P. J., & Sindelar, P. T. (1988). A collabora tive model for recruiting liberal arts majors into graduate education programs. Teacher Education and j Special Education. 11(2), 59-63. j Shanker, A. (1988, November). Reforming the reform movement. Educational Administration Quarterly. 24(4), 336-373. Silver, P. F. (1982). Synthesis on research on teacher motivation. Educational Leadership. 39.(2), 551-554. Smith, F. J. (1977). Work attitudes as predictors of attendance on a specific day. Journal of Applied Psychology. 62.(1), 16-19. Smith, G. P., Miller, M. D., & Jay, J. (1988, July/ August). A case study of the impact of performance- based testing on the supply of minority teachers. Journal of Teacher Education. 3^.(3), 45-52. Smith, L., & Keith, P. (1971). Anatomy of educational innovation: An organizational analysis of an elemen tary school. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Soder, R. (1988, December). Studying the education of educators. What we can learn from other professions. Phi Delta Kappan. 70(4), 299-305. Spellman, S. 0. (1988, July/August). Recruitment of minority teachers: Issues, problems, facts, possible solutions. Journal of Teacher Education. 3.3(3), 58-62. Spencer, T. L. (1986). Teacher education at Grambling State University: A move toward excellence. Journal of Negro Education. 55(2), 293-303. Spuck, D. W. (1974). Reward structures in the public high school. Educational Administration Quarterly. 10(3), 22-42. Swanson, R. G., & Manning, M. L. (1986). Seeking excellence through joint college school district effort. Action in Teacher Education. 7(3), 35-40. Sykes, G. (1983, March). Teacher preparation and teacher workforce: Problems and prospects for the 80's. American Education. 19(2), 23-31. Taylor, J. H. (1987). A model for minority recruit ment. Dominguez Hills, CA: Carnegie Corporation. Tromley, R. (1989, August). Teacher shortage on the rise. Los Angeles Times. Orange County Edition, p. 1. Walker, J. W. (1980). Human resource planning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Warren, S. (1985). Minorities in teacher education. Washington, DC; ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 272 504) Watts, G. (1986, June). And let the air out of the volleyballs. Phi Delta Kappan. 67(10), 723-724. I West, P. (1989, October). Senators unveil 2 bills to bolster teaching ranks. Education Week. 9(5), 1. , i Whitsett, D. A., & Winslow, E. K. (1976). An analysis j of studies critical of the motivation-hygiene theory j in F. Herzberg, The managerial choice. Homewood, IL: i Dow Jones-Irwin ! Witty, E. P. (1986). Testing teacher performance. Journal of Negro Education. 55(2), 358-367. | \ Wong, L. (1990, April 27). Address to Orange County Chapter of California Teachers of English and Speakers of Other Languages. Chapman College. Zapata, J. T. (1988). Early identification and recruit- j ment of Hispanic teacher candidates. Journal of j Teacher Education. 39.(2), 19-23. I l _ APPENDIXES APPENDIX A PRESERVICE TEACHER SURVEY 279 Dear Preservice Teacher, Thank you for participating in this study. The questions on the following pages can be answered in a few minutes. The compiled information will be used in an attempt to determine which factors will most affect teacher choice of a district in which to work. Determination of these factors is critical as California faces an impending teacher shortage. It will not be necessary to sign your name and as an individual you will not be identified in any way. However, to assist in classifying and compiling the necessary statistical information the following information is requested: M A L E M A R R IE D F E M A L E U N M A R R IE D CREDENTIAL PROGRAM: ELEMENTARY S E C O N D A R Y ARE YOU FLUENT IN MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE? YES NO NAM E OF C O L L E G E /U N IV E R S IT Y Eileen Dibb Laura Schwalm 12562 Manley Street Garden Grove, CA 92645 SURVEY OF FACTORS CONSIDERED BY PRESERVICE TEACHERS IN THEIR SELECTION OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT As you think about some of the reasons which will lead you to select a school district, please rate the following individual factors in accordance with the degree of influence each will have on your decision. The order in which the items are listed has no significance. Use the following criteria in helping to determine the importance of each item: 1 . NOT IMPORTANT These factors will have little or no influence on the decision to select a district. 