Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The perceptions of principals towards proprietary online teacher credential programs and their effect on hiring
(USC Thesis Other)
The perceptions of principals towards proprietary online teacher credential programs and their effect on hiring
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPALS TOWARDS PROPRIETARY ONLINE TEACHER CREDENTIAL PROGRAMS AND THEIR EFFECT ON HIRING by David H. Bolton A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December 2010 Copyright 2010 David H. Bolton ii Dedication Anything accomplished in life does not come solely from one’s own ability or effort, but is the result of many different contributors and influences. I would like to dedicate the accomplishment of completing the degree, Doctor of Education, to those who have provided significant influence upon and contribution to my life and pursuits. First, I dedicate this and any other accomplishment to Jesus Christ, my lord and leader, whose personal example of love, grace, and perseverance provided more than I could have ever hoped for through life’s journey. Second, I dedicate this achievement to Cynthia Nicolle Soriano Bolton, wife, friend, and fellow-educator, who loved and encouraged me as we “endured” the journey together. I owe her so much for tolerating me throughout our marriage and loving me regardless of the challenges. Third, I dedicate this dissertation to my two wonderful sons: Bradley David Bolton and Evan Quinn Bolton whose own love, respect and pursuit of higher education have given their father an immeasurable sense of pride. Finally, I dedicate this accomplishment to my parents: Haskel & Alta Bolton, two retired educators, whose personal example and dedication to their spiritual beliefs and to the pursuit of knowledge through education have impacted their son in more ways than they could ever imagine, and to my siblings: Judith Bolton Danbacher, Kathleen Bolton O’Grady, Steven Bolton, and Timothy Bolton. They have loved and even tolerated their brother throughout his life. It is my privilege to call them my sisters and brothers. Additionally, I dedicate this dissertation to my step-mother, Diana Bolton, whose help and encouragement has always been timely. iii Acknowledgements During the completion of this study there are a number of people who helped in the process. Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, committee chairman and mentor who generously provided the scholarly and practical tools necessary to complete the research and dissertation. Secondly, I give my appreciation to my dissertation committee members: Dr. David Dwyer and Dr. Melora Sundt. Third, I give much thanks to the members of my thematic dissertation group, also known at TOOL (Team of Online Learning), whose focus on online learning provided additional resources and rich discussion. Those members were Valerie Callet, Treisa Cassens, Laura Castaneda, Ryan Corner, Sheng- Chieh (Jim) Peng, and Jason Rey. The University of Southern California Rossier School of Education must be acknowledged because of their encouragement of full-time educators to pursue doctoral level studies. The school also provided the necessary tools to complete the research and dissertation. The University of Southern California Doctoral Support Center, especially Dr. Gokce Golkap, provided much guidance throughout the dissertation process. Ms. Emily Wright offered much help with the editing process. Finally, my dear wife, Cynthia Nicolle Soriano Bolton demonstrated that her years as a paralegal were well-spent as she gave many hours transcribing the interviews. iv Table of Contents Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables vi Abstract vii Chapter One: Introduction 1 Background of the Problem 1 Statement of the Problem 8 Purpose of the Study 11 Research Questions 11 Significance of the Study 12 Hypotheses 14 Limitations 15 Definition of Terms 15 Chapter Two: Literature Review 17 Introduction 17 Definition of Online Learning 17 The Need for Highly Qualified Teachers 18 Principals’ Involvement in Teacher Selection 20 Teacher and Student Performance 22 Characteristics of Effective Teachers 23 Proprietary Institutions 24 Perceptions of Proprietary Institutions 25 Unimpressive Graduation Rates 26 Profit-Motive 26 Academic Governance 27 Organizational Culture 29 Accreditation Issues 30 The General Effectiveness of Online Learning 31 Teacher Credential Program Accreditation 32 Employment: Opportunity or Obstacles? 34 Hiring Managers and Online Degrees in the Private Sector 35 Summary 36 Chapter Three: Methodology 37 Introduction 37 v Research Questions 37 Methodology 38 Population and Sample 38 Instrumentation 39 Data Collection 50 Data Analysis 50 Limitations and Delimitations 57 Validity, Reliability, and Credibility 58 Ethical Considerations 59 Chapter Four: Data Analysis 60 Introduction 60 Findings Related to Research Questions 61 Research Question 1 61 Research Question 2 72 Research Question 3 83 Research Question 4 93 Chapter Four Summary 103 Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications 106 Introduction 106 Summary of the Study 106 Key Findings 107 Implications 108 Human Resources Departments 109 Principals 109 Proprietary Institutions 111 Non-Profit Institutions 113 Online Credential Programs 113 Future Teachers 114 Limitations 115 Areas for Future Research 118 Conclusion 119 Bibliography 120 vi List of Tables Table 3.1 Research Instrument #1: General Survey Protocol 40 Table 3.2 Types of Schools Represented 46 Table 3.3 Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview Protocol 47 Table 3.4 Determining Qualified Respondents 55 Table 4.1 Principal’s Rating of Personal Knowledge Level 61 Table 4.2 Number of teachers known by principals 62 Table 4.3 Level of quality of proprietary schools 63 Table 4.4 Knowledge of Online Teacher Credential Programs 72 Table 4.5 Number of Teachers Known from Online Programs 74 Table 4.6 Quality of Online Programs 75 Table 4.7 General Survey Hiring from a Proprietary Institution 94 Table 4.8 General Survey Hiring from Online Program 95 Table 4.9 Follow Up Interview Hiring from a Proprietary Institution 99 Table 4.10 Follow Up Interview Hiring from an Online Program 102 Table 4.11 The Most Likely Candidate Chosen 103 vii Abstract The number of proprietary (for-profit) colleges and universities who offer online teacher credential programs is increasing, yet there is skepticism regarding the quality of such schools and credentialing programs. This study sought to understand the perceptions that school principals had and whether or not it affected their decision to hire teacher candidates from for-profit schools or online credential programs. An online survey of 101 principals and interviews of 20 principals were conducted and found that the majority of principals were favorable toward hiring teachers from for-profit institutions, but not favorable toward hiring those who earned their teaching credential online. 1 CHAPTER ONE Introduction Background of the Problem Over the last decade online learning has become a popular and convenient way to attend school among public, private, and private for-profit colleges and universities. However, this technological trend in higher education is not accepted by all. There are still some who consider online learning to be inferior to the traditional face-to-face model of education. This perception has become even more intense with respect to proprietary, for-profit, colleges and universities, where profits and stockholders are key considerations in the “business” of education. Some of the more well known proprietary institutions offering online degrees are Argosy University, Capella University, University of Phoenix, and Walden University, all of which have had their share of critics (Morey, 2001). Distance education encompasses several different forms including correspondence, video conferencing, and computer mediated communication. In addition there are also hybrid forms in which some classes are using a mixture of face-to-face and online learning. Although the term distance education is relatively new and can be used to describe various instructional modalities, its beginnings can be traced as far back as the 1700s when pen and paper were the tools of correspondence education (Jeffries, n.d.; Valentine, n.d.). More than 200-years later, computer-mediated communication has become the latest in a line of distance education modalities and has created “paradigmatic shifts in education” (Frick, 1991; Christensen, 2008). Today a keyboard, monitor, and mouse have joined the list of distance education tools (Nasseh, nd). In fall 2007 over 2 three-million college students took at least one online class (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Distance education continued to increase showing a 12% gain over 2006 with 3.9 million students taking at least one class online (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Institutions also believe the current economic downturn is contributing to the increase in online offerings and enrollments (Allen & Seaman, 2008) Close to 70% of secondary institutions believe there is now competition for students in online programs and courses and over 60% believe this competition will increase (Allen & Seaman, 2008). The prolific growth of the personal computer became to the 1990s what the television was to the 1950s, a popular medium exploding on to the educational scene. “By the 1960s almost every course in the public school, college or university curriculum was being taught somewhere by either open- or closed-circuit television, on educational or commercial stations or in educational institutions” (Saettler, 1990, p. 367). In the 1960s many public classrooms were “wired” for television use in hope that this new medium would enhance student learning, giving rise to the concept of an “Information Society” by Fritz Machlup (Miller & Cruce, 2002). Today the hope of learning through personal computers provides similar optimism. Both educational television and online learning hold out the expectation of better student outcomes. Schramm (1962) believed any doubt as to the efficiency of instructional television was removed at that time. One example of the impact of television cited by Burke (1965) was in Michigan where over 10,000 third and fourth graders received some physical education lessons via Instruct- ional Television resulting in increased physical activity before and after school showing that this technology had made a difference for these students. Today, there is a similar 3 hope that the widespread access to personal computers will become a convenient and efficient way to enhance student learning. According to Nielsen’s National TV Panel more than 91% of American homes have a personal computer with 80.6% enjoying Internet access (Articlet, 2009). Another survey in April 2009 showed that 63% of adult Americans now have broadband Internet connections in their homes, an increase of 15% over the previous year, making information access faster and more convenient (Pew Research Center, 2009). In 2008 this relatively easy access allowed nearly 4 million college and graduate students to take at least one course, making higher education more easily attainable (Allen & Seaman, 2009). According to Huling, et. al., (2001) and Ohler (1991) higher education programs, including teacher credentialing programs, that utilize a more accessible and flexible approach will attract more potential teachers who find a traditional teacher credentialing program more cumbersome due to current obligations. Despite the recent economic downturn U.S. public schools anticipate an increased need for teachers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). Preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, and secondary school teachers held nearly 4 million jobs in 2006 with an expected increase of 12% between 2006 and 2016 creating 479,000 additional positions (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). In order to meet this need states are turning to alternative credentialing methods including distance education. The trend toward online programs also is supported by Allen and Seaman (2008) who show that in the fall of 2007 over 30% of higher education institutions were offering fully online programs in education with public institutions leading the way at 38%; followed by private for-profit institutions, 23%, and finally, private not-for-profit schools at 22%. This movement 4 toward increasing online offerings appears to address many of the reasons why students are choosing to attend school online, some of which are to overcome geographic issues to receive a state approved education; avoid or reinforce particular content; avoid social influences; experience or avoid certain learning dynamics; provide accommodations for severe disabilities; manage a scheduling conflict; or to prevent a change in their lifestyle or culture due to the nature of attending a traditional brick-and-mortar school, to name a few (Ohler, 1991). The quality issue is often the central concern or complaint found among critics of online education, and the question of effectiveness, and whether online education favorably compares to a traditional face-to-face education appears throughout the distance learning literature by proponents and opponents (Bower, 2001). In a 1999 study published by the Higher Education Research Institute, faculty members expressed a number of concerns about online education, including its quality (HERI, 1999). Although Russell (1999) claims there is no significant difference between online and traditional learning, others are still skeptical (Farber, 1998). This skepticism, as it pertains to teacher credential programs, appears to be supported by the perceptions of some school administrators in their decisions whether or not to hire teachers from online credential programs (Huss, 2007). In a study of 326 principals in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio, Huss (2007) found that that these administrators expressed apprehension about hiring teachers prepared through online programs, providing concerns centered on the possible compromise of important social aspects deemed necessary in teacher education and a general issue with the ethical nature of online programs. Huss (2007) presented these administrators with a choice between selecting a teacher from a traditional credential program and a purely online program. In 5 fact 59 % would be very concerned about a teacher candidate who had earned a teaching degree wholly or almost wholly through the Internet. Ninety-five percent did not believe an online degree carried as much credibility as one earned in a traditional face-to-face manner, and 99% would choose a traditional candidate over one whose teaching credential came through and online program (Huss, 2007). These responses, which illustrate questions about the inherent quality of online programs, along with recent economic difficulties, raise the issue of the effect on the hiring of teachers from online teacher credential programs. The Future Need for New Teachers The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that by the year 2016 there will be more than 400,000 new teachers needed in American public schools (2009) yet recent economic difficulties have made acquiring teacher positions more competitive, especially among the recently credentialed teachers, due to layoffs. For example, in California more than 26,000 teachers were notified they may not be rehired for the 2009- 2010 school year because of budget cuts (Selway, 2009). In Las Vegas, Nevada 850 teachers received similar notices (United Press International, 2009). Marion County, Florida school district officials have notified 522first- and second-year teachers they will not have their teaching positions when the school year ends (Postal, 2009). These are only a few examples of the national crisis affecting education in the United States. Will there be a disadvantage to those teaching candidates who earned their credentials from either a proprietary, for-profit institution or an online teacher credential program in the eyes of principals interviewing such candidates? More teachers will be seeking employment for the 2009-2010 school year, creating a “stiffer” competition to obtain a 6 limited number of teaching positions. Tenured, probationary, temporary, and newly credentialed teachers will contend for these limited positions allowing districts and school principals to be more selective in the hiring of teachers, which may pose a greater challenge for teachers credentialed through online teacher preparation programs if the quality of these programs remains suspect. The Increase of Online Programs Although more online courses and programs are offered among both non-profit and for-profit institutions of higher learning, it is not clear if those who have graduated from online programs are comparable to traditional graduates in the field of education (Adams & DeFleur, 2006). Adams and DeFleur (2006) conducted a national survey of hiring executives (n=269) to assess the acceptability of a job applicant’s qualifications for employment that included a degree earned solely online and one that included a significant amount of online coursework. The survey described three hypothetical applicants seeking management or entry level positions in accounting, business, engineering and information technology, social services, health and medicine, and government and manufacturing. Three types of applicants were presented: one earned a degree through a traditional non-profit institution; a second earned a degree through a solely “virtual” institution; and a third obtained his or her degree through a mixture of online and face-to-face instruction. The purpose of the study was to determine whether a job applicant who had earned a bachelor’s degree entirely or partially online has the same chance of being hired as one whose degree was completed through traditional coursework. The results of the survey showed that 96% of hiring managers (258) said 7 they would hire the applicant with a traditional degree, while only 4% (11 respondents) would choose an applicant with an online degree (Adams & DeFleur, 2006, p. 11). Adams and DeFleur (2006) provided a pairing within their survey, where respondents were asked to choose between an applicant with a traditional degree and one with half of the coursework completed online. Seventy-five percent (201 respondents) indicated they would choose the applicant with the traditional degree; 19% (51 respondents) selected the candidate with a mix of face-to-face and online coursework, while the remaining 4% did not answer the question. Three conclusions may be drawn from this survey: First, these employers were much more likely to hire an applicant from a traditional degree program than from either a mixed program with both face-to-face and online instruction or a wholly online delivery method. Second, although the “blended” approach is more acceptable than one entirely online, it is still much less preferred than a traditional degree. Finally, applicants who have earned a degree completely online experience a larger deficit in degree program acceptability than do other college graduates. However, these conclusions appear to conflict with other data that show that an online degree is comparable to one from a traditional school or program. In a 2005 poll conducted by Vault, a leading media company focused on career guidance, 300 human resource executives disclosed that only 20% of employers have hired a job applicant with an online degree, and that 28% indicated that an online degree was as credible as a traditional degree. There was at least some indication that an online degree did not represent a “serious” educational commitment on the part of the degree- holder, while another respondent believed that an applicant with an online degree would have to be “truly extraordinary” to merit any serious consideration for employment, 8 showing that those with an online degree would have to distinguish themselves well beyond applicants with a traditional degree. A majority, or 58%, believed that an online degree was “not as credible, but acceptable,” and 14% believed an online degree was neither credible nor acceptable. However, 85% of respondents believed online degrees were more acceptable at the time of the survey (2005) than they were five years before in 2000 (Vault, 2005). A 2004 survey conducted by the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC), an accrediting association for online institutions and programs, showed that almost 70% of the respondents, corporate supervisors with at least one employee with a degree from a program accredited by the DETC, rated the value of a distance degree as “just as valuable” or “more valuable” than a traditional degree in the same field. Statement of the Problem There are concerns from some academics” as to quality and comparability of degrees from proprietary, for-profit institutions and from online programs to those from traditional face-to-face programs (Morey, 2001). The conflicting findings by Vault (2005) and Adams and DeFleur (2006) show the need for the present study in order to make a number of determinations. First, there is a need to understand the perceptions by those principals of the quality of proprietary, for-profit institutions compared to non- profit schools. Secondly, there is also a need to understand how principals view a teacher candidate from an online teacher credential program, as compared to those teachers from a face-to-face credential program. Third, it is important to know why these principals have their particular perceptions towards proprietary, for-profit institutions and towards online teacher credential programs. Finally, since principals often determine who is hired 9 from a pool of teacher candidates, it is crucial to see if these perceptions affect their decision to hire particular teachers. The question of the comparable quality of proprietary, for-profit institutions and online credential programs remains. Morey (2001) states that these remaining questions primarily concern the outcomes, the reputation of the institution, and the regulatory policies used to evaluate and manage these important resources and the effect on hiring those graduates from proprietary schools or online programs (Morey, 2001; Adams & DeFleur, 2008). However, Garrett (as cited in Lorenzo, 2008), states that most employers today have no misgivings about the quality of online education, but there is still a minority who believes that an online education is “inherently of weaker quality” (p. 3). Nevertheless, there have been efforts to create quality online teacher credential programs such as The Western Governors’ University, which offers K-8 and secondary mathematics and science licensure programs, and the University of Maryland’s effort to produce 300 teachers for a high-need school district (Huss, 2007). This technological emphasis was reinforced by the Michigan State Board of Education, which introduced a new graduation requirement that calls for every high school student to take at least one online class before graduating (Carnevale, 2005). The offering of more online classes, and the philosophy of learning behind it, eventually finds its way into the thinking and hiring process. School principals who hire classroom teachers might hold certainly beliefs about online learning that impact their decision making. Huss (2007) believes principals who hire teachers may be faced with an interesting dilemma when considering potential employees. Although online learning holds promise for learning outcomes, Huss (2007) believes it could also be “problematic 10 for most stakeholders who participate in the education arena” (para.3). The quality of teacher credential programs becomes increasingly important in this age of high-stakes education and accountability at the K-12 level. The emphasis on higher test scores and closing the educational achievement gap has resulted in an ever-increasing pressure on principals and teachers to produce results. The current trend toward online learning, even in teacher credential programs, begs the question of whether such programs will deliver quality classroom teachers ready to meet such accountability measures. The quality of a teacher credential program is often more difficult to evaluate especially when it contains an online component or is exclusively conducted online. Since online education is relatively new to teacher credential programs it has not been subjected to longitudinal studies of many years. Since it is a newcomer to educational enterprise, those who analyze it are more likely to have had a traditional education themselves which often influences thinking and evaluation, as many use their own experiences as the reference point for judgment (Huss, 2004). Even in the midst of doubt online degrees are becoming more acceptable. However, even if the acceptability of online degrees is increasing, there are still questions regarding quality with some negative perceptions toward for-profit schools, especially when one considers the large amount of revenue generated from online tuition for proprietary, for-profit institutions. In 2005 online tuition revenue totaled $7.1 billion, up from $2.4 billion in 2002, producing a rush to capitalize on potential profits (Rodgers, 2005). The sizable revenues made may be partly responsible for the perceptions some have toward online education. The “push” toward increasing enrollment is often seen in a “bombardment” of Internet pop-up advertisements from for-profit higher education institutions, contributing to 11 negative perceptions of them as “diploma mills” (Huss, 2007). Typically, principals, who hire teachers, have been trained for teaching and administration through a traditional face-to-face credential program and do not necessarily understand the process of online credentialing although they may think they are familiar with it. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the perceptions held by school site principals toward proprietary, for-profit institutions or online teacher credential programs, how these principals acquired these perceptions, and whether or not these perceptions affect their decisions to hire a teacher who had received his or her teacher credential through a proprietary school or an online program. The Research Questions This study addressed the following research questions: 1. What were the perceptions of principals toward teacher education programs offered by proprietary higher education institutions as compared to those offered by non-profit schools? 2. What were the perceptions of principals toward online teacher credential programs as compared to traditional face-to-face programs? 3. What were the possible sources of the perceptions these principals possessed? 4. In what ways, if any, did these principals think their perceptions might affect the hiring of teachers from proprietary online teacher credential programs? 12 Significance of the Study The first research question focused on principals’ perceptions of proprietary, for- profit institutions of higher education. It is important to understand why principals held their particular perceptions towards these types of schools in order to determine if they were the result of valid or invalid evidence. If it was determined that proprietary, for- profit schools that offer teacher credential programs are perceived in an unfavorable light, then both proprietary schools and their prospective students need to be aware of these attitudes and the various reasons. The second research question is similar to the first research question as it looked to discover principals’ perceptions of online teacher credential programs. Online teacher credential programs are found at both proprietary and non-profit institutions. However, since this approach to teacher training is relatively new, it is not necessarily looked upon as having the same quality (Huss, 2004). It will be important to understand the attitudes that principals have toward online teacher credential programs so that both proprietary and non-profit institutions can address any suspicions that might have some validity. The third research question sought to determine the reasons behind the perceptions and how these may affect the decisions of principals concerning hiring a teacher candidate from either a proprietary, for-profit institution of higher education or an online teacher credential program. Perceptions often play a role in how humans think and feel about the world around them and contribute toward decision-making. According to Hallinger, et. al. (1991) the perceptions that principals possess may actually be an impediment to decision-making and implementation in education. It is important to understand why principals have the perceptions they do of both proprietary institutions 13 and of online teacher credential programs in order to determine whether these impact the decision making process relative to hiring teachers. If reasons for these perceptions can be better understood, then it is possible for both proprietary and non-profit institutions to contribute toward improving their programs to help correct perceptions. There may be several possible reasons why principals possess certain viewpoints toward either proprietary institutions or online teacher credential programs. First, since proprietary online teacher credential programs are relatively recent, principals may not have familiarity with these programs. Secondly, since these types of teacher credential programs are relatively new, many principals have been trained in traditional face-to-face programs and naturally embrace those programs most similar to their own. Third, principals may hold their particular perceptions because of past experiences, whether good or bad, with teachers from either proprietary, for-profit institutions or online teacher credential programs. The fourth research question attempts to determine whether or not, or to what degree, the perceptions by principals toward proprietary online teacher credential programs affect their decisions to hire teachers from such programs. It is important to answer this question for two reasons. First, if these perceptions are impacting the ability of such teachers to gain employment, proprietary and non-profit institutions offering online teacher credentials may need to assist their graduates in securing jobs. Secondly, if it is determined that perceptions are impacting the hiring of teachers, school districts and principals may need to evaluate their perceptions to ascertain if this is negatively affecting their ability to obtain the best possible choice in the hiring process. 