2. SOMEW HAT IMPORTANT Items in this category will have some influence on the decision to select a district. 3. IM PO R TA N T Items in this category will have an important influence on the decision to select a district 4. MOST IMPORTANT Items in this category will have the greatest influence on the decision to select a district. DIRECTIONS: Read each item under categories on the following pages. Circle the number that best indicates the degree of influence the factors will have on your decision to select a school district. Use the criteria above for all items. Following each group of factors, please circle the item which indicates your preference. 280 DISTRICT SIZE A. District enrollment is very small (under 1,000) B. District enrollment is small (under 5,000) G District enrollment is average (5,000 - 10,000) D. District enrollment is large (10,000 - 20,000) E District enrollment is very large (over 20,000) 2 2 2 2 2 & < ? 3 3 3 3 3 4? 4 4 4 4 4 1. I would most like to work in a district described by item (circle one): A B C D E 2. I would least like to work in a district described by item (circle one): A B C D E I I . DISTRICT ORGANIZATION A Elementary District K-6 1 2 3 4 B. Elementary District K-8 1 2 3 4 G High School District 7-12 1 2 3 4 D. High School District 9-12 1 2 3 4 E Unified District K-12 1 2 3 4 1 . I would most like to work in a district described by item (circle one): A B C D E 2. I would least like to work in a district described by item (circle one): A B C D E III. NATURE OF THE COMMUNITY A High socio-economic community 1 2 3 4 B. Middle socio-economic community 1 2 3 4 G Low socio-economic community 1 2 3 4 D. Low minority community 1 2 3 4 E High minority community 1 2 3 4 1 . Of most importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E 2. Of least importance to me is (circle one): A B C D E IV . GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT A. Climate B. Ease of commute G Near recreation and culture centers D. Availability of affordable housing E Home town or area of residence 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 1. Of most importance to me is item (circle one): 2. Of least importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D A B C D 281 PHILOSOPHY OF THE DISTRICT A. Opportunity to use a variety of teaching methods 1 2 3 4 B. Evidence of district provision for individual differences 1 2 3 4 O Opportunities for experimentation 1 2 3 4 D. Olearly defined educational objectives 1 2 3 4 E Oiearfy defined expectations for teachers 1 2 3 4 1. I would most like to work in a district described by item (circle one): A B C D E 2. I would least like to work in a district described by item (circle one): A B O D E V I. SALARY A. High beginning salary 1 2 3 4 B. High maximum salary 1 2 3 4 C Credit for a Master's Degree 1 2 3 4 D. Credit for a Doctorate 1 2 3 4 E Number of years to top salary 1 2 3 4 1 . Of most importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E 2. Of least importance to me is item (cirice one): A B C D E V II. FRINGE BENEFITS A. Comprehensive paid medical insurance 1 2 3 4 B. Wellness/fitness program 1 2 3 4 C Dental insurance 1 2 3 4 D. Provisions for sabattical leave 1 2 3 4 E Provisions for maternity/paternity leave 1 2 3 4 1. Of most importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E 2. Of least importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E V III. RECRUITMENT PRACTICES A. Printed district brochure 1 2 3 4 B. Interview held at the college 1 2 3 4 a Opportunity to visit district 1 2 3 4 D. Opportunity to visit prospective school 1 2 3 4 E Follow-up letter from personnel recruiter 1 2 3 4 1. Of most importance to me is item (circle one): 2. Of least importance to me is item (circle one): ABODE ABODE 282 IX . PRE-SELECTION INTERVIEW ✓ f 4 A. Friendliness of district staff 1 2 3 4 B. Interest shown by interviewing administrator 1 2 3 4 C Opportunity to talk with building principal 1 2 3 4 D. Guarantee of assignment 1 2 3 4 E Availability of grade level of choice 1 2 3 4 1 . Of most importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E 2. Of least importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E X. SCHOOL PLANTS AND FACILITIES A. Modern school buildings 1 2 3 * 4 B. Air conditioned classrooms 1 2 3 4 a Availability of supplies and audio-visual equipment 1 2 3 4 D. Availability of computers and recent technological equipment 1 2 3 4 E Availability of teachers' workroom 1 2 3 4 1 . Of most importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E 2. Of least importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E X I. COMPOSITION OF SCHOOL STAFF A. Predominately young faculty 1 2 3 4 B. Predominately experienced faculty 1 2 3 4 G Balance of men and women on staff 1 2 3 4 D. Friends working in school district 1 2 3 4 E Personality of principal 1 2 3 4 I. Of most importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E 2. Of least importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E XII. OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL GROWTH A. Pre-school orientation program for teachers 1 2 3 4 B. Planned in-service program t 2 3 4 G Active professional organizatios 1 2 3 4 D. College or extension classes offered nearby or in the district t 2 3 4 E Opportunities for promotions to administrative or supervisory positions t 2 3 4 1 . Of most importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E 2. Of least importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E 283 ^ Jp * XIII. DISTRICT LEVEL SUPPORT *° & * ^ A . Up-to-date textbooks 1 2 3 4 B. Up-to-date teachers' procedural handbook 1 2 3 4 C . Consultants available in special curricula areas 1 2 3 4 D. Availability of professional library t 2 3 4 E Curriculum laboratory or instructional materials/ media center available 1 2 3 4 1. Of most importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E 2. Of least importance to me is item (circle one): A B C D E Please use the space below to indicate any other factors you will consider as important to your selection of a school district. The major categories that you have reviewed are listed below in the same order that they appeared on the preceding pages. In considering the areas that would be most important to you, please rank the items in order of their importance from 1 to 13. Place the numeral 1 next to the area which was m ost important, a number 2 next to the area of second importance and so on through 13. RANK ORDER A. Size of the District H. Recruitm ent B. Oraanization of the District I. Pre-Selection Interview C. Nature of the Community J. School Plants and Facilities D. Geographic Location of the District K. Composition of School Staff E Philosophy of the District L. Opportunities for Professional Growth F. S alary M. District Level Support G Fringe Benefits THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROFESSIONAL HELP. 284 APPENDIX B PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR SURVEY ; < i i i 285 Dear Personnel Director, As part of a doctoral dissertation we are seeking to identify factors used by preservice teachers in choosing a school district in which to work. We are also very interested in your perception of the importance of these factors. We would greatly appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to us in the self addressed, stamped envelope. It will not be necessary to sign your name and you will not be identified as an individual in any way. We will, however, be happy to provide you with the results of the entire survey (responses from approximately 800 preservice teachers) if you feel such information would be useful to you and if you wish to provide your name and mailing address. To receive this information, simply print your name and address in the space provided on the bottom on the questionnaire. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time. Sincerely, Eileen Dibb Laura Schwalm 12562 Manley Street Garden Grove, CA 92645 (714) 897-8089 To assist in classifying and com piling the necessary statistical information, please com plete the following: A. District Pupil Enrollm ent (check one) Less than 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 Over 10,000 B. Years of Experience in Personnel (check one) Less than 3 years 3 to 6 years Over 6 years C. District Recruiting System (check all that apply) Actively recruiting elementary teachers Actively recruiting secondary teachers Actively recruiting bilingual teachers Please complete the following ONLY if you wish to receive a copy of the results of the preservice teacher survey. (Please print.) Name:___________________________________________ Position:______________________________ Addre ss:_______________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for your help and consideration! 