14 Hypotheses There are four hypotheses related to the research questions. (1) Principals look upon the quality of proprietary colleges and universities as inferior to that of non-profit institutions; (2) Principals look upon online teacher credential programs as inferior to traditional face-to-face credential programs; (3) Principals gained their perceptions through personal experiences and biases based on their own familiarity; (4) Principals hire based on their own confidence in the schools and programs which offer teacher credential programs similar to their own personal teacher preparation program supporting the “similarity effect” which states that people prefer other who have similar backgrounds, beliefs, or education (Webb & Norton, 2009). Limitations This study is limited in a number of ways. First, due to time constraints only 100 principals were solicited for Research Instrument #1: General Survey. Second, the distance of travel required to conduct a follow-up interview will mean the interviews will take place within Southern California. This region was selected because of its large population relative to the nation; the presence of proprietary institutions (i.e., Argosy University; University of Phoenix) and a state initiated online teacher credential program by the California State Universities called CalState TEACH (2009). Third, since the number of respondents to the survey and principals favorable to a follow-up interview could not be predetermined, the study was limited in how their perceptions represent those of other principals and cannot be generalized to principals as a whole. This researcher interviewed 20 principals who met the qualifications from the general survey in order to obtain some variation of response. Since the interviewing of these principals 15 produced both convergent and divergent themes and patterns, it was determined that their views were representative of a larger number. Additionally, because these principals were from the Southern California region, they were more representative of the general population of principals because the region has both proprietary, for-profit institutions and online teacher credential programs. Also, the study was limited in that it looked at teachers as “interchangeable” parts of a school staff, rather than focus on them as having unique differences and qualities. Finally, this study was limited in that a number of principals were confused by the terminology. Some of the principals did not know what the term “proprietary” meant, while others could not distinguish between a proprietary, for-profit institution and a non-profit one. Definition of Terms Face-to-Face: This is a term used to denote a traditional classroom education in which both instructor and students are in the same location. Hybrid Courses: This term will refer to courses with a mixture of traditional face- to-face coursework and online coursework. Online Course: A course conducted either primarily or totally online. Online Teacher Credential Programs: These are programs of study for prospective teachers in which more than 50% of the courses are conducted or held in some type of online modality. Principals: These are women and men who have the responsibility to oversee a particular school site and are often part of the decision making process for hiring teachers. 16 Proprietary Institutions: Colleges and universities that are registered as “for- profit” institutions who have shareholders. Traditional Education: This term is used interchangeably with “face-to-face” in that it signifies a typical approach to classroom instruction with the instructor and students in the same location with no online coursework. 17 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review The literature was reviewed to help provide a basis for the research questions. The research questions are: 1. What were the perceptions of principals toward teacher education programs offered by proprietary higher education institutions as compared to those offered by non-profit schools? 2. What were the perceptions of principals toward online teacher credential programs as compared to traditional face-to-face programs? 3. What were the possible causes of the perceptions these principals possess? 4. In what ways, if any, did these perceptions affect the hiring of teachers from proprietary online teacher credential programs? In order to better understand these research questions, this study focused on the literature related to these issues, but to understand the literature more thoroughly, the following areas were addressed; the definition of online learning; the need for highly qualified teachers; perceptions regarding proprietary institutions; and the employment opportunities for those credentialed through proprietary institutions or online teacher credential programs. These will be reviewed because of the varieties of online programs and the various understandings of such programs. This study will limit its focus to proprietary, for-profit colleges and institutions and online teacher credential programs. Secondly, the need for highly qualified teachers as required by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act is addressed because of its federal mandate to improve the quality of teachers in the classroom and the need to hire such teachers. Third, the literature is reviewed concerning the role of the principal in the hiring process because of his or her heavy 18 involvement in deciding which teachers are hired. Fourth, the perceptions of proprietary, for-profit institutions and online teacher credential programs are considered since they are at the heart of the research questions to be answered. Finally, the literature related to the employment opportunities for graduates of proprietary, for-profit institutions and online teacher credential programs is considered in order to better understand the issues and perceptions related to such hiring decisions. Definition of Online Learning Online learning is known by various names such as Distance Learning, E- Learning, and Computer Mediated Communication. Keegan’s (1996) definition of distance education has been the commonly adopted standard providing five qualities that distinguish it from other forms of instruction. These include (a) the quasi-permanent separation of teacher and learner, (b) the influence of an education organization in planning, preparation, and provision of student support, (c) the use of technical media, (d) the provision of two-way communication, and (e) the quasi-permanent absence of learning groups, although the final quality related to learning groups has been debated as to whether it fits the concept of an “anytime, anyplace” objective of typical online learning (Bernard, et. al, 2004, p. 380). For this study, the definition of online learning was limited to those programs which are conducted completely online. The Need for Highly Qualified Teachers The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was passed with the intent of ensuring the American public that a highly qualified teacher would be in every public school classroom throughout the nation (NCLB, 2001). Darling-Hammond (2007) explains that the legislation not only acknowledged educational inequities, but also recognized a 19 student’s right to have a highly qualified teacher and stated, “This first-time-ever recognition of students' right to qualified teachers is historically significant” (para.4). However, this requirement may produce some challenges since the United States Bureau of Statistics shows the number of public school teachers needed from preschool through secondary is expected to increase nearly 500,000 by the year 2016, a 12% increase, which shows a growth beyond all but a few occupations (2009, para.2). The number of retiring teachers is estimated to increase from 57,000 in 1999 to nearly 88,000 per year beginning in 2010 (U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, 1999). Nearly two-million new teachers were needed during the first decade of the new millennium (U.S. Commission on National Security/21 st Century, 2001). Some like Darling- Hammond and Sykes (2003) even believe a national policy for teacher standards is needed to meet the demand for more teachers. However, a 2002 U.S. Department of Education report addressing the shortage of teachers, the current system of teacher credentialing, and preparation called it a “broken system,” and recommended that attendance at schools of education, coursework in education, and student teaching become “optional” avenues (USDE, 2002, p. 19). The report also encourages alternative credential methods that eliminate bureaucratic hurdles: “In sum, a model for tomorrow would be based on the best alternate route programs of today” (USDE, 2002, p. 19). Levine (2006) concurs, arguing that “too often teacher education programs cling to an outdated, historically flawed vision of teacher education that is at odds with a society remade by economic, demographic, technological, and global change” (p. 1). The shared belief in the need for changing teacher credential programs to accommodate more students has contributed to the increase in online programs. A recent report from the National Center 20 for Education Statistics (2008) stated that 47% of 2,647 surveyed who were entering teaching through an alternative route said they would not be able to enter into teaching without such an alternative route to credentialing through an online program. Principals’ Involvement in Teacher Selection Studies show that districts and schools differ in how they organize the hiring process (Harris, et. al., 2007). Liu and Johnson (2006) report that researchers have identified three approaches to hiring: a highly decentralized approach in which teachers are directly hired by the school; a highly centralized method in which the district oversees the screening, selection, and placement; and a moderately centralized / moderately decentralized process in which districts screen applicants and principals and teachers select them. The principal is the key participant approximately 75 percent of the time (Liu, 2002; Strauss, Bowes, Marks & Plesko, 2000) compared with 34 percent for teachers and 11 percent for school board members (Strauss, Bowes, Marks, & Plesko, 2000). When seeking to hire teachers, principals are looking not only for qualified teachers, by virtue of the NCLB requirement, but equally as important, for those who provide effective teaching. However, the selection process may not be without bias. According to Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, and Thompson (2006) studies have been conducted on the process of hiring teachers, how it is organized, the characteristics administrators prefer, and the biases and discrimination that may occur in the process (p. 3). Their study concluded that principals generally play a significant role in teacher quality-related decisions which were influenced by policies such as school accountability, teacher certification, and teacher tenure (p. 1). Additionally, the study concluded that these 21 principals were more likely to choose teachers who “differ” from those teachers already employed at their schools (p. 1). Baker and Cooper (2004) suggest that principals’ undergraduate backgrounds matter when it comes to their recruitment, selection and perhaps retention of teachers with strong academic undergraduate backgrounds, and that principals who attended highly or mostly selective undergraduate institutions were 3.3 times more likely to hire teachers who attended similar institutions, especially in high-poverty schools (Baker & Cooper, 2004). This “similarity-attraction” is a “common pitfall that may affect hiring.” (Webb & Norton, 2009). Davila and Kursmark (2005) find that research suggests that even well-meaning individuals give subtle advantages to people whose styles and viewpoints are most similar to their own. This “halo effect” occurs when an interviewer’s interpretation of the applicant’s qualifications is positively skewed when he or she learns that the applicant went to the same college, is from the same hometown, or shares the same hobby (Davila & Kursmark, 2005; Webb & Norton, 2009). Other studies show that principals make hiring selections based on both professional and personal characteristics that match those of teachers currently teaching at the school (Abernathy, Forsyth, & Mitchell, 2001; Braun, Willems, Brown, & Green, 1987; Broberg, 1987; Cain-Caston, 1999; Dunton, 2001; Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson, 2007; Theel & Tallerico, 2004). Findings from the Harris et. al. (2007) study suggest that the most important qualities principals look for when hiring a teacher are personal qualities such as: enthusiasm, strong communication skills, and the ability to work with others, all of which can be identified in the interview (Harris, et. al., 2007). The interview, a candidate’s 22 experience, and letters of recommendation are more important than a résumé and college course work, as principals focus on the tools that indicate personal qualities (Harris et. al., 2007). Although much of the recent research on teacher effectiveness focuses on relating teacher behaviors to student achievement, Stronge (2007) believes many interview and survey responses to his study emphasized the teacher’s affective characteristics more than pedagogical practice. These affective or personal qualities are major factors that influence a teacher’s effectiveness. Stronge (2007) provides the following list of affective qualities found in effective teachers, including: including a teacher’s ability to care, listen, and understand; to know students; to be fair and respectful; to have positive social interactions; to show enthusiasm; to have a positive attitude toward the teaching profession; and to participate in reflective practice. the role of caring; listening; understanding; knowing students; fair and respectful; positive social interactions; enthusiasm and motivation; attitude toward the teaching profession; and the role of reflective practice, but are these valued qualities affected by the type of institution or credential program that provided the teacher training? Teacher and Student Performance Coleman (1966) found that student performance was only partially related to school quality, concluding that students’ socio-economic background was a stronger contributing factor to student success. However, Carver (1975) disagrees with Coleman’s conclusions because of inappropriately designed achievement tests, and believes teachers are more important to student achievement than had previously been claimed in the Coleman Report of 1966 (No Child Left Behind, 2001). Highly qualified teachers were found to account for a larger part of the variation in student test scores than all other 23 characteristics of a school, excluding peer-effect. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 required that, by the end of the 2005—2006 school year all teachers in core academic subjects must be highly qualified in the areas of their teaching assignments. All teachers in programs supported by Title I funds and those hired after the first day of the 2002-03 school year must be highly qualified at the time of employment. Teachers are considered to be highly qualified if they have 1) a bachelor’s degree; 2) a full state certification; and 3) demonstrated subject-matter competence in the area(s) taught (NCLB, 2001). The NCLB requirements for “highly effective” teachers only provide an entry-level evaluation and do not consider if a teacher is actually effective in the classroom, creating a need for further evaluation. Characteristics of Effective Teachers According to Goldhaber and Anthony (2004) there is no consensus in educational research over which, if any, teacher characteristics are associated with students’ learning gains and it may be impossible to even judge teachers’ effectiveness without direct observations of their teaching (p. 2). However, others believe this is less problematic at the school level since principals know who the effective teachers are (Jacob & Lefgren, 2005; Jacob & Lefgren, 2006; Hanusheck & Rivkin, 2007). Hanushek and Rivkin (2007) believe the principal demonstrates the ability to determine which teachers are at the top and bottom of the quality distribution, and thus should be able to determine who is in the middle ranges (p. 82). However, perhaps a more fundamental issue is a proper understanding of quality teachers and quality teaching (Goe, 2007). Goe (2007) believes that teacher quality presumes a set of inputs, (such as certification, teacher test scores, degrees), and teaching quality, which is the result of what a teacher actually does in the 24 classroom (p. 8). Finstermacher and Richardson (2005) believe that teaching quality should be evaluated on student learning outcomes and prefer the term “successful teaching” (p. 186). Goe (2007) believes it is most important to clearly distinguish what teachers do in the classroom from what students learn. In concert with this concept is that teachers must be deemed “highly qualified” under NCLB. However, using a “highly qualified” label might fit the former description of effective teachers, but does not necessarily indicate effective teaching. Since school principals have the opportunity to observe both effective and ineffective teaching, they are more qualified to evaluate the qualities needed for effectiveness. Consequently, they have perceptions of the types of schools and teacher credential programs which have prepared teachers for classroom teaching. Therefore, the principal is a suitable evaluator of teachers and the programs that have prepared them. Proprietary Institutions The number of proprietary institutions has greatly increased over the last few years (Morey, 2001). According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2009) there are 240 four-year proprietary institutions with a total estimated enrollment of 1.8 million undergraduate and graduate students (p. 8). Proprietary education in American began during the colonial period in the form of vocational training and grew significantly during the post-World War II era when the federal government established the GI Bill to provide training for soldiers reentering civilian society (Honick, 1995). Both Clowes (1995) and Hawthorne (1995) noted that during the 1970s and 1980s these proprietary schools became eligible to receive state and federal student financial aid, providing a new revenue stream that allowed them to take advantage of federal subsidies. These for-profit 25 schools, once labeled as “career colleges,” and now offering online programs, are quickly becoming major players in higher education, providing an impetus for transforming traditional colleges and universities to offer online courses and degrees, especially in the field of education and, more specifically, teacher preparation. Strosnider (1998) observed that within about five-years, proprietary high schools moved from a small sector of the economy offering specialized trades to a $3.5 billion a year business controlled by companies with regional and national franchises. Green (1999) claims that the increase in information technology as contributing to the number of adults becoming life-long learners and transforming American higher education. Proprietary institutions are expanding into distance education, particularly online teacher preparation programs, leading to the question: Are these online teacher preparation programs effective? Since the establishment of virtual for-profit universities is a relatively new phenomenon, occurring within the last decade, few research studies have focused on them (Kinser, 2005; McCoy & Sorenson, 2003) and even fewer have addressed on the growing number of teacher education programs being offered at these institutions (McNeal, 2007). A minimal amount of research has been done about education in general at virtual for-profit institutions of higher education (Kinser, 2005; McCoy & Sorenson, 2003). Perceptions toward Proprietary Institutions The literature is replete with perceptions held in the academic community toward proprietary institutions. Many of these have been negative. These negative perceptions are related to the following: unimpressive graduation rates, profit-motive, poor academic governance, organizational culture, and accreditation. 26 Unimpressive graduation rates. The prominence of for-profit institutions has been unsettling for many in the academic community for numerous reasons (Ruch, 2001). There have been many criticisms that these types of colleges and universities will put profits before academics. Some have questioned whether for-profit institutions can “sustain academic rigor” and fear they may “give away grades to make their customers happy” (Ruch, 2001). The largest private proprietary university in the United States is the University of Phoenix (Morey, 2001). It has been an easy target for critics when it comes to institutional quality. This for-profit institution has an unimpressive graduation rate of 16%, far below the 50% national average at traditional schools (Mangu-Ward, 2007). However, equally alarming is the number of students failing to earn a degree, yet accumulating large debt from student loans. Levin (2006) called the business degree at Phoenix, “MBA lite,” an obvious criticism of the program’s quality (Dillon, 2007). Dillon (2007) states that students, educators, and former administrators at the University of Phoenix say the relentless pressure for higher profits, at a university that gets more federal student financial aid than any other, has eroded academic quality (para.2). Profit Motive. One of the key concerns regarding proprietary education is the principle driving it (McNeal, 2007). A number of educators believe the purpose of institutions of higher education is to serve society (Altbach, 1999; Noble, 2002, 2003; Shapiro 2005; Thelin 2004), and the introduction of for-profit companies threatens this “higher” purpose by putting profits before service to society (McNeal, 2007). Can the proprietary institutions of higher education serve both society and shareholders? The majority of institutions of higher education in the United States are “not-for-profit” organizations (Kinser, 2005). Cuban (2004) believes the “for-profit” and “not-for-profit” 27 organizations are built upon different principles in that the not-for-profit institutions seek to make a profit to reinvest in the institution while for-profit schools seek to divide profits between the organization and the shareholders (McNeal, 2007). In 1998 Education Week and Knowledge Quest Ventures IIc conducted a survey of 1,000 venture capital firms to determine their interest in investing in educational business endeavors. Of the 64 firms responding, 80% said they would consider making such an investment. Most of these firms were more interested in post-secondary education programs than K-12 programs because of their potential return on investment as well as the size and growth of the industry. Unfortunately, improving education was last among the possible reasons given for investment (Morey, 2001, p. 305). Business and education have not always been friendly to each other. The objection to business penetrating education has been present at least since business schools made their way into universities early in the twentieth century (Bok, 2003). Abraham Flexner, a leading educational authority of his day, criticized universities for establishing professional schools, such as schools of business, declaring that business was not a “true profession” because it did not require mental discipline, noble purposes, or the specialized knowledge obtained through a university education (Bok, 2003). There is the assumption that for-profit institutions combined with online learning are rife with potential for neglect and abuse (McNeal, 2007). Academic governance. Bleak (2009) believes the lack of academic governance is another issue that affects the perceptions towards proprietary institutions (para.5). Chait (2002) defines academic governance as "the distribution of legitimate authority for the purposes of making decisions and taking actions" (p. 69). This authority is usually shared 28 among faculty, administrators and trustees, and is characterized by “consultative and decentralized decision-making, diffuse authority and devolution of responsibility” (Bleak, 2009, para.5). In spite of such a characterization, academic governance is considered one of the “core values” in higher education (Ruch, 2001, p. 141). Although , academic governance is highly valued, a 1998 report by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) criticized academic governance for its cumbersome effects on an institution’s response to “threats and opportunities” (AGB, 1998, p. 4). Bleak (2009) states that this form of governance is a hindrance to the institution because it contributes to a participation that is uncontrolled, where inactivity is common, and interest group behavior and conflict often dictate the dialogue between governing bodies. This contributes to a governing system that is often characterized by a resistance to “top- down” administration, hinders account-ability for action, and demonstrates more of a symbolic, rather than substantive, leadership (Weick, 1976; Cohen & March, 1986; Birnbaum, 1988, p. 40; Bleak, 2009, para.5 ). Governance in proprietary institutions is perceived as the opposite of the governance found in non-profit institutions, where it is typically shared by faculty, administrators, and trustees and characterized by consultative and decentralized decision- making, diffuse authority, and devolution of responsibility (Mortimer and McConnell, 1978; Birnbaum, 1988; AAUP, 1990; Bleak, 2009). (Bleak, 2009). Governance at proprietary institutions is considered “corporate governance,” which is the "exercise of authority or power toward a particular end" (Lorsch & MacIver, 1989, p. 12), more specifically, the particular end being profit-margin, shareholder value, and corporate wealth (Besse, 1973; Blair, 1995; Monks & Minow, 1995; Oster, 1995; Bleak, 2009). 