286 FACTORS CONSIDERED BY PRESERVICE TEACHERS IN SELECTING A SCHOOL DISTRICT The factors listed below are being compiled from the results of a survey of Southern California preservice teachers within one year of completion of teacher certification in the Fall of 1989. Teacher candidates were asked to rank thirteen items below in terms of importance in choosing a school district. Please place the number one (1) next to the factor which you believe the candidate would consider most important, a numeral two (2) next to the factor of second importance, and so on through the thirteenth or least important item. The order in which the items are now listed has no significance. RANK ORDER I. DISTRICT SIZE - Includes enrollment of the district, small average, large and very large. ______________ II. DISTRICT ORGANIZATION - Includes elementary, high school, and unified districts. ______________ III. NATURE OF THE COMMUNITY - Includes socio-economic level and size of minority population. ______________ IV. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION - Includes climate, recreation, and.cultural centers. ______________ V. DISTRICT PHILOSOPHY - Includes opportunities for using a variety of teaching methods, experimentation, clearly defined educational objectives, and clearly defined expectations for teachers. ^ ______________ VI. SALARY - Includes beginning salary, maximum salary, credit for masters degree, credit for doctoral degree, and number of years to the top salary. ______________ VII. FRINGE BENEFITS « Includes comprehensive paid insurance, wellness/fitness programs, dental insurance, provisions for sabbatical leaves, and provisions for maternity/paternity leave. ______________ VIII. RECRUITMENT PRACTICES - Includes printed district brochure, interview held at the college, opportunity to visit district/prospective school, and follow-up from personnel recruitor.____________________________________________________ _____________ IX. PRE-SELECTION INTERVIEW - Includes interest shown by district administrator, friendliness of district staff, choice of grade level and guarantee of assignment. _____________ X. SCHOOL PLANTS AND FACILITIES - Includes modern buildings, air conditioning, availability of supplies. AV equipment, computers, and recent technological equipment. _____________ XI. COMPOSITION OF SCHOOL STAFF - Includes age, experience level of the staff, balance of men and women, personality of the building principal, and friends working in the district. _____________ XII. OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL GROWTH - Includes district’s provision for in-service orientation, professional organizations, and opportunity for promotion. ______________ X III. DISTRICT LEVEL SUPPORT - Includes the availability of a teachers' handbook, up-to-date textbooks, professional library, and curriculum/media center. ______________ APPENDIX C LIST OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SURVEYED 288 1 LIST OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES TO WHICH PRESERVICE 1 I TEACHERS SURVEYS WERE SENT Private Colleges and Universities: Azusa Pacific College Biola University California Luthern University Chapman College Loma Linda University Loyola Marymount University Master*s College Mount St. Mary*s College Occidental College Pepperdine University Point Loma Nazarene College Southern California College United States International University University of Redlands University of San Diego University of Southern California Westmont College Whittier College California State University System: Cal Poly Pomona California State University Dominguez Hills California State University Fullerton California State University Long Beach California State University Northrdige San Diego State University University of California System: University of California Irvine University of California Northridge University of California San Diego University of California Santa Barbara APPENDIX D LETTERS TO COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 29 0~1 February 15, 1990 Dear Sir: j As the impending teacher shortage becomes more pronounced, growing school districts will find themselves in competi tion with each other for the most qualified teaching f candidates. If personnel recruiters wish to be successful in attracting the best of the available candidates to their districts, it is critical that they understand what factors are most j important to potential applicants. Because of the impor- | tance of attracting top quality teachers, findings from | this study, as well as others in this area, can provide , formulative information to guide district recruitment strategies and procedures. [ To help determine the most important factors influencing j elementary and secondary teachers, the accompanying questionnaire has been developed. The intent is to conduct a stratified random sample of K-12 preservice teachers from J student teaching classes in Southern California colleges ; and universities, as well as from school district personnel j | directors involved in recruitment and selection in 235 Southern California school districts. j 1 . I We need your assistance m administering this survey and i have been assured by Dr. _______________ of your willingness i to help with this research project. Please distribute ' copies of the questionnaire to elementary and secondary ; student teachers currently enrolled in your program. | Students should be able to complete the questionnaire in j i less than ten (10) minutes. Please return the surveys in . I the enclosed envelope by March 1, 1990. Copies of the findings and recommendations are available to you upon 1 j request. Thank you for your help and professional assistance. j Sincerely, Eileen Dibb Laura Schwalm APPENDIX E LIST OF DISTRICTS SURVEYED 292 District County Enrollment ABC Unified Los Angeles 20,800 Adelanto Elementary San Bernardino 2, 013 Alhambra City Elementary Los Angeles 10,166 Alhambra City High Los Angeles 9.624 Alta Loma Elementary San Bernardino 6,304 Alvord Unified Riverside 12,934 Anaheim Union High Orange 20,419 Antelope Valley Union High Los Angeles 8,192 Apple Valley Unified San Bernardino 8,775 Arcadia Unified Los Angeles 7,706 Azusa Unified Los Angeles 9,596 Baldwin Park Unified Los Angeles 15,080 Banning Unified Riverside 4,001 Barstow Unified San Bernardino 6,481 Bassett Unified Los Angeles 5,110 Bear Valley Unified San Bernardino 2,473 Beaumont Unified Riverside 2,800 Bellflower Unified Los Angeles 9,033 Beverly Hills Unified Los Angeles 4,774 Bonita Unified Los Angeles 9,566 Brawley Imperial 3,312 Brawley Union High Imperial 1,504 Brea-Olinda Unified Orange 4,538 Buena Park Elementary Orange 3,878 Burbank Unified Los Angeles 11,410 Cajon Valley Union Elementary San Diego 15,058 Calexio Unified Imperial 6,261 Capistrano Unified Orange 22,811 Carlsbad Unified San Diego 5,900 1 Carpinteria Unified Santa Barbara 2,455 Centinela Valley Union High Los Angeles 5,953 Central Elementary San Bernardino 4,088 Central Union High Imperial 2,676 Centralia Elementary Orange 4,292 Chaffey Joint Union l High San Bernardino 12,200 i Charter Oak Unified Los Angeles 5,473 | Chino Unified San Bernardino 17,803 Chula Vista City San Diego 15,562 Claremont Unified Los Angeles 5,856 Coachella Valley Unified Riverside 8,230 j Colton Joint Unified San Bernardino 14,002 Compton Unified Los Angeles 26,084 | Conejo Valley Unified Ventura 17,901 Corona-Norco Unified Coronado Unified Covina-Valley Unified Cucamonga Elementary Culver City Unified Cypress Elementary Desert Sands Unified Downey Unified Duarte Unified East Whittier City Elementary El Centro Elementary El Monte Elementary El Monte Union High El Rancho Unified El Segundo Unified Elsinore Union High Encinitas Union Elementary Escondido Union Elementary Escondido Union High Etiwanda Elementary Fallbrook Union Elementary Fallbrook Union High Fillmore Unified Fontana Unified Fountain Valley j Elementary 1 Fullerton Elementary Fullerton Joint Union High Garden Grove Unified Garvey Elementary Glendale Unified Glendora Unified i Goleta Union ■ Elementary Grossmont Union High | Hacienda La Puente , Unified Hawthorne Elementary Hemet Unified Hesperia Unified Holtville Unified Hueneme Elementary Hughes-Elizabeth Lakes Union Elementary Huntington Beach City Elementary Riverside 19 424 San Diego 2 083 Los Angeles 10 643 San Bernardino 1 730 Los Angeles 4 483 Orange 3 430 Riverside 13 800 Los Angeles 13 971 Los Angeles 4 425 Los Angeles 6 955 Imperial 5 059 Los Angeles 10 602 Los Angeles 8 199 Los Angeles 10 126 Los Angeles 1 820 Riverside 4 330 San Diego 4 600 San Diego 12 746 San Diego 5 608 San Bernardino 1 760 San Diego 5 163 San diego 1 970 Ventura 3 224 San Bernardino 19 057 Orange 6 021 Orange 10 124 Orange 11 892 Orange 35 931 Los Angeles 7 224 Los Angeles 22 222 Los Angeles 5 558 Santa Barbara 3 619 San Diego 19 234 Los Angeles 21 367 Los Angeles 5 716 Riverside 10 974 San Bernardino 10 673 Imperial 1 695 Ventura 6 839 Los Angeles 15 375 Orange 5 345 Huntington Beach Union High Inglewood Unified Irvine