29 Because of the profit motive of such institutional corporations, the governance, "is always an authoritarian organization" (Besse, 1973, p. 108), characterized by top-down – "command and control" – authority, hierarchical organizational structures, and centralized power (Giroux, 1999; Pound, 2000; Sifonis & Goldberg, 1996, p. 96). Within this system, accountability is marked by measuring return on investment, profit per dollar of sales, or earnings per share (Besse, 1973). Bleak (2009) perceives the non-profit university to have little or no accountability due to lifetime employment for tenured faculty, unclear outcome measurements, and a seemingly steady supply of students (para.7) do the profit-motive of these schools. Organizational culture. Organizational culture has been an issue when critiquing proprietary institutions (Bleak, 2009). Organizational culture is commonly defined in the literature as “the unwritten code of conduct that governs the behavior, attitudes, relationships, and style of the organization” (Ortiz & Arnborg, 2005, p. 35). Schein (1997) defined it as “the solution to external and internal problems that has worked consistently for a group and that is, therefore taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think about, and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 12). In short, it is the way we do things around here (Arnold & Capella, 1985, p. 32). Bleak (2009) states that it is in the organizational culture that corporate-like, proprietary institutions and the “academy” most differ (para.9). Austin (1990) believes higher education values the pursuit of truth, the discovery of knowledge for its own sake - for the social good and public benefit - and the sharing of knowledge. Within this is the basic assumption that a com-munity of scholars work together to govern the institution (p. 62). The corporation pursues profit over knowledge, the discovery and use of 30 knowledge for a competitive advantage, and the “hoarding of knowledge for commercial purposes” (Bleak, 2009, para.10). This for-profit sector values market oriented decision- making, efficient operations, cost reduction, and accountability for results (Oster, 1995). Drucker (1989) reflects on his career and states that businesses start their planning with financial returns, while non-profits start with the performance of their mission (p. 89). Oster (1995) asserts that a non-profit’s mission and organizational values are "quite central to management in a way that it is often not in the corporate world" (p. 12). Such characterizations of proprietary, corporate-run institutions are considered to hold inferior values compared to the noble pursuit of knowledge and learning (Bleak, 2009). The differences in how proprietary institutions govern themselves have led to negative perceptions of these colleges and universities by those who believe serving society rather than shareholders to be the true purpose of education (McNeal, 2007). Accreditation issues. Accreditation is often used to endorse schools or programs and provide some sense of assurance to the public (United States Department of Education, 2009). Educational institutions seek accreditation to signify that they have met certain quality standards as set forth by recognized accrediting associations, providing an assurance of quality and reliability (United States Department of Education, 2009). According to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), “accreditation is a process of external quality review used by higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities and educational programs for quality assurance and quality improvement carried out in the United States by private, nonprofit organizations designed for this specific purpose” (CHEA Overview, p. 1). Wiley (2009) provides a brief explanation of how accreditation works. Accreditors set the standards and conditions under which 31 institutions or programs are eligible to request accreditation. Eligible institutions are then reviewed by professional staffs and teams of examiners from peer institutions to verify claims, assertions and data from self-studies to determine if standards have been met or exceeded, and to suggest areas for further improvement (para.4). Currently there are 81 accreditors in the United States that must be “accredited” by the United States Department of Education or the Council of Higher Education Accreditation, essentially the “accreditors must be accredited” (Wiley, 2009, para.4). Eaton (2003) states that accreditation plays four pivotal roles in the United States: (1) sustains and enhances the quality of higher education; (2) maintains the academic values of higher education; (3) is a buffer against the politicizing of higher education; and (4) serves public interest and need (p. 1). However, others like Morgan (2002) and Leef and Burriss (2002) disagree, saying that accreditation is poorly linked to quality and contend that they have no directed relationship (Leef & Burris, 2002; Morgan, 2002; Reeves, 2003). The General Effectiveness of Online Learning One such alternative route is distance education - - more specifically, online learning, which has been compared to shooting fish in a barrel because of the easy criticisms associated with it. Like a marksman, it is difficult for the critic of online learning to miss his mark (Maeroff, 2003). In fact, Maearoff (2003) concludes there are numerous worrisome issues within distance education. These “issues” have led to the many studies that have been conducted over the past 25 years to evaluate the effectiveness of online learning. Bernard, et. al, (2004) have catalogued 232 of these studies conducted from 1985-2002, while Russell (1999) reviewed 355 studies on Distance Education from 1928 – 1998. Many of these studies have concluded there is no 32 significant difference between online learning and a traditional face-to-face education. Meyer (2004) cites several of these studies (Bernard, et al, 2004; Russell, 1999). Many have concluded there is no significant difference in learning outcomes between online learning and a traditional face-to-face education (Bourne, McMaster, Rieger, and Campbell, 1997; Davies and Mendenhall, 1998; Dominguez and Ridley, 1999; Gagne and Shepherd, 2001; Hahn et al., 1990; Johnson, 2001; McNeill et al., 1991; Miller, 2000; Mulligan and Geary, 1999; Ryan, 2000; Schulman and Sims, 1999; Sener and Stover, 2000; Serban, 2000; Wegner, Holloway, and Garton, 1999; Wideman and Owston, 1999). However, none of these studies were focused on online learning relative to teacher credential programs. Teacher Credential Program Accreditation In addition to the accreditation of institutions, teacher credential programs are evaluated for quality as well (United States Department of Education, 2009). The accreditation of online programs is often used to assure the public of a quality product (Distance Education Training Council, 2009). There are two main accrediting agencies for teacher education programs: the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), and while it is not required that a teacher education program is accredited by one of these organizations, it does make licensing easier to obtain for teachers in training (GuidetoOnlineschools.com, 2008). Additionally, CHEA has two members accrediting online institutions and programs, namely the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), and the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC). The DETC accredits institutions of higher learning who offer programs 33 primarily by distance (51% or more) learning (CHEA, 2009). Founded in 1926, the DETC aims to “promote sound educational standards and ethical business practices within the correspondence field” (para.2) and “to instill public confidence in DETC institutions' missions, goals, performances, and resources through rigorous application and peer-developed accreditation standards.” (DETC, 2009, para.4). The DETC also sponsors a “corporate” website providing assurances to potential employers as to the quality of its member institutions, stating that all of its member institutions “have been examined and found to meet the educational and business ethics standards set by the Accrediting Commission, an independent commission which has been listed by the U.S. Department of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency” (DETC Corporate, 2009, para.2). Although teacher requirements vary from state to state, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that each state meet the federal requirement ensuring that a “highly qualified” teacher is in every public school classroom (NCLB, 2001). Typically, state requirements involve holding a bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited institution and passing a state test on subject matter competency for both elementary and secondary teachers (US Department of Education Education, 2010). Could regional or national accreditation provide some form of quality assurance? The Distance Education and Training Council believes it does (2009), while others like the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) believes that accreditation does nothing to ensure educational quality, and in some cases is actually a hindrance to educational quality (2007). Therefore there is disagreement as to whether accreditation should be a gauge for evaluating the quality of a school or a program. 34 The New England Association of Schools and Colleges, one of the six regional accrediting associations, stated that, “Meeting the standards does not guarantee the quality of individual programs, courses, or graduates . . .” (2005). Wearing the “accreditation” badge essentially means much less than many have come to believe. Reeves (2003) comments, “If the accreditation of traditional brick and mortar universities is being assailed, what about fledgling agencies charged with judging the quality of online institutions? (p. 14). Reeves (2003) points to a newly established online institution which opened in 2000, and was, interestingly, accredited the same year by the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC). Reeves stated, “The fact that a new online college or university could be started and accredited in the same year suggests that the standards used by DETC may not be sufficiently rigorous (pp. 14-15). It is this type of example that creates suspicion about the credibility and quality within online institutions, programs, and courses. Such irregularities within accreditation may appear to provide at least some support for the ACTA’s claim that accreditation is ineffective and should not be used as a gauge for educational quality (ACTA, 2007). Employment: Opportunity or Obstacles? Since No Child Left Behind requires more highly qualified teachers, and the growth of online teacher credential programs is producing more teacher candidates, it would appear that the opportunities for employment as a public school teacher are promising. However, Huss (2007) concluded that principals surveyed in his study preferred to hire teachers from traditional face-to-face programs. Adams and DeFleur (2006) conducted a national survey of hiring executives to assess the acceptability of a job applicant’s qualifications. Included in their survey was the issue of whether the 35 applicant completed an online degree program or if a significant amount of online course work was completed. Through their research Adams and DeFleur (2006) suggest these employers’ concerns about accreditation; perceived interaction among peers and professor; and rigor, skills, and work experience were the predominant reasons for not hiring an applicant from an online degree program (Columbaro & Monaghan, 2009). Hiring Managers and Online Degrees in the Private Sector In order to evaluate the acceptability of an online degree for hiring purposes, it may be beneficial to see what the literature shows in terms of general perceptions of those in the private sector to provide insight into how others involved in hiring, specifically principals, might view teacher candidates from online programs. According to Vault.com, a “leading media company focused on careers,” employers and managers are slow to accept online degrees (2008). According to their 2008 survey, 63% of hiring managers say they favor candidates from traditional schools. Although 83% believed that online degrees are more acceptable today than they were five years ago, only 35% said they would give “equal” consideration to applicants with an online degree, while 63% would favor candidates from traditional schools (Vault.com). Only about half (49%) of the hiring managers surveyed had encountered a job applicant with an online degree, while only 19% ever hired such a candidate. However, when asked if an online Bachelor’s degree is as credible as an offline degree, the results showed that nearly one- quarter (23%) said, “Yes.” Even more noteworthy were the 59% who believed an online Bachelor’s degree was not as credible, but still was acceptable. Only 18% stated the online degree was neither credible nor acceptable. Coincidentally, the beliefs about online graduate degrees were similar to the beliefs regarding online Bachelor’s degrees 36 with 29% saying that online graduate degrees were as credible as offline degrees; while 54% did not believe it was as credible, but still acceptable, and 18% believed an online graduate degree was neither credible nor acceptable, which was the same percent as the perceptions toward online Bachelor’s degrees. This survey may be interpreted to mean that although graduates from online degree programs are making progress in the job market, they are still at a sizable disadvantage compared with applicants with traditional degrees. However, Columbaro and Monaghan (2009) assert that Vault.com, the sponsor of this survey, did not provide any specifics regarding survey methodology, samples, and results, and since this organization is a private research firm hired by specific organizations, the results may be subject to bias (p. 5). Summary There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the literature review relative to proprietary colleges and universities, online teacher credential programs, and perceptions to-wards them. First, proprietary colleges and universities are often suspected of putting profits before the good of society, which contributes to negative perceptions of this type of institution. Second, there is support for the belief that there is no significant difference between the outcomes of traditional face-to-face learning and online learning. Third, school principals who hire teachers are more likely to choose a teacher from a traditional school or credential program than one from a proprietary institution or online credential program. Fourth, although many proprietary schools and online teacher credential programs are accredited, there is dispute as to whether this ensures the quality provided at these types of schools or in these types of credential programs. 37 CHAPTER THREE Research Design and Methodology Introduction This chapter will show the methodology and research design of the study on the perceptions of principals toward proprietary institutions and toward online teacher credential programs and whether these perceptions affected the potential hiring of teachers from this type of school or credential program. Although much has been written on the topics of proprietary institutions and online learning, little has been available on whether teachers who have attended a proprietary, for-profit institution or an online credential program are at a disadvantage when it comes to obtaining employment as a classroom teacher. It is important to determine if principals making such hiring decisions were predisposed toward those teachers from non-profit institutions and traditional face- to-face teacher credential programs. In order to determine if there was such an attitude, four research questions were addressed in the design of this study. Research Questions This study addressed the following research questions: 1. What are the perceptions of principals toward proprietary higher education institutions as compared to non-profit institutions? 2. What are the perceptions of principals toward online teacher credential programs as compared to traditional, face-to-face credential programs? 3. What were the possible sources of the perceptions these principals possessed? 4. In what ways, if any, did these principals think their perceptions might affect the hiring of teachers from proprietary online teacher credential programs? 38 Methodology The research questions sought to determine the perceptions principals have toward proprietary, for-profit institutions and online teacher credential programs and understand why these perceptions exist. The study also sought to determine if these perceptions are affecting principals’ decisions to hire teacher candidates who were either from a proprietary, for-profit school or an online teacher credential program. In order to answer these questions, it was necessary to find a suitable group of principals to interview, for this reason, a preliminary step was necessary to identify this “suitable” group as one who had knowledge of, experience with, and definite opinions regarding hiring teachers from such schools or online programs. Therefore, a general online survey of principals was conducted to gain pertinent information and determine their qualifications. In order to first identify these principals, Research Instrument #1, a general survey, was used. Once it was determined who met the criteria for suitability, Research Instrument #2, a follow-up interview was conducted to understand the perceptions, reasons for these perceptions, and why they were favorable or unfavorable to hiring teachers from proprietary institutions or online credential programs. Population and Sample The sampling strategy focused on principals in California since it is the most populous state and has more school-aged children than any other state (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Approximately 300 principals were contacted through telephone calls, email requests, or personal face-to-face solicitations. Finally, 101 principals responded to the request to complete an online survey using SurveyMonkey and a Likert Scale method. Although it was the hope of the researcher to acquire responses from principals in urban, 39 suburban, and rural areas, the principals came from largely suburban areas within Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties. Since few principals responded to telephone or email requests to take the online survey, the researcher chose to personally solicit participation by conducting personal visits to more than 100 public schools in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. The researcher began in close proximity to his home in San Bernardino County and then moved outward into Los Angeles County until the requisite 100 responses had been fulfilled. Those principals from Orange County who participated did so through email or telephone requests. This researcher learned that personal face-to-face solicitations yielded better results than email or telephone requests. Many of the principals were not available during these personal visits and solicitations; However, the researcher found that by leaving a $5.00 Starbucks gift card and a simple instruction sheet, the principals were much more likely to respond even though they never met the researcher. Although there was no certainty as to the number of respondents, or the number who would be qualified for a follow-up interview, this researcher interviewed 20 principals who had either definite opinions on whether or not to hire a teacher candidate from either a proprietary, for-profit institutions or online teacher credential programs. Instrumentation For the purpose of this study, two research instruments were utilized: Research Instrument #1: A General Survey of Principals (See Table 3.1) and Research Instrument #2: A Semi-structured Follow-up Interview (See Table 3.2). 40 Research Instrument #1: General Survey The purpose of Research Instrument #1: General Survey (See Table 3.1) identified principals who had a good knowledge of either proprietary institutions or online teacher credential programs to assist in answering the research questions. A five- point Likert Scale was used to provide a convenient method of rating responses. Research Instrument #1: General Survey used Survey Monkey, an Internet survey tool and service to receive responses from 101 principals in Southern California. It took approximately 3 minutes to complete this general survey. The responses of the principals surveyed were measured against the criteria to determine those who had the adequate knowledge suitable for the follow-up interviews. The survey questions were designed to determine the extent to which these principals have knowledge of proprietary institutions or online teacher credential programs that would benefit this study. The respondents were then categorized into two groups: Qualified for Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview; and those not qualified for the follow-up interview. In order to provide an incentive to respond to the general survey, these principals were offered a gift card in the amount of $5.00 for their participation. Table 3.1 Research Instrument #1: General Survey Protocol Question #1 How would you rate your knowledge of proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities? 5 4 3 2 1 Much Good Some Very Little None Question #2 How many teachers do you know who attended a proprietary, for-profit college or university? 5 4 3 2 1 10 or more 5-9 3-8 1-2 None 41 Table 3.1 Continued Question #3 How would you rate the level of quality of for-profit institutions compared to non- profit institutions based on your knowledge of the teachers who attended this type of school? 5 4 3 2 1 High Good Undecided Little None Question #4 How would you rate your knowledge of online teacher credential programs compared to traditional face-to-face credential programs? 5 4 3 2 1 Very Good Undecided Little None Question #5 How many teachers do you know who earned their teaching credential through an online credential program? 5 4 3 2 1 10 or more 5-9 3-8 1-2 None Question #6 How would you rate the level of quality of online teacher credential programs based on your knowledge of the teachers who attended this type of program? 5 4 3 2 1 High Good Undecided Little None Question #7 How likely would you be to hire a teacher who received his or her credential from a proprietary, for-profit college or university? 5 4 3 2 1 Very Somewhat Neutral Not Not Likely at All Question #8 How likely would you be to hire a teacher who received his or her credential through an online credential program? 5 4 3 2 1 Very Somewhat Neutral Not Not Likely at All Question #9 May we contact you for a follow-up interview to discuss your views in more detail? Yes No A principal was determined “qualified” for the follow-up interview if he or she demonstrated a good knowledge of proprietary schools and online credential programs, and teachers who came from such schools or programs, and took a definite “side” on whether or not to hire such teacher candidates. (See Table 3.2). The profile sought for follow-up interviews would be a principal who believes he or she has a good knowledge 42 of proprietary institutions and online credential programs, knows at least some teachers from both proprietary, for-profit and online credential programs; has either a higher or lower opinion of such schools or online programs based on his or her knowledge of representative teachers, and is either more likely or less likely to hire these teachers. If a survey respondent receives the appropriate number of points in each category, and agrees to a follow-up interview, then that respondent is qualified for the follow-up interview. Question 1 Question 1 sought to show how knowledgeable the surveyed principals believe they were of proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities, which related to Research Question #1, what are the perceptions of principals toward proprietary higher education institutions as compared to non-profit institutions? Although it was a subjective question and responses may have been inaccurate, it revealed that some principals believe they had a certain knowledge level of such schools without actually knowing any teachers from this type of school. At times this demonstrated a perception without practical experience on the part of the principal. Question 2 Question 2 identified the number of teachers from proprietary colleges or universities known by the principal surveyed. It was reasonable that the more teachers from proprietary, for-profit institutions known by the respondent, the more suitable he or she was to discuss his or her experiences and perceptions of such teachers and their representative schools. This objective question related to Research Question #1 and the perceptions of principals toward proprietary institutions compared to non-profit schools. The question revealed a correlation between a principal’s knowledge level concerning 43 proprietary, for-profit institutions and the number of teachers he or she knew who attended such an institution. Question 3 Question 3 sought to determine the level of quality provided by proprietary, for- profit institutions based on the principal’s knowledge of teachers who attended this type of school. It also sought to identify those principals who were suited to help answer Research Question #1, what perceptions do these principals have toward proprietary institutions compared to non-profit schools. These responses also revealed a correlation between the principal’s perceptions toward the teachers from such institutions and the institutions themselves. Question 4 Question 4 sought to show how knowledgeable the surveyed principals believed they were of online teacher credential programs in order to identify those who could provide information regarding Research Question #2, what are the perceptions of principals toward online teacher credential programs compared to traditional face-to-face programs. As with Question 1, both the question and responses were subjective and the responses may have been inaccurate; however, they may also revealed that some principals believe they had a certain knowledge level of online teacher credential programs without actually knowing any teachers who earned their credentials online. This demonstrated a perception which is not based on the principal’s practical experience. 44 Question 5 Question 5 sought to identify the number of teachers from online credential programs known by the principal surveyed. As with Question 2, those principals who knew 10 or more teachers from online credential programs would best serve this study; however, those who knew three to nine still provided valuable information through the follow-up interview. As with Question 2, this objective question revealed a correlation between a principal’s perception of online teacher credential programs and the number of teachers he or she knew who attended such a credential program. This survey question was related to Research Question #2, what are the perceptions of principals toward online teacher credential programs compared to traditional face-to-face programs. Question 6 Question 6 sought to determine the level of quality provided by online teacher credential programs based on the principal’s knowledge of teachers who attended this type of credential program. This question addressed Research Question #2, what are the perceptions of principals toward online teacher credential programs compared to traditional face-to-face programs. Responses could also have revealed a correlation between the principal’s perceptions toward the teachers from such programs and the online programs themselves. Question 7 Question 7 sought to determine the likelihood that a principal would hire a teacher with a degree or credential from a proprietary, for-profit college or university. Responses could reveal those principals who have a high or low opinion of teachers from such institutions or the institutions themselves. The study sought to interview principals who 45 held either opinion because both ranges signify strong opinions held by the respondent. This question was related to Research Question #4; do these perceptions effect the hiring of teachers from proprietary, for-profit institutions or from online teacher credential programs? Question 8 Question 8 sought to determine the likelihood that a principal would hire a teacher from an online teacher credential program and is related to Research Question #4; do these perceptions effect the hiring of teachers from proprietary, for-profit institutions or from online teacher credential programs? This response identified those principals who had a high or low opinion of teachers from such credential programs or the programs themselves. The researcher interviewed principals who held either opinion. Question 9 The final question, Question 9 sought permission to contact the principal to participate in Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview. Those who agreed to and were interviewed received a $20 gift card. Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview The second step in the instrumentation was the use of Research Instrument #2: A Follow-Up Interview (See Table 3.2) which used a semi-structured process for those principals identified as qualified through the Research Instrument #1: General Survey. According to Patten (2007) a semi-structured interview allowed the researcher to go beyond the predetermined set of questions in order to rephrase misunderstood questions; allow elaboration; or follow-up to explore especially relevant responses from the interviewee (p. 153). According to Patton (2002) interviewing is used to “enter in the 46 other person’s perspective” (p. 341). This was the design used in order to provide specific insight into the perceptions of school principals toward proprietary institutions and online teacher credential programs. The interview questions allowed suitable elaboration within the process. The semi-structured interview process provided consistency among all principals interviewed, but also allowed them to move beyond the questions with insights and experiences relative to the research questions. Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview was conducted with those who were qualified through tabulating the results from Research Instrument #1: General Survey. The researcher interviewed 20 elementary and secondary principals (see table 3.2) who had a definite disposition toward hiring a teacher from either a proprietary, for- profit institution or an online teacher credential program. The interview (see table 3.3) took approximately 30-45 minutes with questions designed to determine exactly why these principals have their perceptions of these schools and programs, and if these perceptions affected their decisions to hire teacher candidates from these respective entities. The interviews were conducted through teleconferencing or face-to-face, at a time and location most convenient for both the principal and the interviewer. Each principal received a $20.00 gift card for participating in the interview. Table 3.2 Types of Schools Represented Type of School Represented Number of Principals Elementary 16 Middle School or Junior High School 1 High School 3 47 Table 3.3 Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview Protocol Research Questions Interview Questions What perceptions do principals have of proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities? What experiences have you had with proprietary, for-profit colleges or universities and what impressions do you have of such schools? What has been your impression of the teachers who attended a proprietary, for- profit, college or university? How do these teachers compare with those who attended a non-profit college? Have you ever taken a course from a proprietary, for-profit school, and if so what was your experience like? How would you compare a proprietary, for- profit institution to a non-profit school? Could you provide a specific example of this? What perceptions do principals have of online teacher credential programs? What experiences have you had with online teacher credential programs and what impressions do you have of such programs? What has been your impression of the teachers who obtained their teaching credential through an online credential program? How do these teachers compare with those who earned their credential through a traditional face-to-face credential program? Have you ever taken an online course? If so, what was your experience like? Of the online programs you are familiar with, which ones appear more effective? Why? Based on your experiences and perceptions, how would you compare the effectiveness of an online credential program to that of a traditional program? Why? 48 Table 3.3 Continued Why do principals have these perceptions toward proprietary institutions and/or online teacher credential programs? Which proprietary, for-profit institutions are you familiar with, and which ones appear to be more effective in training teachers? Why? What do you think proprietary institutions have done to contribute to such perceptions? What do you think online teacher credential programs have done to contribute to such perceptions? Do these perceptions have an effect on the hiring of teachers from such institutions or programs? If all you knew about a teacher candidate was the institution he or she attended and the type of credential program, to what extent would these factors influence your decision to hire such a teacher? Which teacher candidate would you be more likely to hire? A. A teacher who attended a traditional, face-to-face program at a proprietary, for-profit institution B. A teacher who attended a traditional face-to-face program at a non-profit institution C. A teacher who attended an online program at a proprietary, for-profit institution D. A teacher who attended an online program at a traditional non-profit institution About how many teacher candidates have you interviewed who attended a proprietary, for-profit college or university? What were your impressions of those candidates? 49 Table 3.3 Continued You indicated, in the earlier survey that you would be unlikely to hire a teacher from an online credential program. Could you provide your reasons for this view? You indicated in the online survey that you would be likely to hire a teacher from an online credential program. Could you provide your reasons for this view? About how many teacher candidates have you interviewed who earned their credential from an online credential program? What were your impressions of those candidates? Have you ever interviewed a teacher candidate from a proprietary, for-profit institution? Did you hire them? Was it a good hire? Why? Why not? Have you ever interviewed a teacher candidate from an online credential program? Was it a good hire? Why? Why not? Since you hold a lower opinion of proprietary, for-profit schools, what would that type of school have to do to change your opinion? Since you hold a lower opinion of online teacher credential programs, what would those programs need to do in order to change your opinion? How do you think your perceptions of proprietary, for-profit schools have affected your hiring decisions? Why? How do you think your perceptions of online teacher credential programs have affected your hiring decisions? Why? 50 Data Collection Data from both Research Instrument #1: General Survey (See Table 3.1); and Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview (See Table 3.2) were collected using two different resources. Research Instrument #1: General Survey will use SurveyMonkey, a web-based tool for gathering data and collecting responses from principals. Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview was interpreted by the researcher to effectively code the information and conducted an analysis of the data gained from the interviews. Data Analysis The data from both research instruments were analyzed. Research Instrument #1: General Survey was used to identify principals qualified for a follow-up interview, and Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview was used to gather data regarding a principal’s perceptions and decision-making related to the hiring of teachers from proprietary, for-profit, colleges and universities, and from online teacher credential programs. Research Instrument #1: General Survey Research Instrument #1: General Survey was analyzed according to the types of responses provided by the principals (See Table 3.1). The survey was conducted through SurveyMonkey, a software application program to assist in the distribution, collection, and organization of data. This tool helped the researcher to determine from the general survey which respondents were suitable for a follow-up interview. The general survey was designed to identify the experience level of principals. The responses to each of the questions were collected using the Likert Scale to score and evaluate the suitability of respondents for the follow-up interview. Additionally, respondents were asked to give 51 their permission for the researcher to contact them for a follow-up interview. However, many of the respondents were not inclined to give such permission, which forced the researcher to adjust his requirements for suitable interviewees. These suitable interviewees were reduced to those who held some predisposition toward the favorable or unfavorable hiring of teacher candidates from either proprietary, for-profit, institutions or online teacher credential programs. Question 1 In order to qualify for the follow-up interview a respondent must have rated his or her knowledge at a 2, 3, 4, or 5, showing he or she believed he or she had at least “some” knowledge of proprietary, for-profit institutions. Those rating themselves at a 1 “no knowledge,” were eliminated from the follow-up interview process because they do not believe they had any knowledge, whether accurately or inaccurately self-assessed. It was unlikely that a principal with substantial perceptions would evaluate his or her own knowledge to be so low. However, since there was confusion among principals over the definition and identification of proprietary, for-profits schools a principal was not automatically disqualified because of their answers. It was discovered that in order to accurately assess their own knowledge level, principals need to clearly know which schools were for-profit and which were not-for-profit ones. Question 2 In order to qualify for a follow-up interview a respondent must have known at least one teacher from a proprietary, for-profit school, which means a rating of 2, 3, 4, or 5 was needed. It was reasonable that those principals with more knowledge of teachers from such institutions would also have stronger opinions of the schools represented by 52 those teachers. Although a principal who knew 10 or more teachers from proprietary, for- profit schools would best serve the study, a respondent who knew at least one teacher also provided valuable information because he or she was able to formulate perceptions better than those who knew fewer teachers from such institutions. Question 3 In order to qualify for a follow-up interview, respondents must have had a response of 1-2, or 4 - 5 showing they think the quality of education from a proprietary, for-profit school is either in the lower range, 1-2, (no quality to little quality) or the upper range, 4-5, (good quality to high quality). A principal who responded with a 3 (undecided) was considered for the follow-up interview, if he met the Question 2 criteria of knowing at least one teacher from such institutions, but would not be considered if he has only knowledge of fewer than three teachers from such schools. Question 4 In order to qualify for the follow-up interview, respondents must have rated their knowledge level at a 2, 3, 4, or 5, showing they believe they have at least “some” knowledge of online teacher credential programs. Those rating themselves at a 1 were only considered if they had a definite view on whether or not they would possibly hire a teacher from an online credential program. The principal was considered for the follow- up interview process if they had no knowledge of online credential programs and were neutral toward the possible hiring of such teachers. It was unlikely that principals with substantial perceptions would have evaluated their own knowledge to be this low. 53 Question 5 In order to qualify for the follow-up interview, a principal must have known at least one teacher who obtained their teaching credentials online, or if no personal knowledge of such teachers, at least held a definite opinion on the possibility of hiring such a teacher. It was reasonable that those principals with more knowledge of teachers from such programs would also have stronger opinions of the online programs represented by those teachers. As with Question 2, a principal who knows 10 or more teachers from online programs would best serve the study and a respondent who knows three to nine teachers could also provide valuable information because he or she is able to formulate perceptions better than those who know only one, two, or even no teachers from such programs. Therefore those who responded to Question 5 with a 3, 4, or 5 rating would be considered for a follow-up interview. Question 6 In order to qualify for a follow-up interview, respondents must have had a response of 1-2 or 4-5 showing they thought the quality of education from an online teacher credential program was either in the lower range, 1-2, (no quality to little quality) or the upper range, 4-5, (good quality to high quality). A principal who responded with a 3 (undecided) might be considered for the follow-up interview, if he or she met had a definite opinion on whether or not there was the likelihood that he or she would hire such a teacher. In other words as long as the principal held a definite view on hiring they were considered for the interview. 54 Question 7 In order to qualify for the follow-up interview, a respondent must have responded in the upper range (4-5), likely to very likely to hire this teacher, or lower range (1-2), unlikely to hire or not likely at all to hire such a teacher. Question 7 asked the likelihood that a surveyed principal would hire a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit institution. Those principals who had a definite opinion were chosen for the interview. In order to be considered for a follow-up interview, a principal must have responded in the upper (4-5) or lower range (1-2), meaning he or she was either “Somewhat” or “Very Likely” to hire a teacher from such a school, or in the lower range, showing he or she was either, “Not at all likely” or “Not likely” to hire the same type of teacher. A principal who is neutral was not interviewed if they had a definite opinion on the likelihood of hiring a teacher from an online credential program. Question 8 In order to qualify for the follow-up interview, must have responded in the upper range (4-5), which means they are either likely or very likely to hire this teacher, or in the lower range (1-2), indicating they are either unlikely to hire or not at all likely to hire such a teacher. A principal who was neutral was interviewed if he or she had a definite opinion on Question 7, the likelihood of hiring a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit institution. In other words, a principal was interviewed if they held to a definite opinion in the response to Question 7 or 8. 55 Question 9 Finally, Question 9 sought the respondent’s permission to be interviewed. Some agreed to the interview, but only those who met the requirements of Questions 7 and 8, and provided permission and personal information were interviewed. Qualified Respondents Table 3.3 below shows which responses qualified respondents as suitable to participate in Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview. Table 3.4 Determining Qualified Respondents Questions Desired Point Totals Question 1 2-5 Question 2 2-5 Question 3 1-2; 4-5 Question 4 2-5 Question 5 2-5 Question 6 1-2; 4-5 Question 7 1-2; 4-5 Question 8 1-2; 4-5 Question 9 Yes Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview Twenty principals were interviewed into order to provide detailed responses to a series of questions designed to answer the four Research Questions. Below is a description of how the data were analyzed in relation to the Research Questions. 56 Data Related to Research Question #1. The first set of interview questions was concerned with determining the perceptions of principals toward proprietary or for-profit schools as compared to non-profit institutions. In order to understand these perceptions, the researcher analyzed the data to see how much specific experience the principals have had with proprietary institutions, what impressions they have had, what these perceptions were based on, and how they contributed to the likelihood of hiring a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit institution. Data Related to Research Question #2. The second set of interview questions was concerned with determining the perceptions of principals toward online teacher credential programs as compared to traditional face-to-face programs. In order to understand these perceptions, the researcher analyzed the responses to these questions to find out to what extent the principals were familiar with online teacher credential programs, online education, and teachers from such programs, and how legitimate their perceptions are. Data Related to Research Question #3. The third set of interview questions were concerned with determining the reasons why these perceptions exist among the principals interviewed. In order to understand why these perceptions existed, the researcher examined the interview responses to determine the underlying reasons for the perceptions. These were analyzed to determine if they supported the literature in terms of misgivings about these proprietary institutions or online teacher credential programs. The researcher also sought to understand how proprietary institutions or online credential programs have contributed to these perceptions. Data Related to Research Question #4. The fourth set of interview questions were concerned with determining whether these perceptions would affect the principal’s 57 decision to hire a teacher candidate if he or she earned his or her teaching credential through a proprietary institution or an online credential program. In order to determine if these perceptions are affecting the hiring of teachers, the researcher analyzed the interview responses to see how principals might make hiring decisions based on their perceptions of either proprietary institutions or online teacher credential programs. Limitations and Delimitations This study had a few internal and external limitations. First, there were internal limitations for the researcher. He was limited by his own assumptions relative to the research questions based on his own knowledge and experiences with a proprietary institution and online education. Secondly, his subjective evaluation of the general survey may have affected the number of respondents identified as qualified for the follow-up interview. The external limitations were that although California is the most populated state in the U.S., its school principals were not necessarily representative of their counterparts in the rest of the nation. Although California includes a large urban population, the principals who responded to the survey or were interviewed represented suburban school districts, however, many were in schools with a student population from lower socio- economic families based on free or reduced lunches. Additionally, since time was a constraint, only 101 principals were included in the online survey. The study was also limited in terms of the number who responded to the survey and the number who were identified as “Qualified” for the purpose of the Follow-Up Interview. The Follow-Up Interview was also limited to 45-60 minutes due to the time constraints and schedules of individual principals. Although it was estimated that 75% of the time (Liu, 2002), 58 principals were involved in the decisions to hire teachers, this study did not address the remaining 25% of the time when others, not principals, make determinations in teacher hiring decisions. Finally, the study viewed teachers as “interchangeable” parts of a school staff and did not take into account their individual and unique qualities that would distinguish one candidate from another seeking employment. Validity and Reliability Although the pool of “qualified” respondents might be less than desired, Patton (2002) states there are “no rules” for the sample size in qualitative inquiry and that the “validity, meaningfulness, and insights generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information richness of the cases selected and the observation/analytical capabilities of the researcher than with the sample size” (p. 245). The researcher identified and interviewed 20 principals qualified to be included in Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview. The interviews were conducted over a limited period of time, took place in a number of settings with a neutral and unbiased approach. Patton (2002) recommends “empathic neutrality,” which communicates understanding, interest, and a caring approach to those interviewed (p. 53). This researcher took a “neutral” stance toward these principals’ “thoughts, emotions, and behaviors” (Patton, 2002, p. 53). The study sought and obtained validity as only principals with definite opinions of the likelihood of hiring teachers from either proprietary, for-profit institutions or online teacher credential programs were included for interviewing. This ensured that each principal had the necessary qualities to contribute significantly to the study. 59 Ethical Considerations Ethical considerations in any study are paramount and this study utilized a policy and approach of complete honesty toward the subjects surveyed and interviewed. Interviewees were assured that their identities were confidential. All interviewees will be assured that the information they provide will not be associated with them and that no names were used in the formation of this study. This researcher applied for and was granted an exempt status with the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board. This researcher complied with and followed the rules and regulations of the Review Board. Ethical standards were upheld throughout all phases of the study. The researcher took his own experiences and perceptions into consideration because of the following issues: (1) having received his teacher credential through a traditional state university teacher credential program; (2) having taught for 12 years for a proprietary university; and (3) having taught for nine years in an online program for a proprietary university. This researcher was careful to prevent any personal bias from entering into the interviewing process, and maintained an objective approach in both the predetermined questions and the spontaneous follow-up questions. This researcher fairly and consistently presented the interview questions without imposing any personal bias toward the topic. 60 CHAPTER FOUR Data Analysis Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions that principals have toward proprietary, for-profit colleges and institutions and toward online teacher credential programs, and whether these perceptions have affected their decision to hire teachers from such institutions or programs. This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected through the two research instruments: Research Instrument #1: General Survey of Principals; and Research Instrument #2: Follow-up Interview of Qualified Principals. These data serve to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the perceptions of principals toward proprietary higher education institutions as compared to non-profit schools? 2. What are the perceptions of principals toward online teacher credential programs as compared to traditional face-to-face programs? 3. What are the possible sources of the perceptions these principals possessed? 4. In what ways, if any, did these principals think their perceptions might affect the hiring of teachers from proprietary online teacher credential programs? The research questions were addressed through the two research instruments. Research Instrument #1: General Survey served to address Research Questions 1, 2, and 4, and identified principals suitable and amenable to participate in Research Instrument #2: Follow-Up Interview, which addressed Research Questions 3 and 4 in more detail. The 61 data analysis has been organized to show how each research instrument contributed in answering each research question where appropriate. Findings Related to Research Question 1 Data Analysis from Research Instrument 1: General Survey General survey question #1.The first survey question asked the principals to rate their personal knowledge of proprietary (for-profit) colleges and universities (see Table 4.1). Over 70% of the respondents (70.2%) indicated they had at least some-to-great knowledge of such institutions, including over 30% believing they had a good-to-great knowledge of these schools. However, 25.7% had little knowledge, and 4% had no knowledge of proprietary, for-profit institutions. Table 4.1 Principals’ rating of personal knowledge of proprietary institutions Rating Their Knowledge of Proprietary Institutions Response Percent Response Count Great 5.9% 6 Good 26.7% 27 Some 37.6% 38 Very Little 25.7% 26 None 4% 4 General survey question #2. The second survey question asked principals to indicate the number of teachers they know who attended a proprietary, for-profit college or university (See Table 4.2). Just over 85% of principals surveyed knew of at least one teacher from a proprietary, for-profit institution, including 23.8% who knew of 10 or more teachers from such schools. Less than 15% of the respondents said they knew of no 62 teacher who had attended such an institution. This indicated that the knowledge of proprietary, for-profit institutions is quite common among the vast majority of these Southern California principals, which means that the perceptions of many of these principals were at least somewhat based on personal knowledge of teachers from such schools. Table 4.2: Number of teachers known by principals Number of teachers known from proprietary schools by principals Response Percent Response Count 10 or more teachers 23.8% 24 5-9 teachers 15.8% 16 3-4 teachers 22.8% 23 1-2 teachers 22.8% 23 None 14.9% 15 General survey question #3. The third survey question asked these principals to rate the level of quality of proprietary, for-profit institutions based on their knowledge of the teachers who attended this type of school (See Table 4.3). Since nearly 85% of these principals knew at least one teacher from such a school, it is likely that the responses to survey question three were, to some degree, based on this knowledge. The percentage of principals who rated the level of quality at proprietary, for-profit institutions at good or high was over 42% (42.6%), while nearly 21% (20.8%) believed these schools had little to no quality. The largest percentage of principals rated these school with at least “some” quality (36.6%). 63 Table 4.3: Level of quality of proprietary schools Level of Quality based on teachers from Proprietary Schools Response Percent Response Count High 9.9% 10 Good 32.7% 33 Some 36.6% 37 Little 8.9% 9 None 11.9% 12 Data Analysis from Research Instrument 2: Follow-Up Interviews Research Instrument 2: Follow-Up Interview was used to provide a more in-depth understanding of the perceptions of principals towards proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities. There were two misconceptions about which schools were for-profit and non- profit. A number of principals were not aware of which colleges and universities were for-profit institutions and which were non-profit. Some equated private institutions with for-profit institutions, while others equated tuition costs to a profit motive. One institution that was often labeled as proprietary, or for-profit, was National University, whose headquarters is in San Diego, California. Seven of the 20 principals interviewed (35%) placed National University, a non-profit school, in the proprietary, for-profit category alongside schools like the University of Phoenix. Three principals (15%) placed non- profit, private schools like the University of Southern California, Azusa Pacific 64 University, Chapman University, Concordia University, and the University of La Verne into the for-profit category because they were private institutions. Positive perceptions towards proprietary institutions. A majority of the principals interviewed had positive perceptions of proprietary, for-profit institutions. These positive perceptions ranged from providing a more convenient institution, providing more institutional support, a one-class-at-a-time degree program, small class size, better preparing teachers to participate in Professional Learning Communities, instructor reputation, good experiences with student-teachers and teacher, following a trend in education, comparison of student-teachers from other non-profit schools, and the view that the type of institution is relatively insignificant. User-friendly. Proprietary institutions appear to focus more on the specific needs of the adult student. One particular principal believed the institutions provide a valuable service by catering to the adult student who is typically in a career with responsibilities that the proprietary school takes into consideration. This principal was finding that more people were choosing a for-profit school at which to work on their Master’s degree, clear their credential, qualify for an administrative credential, or move into some other area of education. He believed these teachers were more inclined to attend a proprietary school because these schools “seem to fit the working person better.” In fact he stated that “for- profits work harder at providing an educational environment conducive to the working person.” It is this institutional flexibility and adaptation that is seen to appeal to more and more people in education because adaptable organizations are better suited for the demands of an adult life. A high school principal with a business administration degree 65 believes these schools fit a market “niche,” and since they cater to those who might otherwise not be able to attend a college, he was “all for it.” Principals see proprietary, for-profit schools as providing easier access to students. This adult user-friendly approach is apparent to one principal who believed a year-round school year was quite helpful for students. The for-profit institutions are year- round, providing students with nearly immediate access and enrollment which allows them to “get on with it as quickly as possible” unlike traditional schools. Another principal believed for-profit colleges and universities were more user-friendly because they were more likely to have satellite campuses or learning centers in local areas, whereas the University of California and California State University systems require students to travel to their locations. Institutional support. Proprietary institutions are competing for market-share of student populations and by virtue of their for-profit focus must ensure that they provide satisfactory service to the customers: their students. This view of such schools was shared by a number of principals interviewed. One principal believed the for-profits must provide more assistance and support to their students. Increasing profits demands that these schools increase and maintain their enrollment. This was a common theme from six of the 20 principals interviewed. Two of these principals mentioned they believed for- profit institutions were more focused on getting the student from start to finish in their degree program. One class at a time. A number of proprietary institutions formulate their degree programs so students take one class at a time. This model allows the working adult to attend class only one or two nights per week, or during weekends. This approach to a 66 degree program “made all the difference in the world” to one principal because she did not feel “scattered” or “overwhelmed” as she had had a traditional school because she often took multiple classes concurrently. Smaller class size. Proprietary schools are seen as having a lower student to teacher ratio, providing more attention to individual students. One principal used her experience in a small private university to carry over into how she perceived proprietary institutions. She drew parallels between her small, private university experience at Loyola Marymount University and for-profit universities both of which she believed place an emphasis on a more personable environment, which to her is important. This more personable approach was perceived as producing a better learning environment for her and others. Better prepared for PLC. Proprietary, for-profit institutions emphasize collaborative learning for their students, thus better preparing teachers to work effectively within Professional Learning Communities (PLC) at local schools. These PLC’s, which have been incorporated by a number of schools, are comprised of teachers often grouped by common grade level or subject matter, and are designed to improve teacher performance and student outcomes through collaboration. Certain proprietary schools place a great emphasis on teamwork. For example, the University of Phoenix requires all students in both online and on-ground campuses, to participate in a “learning team,” which prompted an enthusiastic response by one particular principal who believed this collaborative emphasis better prepared teachers to participate in a Professional Learning Community (PLC). The PLC has become a popular way to increase teacher performance and reduce isolation, and those proprietary schools that emphasize or even require 67 collaborative work as part of their curriculum are aligning themselves with the Professional Learning Community approach. Since more public schools are adopting this PLC model, having teachers with such collaborative team experience in college may improve their contributions to their fellow teachers and to student learning. Instructor reputation. The reputation of an institution is often forged by its faculty, and this holds true among proprietary institutions as well. The knowledge of qualified instructors at proprietary schools provided a positive perception for at least one principal interviewed. This principal was impressed with those educators who were also faculty members at the University of Phoenix. “These instructors were well-educated, well-experienced, and put a lot of preparation into their classes.” His respect for these instructors translated into a respect for the proprietary institution as well. Another principal believed having instructors who were currently in education was an advantage over public, non-profit universities who were “hung up” on having professors teach, but were removed from the typical K-12 classroom. Trendsetters. Innovative schools are frequently emulated by other institutions, and proprietary, for-profits are seen by one principal as setting a trend in education. One principal believed for-profit institutions’ focus on profits has resulted in non-profits acting more like their for-profit brethren. He cited private non-profit schools like Azusa Pacific University, Biola University, and Point Loma Nazarene University as examples of non-profits increasing their effort to gain students and the tuition that comes with them by becoming more user-friendly. A second principal saw the for-profit schools as “a little more on the cutting edge of having a vision of where we’re going and getting us prepared for that.” A third principal commented on the approach of for-profit schools compared to 68 traditional non-profit schools by saying, “just because the traditional way works doesn’t mean there’s not a better way to do something.” Later he added that the for-profit schools just have a “different approach.” Comparing student-teachers. Schools are often evaluated based on their students and graduates. The performance of student teachers often reflects upon the institution at which they attended or received training. There was only one principal (5%) who commented on experiences with student-teachers. He had had a number of poor experiences with student teachers from one California State University, and was quite unhappy with the teachers produced there. However, this same principal has had several teachers who attended the University of Phoenix. These teachers left him with a “very, very good” impression. He followed up stating that with the University of Phoenix teachers, “I haven’t had any negative experience at all.” In fact he said he would rank his teachers from for-profit schools “higher” than those teachers who attended a California State University. Institution not critical. There were four principals of the 20 interviewed who did not think evaluating the institution was nearly as important as assessing the individual teacher candidate. However, there were two very different reasons for this view. Three principals believed that it was the individual who should be evaluated more than the institution, and on this basis, the nature of the institution was inconsequential. The type of individual and their personal as well as professional qualities could be assessed without considering the type of school attended. However, another particular principal believed the entire idea of teacher training needed overhauling and because of this did not place much importance on whether or not the institution was proprietary or non-profit, since 69 she saw teacher training among all institutions as emphasizing or containing similar approaches. She believed public education was “broken” and teacher training was essentially negligible in developing qualified teachers. Negative Perceptions towards Proprietary Institutions There were a number of negative perceptions towards proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities. These perceptions ranged from the way proprietary for-profit colleges and universities promoted their schools through marketing techniques, the information provided in the recruiting of students, easy ways to gain credits for increasing salary, emphasizing profit over product, and the performance of both student- teachers and current teachers. Misleading marketing methods. Proprietary, for-profit schools often appear to “market” their school with an approach that makes a college degree sound easier than it is. The marketing methods of certain for-profit schools were mentioned by four of the 20 principals interviewed. The messages often received were that it was a quick and easy way to earn a degree. This approach, although often impressive to prospective students, is frequently looked upon with disdain by some educators who believe a quality education should be rigorous. However, one principal agreed that this “convenience” marketing approach was probably the correct type to entice students to enroll. Misinforming students. Proprietary, for-profit schools are sometimes accused of misleading potential students. These accusations often focus on the guaranteeing of financial aid, the transfer of credits from a previous another school, or the ability to transfer credits gained at the for-profit institution to another institution. Only one principal (5%) commented on this issue and provided an example of this misleading 70 experienced by her own son who attended a for-profit school. She believed this particular for-profit institution did not give accurate information to their students regarding the transfer of credits from the for-profit to a state university. She and her son were under the impression that units gained at this particular school would easily transfer to a state university, but were disappointed when it was discovered that the for-profit did not have the proper accreditation. Easy way to increase salary. Some teachers look for easy ways to increase college credit in order to increase their salaries, and proprietary, for-profit schools are often selected to achieve this. Since school districts reward teachers with a higher salary based on their college degree and earned units, teachers often look for convenient ways to take classes and earn credit. Two principals noticed a number of teachers choosing the University of Phoenix for their continuing education classes, but through feedback from these teachers concluded the courses were not really adding to the teachers’ professional development. Another seasoned principal discussed his own experience that while a classroom teacher he took a course from the University of Phoenix to acquire college credit to advance his salary. He said, “It seemed like you just needed to be there in order to pass and do minimal amount of work.” Profit over product. Since proprietary, for-profit institutions have a profit motive and in some cases, share-holders, there is a perception that this financial pursuit overshadows student achievement or ethical considerations. One principal interviewed believed those who recruit for proprietary institutions are focusing on getting students to enroll so they can increase their monetary commission, and may resort to unethical practices or providing misinformation in order to secure the student. She believes this 71 profit emphasis is contributing to a lack of information provided by the recruiters to the potential students. Another principal described her view that for-profit schools were “not really about educating and deepening some bodies of knowledge. There’s an alternative agenda.” Teachers currently employed. Often principals assess the institution or program based on the teachers at their own school site. One principal said she had not seen any “stellar” teachers come out of a proprietary, for-profit institution during her career. A second principal said her perceptions were based on discussions with teachers enrolled at the University of Phoenix, and she did not believe the program had “as much meat” as other schools, and that it was a “pay the money, take the classes, write the paper and you get the credit; and it was usually done in a short amount of time.” “It didn’t leave me with a real good impression.” This particular principal who has experience as a BTSA mentor (Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment) cited a discussion with a young teacher who was attending a for-profit college but did not seem to have the same knowledge level as other teachers from non-profit institutions. The result is that she did not think for- profits were equal to non-profit institutions. Another principal also cited a discussion with a teacher from a for-profit that she felt lacked some basic knowledge that should be gained in a credentialing program. Student teachers fulfilling their credential requirements are also the source of a principal’s perceptions. One principal with many years of administrative experience was not favorable toward for-profit schools because of issues with both the student teachers at his school and their supervisor from the for-profit university. He felt the supervisor was not of the same educational philosophy that he held, and she did not address those student 72 teachers who “were not up to par.” His experience with the University of Phoenix was not a positive one. He stated that the university lacked good communication with him regarding the student teachers, and it appeared they simply wanted to push them through the process. He firmly believed that student teachers from the University of La Verne and California State Polytechnic University at Pomona were better prepared for teaching than those from for-profit schools. Findings Related to Research Question 2 Data Analysis from Research Instrument 1: General Survey The second research question addressed the perceptions principals had toward online teacher credential programs compared to a traditional face-to-face program. Questions 4-6 of Research Instrument #1: General Survey addressed this question. Survey Question #4 asked principals to rate their knowledge of online teacher credential programs (See Table 4.4). It was apparent that principals’ knowledge of online teacher credential programs lagged far behind their knowledge of proprietary, for-profit institutions. While over 32% of principals surveyed believed they had either a good or great knowledge of proprietary, for-profit institutions, less than 13% (12.9%) claimed to have the same level of knowledge of online teacher credential programs. In fact, over 55% stated they had little or no knowledge of this type of credential program. 73 Table 4.4: Knowledge of Online Teacher Credential Programs Knowledge of Online Teacher Credential Programs Response Percent Response Count Great 4% 4 Good 8.9% 9 Some 31.7% 32 Little 41.6% 42 None 13.9% 14 General survey question #5. The fifth survey question asked principals to indicate how many teachers they knew who earned their teaching credential through an online credential program (See Table 4.5). The responses were quite consistent with the responses to survey question #4, which showed over 55% had little or no knowledge of proprietary, for-profit schools, since 56.4% of principals claimed they knew of no teachers who earned a teaching credential online. 74 Table 4.5: Number of Teachers Known from Online Programs Number of teachers known from online teacher credential programs by these principals Response Percent Response Count 10 or more teachers 1.0% 1 5-9 teachers 5.9% 6 3-4 teachers 10.9% 11 1-2 teachers 25.7% 26 None 56.4% 57 General survey question #6. The sixth survey question asked principals to rate the level of quality of online teacher credential programs based on their knowledge of the teachers who attended this type of program (See Table 4.6). Nearly 42% (41.6%) of principals surveyed believed that online teacher credential programs had “little” to “no” quality, while 46.5% were undecided. The survey showed that only about 12% (11.9%) believed online credential programs had “good” to “high” quality. Since nearly 47% were undecided on the quality of such credential programs there appears to be hope that such online programs might be able to persuade a significant number of principals to have a favorable opinion in the future; however, as it currently stands there is large number who were unfavorable. 75 Table 4.6: Quality of Online Programs Level of Quality based on teachers from Online Programs Response Percent Response Count High 2% 2 Good 9.9% 10 Undecided 46.5% 47 Little 9.9% 10 None 31.7% 32 General survey question #7. The seventh survey question asked principals how likely they were to hire a teacher who received his or her teaching credential from a proprietary, for-profit college or university (See Table 4.7). Although the majority (52.5%) remained neutral on their likelihood to hire a teacher candidate from a proprietary, for-profit school, nearly 35% were either somewhat likely or very likely to hire a teacher from such a school. However, the case might be made that nearly 87% of the surveyed principals were not unfavorable toward hiring a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit college or university. In other words, 87% would not reject a teacher candidate simply because he or she was from such an institution. 76 Table 4.7: Likelihood of Hiring from Proprietary Institutions Likelihood of Hiring from Proprietary Institutions Response Percent Response Count Very 13.9% 14 Somewhat 20.8% 21 Neutral 52.5% 53 Not Likely 12.9% 13 Not At All Likely 0.0% 0 Data Analysis from Research Instrument 2: Follow-Up Interviews Positive perceptions towards online programs. In order to understand the perceptions of principals toward online teacher credential programs and to answer Research Question 2, the same 20 principals were interviewed to provide a better understanding not only of their perceptions, but also the reasons why these perceptions existed, which answered Research Question 3. Online convenience. The convenience of online learning was one of the most positive perceptions held by the principals interviewed. Five of the principals interviewed gave “convenience” as a positive perception of an online program. One principal earned her Master’s degree and administrative credential online and believed it was virtually the “only option” for her. A second principal who had earned his CLAD credential through an online program was very happy with the convenience and the efficiency of the process, while a third principal cited her own example of living too far away from a university to complete her Master’s degree through the University of Calgary in Canada. The online program allowed her to attend this university even though she lived hundreds 77 of miles north of the school. This principal also cited an example that certain online courses allow the student to move at his or her own pace, which expedites the process. A fourth principal thought that online learning was convenient for single parents who would normally have to pay for childcare while attending a physical classroom. Provides more response time. The nature of online classroom discussions provides time for a more reflective response to others in the class. Only one principal (5%) cited this as an advantage of online courses compared to traditional face-to-face classes in which responses have to be more immediate and do not always allow the respondent to reflect and think more carefully about his or her answer to a question during classroom discussions. He stated, “Potentially, there’s sort of a deeper thought process that can take place because you have more time to focus on that versus the other” form of face-to-face discussion. His response showed a fuller understanding of the thought and communication process involved with online discussions and may or may not reflect accuracy depending on the actual individuals involved. Avoids unproductive classroom time. Online learning is often preferred to sitting in a classroom for any lengthy duration. Only one principal (5%) gave this as a positive perception of online credential programs. He went on to cite his own high school’s use of online learning for credit recovery for students who have failed classes, believing that some of these students find it extremely difficult to sit in a traditional classroom for hours. He sees online learning as more appealing to those who, for one reason or another, have difficulty sitting through a traditional face-to-face class approach. Online learning has the potential to accomplish the same student outcomes in less time. 78 Second career students. Online education is often perceived to be more suited for adult students who desire to change from their current career to teaching because online formats typically allow students to maintain their careers while working toward a degree or credential. One principal (5%) believed those working toward a teaching credential online are often working adults who are motivated to get into teaching as a second career and the effort it takes shows they have “a special desire to get to that point.” He was highly favorable of those with this type of motivation, and saw their presence in the classroom in a positive light. Current with research. Traditional face-to-face programs are sometimes perceived as lacking current research to aid curriculum. One principal (5%) provided this perception when she stated that online programs are “using more of the things that are easy to grasp the current research versus traditional programs that are using books that may be a couple of years old.” This principal believed that traditional teacher credential programs are working more toward alignment with current research, but still lag behind more cutting edge approaches represented by online programs. In fact, this principal stated that teacher candidates coming from a traditional program at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona appeared to be less knowledgeable about current research compared to teacher candidates from online programs like Chapman University, National University, or the University of Phoenix. Non-threatening environment. Online learning provides an environment where students feel more comfortable communicating in class. Two of the 20 principals interviewed held this perception. One principal believed it was easier to sit silently in a traditional classroom, but online courses require students to actively participate in the 79 discussions. He thought that students might display more assertiveness in their classroom communication since there would be less intimidation. Another principal with experience taking and teaching online courses thought there was often a “deeper” level of discussion within an online class because students are often more willing share their thoughts within the online classroom environment. Equally rigorous. The rigor of a program is often used as a gauge to evaluate the quality. Although some have questioned the rigor of an online program, three of the 20 principals interviewed perceive online teacher credential programs to be equally rigorous to that of traditional face-to-face programs. One principal stated, “When I hear what teachers are being asked to do every day. . . I think the rigor is definitely there.” This principal went on to say that since a typical online course does not require a certain number of hours in front of the computer, there is often a greater amount of work to do for the course each week, whereas a student can “skate by” more easily in a traditional face-to-face classroom. A second principal cited his own example of taking online courses, and that although he was working full-time; he was still required to do the full amount of work. He also summarized the essential elements that a student needs to read and interact with the textbook, an instructor, and fellow students, all of which can be accomplished online. A third principal based his perceptions on conversations with teachers and found that their online program was “a lot more rigorous than they thought it would be, and they came away with some pretty good skills.” Technological trends in education. The increasing need for technology in education has affected the views of some principals toward online programs. These principals had a positive view of online programs because of the technological emphasis 80 in education, and believed that this “wave” of the future is inevitable and should therefore be embraced. One principal responded that although he was neutral on the likelihood of hiring a teacher from an online program, he was actually quite favorable to those teachers from an online program because of the trend toward online learning. At least a few school principals believed that the emphasis on technology in the classroom might give teachers from an online credential program an advantage resulting in not only student proficiency with technology, but also a greater influence on, and assistance to, other faculty members. Negative Perceptions towards Online Programs The data obtained from Research Instrument 2: Follow-up Interviews showed some definite negative perceptions of online programs by some principals. These negative perceptions included the lack of interpersonal communication and relationships; technological glitches; lack of rigor compared to traditional face-to-face programs; opportunity for academic dishonesty, and the online student’s own level of commitment to classroom education. Lack of interpersonal communication. The most common complaint about online programs is the lack of interpersonal communication and relationships within the online classroom. Six of the 20 principals interviewed cited this as a negative belief about online courses and programs. One principal who had been asked to teach in an online credential program declined the invitation because of her belief that face-to-face interaction between teacher and students and between students is the mode in which teachers should be trained. A second principal believed there were certain courses, such as science, that needed less discussion and interaction, but that teacher training needs it 81 and that a traditional face-to-face program is better suited for preparing teachers. A third principal believes that although a proper blending of face-to-face and online learning could be beneficial, a teacher needs more face-to-face instruction so that an instructor can watch the student more closely. A fourth principal believed “people skills” were often lacking with those who earned their credentials online. She felt that those who earn their credentials online are also lacking in their ability to collaborate with Professional Learning Communities. A fifth principal, whose son is attending National University’s online teacher credential program, does not believe he is receiving the same quality of training that she received from the same institution through a traditional face-to-face program because she has observed online dialogue and feedback and it appears to have lacked “richness” because the “dynamics” of face-to-face communication are absent. A sixth principal compared his experience with a teacher who completed her credential online and felt she was not as prepared for the classroom as those teachers from a traditional face-to-face program, mainly due to the lack of “personal interaction” in the physical classroom. Technological Glitches. Online learning hinges upon the dependability of the technology used for the classes. It was interesting that this was one of the least cited negative perceptions of online learning. Of the 20 principals interviewed, only one made reference to technical problems with online learning. This principal, who had a generally positive perception of his own online classes, did cite “techno-logical glitches” as a negative factor. However, it was not a major issue with him. Lack of rigor. The traditional approach to taking classes and learning is still often looked upon as the normal and most effective way to attend school. Five of the 20 82 principals interviewed thought an online program was less rigorous than a traditional face-to-face one. One principal cited her own experience taking an online class. The course was easy and “you could have bluffed your way through it.” She did not think it should be used to train teachers for such a high stakes profession as public school teaching. Another principal whose husband completed an online program did not believe he learned much from the course because of her close observation of that particular online program. Still another principal often perceives online courses as “heavy in busy work,” resulting in a poor use of the student’s time. This principal went on to say those who complete their credential through an online program are “less” prepared to face the realities of teaching. Another principal also believes the level of rigor with an online program is less than that of a traditional face-to-face program because those traditional programs have a better alignment with shifts, state mandates, and recent research. Ripe for abuse. Certain types of online learning do not always allow for the identification of the enrolled student. This could provide opportunity to have other students complete course work for the enrolled student. Only two of the 20 principals interviewed had negative perceptions based on this factor. One principal whose husband completed an online program stated, “In all honesty I could do the work for him and they’d never have known.” She went on to say “You could very easily have someone else do your work and still earn the degree.” Another principal saw online learning as convenient, but was more concerned about academic honesty, and wondered how an online program handles “cheating” and ensures an adequate level of accountability. Allows for less committed students. There are a number of reasons why a student would choose to earn his or her teaching credential online; however, some of these 83 reasons perceived by principals are negative. Two of the 20 principals interviewed held misgivings. One principal questioned the level of commitment of an online student who wanted to be a classroom teacher, but did not want to sit in a classroom. This seemed like a contradiction. Another principal saw online programs as a “shortcut” to a career in teaching, and pondered whether or not this “shortcut-mentality” would transfer over into a teaching career. Findings Related to Research Question 3 Research Question 3: What are the possible causes of the perceptions these principals possess? Research Instrument 2: Follow Up Interviews revealed some of the causes for and influences upon the perceptions principals had toward either proprietary, for-profit institutions or online teacher credential programs. The analysis is separated into these two categories: proprietary, for-profit institutions and online teacher credential programs. Perceptions toward Proprietary, For-Profit Institutions Mistaken identity. One of the most obvious and recurring issues was that many perceptions were caused by an inaccurate understanding of the nature of certain colleges and universities with regard to their for-profit or non-profit status. Principals were often unaware of which schools were for-profit and which ones were non-profit institutions. A number of principals interviewed grouped certain colleges or universities together based on misinformation about these schools. Ten of the 20 principals interviewed (50%) thought National University was a proprietary, for-profit institution, when, in fact, it is a non-profit school, while two other principals (10%) thought private universities equated to for-profit schools. Eight of the 10 principals (40%)) even associated National 84 University with the University of Phoenix in the for-profit category by citing them together in their responses. This “mistaken identity” revealed that these principals either do not differentiate schools based on for-profit or non-profit, or that they relate such schools based on other factors, such as marketing methods. It appears that since both National University and the University of Phoenix engage in similar marketing approaches, they are often associated with each other. Those who mistakenly identified National University as a proprietary, for-profit institution also cited aggressive advertising as a significant identifier of a for-profit college or university. Four of the 10 principals (40%) who mistakenly identified National University as a for-profit school said that marketing was a key item that has contributed to their perceptions of proprietary, for-profit schools. Marketing messages. Since the marketing of an institution has an effect on how principals view the school and their program, it is important to understand the messages these principals are receiving from such marketing. Six of the 10 principals (and 30% overall) who associated aggressive marketing with the for-profit institutions also said the message implied in the marketing was that earning a degree or credential was convenient and even “easy.” One principal gave an example of how some advertising emphasizes that the school caters to the “busy professional” which, to her, implies a “watered-down” educational experience. Another principal said he was “leery” of the school’s program because of the marketing message. Some of these principal said the marketing has had a great influence on their perceptions, while other cited their own personal experiences. Personal experience with proprietary institutions. Often a principal’s perceptions were developed through a number of personal experiences relative to a 85 proprietary, for-profit college or university. These experiences ranged from personally taking classes at a for-profit institution to interacting and observing teachers from such colleges and universities. Taking classes at a for-profit. Some principals have experience with a proprietary school because they have completed a course at this type of institution leading to either a positive or negative perception of such schools. Four of the 20 principals interviewed (20%) had taken a class at a proprietary, for-profit university. Three of the four principals came away with a good experience and held positive perceptions upon completing a class or coursework at a for-profit school, while one principal’s experience was negative. This principal cited his experience with the University of Phoenix stating, “It was an easy way of getting units and step in column” to increase his salary as a teacher. Interaction with teachers. Principals often evaluate institutions or programs based on their own interactions with both student teachers and current teachers. Of 20 principals interviewed, seven (35%) held positive perceptions based on their interactions with student-teachers and classroom teachers, while nine (45%) held negative perceptions of for-profit schools based on their own interactions. The 35% of principals whose interactions with student-teachers or teachers from proprietary, for-profit institutions resulted in positive perceptions provided a number of examples to support such views. One principal cited her experience as an administrator in Canada and said that a teacher she knew “was very well equipped to teach the curriculum.” A second principal saw those who attended a for-profit school as “just as capable as those who went to a non-profit.” A third principal cited his knowledge of “well-educated and well-experienced” teachers who also were members of the faculty of 86 the University of Phoenix. He knew these teachers to “put a lot of preparation into their class” and whoever attended their classes at the University of Phoenix would be “getting a good experience.” A fourth principal whose daughter had completed her teaching credential from a for-profit institution thought it was a “very good, solid program.” A fifth principal held a very good impression of the University of Phoenix because of the several teachers from this for-profit institution at his school site. This principal said these teachers “probably rank higher than the ones who have gone to a non-profit university.” The nine principals (45%) whose contact with student-teachers or teachers from proprietary, for-profit schools resulted in a negative reaction offered instances to bear out their views. One principal cited an experience with teacher candidates from the University of Phoenix who “were just not getting it.” However, she did say she thought it “had to do more with the individuals than the program itself.” A second principal cited a negative experience with the University of Phoenix student-teachers because their student teaching duration was not aligned with the high school’s semester timeline resulting in these teachers vacating the classroom prior to the end of the semester, which required the regular teacher and students to endure an awkward transition. However, this seems to have been a communication issue between the University of Phoenix and the high school about student-teaching duration, rather than a question on quality. A third principal gave an example of a kindergarten teacher who attended a for-profit school in order to earn a Master’s degree and increase her salary. She cited an art class in which an art project was completed, but never used in the actual classroom. A fourth principal said her interaction with teachers who have attended the University of Phoenix was that these “teachers were just basic-ally doing time, and not so much quality work that really added up to any kind 87 of meaningful implication for their teaching practices.” A fifth principal did not have a good impression of the University of Phoenix because of her conversations with those acquainted with the school because it seemed to lack “rigor.” She also said she saw the school as a “bit less than a Cal Poly, Biola, or Cal State Fullerton.” A sixth principal shared why she had a negative perception by citing an example of a young teacher whose preparation at a for-profit was “at a lesser quality than the other universities” she was familiar with. This principal thought there were some extremely basic concepts of teaching that this teacher missed in her credentialing program. A seventh principal who has had quite a bit of experience with student teachers from both for-profit and non-profit institutions was “not very favorable” toward the for-profit schools because it did not seem these student teachers were well prepared. In fact he was so bold as to say, “I’ve tried it three times, and I won’t take those candidates anymore.” Finally, an eighth principal had a somewhat negative view of the University of Phoenix based on his interaction with teachers who attended the school to earn units for salary advancement because it was an easy way to earn more. However, he did think the school had “evolved and are producing better work as we speak.” Causes of Perceptions toward Online Teacher Credential Programs Research Question 3: What are the possible causes of the perceptions these principals possess? What are the issues that influence principals’ perceptions of these institutions and programs? The next section will focus on the data analysis regarding the reasons why these principals hold their views of online teacher credential programs based on principal responses to Research Instrument 2: Follow-Up Interviews. These responses 88 will be divided into causes and issues for positive perceptions, and causes and issue resulting in negative perceptions. Positive perceptions. The positive perceptions that principals generally fell into two categories: personal experience with online classes as a student, and their interaction with teachers who had taken an online class. Personal experience. Most of the principals interviewed had taken at least one online class or online training at some point. In fact 14 out of the 20 principals (70%) interviewed had taken some type of online class, workshop, or study. Their personal experience with online learning provided more positive reactions than negative ones as nine of the 14 reported favorable experiences, and five had unfavorable ones. Below are the more detailed responses providing the reasons why their experiences were either complimentary or adverse. Nine of 20 principals interviewed (45%) had positive experiences with an online course. One principal earned both her administrative credential and Master’s degree online and believes the online approach was “virtually the only option” at the time and once she began the program it was a positive experience. She saw the online approach as providing her with instructors who were practicing experts, such as an attorney who taught her administrative law class, and a school district superintendent who taught a class on budgeting. A second principal recounted taking a physics class online and believed it was very well taught. A third principal based his positive perceptions on the convenience of earning his Cultural and Language Acquisition Development credential (CLAD) online. His experience was more efficient because he was able to eliminate travel time, traffic problems, and fuel consumption. He also believed an online class 89 provided more opportunities for individual reflection before responding to questions or discussion. A fourth principal completed her Master’s degree online, and participated in online programs through the University of California, Riverside. In all cases her personal experience “has always been very positive.” A fifth principal was positive about her experience with a grant writing course taken online. A sixth principal had experienced online learning both as a student and as an instructor. In fact, part of her training as an online instructor required her to participate as an online student before teaching a class. One of the things she enjoyed about her online courses was the absence of a “filter” that sometimes hinders the conversation in a face-to-face classroom. People are often more willing to share online because they do not have to physically look at the others in the classroom. This appears to result in a more in-depth discussion. A seventh principal was quite enthusiastic about the online courses he had taken. He thought the online approach allowed him to maintain his busy life as a new principal. He cited that he still had to meet the requirements regardless of his work schedule, including online conversations, and even enjoyed an online class that required an “instant messaging” type format. He added, “It was exciting.” Finally, an eighth principal believed his online courses were well- thought out in their development and the assignments required for the students. Only three of 20 principals interviewed (15%) had negative experiences with the online courses they had taken. One principal said there were no real expectations put upon her while taking an online class and because of the modality of online there was “no real engagement” in the class. A second principal thought her online course was “relatively easy,” but does not know that she learned anything from it. A third principal described here online experience as “real easy” and believed one could “bluff’ his or her 90 way through it, especially if the student was able to look at the textbook while responding to discussions in the online classroom. She also said, “It wasn’t extremely challenging,” and had doubts about its use for “high stakes” education. Interaction with teachers. Principals often make assessments about online classes because of their interaction with teachers who have taken online courses. Thirteen of the 20 principals interviewed (65%) gave examples of how interactions with teachers from online programs have contributed to their perceptions of online teacher credential programs. One principal who knows a number of peers, colleagues, and friends who earned their entire degrees online cannot recall ever hearing a negative comment or complaint from them. She added that online “just seems to be a part of what’s going on these days in education.” A second principal interviewed believes the teachers who have attended courses online are quite “motivated” to get into teaching as a second career and they show a special desire to get to that point. This principal saw such teachers as possessing a greater motivation to become teachers since they are usually holding down full-time employ-ment while attending class. A third principal believed the teachers she knew from Walden University’s online program were “very knowledgeable.” A fourth principal cited a teacher he knew who was completing a Master’s degree online and since she was already a leader among the faculty he transferred her professional commitment to the quality of the online program. A fifth principal cited the experience of having hired two teachers from an online program who brought “quality” to the faculty. However, she followed up with the statement that personal quality was not connected to the quality of the credential program. A sixth principal who has interacted with teachers who earned their credentials online, including some of her own relatives, believed that online 91 programs were just as current and effective as traditional face-to-face programs, yet believed some of those coming from an online program were somewhat deficient in their people-skills. A seventh principal had had interaction with teachers who have attended class online, including her husband. This principal thought that for one of her teachers, the online courses have been quite challenging, and there appears to be more work required from those online courses than there would be in a traditional face-to-face class. An eighth principal also had a family member earning a credential online, her son. Through her observations of the her son’s online courses, she does not think the online classroom dialogue has had the “richness” often present in traditional classrooms. A ninth principal said that she has been impressed with the online courses her teachers have taken and called them “very rigorous.” This principal cited a teacher who was currently enrolled in a recent online program for the degree, Master of Arts in Teaching at the University of Southern California. She has worked with this teacher and believes the USC program is effective. A tenth principal thought online courses were heavy with busywork and lacked some practicality according to the teachers she knew. An eleventh principal gave an example of a “fantastic” teacher he knew who was attending classes online and so he held a favorable view of online education; however, a caveat to the discussion was that she also possessed a “fantastic” personality and enjoys being with children, and this disposition may be more of a factor than an online course. A 12 th principal referred to two teachers who had recently completed their CLAD credentials online and felt the feedback he received from them was that they were enrolled in a “pretty good program.” Finally, a thirteenth principal cited his own sister-in-law who 92 completed an online program. He said, “She loved it because she was able to submit her work on her time.” Negative perceptions and exclusive belief in face-to-face learning. Since online credential programs are relatively new, it is safe to assume that the majority of principals today earned their teaching credential through a traditional face-to-face program. This assumption held true with the 20 principals who took part in Research Instrument 2: Follow-up Survey. A full 100% of these 20 principals all earned their teaching credentials through a traditional face-to-face credential program. Therefore it is not surprising that a number of these principals believe that a face-to-face credential program is not only the preferred modality, but also the only modality that should be used for training teachers. Only six of the 20 principals (30%) believed that a teacher credential program should exclusively be a traditional face-to-face approach in a physical classroom. One principal so firmly believes that a face-to-face program is the only way to train a teacher that she declined an opportunity to teach a credential class online for a university. A second principal believes that certain types of teaching credentials require a face-to-face modality such as the initial teaching credential, while the method of instruction is less critical for other types of credentials. A third principal believes in a traditional face-to- face credential program and provided a unique rationale. She stated that even students can identify a good teacher after spending 13 years in classrooms (referring to a child’s typical K-12 experience), which is accomplished in a physical classroom through visible observations. She insisted that teacher training must be achieved in a face-to-face program. A fourth principal admitted that she was “old school” in her belief of the traditional face-to-face credential programs. A fifth principal cited the professionalism 93 associated with face-to-face programs because they are usually taught by professors who keep up-to-date with research and state mandates. Findings Related to Research Question 4 Research Question 4: In what ways, if any, do these perceptions affect the hiring of teachers from proprietary online teacher credential programs? Data from both the Research Instrument 1: General Survey and Research Instrument 2: Follow-Up Interviews were used to answer this question. Data Analysis of Research Instrument 1: General Survey Research Instrument 1: General Survey Question 7 (See Table 4.7) asked the respondents the likelihood of hiring a teacher from a proprietary institution. The responses were as follows: 14 (13.9%) principals were “very likely” to hire a teacher from a proprietary school; while 21 principals (20.8%) were “somewhat likely” to hire these teachers. The vast majority of principals (53) were neutral toward a teacher candidate from a for-profit school. Only 13 principals (12.9%) were “not likely” hire these teachers, while no principal responded that he or she was “not likely” at all to hire these teachers. Using broader categories from the data it showed that over one-third (35) principals showed a favorable response toward hiring these teachers, while only approximately 13 (12.9%) unfavorable. However, since 53 principals were neutral, we may conclude that roughly 87% would not be unfavorable toward hiring a teacher from such a school. This shows a large majority who would not eliminate a teacher candidate because he or she earned his or her teaching credential from a proprietary, for-profit college or university. 94 Table 4.7: Likelihood of Hiring from a Proprietary Institution Likelihood of Hiring a Teacher from a Proprietary Institution Response Percent Response Count Very 13.9% 14 Somewhat 20.8% 21 Neutral 52.5% 53 Not Likely 12.9% 13 Not at All 0 % 0 General survey question #8. The eighth question in Research Instrument 1: General Survey asked principals how likely they were to hire a teacher who received his or her teaching credential from an online teacher credential program (See Table 4.8). The response to this question had a majority of principals holding a neutral position toward hiring teachers from an online credential program. In fact, 55 principals were neutral toward hiring such a teacher. The remaining results were as follows: Only six (5.9%) principals were “very likely” to hire a teacher from an online credential program, and only 9 (8.9%) were “somewhat likely” to hire these candidates. However, 27 (26.7%) were “not likely” and four (4%) of principals they were “not at all” likely to hire a teacher from an online teacher credential program. This shows that nearly one-in-three principals (30.7%) were unfavorable toward hiring such a teacher candidate. However, the case might also be made that since nearly 70% (69.3%) were not unfavorable toward hiring teachers from an online credential program, this means that teachers from online 95 programs would not be automatically eliminated from consideration for a classroom teacher position. Table 4.8: Likelihood of Hiring from Online Program Likelihood of Hiring a Teacher from an Online Teacher Credential Program Response Percent Response Count Very 5.9% 6 Somewhat 8.9% 9 Neutral 54.5% 55 Not Likely 26.7% 27 Not at All 4 % 4 Data Analysis of Research Instrument 2: Follow-Up Interviews The 20 principals interviewed responded to a number of questions designed to understand whether or not their perceptions affect their decision to hire a teacher candidate who either attended a proprietary, for-profit institution, or an online teacher credential program. The principals interviewed were asked, “If all you knew about a teacher candidate was the institution he or she attended and the type of credential program, to what extent would these factors influence your decision to hire such a teacher? A number of principals said these two factors would not influence their decision to hire a teacher. Fourteen of the 20 principals (70%) interviewed agreed that they would be heavily influenced in their hiring decision if all they knew was the institution the teacher attended and the type of credential program. 96 Hiring teachers from proprietary, for-profit institutions. The 20 teachers interviewed were asked about the likelihood of hiring a teacher from a proprietary, for- profit college or university and their reasons (see Table 4.9). Very likely to hire. Three of the principals (15%) interviewed were “very likely” to hire a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit college or university. One principal said she was “very likely” to hire such a teacher candidate because of her own familiarity with for-profit schools, and the teachers she has hired from those schools have been quality teachers. A second principal cited her own experience with for-profit institutions but added that she was inclined also because she did not believe these teacher candidates might be screened out and not receive the same opportunities as those from non-profit colleges or universities. A third principal stated that if a teacher candidate has good references and recommendations and presents him or herself well, then he is very likely to hire him or her regardless of the school he or she attended. A fourth principal believed that since proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities are more expensive, the students who attend them may have more motivation to earn their credential. In his words, “Your pocketbook speaks.” Somewhat likely to hire. Seven of the principals (35%) interviewed were “somewhat likely” to hire a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit college or university. One principal said she was only “somewhat likely” to hire a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit school because past experiences have shown her a need to examine interview responses “very carefully.” A second principal said he would give the teacher candidate a “fair shot, just like anybody else.” A third principal said she was “somewhat likely” to hire a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit institution simply because she does not see 97 “any particular institution as doing a better job or worse job.” She emphasized the teacher candidates’ personal qualities such as belief that every child is capable of learning, and their personal desire to grow professionally. A fourth principal was “somewhat likely” to hire a teacher from a for-profit because of the emphasis often found in those schools regarding collaborative learning. These schools are better preparing teachers to work collaboratively in Professional Learning Communities. A fifth principal thought she was “somewhat likely” to hire a teacher form a proprietary, for-profit school “if” the candidate attended such a school because it “worked for them” and she believed this teacher was not simply looking for “shortcuts.” A sixth principal said that her response would have been “very likely” if she only had a relationship with the for-profit school, and since she does not, it is only “somewhat likely” she would hire such a teacher candidate. Neutral toward hiring. Two of the principals (10%) interviewed were neutral toward whether or not they would hire a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit college or university. One principal hoped that she would be “open-minded enough” to at least consider the candidate for an interview. A second principal stated her neutrality toward hiring teachers from such schools is because she is indifferent about the school attended and much more concerned about personal and professional qualities exhibited. Not likely to hire. Seven of the principals (35%) interviewed said they were not likely to hire a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit college or university. One principal reasoned that since these schools were not as rigorous as non-profit institutions, he is more skeptical about their graduates. A second principal said she was “not likely” to hire a teacher from a proprietary for-profit school unless their rationale for attending such an 98 institution was acceptable, as in the lack of childcare or transportation issues. She added, “When I have a teacher from Brown or Notre Dame, which I do, that lends great credibility to their preparation program.” Those who “took the fast track doesn’t itself lend to much credibility.” A third principal said the “credibility of the institution is important” and doubted these schools provided the level of competency found at such schools as UCLA and USC. A fourth principal mentioned she would employ a more rigorous paper screening of a teacher who came from a for-profit institution, but that she would probably begin with those teachers who came from well-known non-profit universities. A fifth principal said he was “not likely” to hire such a teacher because the curriculum at for-profits is not as rigorous as that of the non-profits. Students who attend the non-profit schools are obtaining a “wide variety of experiences and knowledge from the liberal arts classes” offered at the non-profit schools. A sixth principal did not believe teachers from proprietary, for-profit schools come prepared for the teaching profession. Not at all likely to hire. There was one principal (5%) who answered the Research Instrument 1: General Survey incorrectly, and corrected herself in during the follow-up interview. She was “not at all” likely to hire a teacher from a proprietary, for- profit college or university. This principal admitted to being a “university snob” and that she will often begin the paper screening of applications by looking for those who attended the more prestigious schools like the University of California schools and then “work her way down.” 99 Table 4.9: Likelihood of Hiring from a Proprietary Institution Likelihood of Hiring Number of Principals Percentage of Principals Very Likely to Hire 3 15% Somewhat Likely to Hire 7 35% Neutral 2 10% Not Likely to Hire 7 35% Not at All Likely to Hire 1 5% Hiring teachers from online teacher credential program. The 20 principals interviewed were asked about their likelihood to hire a teacher from an online credential program and the reasons behind their views (See Table 4.11). The choices ranged “Very likely to hire” to “Not at all likely to hire.” Very likely to hire. Only one principal (5%) was “very likely” to hire a teacher from an online credential program. She believed that older adults were more likely to earn their credentials online. She also believed these older adults would bring more life experience with them to the classroom, which was an invaluable complement to their teacher training. Somewhat likely to hire. Six of the 20 principals (30%) interviewed said they were only “somewhat likely” to hire a teacher from an online credential program. One principal said “There’s much more to a teacher than just the courses that they are given.” 100 She then provided a number of teacher qualities that she looks for. A second principal reasoned that if a teacher candidate had met all the state requirements for credentialing, then they should be provided a fair chance to compete for the job. A third principal stated that she was more interested in the personal qualities of the teacher candidate than she was the method used for teacher training. A fourth principal said she is only “somewhat likely” to hire a teacher from an online program simply because she lacks certain knowledge of people connected with administering the online program, and believed if she had such a relationship with the school offering the online credential, she would be “very likely” to hire the teacher candidate. Neutral toward hiring. Three of the 20 principals (15%) were neutral toward the likelihood or unlikelihood of hiring a teacher candidate from an online credential program. One principal did not believe he had a bias toward online credential programs, and stated that he was more concerned with how the candidate presented him or herself, and whether or not he or she had good references and experience. A second principal was neutral toward hiring such teachers because of her emphasis on collaborative work in Professional Learning Communities, and believed that online preparation seems to reinforce “isolationism.” The third principal was neutral toward hiring a teacher from an online credential program only because he is more concerned with the personality of the teacher candidate than with the type of credential program completed. Not likely to hire. Ten of the 20 principals (50%) interviewed said they were “not likely” to hire a teacher who earned his or her teaching credential online. One principal stated she was “not likely” to hire a teacher from an online program because her school needs people who have strong interpersonal communication skills for the students and for 101 collaboration with other teachers. A second principal was leery of hiring a classroom teacher who avoided the classroom for her training, but if the student chose an online program because it was the only way of attending school, then he might “look at them.” A third principal cited the deficiency of visual learning in the online classroom that hinders a teacher candidate. A fourth principal said “I can’t imagine that a person would be able to learn how to teach sitting behind a computer as compared to being in a class- room.” She was also skeptical of the supervision provided for online programs. A fifth principal commented on online credential programs with “In my head it just sounds less than.” This principal was very concerned whether the student had a master teacher, and how long the student was gaining experience in a classroom. A sixth principal provided two reasons for her view; 1) the opportunity for someone else to do online work for that student; 2) the lack of “the people piece” needed when working with children. A seventh principal doubted about how much “real world experience that person might have” who earned his or her teaching credential online. She believed the online student would tend to provide rather “shallow” answers in an interview because of this deficiency. An eighth principal believed face-to-face contact was important through the interaction of student and teacher, and because she had never taken an online course, could not see how this interaction can be achieved. A ninth principal stated he was “not likely” to hire teachers from an online program because they have not been “exposed to the interaction or exchange of ideas.” He added, “I’m leery about how well they work with others and how well they would really collaborate.” Finally, a tenth principal was “not likely” to hire a teacher from an online program because he holds serious doubts about a person’s commitment who chooses an online program over a traditional program. 102 Not at all likely to hire. Surprisingly, with the number of negative perceptions toward online programs, especially teacher credential programs, none of the principals interviewed said they were “not at all” likely to hire a teacher from such a preparation program. Table 4.10: Likelihood of Hiring from an Online Program Likelihood of Hiring Number of Principals Percentage of Principals Very Likely to Hire 1 5% Somewhat Likely to Hire 6 30% Neutral 3 15% Not Likely to Hire 10 50% Not at All Likely to Hire 0 0% The preferred candidate. During the interview process, principals were asked what type of teacher candidate was more likely to be hired (See Table 4.11). They were given a choice of four teacher candidates with the understanding that all other considerations were equal. These four candidates were (A) a teacher who attended a traditional, face-to-face program at a proprietary, for-profit institution; (B) a teacher who attended a traditional, face-to-face program at a non-profit institution; (C) a teacher who attended an online program at a proprietary, for-profit, institution; or (D) a teacher who attended an online program at a non-profit institution. The results were as follows: 103 Candidate A was chosen by 2 principals (10%); Candidate B was chosen by 14 principals (70%); Candidate C was chosen by 0 principals (0%); Candidate D was chosen by 0 principals (0%); Although there were only four choices given, four principals said they could not choose only one candidate. Other was chosen by 4 principals (20%). This question clearly showed a preference by these principals for a teacher candidate who attended a non-profit college or university and who attended a traditional face-to-face credential program. Table 4.11: The Most Likely Candidate Chosen Candidate School Program Responses A. For-Profit Face to Face 2 B. Non-Profit Face to Face 14 C. For-Profit Online 0 D. Non-Profit Online 0 Other 4 Summary Research Question #1 Both Research Instrument1: General Survey, and Research Instrument 2: Follow- up Interviews provided data relative to the perceptions that principals have toward 104 proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities. The perceptions were mixed; however, principals were generally favorable to the for-profit institutions. However, the misgivings about proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities are certainly present and will require much effort to change. Research Question #2 Research Instrument1: General Survey showed that nearly half of the principals surveyed were undecided about the quality of online teacher credential programs, nearly as many thought such programs possessed poor quality. Research Instrument 2: Follow- up Interviews showed a majority of principals surveyed and/or interviewed were generally unfavorable of online teacher credential programs. Research Question #3 Several reasons were discovered as to why principals had their perceptions toward proprietary, for-profit institutions, and toward online teacher credential programs. The perceptions toward proprietary, for-profit institutions were due to confusion over which schools were for-profit; marketing method of the schools; personal experiences of principals either who have taken classes at a for-profit school; or based on their interactions with student-teachers, or teachers who have taken classes at a proprietary institution. The reasons principals held their particular perceptions toward online teacher credential programs were because of their exclusive belief in a traditional face-to-face 105 approach to training, personal experiences in taking an online class, and their interactions with student-teachers or teachers who completed an online credential program. Research Question #4 The final research question focused on whether or not the perceptions of principals toward proprietary, for-profit institutions and online teacher credential programs affected their hiring decisions concerning teacher candidates who attended either this type of school or completed an online credential program. It was determined through analysis of the data that principals generally had more favorable perceptions of proprietary, for-profit schools and were commonly more favorable to hiring a teacher from a proprietary, for-profit college or university. However, principals were found to usually have negative perceptions of online teacher credential programs for various reasons, and generally were found not favorable toward hiring a teacher from an online teacher credential program. 106 CHAPTER FIVE Discussion and Implications Introduction In this chapter, an executive summary of the study and a summary of the key findings linked to the research questions are presented. The findings in this study are related to the literature found on both proprietary, for-profit schools, and online teacher credential programs. Both theoretical and practical implications are included with each research question addressed. Finally, the researcher will present areas where further research is needed. Summary of the Study The literature related to this study showed an increase in the growth of proprietary, for-profit institutions, and in online teacher credential programs. There were four research questions which provided the basis for this study. 1. What are the perceptions of principals toward proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities compared to non-profit institutions? 2. What are the perceptions of principals toward online teacher credential programs compared to traditional face-to-face programs? 3. What are the possible sources for these perceptions these principals possess? 4. In what ways, if any, do principals think these perceptions affect the hiring of teachers from proprietary online teacher credential programs? 107 Key Findings Research Question 1 In this study principals had mixed reactions toward proprietary, for-profit institutions, but overall were not predisposed to eliminating a teacher candidate from employment consideration. The principals interviewed had enough exposure to proprietary, for-profit institutions, especially the University of Phoenix in Southern California. Some even believed the for-profit schools were meeting the needs of working adults who often found attending traditional schools quite difficult. This study also showed a difficulty in identifying proprietary colleges or universities, and distinguishing them from their non-profit counterparts. Often, principals confused National University, a non-profit institution, with for-profit schools such as the University of Phoenix. A few thought that a private institution was synonymous with a for-profit school. Research Question 2 Principals have skeptical views of both online teacher credential programs, and of the students who choose such a program for classroom teaching preparation resulting in the less likelihood of gaining employment. The belief that effective teacher training must be achieved in a face-to-face environment still is the predominant belief for many principals. Research Question 3 Principals often acquire their views of proprietary, for-profit schools through word-of-mouth, personal experiences, and marketing methods by such schools. Principals 108 hold their views of online teacher credential programs based on their own experience and view of a traditional face-to-face approach to learning. Research Question 4 Principals are likely to provide a fair employment opportunity to a teacher candidate from a proprietary, for-profit institution; however a teacher from an online credential program is at a noticeable disadvantage when competing with those teachers from traditional face-to-face programs for employment as a classroom teacher. Implications This study contains a number of implications for the various participants in the hiring of future teachers. The implications apply to the following participants: institutions of higher education, both proprietary and non-profit, human resources departments, principals, and those who desire a career in education as teachers. The literature showed the need for qualified teachers will increase with more than 500,000 new teachers needed by the year 2016 (USDE, 1999). Both proprietary, for- profit colleges and universities offering teacher credential programs need to make sure they will have their graduates prepared to compete for these new employment opportunities. Furthermore, the United States Department of Education requires that all public school teachers are “highly qualified” in order to be employed (NCLB, 2001). All institutions, especially for-profits, and online programs which are attempting to enter into the mainstream of teacher preparation programs must ensure that their students are provided with appropriate preparation to receive a “highly qualified” status. These requirements will most certainly alert human resources departments and school site principals to the necessities considered to earn such a label. 109 Human Resources Departments Alternative teacher credentialing programs have and will continue to change the way teachers are prepared for the classroom. Since the United States Department of Education has recommended “alternate” ways of credentialing teachers, principals need to be aware that their perceptions and possible biases may not be aligned with the direction of this federal agency and the future trend in teacher credential programs. Those who receive and screen applications must be aware of any such preference or bias they have with regard to proprietary, for-profit institutions or online teacher credential programs. Human Resource Departments of school districts are often the first ones to receive and examine the employment application of a potential teacher. These employees often will “screen” applicants prior to a principal’s viewing of the application. An employee who provides a preliminary screening of applications must also be aware of their own perceptions toward proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities, and toward online teacher credential programs. Human Resources employees are certainly as capable as principals to make decisions based on their own perceptions. Human Resources Departments often conduct a “paper screening” on applicants before moving the applications along in the process. Any bias may prevent an effective teacher from receiving an interview where he or she may be able to demonstrate personal qualities to a principal for employment consideration. Principals Principals who make hiring decisions must not only be aware of the recent trends in teacher credential programs, but also embrace them as new and inevitable forms of 110 preparing teachers for the classroom. Those principals who typically look upon traditional face-to-face credential programs as the “gold standard” for teacher preparation may find themselves forced to accept such teacher candidates simply because more and more of these future teachers will have chosen online credentialing or other types of non- traditional programs to prepare them for classroom teaching. Failure to “change with the times” may eventually result in some type of anachronistic philosophy and practice by these “old school” principals. The literature revealed the “similarity-attraction” displayed in the hiring practices of principals, which essentially means that principals often hire teachers who are most like themselves in terms of their philosophy, personality, and training (Davila & Kursmark, 2005; Webb & Norton, 2009). The training of teachers has been the focus of this study, and since most of the principals in today’s schools were at one time prepared for classroom teaching through traditional face-to-face credential programs at a non- profit college or university, they are more likely to hire a teacher from a similar school and program. This study has confirmed this “similarity-attraction” by the fact that all of the principals interviewed attended a traditional face-to-face credential program and most preferred teachers from a similar type of credential program. School principals, as this study demonstrated, often play a large role in the decision making process toward the hiring of classroom teachers. These need to evaluate the legitimacy of their perceptions toward proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities, and toward online teacher credential programs. People, in general, and principals in particular, often make decision based on their own perceptions, whether correct or inaccurate. Invalid perceptions toward proprietary, for-profit institutions or online teacher 111 credential programs may have the effect of dismissing qualified and potentially successful teachers in favor of those who may not be the best choice for the position. The emphasis on student outcomes and school accountability demands that the best teacher candidates are chosen to teach the young people of America. Proprietary Institutions Proprietary, for-profit institutions have often been seen as placing an inordinate emphasis on earning profits, rather than on improving the culture through education (McNeal, 2007). However, the need to obtain and maintain customers (students) has made the proprietary, for-profit institution much more sensitive and responsive the particular needs of their students. Proprietary, for-profit institutions must be aware of how they are perceived by those who have a good amount of influence of the hiring of their graduates. These institutions need to understand that they are often perceived as entities that place profits above academic rigor in their programs and may give away grades in order to make their “customers” happy (Ruch, 2001). Such thinking is present among some principals; therefore these proprietary schools would do well to ensure that their rigor is at least equal to the non-profit institutions, and that providing a quality education is really what should make the “customer” happy. Proprietary, for-profit institutions must be ever mindful of the perceptions others have toward them and work toward overcoming them. Nowhere is this more necessary than the perceptions created among those, such as principals, who will make hiring decisions on the graduates of the credential programs from these for-profit schools. Proprietary colleges and universities must not only seek to know the common perceptions, but to create plans to correct any misperception they may be responsible for. 112 For-profit schools which train future teachers must also provide painstaking efforts to communicate their distinctive qualities to both principals and human resources departments among school districts where their graduates hope to gain employment. Proprietary institutions must also be aware of what qualities principals look for in a teacher candidate in order to prepare their graduates for the ever-important “job interview.” The ability to prepare the candidate to contribute to an impressive interview experience may overcome the fact that this teacher had earned a degree from a proprietary institution or an online credential program. Principals may overlook such an institution or online credential because the interview was exceptional. These colleges and universities need to embed within their curriculum an emphasis which will show these teacher not only what will make them effective classroom teachers, but will develop personal qualities that can be demonstrated in a job interview and impress a principal or interview panel. Proprietary, for-profit institutions and online teacher credential programs should not only understand that the school site principal is typically an important factor in the hiring of classroom teachers, but there is a need to establish some type of positive rapport with those who will decide whether or not to hire their graduates. It would be to their advantage to market themselves not only to potential students, but also to those who might hire these graduates. Cultivating some type of rapport with principals could go a long way toward making it a little easier for their graduates to find employment because principals are already convinced that teacher candidates from such institutions or programs are competent. 113 Non-profit Institutions Non-profit colleges and universities might consider some of the positive perceptions held by principals toward proprietary, for-profit colleges and universities. Since a number of principals have positive views of for-profit schools and even value certain schools above some state universities, it might be beneficial for non-profit schools to evaluate and even adopt some of the for-profit practices. These positive opinions should not be overlooked non-profit institutions. For-profit schools are likely to continue to increase in enrollment as long as non-profits believe they are meeting the needs of students without significant flexibility or improvement. Proprietary, for-profit schools are often seeking improvement in their offerings simply to maintain or increase market share in education. Non-profit institutions would do well to learn from their for-profit brethren that the drive for improvement, though not based on “profit motive” must be a sign of truly “learning” about the cultural demands where student needs are at least equal to, if not more important than, institutional requirements and standards. Online Credential Programs The effectiveness of online learning has been closely studied as to its comparative value to traditional face-to-face education. The assumption has been the belief that “different” from traditional education is often equated with “inferior.” Online schools and programs might consider that changing the perceptions that others have toward their school or program is partially their responsibility, and that current perceptions are likely to remain intact without substantive changes. More online schools and programs that see their own obligation to help change negative perceptions are actually doing their students a genuine service. Seeing their obligation to students as not only providing an effective 114 education, but also helping these students gain employment by helping to remove any bias or stigma associated with graduating with an online degree or credential. Colleges and universities that provide any online teacher credential program must also be aware of the basic belief among principals that personal classroom interaction between students and faculty is considered foundational for learning and communicating. Principals esteem verbal communication among teacher applicants and often believe that online learning handicaps its students. This often results in placing doubt in the minds of those making hiring decisions of such teacher candidates. Online credential programs must acknowledge and address the need for classroom teachers to excel in verbal communication, especially in the classroom. Principals may assume that those candidates who attended a traditional face-to-face credential program are at least more advanced or proficient than those who earned their degree online. Online learning and programs are predominantly marketed “online.” The advent of social network systems, such as Facebook, often contains personal information that institutions use to recruit their students. The packaging and presentation of advertisements often creates a sense of simplicity and convenience, however, such messages are also often interpreted by some to mean that simplicity and convenience equals ease and lack of rigor. Online schools and programs need to assure potential students that they can expect the same academic rigor as found in traditional schools and programs. Future Teachers Those who plan to enter the field of education as a teacher should be aware of the perceptions held by those who are likely to make decisions regarding their future 115 employment. Whether these future teachers are attending a proprietary, for-profit institution, or an online credential program a “buyer beware” approach and attitude is necessary in order to avoid losing out on job opportunities to those teacher candidates who have earned a credential through a traditional face-to-face program at a non-profit institution. Those who choose a new a novel path to credential may need to set themselves apart from the competition through an extraordinary portfolio or interviewing skills in order to make the type of impression on the interviewing principal that will result in their employment. Additionally those contemplating a career in teaching may also need to understand that innovation, in general, and innovative ways of completing a teaching credential, in particular, often has its share of skeptics whose battle cry often proclaims, “We’ve never done it this way before.” Those who choose such innovative means should not be surprised when encountering such beliefs or criticisms because this inevitable confrontation is often a part of human nature, and although innovation seems to find its way into the educational milieu, people, by nature, are creatures of habit, and often enslaved by the familiar. Limitations This researcher discovered a number of limitations within this study that need to be presented. These limitations ranged from viewing teachers as “interchangeable” parts to obtaining the proper number of principals for the online survey and the inability of some principals to identify certain institutions or the teachers who came from either proprietary, for-profit institutions or online credential programs. 116 Teachers as Interchangeable Parts The study was limited in that it approached the issue with a view that teachers are “interchangeable” parts for a school staff. This approach did not take into account that all teachers, as all individuals, are each different and unique in their own way. The approach simply focused on whether the institute on attended was for-profit or non-profit. Additionally the study emphasized online versus a traditional face-to-face credential program, rather than take one’s unique abilities and skills into consideration. Soliciting Principals for Participation The study encountered a number of obstacles in the data collection process. The most significant was obtaining the participation of principals. More than 500 hundred emails were sent out to these administrators throughout Southern California with little response. School superintendents were contacted to gain their support and a request to encourage their principals to participate in this study. This approach had a little more success, but the study was far away from the 100 principals desired for Research Instrument #1: General Survey. Finally, this researcher resorted to personally attempting to meet these principals at their school site with a $5 Starbucks gift card and an instruction sheet containing the website where the online survey could be taken. Although it required this researcher to spend entire days traveling throughout various school districts, it was successful and propelled the number of participating principals to 101, one more than needed for this study. Identifying Proprietary Institutions The study was limited in that the subjects of this research, principals, had some difficulty identifying those colleges and universities that were proprietary, for-profit 117 institutions. Some of the principals confused for-profit with private institutions, which skewed their attitudes and responses to the survey and interview questions. This limited the study in that these principals were inclined to share their perceptions based on an incorrect identification of certain institutions. Identifying Teachers from Proprietary Institutions The study was also limited in that the subjects of this research, principals, were not always aware of the institutions their teacher candidates had attended and from which a credential was earned. In fact, some principals were totally oblivious as to the schools teachers who were being interviewed had attended. This made the study somewhat difficult when seeking to understand how these principals compared teachers from proprietary institutions with those from non-profit colleges and universities. Identifying Teachers from Online Credential Programs The study was limited in that the subjects of this research, principals, were often unfamiliar with particular online credential programs due to their own experience with traditional face-to-face programs and the recent increase of online programs. This also resulted in the lack of familiarity with teachers who earned their teaching credential online. Furthermore, teachers who earned a supplemental credential through an online program were often seen as having contributed to the perception of the principal, when in fact, these teachers first attended a traditional, face-to-face credential program and had already been hired. Some principals saw the effectiveness of such teachers, but often never paused to consider that this quality was present prior to earning the supplemental credential online. 118 Areas for Future Research Tracking Employment In order to determine if teacher candidates from proprietary, for-profit institutions or online credential programs are at a disadvantage when competing for classroom position tracking the employment of such teachers is necessary. Institutions are well known for tracking and reporting their graduation rates. However, tracking employment rates of graduates, especially teacher candidates, is not something typically done. Future studies in this area would benefit tremendously by having such data tracked and recorded by individual institutions. It is difficult, if not impossible to know whether or not these institutions or credential programs were effective if their teacher graduates are not able to first gain employment. Some schools may think educating the future teacher is their sole responsibility, yet certainty of their effectiveness is contingent upon successful employment. Principal Decision Making More research is needed on the thought-processes that principals often utilize when deciding on a particular teacher candidate. Some principals place greater emphasis on various aspects of the candidate and the interview. While some are more impressed with the personality of the candidate, or the verbal skills, others are more concerned about the candidate’s letters of recommendation, or other tangible or intangible issues. In order to understand how principals think about and make hiring decisions future research would need to be conducted to determine where the type of institution or credential program would rank in the hierarchy of qualities sought in teacher candidates. 119 Criteria for Hiring Teachers Additional research is needed in the area of the criteria principals use when deciding to hire a particular teacher. Future studies might focus upon the specific “fit” of a teacher within the school as a complementary “piece of the puzzle.” The ability to understand how principals evaluate the general and specific needs of a faculty, seek to meet those needs and find those “puzzle pieces,: and adapt the interview to determine how well a candidate might fill that need, are all important issues that take the interview beyond the typical questions often presented to the candidate. Conclusion The researcher in this study was driven to answer the research questions due to his years of teaching experience with the University of Phoenix, a for-profit institution, and the University of Phoenix Online. The years of hearing students and the general public raise questions of credibility and quality in relation to the University of Phoenix led to this inquiry, and has yielded significant results for the University of Phoenix, other for- profit institutions, and all schools offering online programs of all kinds. Hopefully, the findings of this researcher will enhance the quality of the education offered by for-profit colleges, universities, and those who offer online programs. 120 REFERENCES Abernathy, T., Forsyth, A., & Mitchell, J. (2001). The bridge from student to teacher: What principals, teacher education faculty and students value in a teaching applicantTeacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 109-119. Adams, J. (2004). Faculty hiring and the acceptability of online degrees. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans Sheraton, New Orleans, LA Online <.PDF>. Retrieved February 6, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p113264_index.html Adams, J. & DeFleur. (2006). The acceptability of online degrees earned as a credential for obtaining employment, Retrieved July 7, 2009 from http://pilotmedia.com/adams/xPDF/DLBusiness.pdf Allen, E. I. & Seaman, J. (November 2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from http://www.sloan-org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf+ Allen, E. I. & Seaman, J. (November 2008). Staying the course: online education in the United States 2008. Retrieved July 2, 2009 from http://www.sloan- c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf Altbach, P.G. (1999). Patterns in higher education development. In P..H. Altbach, R.O. Berdahl, & P.J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 15-37). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. American Council of Trustees and Alumni, (July 2007), Why accreditation doesn’t work and what policymakers can do about it. Retreived July 11, 2009 from https://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/Accreditation2007Final.pdf Arnold, D. R., & Capella, L. M. (1985). Corporate culture and the marketing concept: a diagnostic instrument for utilities. Public Utilities Fortnightly, 116(8), 32-38. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.(1998). AGB statement on institutional governance. Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Retrieved July 12, 2009 from http://www.agb.org/user- assets/Documents/about/statements/governance.pdf Articlet (2009, August 4). Over 57 percent of American homes have access to high-speed internet service. Ariclet Retrieved August 4, 2009 from http://articlet.com/article791.html 121 Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures. (pp. 61-74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Baker, B. & Cooper, B. (2004). Do principals with stronger academic backgrounds hire better teachers? Policy implications for improving high-poverty schools. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. P., & Riley, G. (1977). Alternative models of governance in higher education. In G. Riley and J. V. Baldridge (Eds.), Governing academic organizations. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing. Bernard, R., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Woszney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature., Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439. American Educational Research Association. Retrieved February 1, 2009 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516028. Besse, R. M. (1973). A comparison of the university with the corporation. In J. A. Perkins (Ed.), The university as an organization. (pp. 107-120). New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Blair, M. M. (1995). Ownership and control: Rethinking corporate governance for the twenty- first century. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Bleak, J. (2009). Insulated or integrated: For-profit distance education in the non-profit university, Retrieved March 23, 2009 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer52/bleak52.html Blumenstyk, G. (2003, September 5). Companies’ graduate programs challenge colleges of education: For-profit institutions find a new market: Schoolteachers. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 19, 2004 from http://chronicle.com Blumenstyk, G. (2008). University of Phoenix says test scores vindicate its academic model, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(40). Retrieved March 31, 2009 from http://chronicle.com. 122 Bourne, J. R., McMaster, E., Rieger, J., & Campbell, J. O. (1997). Paradigms for on-line learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2). http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/issue2/assee.htm Bower, B. (2001). Distance education: facing the faculty challenge. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume IV, Number II, Summer 2001 State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Retrieved July 7, 2009 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/bower42.html Braun, J., Willems, A., Brown, M., & Green, K. (1987). A survey of hiring practices in selected school districts. Journal of Teacher Education, 1987, 45 - 49. Broberg, J. P. (1987). Ranking criteria for hiring newly certified teachers: A Delphi technique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater References 29 Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). United States Department of Labor, Retrieved May 10, 2009 fromhttp://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm#outlook Burke, R. (1965). Teaching PE with television. NAEB Journal, v. 24, no. 2, March-April 1965. Cain-Caston, M. (1999). A survey of opinions of North Carolina school administrators regarding factors considered most important in hiring teachers for their first teachingpositions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(2), 69-73. Carnevale, D. (2005). Michigan considers requiring high school students to take at least one online course. Chronicle of Higher Education Today’s News. Retrieved July 7, 2009 from http://chronicle.com/free/2005/12/2005121301t.htm?rss Carver, R. P., (1975). The Coleman Report: Using inappropriately designed achievement tests, American Educational Research Journal, 12,1,1975. American Educational Research Association, Retrieved July 15, 2009 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1162582. Chait, R. P. (2002). Does faculty governance differ at colleges with tenure and colleges without tenure? In R. Chait (Ed.), The questions of tenure. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Clowes, D. (1995). Community colleges and proprietary schools: Conflict or convergence? New Directions for Community Colleges, 91, 5-15. Retrieved July 10, 2009 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019 b/80/14/2c/ba.pdf 123 Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Taking stock in 2004: Teacher education in dangerous times. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(3), 2004, Retrieved February 24, 2009 from http://jte.sagepub.com Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K.M. (2005). Executive summary. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 1-67). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. (2nd ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Columbaro, N., and Monaghan, C. (2009). Employer perceptions of online degrees: A literature review. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12 (1), 2009. Retrieved April 3, 2009 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring121/columbaro121.html Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2001). Overview of accreditation: Fact Sheet #1.Retrieved December 12, 2008 from http://www.chea.org/pdf/fact_sheet_1.pdf Darling-Hammond, L.. and Sykes, G. (2003, September 17). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the "Highly Qualified Teacher" challenge?. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved December 16, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating ‘no child left behind.’ The Nation, May 21, 2007. Retrieved July 12, 2009 from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond Davies, R.S., & Mendenhall, R. (1998). Evaluation comparison of online and classroom instruction for HEPE 129-Fitness and Lifestyle Management course. (ED 427- 752) Davila, L. & Kursmark, L. (2005). How to choose the right person for the right job every time New York: McGraw-Hill. Dede, C. (1996).Emerging technologies in distance education for business. Journal of Education for Business, 71, 197-204. Dillon, S. (2007). Troubles grow for a university built on profits. New York Times. February 11, 2007, retrieved March 25, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/education/11phoenix.htm?_r=1 124 Distance Education and Training Council. (2009). Retrieved July 11, 2009 from http://www.detc.org/about.html Dominguez, P.S., & Ridley, D. (1999). Reassessing the assessment of distance education courses. T.H.E. Journal, 27(2). http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A2223.cfm Drucker, P. (1989, July/August). What can business learn from nonprofits? Harvard Business Review, 88-93. Dunton, J. (2001). Selection criteria used by high school principals in Virginia when hiring first year career and technical teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. Eaton, J. S. (2003, May). The value of accreditation: four pivotal roles. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved July 11, 2009 from http://www.chea.org/pdf/pres_ltr_value_accrd_5-03.pdf ELearners.com (2006, July) Retrieved March 23, 2009 from http://www.elearners.com/help/press/release-attracting.asp Fenstermacher, G. D. & Richardson. V. (2005). On making determinations on quality and teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1). 186-213. Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teachers' perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap (pp. 273-317). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Frick, T. (1991). Restructuring education through technology. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation Gagne. M., & Shepherd, M. (2001). A comparison between a distance and a traditional graduate accounting class. T.H.E. Journal, 28(9). http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A3433.cfm Giroux, H. A. (1999). Corporate culture and the attack on higher education and public schooling. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Goe, L. (2007) The link between teacher quality and student outcomes, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, Washington. D.C. Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student achievement and teachers’ characteristics. Education Next 2(1): 50-55. 125 Goldhaber, D. & Anthony, E. (2004).Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? Retrieved March 16, 2009 from http://www.urban.org/publications/410958.html Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D., & Anderson, . (1999). A three-way error components analysis of educational productivity. Education Economics 7(3): 199-208. Green, K. (1999, March/April). When wishes come true: Colleges and the convergence of access, lifelong learning, and technology. Change, 31(2), 11-15. Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. Monograph 8. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation. GuidetoOnlineschools.com (2008). Required teaching accreditation. Retrieved July 11, 2009 from http://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/accreditation/required- accreditation Hahn, H.A. (1990). Distributed training for the reserve component: Remote delivery using asynchronous computer conferencing. (ED 359 918) Retrieved March 30, 2009 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_ 01/0000019b/80/14/00/7d.pdf Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., & Hausman, C. (1991) Restructuring schools: Principals’ perceptions of fundamental education reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, held at Chicago, IL 3-7 April. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F. & Rivkin, S. G. (1999). “Do higher s alaries buy better teachers?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7082. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. The Future of Children: Excellence in the Classroom. 17(1), 2007 pp. 69-109. Princeton: NJ. Harris, D. N., Rutledge, S.A., Ingle, W.K., & Thompson, C.T. (2007). Mix and match: What principals look for when hiring teachers and what this means for teacher quality policies. Retrieved December 28, 2009 from http://www.teacherqualityresearch.org/mix_match.pdf. Hawthorne, E. (1995). Proprietary schools and community colleges: The next chapter. New Directions for Community Colleges, 91, 93-98. Higher Education Research Institute (1999), Faculty survey. Accessed April 7, 2010 from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/press_faculty.htm. 126 Honick, C. (1995). The story behind proprietary schools in the United States. New Directions for Community Colleges, 91, 27-40. Hope, A. (2001). The changing faces of virtual education. The Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved July 12, 2009 from http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/V2_chapter7.pdf Huling, L., Resta, V., & Rainwater, N. (2001). The case for a third alternative: One university’s trip. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 326-338. Huss, J. A. (2007). Web-based teacher preparation programs and elementary education: Will principals hire these teachers? Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 6, 43-54. Retrieved February 24, 2009 from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume6/Huss.pdf Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000). Quality on the line. March 21, 2001. Retrieved March 25, 2009 from http://www.ihep.org/press-room/newsrelease- detail.cfm?id=142 Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2005) Principals as agents: Subjective performance measurement in education. mimeo (John F. Kennedy School of Government, 2005) Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2006). When Principals Rate Teachers,” Education Next 6, no. 2 (2006). Jeffries, M. (ND). Research in distance education, Retrieved July 2, 2009 from http://www.digitalschool.net/DL_history_mjeffries.html Johnson, S.M. (2001). Teaching introductory international relations in an entirely web-based environment: Comparing student performance across and within groups. ED at a Distance, 15(10). trieved July 12, 2009 from https://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/CanAccreditationFulfillPromise. pdf// Neal, B. (2009) Editor. National Association for Alternative Certification Annual Conference, Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification. 3(2) 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2009 from http://www.alt- teachercert.org/Fall%202008.pdf Liu, E. (2002). New Teachers’ Experiences of Hiring in New Jersey. Harvard Graduate School of Education Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. Retrieved May 30, 2006 from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/Liu_AERA2002.pdf 127 Liu, E. & Johnson, S. M. (2006). New teachers’ experiences of hiring: Late, rushed, and information-poor. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42 (3), 324-360. Lorenzo, G. (2008). Online degrees make the grade: employer acceptance now common. Retrieved February 6, 2009 from http://www.wgu.edu/about_WGU/george_lorenzo.pdf Lorsch, J. & MacIver, E. (1989). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education (3 rd ed.). London: Routledge. Maeroff, G. I. (2003). A classroom of one: How online learning is changing schools and colleges. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Maeroff, G. I. (2004). Classroom of one: How online learning is changing our schools and colleges. Gordonsville, VA: Palgrave Macmillan. Mangu-Ward, K. (2007). Education for profit: Why is everyone flaming the University of Phoenix? Reasononline. Retrieved March 25, 2009 from http://www.reason.com/news/show/126856.html McCoy, D. R., & Sorenson, C.K. (2003). Policy perspectives on selected virtual universities in the United States. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(2), 89-107. McNeil, D. R., & others. (1991). Computer conferencing project. Final report. (ED 365 - 307) McNeal, K. , 2007-02-24 "Teacher education at virtual for-profit institutions of higher education" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Hilton New York, New York, NY Online <PDF>. 2009- 05-24 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p127702_index.html Meyer, K. A. (2004), Quality in distance education, ERIC Digest, Retrieved March 19, 2009 from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/distance-education.html Miller, M. & Cruce, T. (2002). A 20th century timeline: classroom use of instructional film, and television. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from http://www.arches.uga.edu/~mlmiller/timeline/1960s.html 128 Monks, R. & Minow, N. (1995). Corporate governance. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Morey, A. (2001). The growth of for-profit higher education: Implications for teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education, 2001, (52),4, 300. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/52/4/300 dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/.../Statesman,%20V.%2046,%20n.%2010.pdf Morey, A. (2001, September/October). The growth of for-profit higher education: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, pp. 300-311. Mulligan, R. & Geary. S. (1999). Requiring writing, ensuring distance-learning outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(4), 387-395. Nasseh, B. (nd). A brief history of distance education. Adult Education in the News. Retrieved July 1, 2009 from http://seniornet.org/edu/art/history.html. New England Association of Schools and Colleges, 2005, Standards of Accreditation, 2nd ed. National Center for Alternative Certification. (2008). Overview of alternative routes to teacher certification. Retrieved July 7, 2009 from http://www.teach-now.org /overview.cfm National Center for Education Statistics, (2008, December). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006-2007. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf Noble, D.F. (2002). Technology and the commoditization of higher education. Monthly Review, 53(10). Retrieved January 1, 2006, from http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302noble.htm Noble, D. F. (2003). Digital diploma mills. New York: Monthly Review Press. P.L. 107 – 110. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act: Reauthorization of the elementary and secondary act. Retrieved October 19, 2005 from www.ed.gov Ortiz, J. P., & Arnborg, L. (2005). Making high performance last: Reflections on involvement, culture, and power in organizations. Performance Improvement, 44(6), 31-37. Oster, S. (1995). Strategic management for nonprofit organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Patten, M. (2007). Understanding research methods, 6 th . Ed., Pyrczak Publishing, Glendale, CA. 129 Patton, M. Q., (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Peat, J. A., & Helland, K. R. (2004, March). The competitive advantage of online versus traditional education. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference, Austin, Texas. Pew Research Center. (2009). Home Broadband Adoption 2009. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retreived July 4, 2009 from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2009/Home-Broadband- Adoption-2009.pdf Podgursky, M. (2004). Teacher licensing in U.S. public schools: The case for simplicity and flexibility. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from http://web.missouri.edu/~podgurskym/papers_presentations/wp/ Podgursky_pje_paper_2.pdf Postal, L. (2009). More than 500 Marion County teachers lose jobs for next year. Orlando Sentinel, February 13, 2009. Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2009/02/more-than-500- marion-county-teachers-lose-jobs-for-next-year.html Pound, J. (2000). The promise of the governed corporation. In Harvard Business Review on Corporate Governance (pp. 79-103). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Proximity One, (2009). Retrieved August 19, 2009 from http://proximityone.com Reeves, T. C. (2003). Storm clouds on the digital education horizon., Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 3-26. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/keyreeve s.pdf ResearchWare, (2009). Retrieved August 19, 2009 from http://www.researchware.com/index.html Rodgers, G. (2005). Online degrees gaining acceptance, enrollment. EduExec, 24, 4. Ruch, R. (2001). Higher Ed, Inc.: The rise of for-profit university. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, University of North Carolina. Ryan (2000), 130 Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2003, October). Differences between traditional and distance education academic performances: A meta-analysis approach. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/153/704 Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schramm, W. (1962). What we know about learning from instructional television. Educational Television: The Next Ten Years. Stanford: Institute for Communication Research. Schulman, A.H., & Sims, R.L. (1999). Learning in an online format versus an in-class format: An experimental study. T.H.E. Journal, 26(11). Selway, W. (2009). California teachers rally as 26,000 job cuts loom. Bloomberg.com. March 13, 2009. Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=a70fi.bHiukc Sener, J., & Stover, M. S. (2000). Integrating ALN into an independent study distance education program: NVCC case studies. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2). http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol4_issue2/le/sener/le- sener.htm Serban, A.M. (2000). Evaluation of fall 1999 online courses. ED at a Distance, 14(10). [http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/OCT00_Issue/story04.htm] Shapiro, H.T. (2005). A larger sense of purpose: Higher education and society. Princeton, NJ: The Princeton University Press. Sifonis, J. G. & Goldberg, B. (1996). Corporation on a tightrope: Balancing leadership, governance, and technology in an age of complexity. New York: Oxford University Press. Sprague, D., Maddux, C., Ferdig, R., & Albion, P., (2007). Online education: Issues and research questions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 157- 166. Stella, A., & Gnanam, A. (2004). Quality assurance in distance education: The challenges to be address. Higher Education, 47,143-160. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4151536. 131 Strauss, R. P., Bowes, L. R., Marks, M. S., & Plesko, M. R. (2000). Improving teacher preparation and selection: lessons from the Pennsylvania experience. Economics of Education Review, 19 (4), 387-415 Stronge, J. H. (2007). Qualities of effective teachers. Association for Supervision & CurriculumDevelopment; 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA. Strosnider, K. (1998, January 23). For-profit higher education sees booming enrollments and revenues. Chronicle of Higher Education, A36-A38. TEACH California, (2009) California Department of Education. Retrieved August 25, 2009 from http://www.teachcalifornia.org/about/index.html Theel, R. K., & Tallerico, M. (2004). Using portfolios for teacher hiring: Insights from principals. Action in Teacher Education, 26(1), 26-33. Thelin, J.R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. United Press International, (2009). Budget cuts to cost 850 Vegas teacher jobs, Retrieved April 17, 2009, from http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/14/Budget-cuts-to- cost-850-Vegas-teacher-jobs/UPI-40291239738953 U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, (2001, May). Journeys through the teacher pipeline: Recapitalizing American Education. Partial Cost Estimates for Road Map for National Security May 15, 2001 retrieved March 20, 2009 from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/addedum/Education_Addendum.pdf Ungerleider, C., & Burns, T. (2003). A systematic review of the effectiveness and efficiency of networked ICT in education: A state of the art report to the Council of Ministers Canada and Industry Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Industry Canada. United States Department of Education (2002, June). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. United States Department of Education (2009). Enhancing education through technology. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html The Best Schools and Colleges, (2009, August 25). U.S. News & World Report, Retrieved August 25, 2009 from http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/search/title+ phoenix. 132 Valentine, D. (nd). Distance learning: promises, problems, and possibilities. Retrieved July 1, 2009 from http://www.westga.edu~distance/ojdla/fall53/valentine53.html. Vault.com (2008). Online degree survey results. Retrieved April 2, 2009 from http://www.vault.com/online-degrees/ Webb, L. D., & Norton, M. S. (2009). Human Resources Administration: personnel issues and needs in education, 5 th ed. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, N.J. Wegner, S. B., Holloway, K.C., & Garton, E.M. (1999). The effects of Internet-based instruction on student learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2). [http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol3_issue2/Wegner.htm] Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19. Welch, J. and Welch, S. (2008, January 3). State your business. The Welch Way, Business Week, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_02/b4066080139784.htm?ch an=car eers_the+welch+way. Wideman, H., & Owston, R.D. (1999). Internet-based courses at Atkinson College: An initial assessment. [http://www.edu.yorku.ca/irlt/reports/techreport99-1.htm] Wiley, J. D. (2009, April) Quality, accreditation, and graduate education: What does the future hold? Inside accreditation with the president of CHEA. Council of Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved July 11, 2009 from http://www.chea.org/ia/IA_2009.04.14.html Winston, G. (1999). For-profit higher education: Godzilla or Chicken Little? Change, 13-19. Wright, P., Horn, S., & Sanders, W. (1997). Teachers and classroom heterogeneity: Their effects on educational outcomes. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1): 57-67.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The number of proprietary (for-profit) colleges and universities who offer online teacher credential programs is increasing, yet there is skepticism regarding the quality of such schools and credentialing programs. This study sought to understand the perceptions that school principals had and whether or not it affected their decision to hire teacher candidates from for-profit schools or online credential programs. An online survey of 101 principals and interviews of 20 principals were conducted and found that the majority of principals were favorable toward hiring teachers from for-profit institutions, but not favorable toward hiring those who earned their teaching credential online.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The implementation of online learning for ESL programs: factors and perspectives
PDF
An examination of prospective teacher qualities related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment
PDF
Organizational leadership and institutional factors related to the implementation of online educational programming in California community colleges
PDF
The effects of online courses for student success in basic skills mathematics classes at California community colleges
PDF
Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students
PDF
Examining teacher pre-service/credential programs and school site professional development and implementation of culturally relevant teaching of BIPOC students
PDF
A case study of teacher’s perception of experiences in a teacher-training program at LA Opera
PDF
A comparative study of novice and veteran teachers in response to principal initiated efforts to cultivate a positive school culture
PDF
The effect of reading proficiency on student success in online credit recovery programs
PDF
The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence
PDF
A case study analysis of high school principals' criteria in the teacher selection process
PDF
Perception of barriers: the experiences of lecturers in adapting to changing institutional expectations in upgraded private technological university in Taiwan
PDF
What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?
PDF
Beliefs and perceptions of DPRK teachers of English towards CLT instruction and factors that influence program implementation
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of the Why Try Program for children receiving residentially based services and attending a non-public school
PDF
An analysis of the selection and training of guiding teachers in an urban teacher education program
PDF
A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success
PDF
Are there hidden costs associated with teacher layoffs? The impact of job insecurity on teacher effectiveness in the Los Angeles Unified School District
PDF
The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners
PDF
California teacher residency leaders’ understanding and implementation of the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency
Asset Metadata
Creator
Bolton, David H.
(author)
Core Title
The perceptions of principals towards proprietary online teacher credential programs and their effect on hiring
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
12/03/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
competition for teaching positions,for-profit institutions,hiring teachers,OAI-PMH Harvest,online teacher credential programs,principals,proprietary institutions,teacher candidates,teacher credential programs,what do principals look for
Place Name
California
(states),
Los Angeles
(counties),
Orange
(counties),
San Bernardino
(counties)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hentschke, Guilbert C. (
committee chair
), Dwyer, David C. (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
d.bolton2@verizon.net,davebolton@email.phoenix.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3577
Unique identifier
UC1117531
Identifier
etd-Bolton-4178 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-414709 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3577 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Bolton-4178.pdf
Dmrecord
414709
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Bolton, David H.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
competition for teaching positions
for-profit institutions
hiring teachers
online teacher credential programs
principals
proprietary institutions
teacher candidates
teacher credential programs
what do principals look for