Unified Jurupa Unified Keppel Union Elementary La Canada Unified La Habra City Elementary La Mesa-Spring Valley Laguna Beach Unified Lake Elsinore Lakeside Union Elementary Lancaster Elementary Las Virgenes Unified Lawndale Elementary Lemon Grove Elementary Lennox Elementary i Little Lake City Elementary Lompoc Unified Long Beach Unified Los Alamitos Unified Los Angeles Unified Los Nietos Elementary Lowell Joint Elementary Lynwood Unified Magnolia Elementary Manhattan Beach City Elementary Monrovia Unified Montebello Unified Moorpark Unified i Moreno Valley Unified Morongo Unified Mountain Empire Unified j Mountain View ! Elementary Mountain View Elementary National Elementary Newhall Elementary Newport-Mesa Unified Norwalk-La Mirada Unified Ocean View Elementary Ocean View Elementary Oceanside City Unified Ojai Unified Ontario-Montclair Elementary Orange 14 920 Los Angeles 15 375 Orange 20 025 Riverside 13 944 Los Angeles 2 300 Los Angeles 3 210 Orange 4 435 San Diego 12 514 Orange 2 150 Riverside 5 546 San Diego 4 254 Los Angeles 9 599 Los Angeles 8 755 Los Angeles 4 127 San Diego 3 570 Los Angeles 5 010 Los Angeles 4 005 Santa Barbara 9 732 Los Angeles 65 969 Orange 5 818 Los Angeles 592 273 Los Angeles 2 030 Los Angeles 2 421 Los Angeles 13 701 Orange 4 579 Los Angeles 2 200 Los Angeles 5 417 Los Angeles 31 156 Ventura 4 591 Riverside 23 857 San Bernardino 8 889 San Diego 1 794 San Bernardino 1 888 Los Angeles 8 219 San Diego 5 345 Los Angeles 4 000 Orange 16 129 Los Angeles 18 472 Ventura 2 326 Orange 8 487 San Diego 14 308 Ventura 3 322 San Bernardino 18,600 Orange Unified Orange 23,387 Orcutt Union Elementary Santa Barbara 3,550 Oxnard Elementary Ventura 1,853 Oxnard Union High Ventura 11,126 Palm Springs Unified Riverside 12,279 Palmdale Elementary Los Angeles 9,662 Palo Verde Unified Riverside 3,741 Palos Verdes Pen insula Unified Los Angeles 9,583 Paramount Unified Los Angeles 11,791 Pasadena Unified Los Angeles 22,545 Perris Elementary Riverside 2,256 Perris Union High School Riverside 3,810 Placentia Unified Orange 17,700 Pleasant Valley Elementary Ventura 6,007 Pomona Unified Los Angeles 23,778 Poway Unified San Diego 21,796 Redlands Unified San Bernardino 13,130 Redondo Beach Los Angeles 3,691 Rialto Unified San Bernardino 15,500 Rim Of The World Unified San Bernardino 4,951 Rio Elementary Ventura 2,370 Riverside Unified Riverside 25,868 Romona Unified San Diego 4,947 Rosemead Elementary Los Angeles 2,794 Rowland Unified Los Angeles 19,038 Saddleback Valley Unified Orange 22,390 San Bernardino City Unified San Bernardino 36,844 San Diego City Unified San Diego 111,198 San Dieguito Union High San Diego 6,263 San Gabriel Elementary Los Angeles 3,113 San Jacinto Unified Riverside 3,024 San Marcos Unified San Diego 7,280 San Marino Unified Los Angeles 2,755 San Ysidro Elementary San Diego 3,577 Santa Ana Unified Orange 38,459 Santa Barbara Elementary Santa Barbara 4, 629 Santa Barbara High Santa Barbara 7,495 Santa Maria Joint Union High Santa Barbara 3,453 Santa Maria-Bonita Union Elementary Santa Barbara 7,479 Santa Monica-Malibu Unified Los Angeles 9,533 296 ) Santa Paula Elementary Ventura 3,271 Santee Elementary San Diego 7,623 Saugus Union Elementary Los Angeles 4,470 Savanna Elementary Orange 1,800 Silver Valley Unified San Bernardino 2,105 Simi Valley Unified Ventura 18,801 Snowline Joint Unified San Bernardino 3,310 Solona Beach Elementary San Diego 1,544 South Bay Union Elementary San Diego 8,346 South Bay Union High Los Angeles 4, 000 South Pasadena Unified Los Angeles 3,314 South Whittier Elementary Los Angeles 3,524 Sulphur Springs Union Elementary Los Angeles 2,750 Sweetwater Union High San Diego 26,077 Temecula Union Elementary Riverside 3,200 Temple City Unified Los Angeles 4,208 Torrance Unified Los Angeles 18,768 Tustin Unified Orange 10,120 Upland Unified San Bernardino 9,941 Val Verde Elementary Riverside 2,269 Valley Center Union Elementary San Diego 1,800 Ventura Unified Ventura 14,853 Victor Elementary San Bernardino 4,120 Victor Valley Union High San Bernardino 3,821 Vista Unified San Diego 15,636 Walnut Valley Unified Los Angeles 11,210 West Covina Unified Los Angeles 8,120 Westminster Elementary Orange 7,402 Westside Union Elementary Los Angeles 2,950 Whittier City Los Angeles 5,714 Whittier Union High Los Angeles 8,850 William S. Hart Union High Los Angeles 9,447 Wilsona Los Angeles 1, 650 Yorba Linda Elementary Orange 1,867 Yucaipa Joint Unified San Bernardino 5,618

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A survey of the attitudes of school teachers toward problems in education

PDF

The relationship between teacher perceptions of local school factors and the use of student study teams

PDF

A critical study of certain physiological, emotional, and motivating factors as determining elements in a remedial reading program

PDF

Expectation, education, enactment: A case study of women in Tlacotalpan, Mexico

PDF

Standardization of the Leiter International Performance Scale

PDF

The internal structure of clinical problems used in a problem-based curriculum in English-language medical schools

PDF

Perceptions of middle school principals about shared decision making in Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

The socio-educational significance of the revival of interest in the works of Juan Luis Vives

PDF

The interactive effects of cognitive style and selected instructional strategies on a complex psychomotor skill

PDF

A study of elementary school pupil personnel specialists in California schools

PDF

The effect of screen size, compressed sound, and sex on cognitive learning in intermediate level science

PDF

An investigation of the relation between open structure education and the development of creativity in young children

PDF

Educational philosophies and intercultural ideologies: A study of the belief orientations of preservice teachers

PDF

Fixation in slow learners, and sensitivity of Piagetian conservation scores to factors known to affect IQ scores

PDF

Teachers' and administrators' beliefs about the use of corporal punishment in California public schools

PDF

The problems of high school teachers and their evaluation of the sources of assistance

PDF

An optional learning program at the secondary level: A descriptive analysis

PDF

Interaction effects of introversion/extraversion and goal structure on performance and attitude

PDF

The determination of need for educational provision at the higher secondary level in the Los Angeles School District

PDF

The Brown Berets: A participant observation study of social action in the schools of Los Angeles

Asset Metadata

Creator Dibb, Mary Eileen (author)

Core Title Factors considered by preservice teachers in their choice of a school district

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-533046

Unique identifier UC11245891

Identifier usctheses-c26-533046 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP25327.pdf

Dmrecord 533046

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dibb, Mary Eileen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA