staffing the classroom - vanderbilt university the classroom 1 ... (horng, klasik, & loeb, ......

STAFFING THE CLASSROOM

1

Staffing the Classroom: How urban principals find teachers and make hiring decisions

Mimi Engel

Maida Finch


2

Abstract

Despite the importance of teachers and the fact that teacher hiring is decentralized in most school

districts, we know relatively little about the process through which individual principals hire

faculty for their schools. Using interviews with 31 Chicago principals, we explore how principals

find job candidates, whether they collaborate with their faculty and administrative staff when

hiring, and whether and how these principal behaviors vary systematically by school level and by

whether schools are higher or lower achieving. We find that principals in higher-achieving

schools network more to find candidates, whereas principals in lower-achieving schools rely

more on hiring resources provided by the district and frequently hire their own substitute and

student teachers. Implications for research and practice are discussed.


3

Whether and how principals influence school outcomes is the focus of much research.

For example, the indirect effect of principal leadership on student achievement has been

suggested by several studies (e.g., Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 2009; Supovitz, Serenides, & May,

2010). Relatedly, one of the roles principals are expected to fulfill is that of an instructional

leader (Hallinger, 2005). Yet researchers have cautioned against limiting the definition of

“instructional leadership” to a narrow focus on principals’ direct instructional supervision of

faculty (Louis et al., 2010) because principal influence is likely mediated through multiple

channels including organizational management (Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 2010; Grissom & Loeb,

2011). Recent studies indicate that principals’ skills and time spent on organizational

management – including hiring personnel– as opposed to administrative tasks or instructional

monitoring are positively associated with student test score outcomes (Grissom & Loeb, 2011;

Horng et al., 2010; Rice, 2010). Thus, teacher hiring is a key leadership task for principals who

have primary responsibility for finding and selecting teachers to fill vacancies in their schools.

Despite the importance of teacher hiring, we know relatively little about how principals

go about finding and choosing teachers to fill vacancies in their schools. We use interviews with

31 Chicago Public Schools (CPS) principals to provide detailed information regarding where and

how principals find prospective teachers, as well as about the extent to which principals

collaborate with their faculty and administrative staff when making hiring decisions. This study

contributes both to research on principals’ hiring practices by exploring how principals use

formal and informal resources to find job candidates, as well as to scholarship on distributed

leadership by exploring the extent to which principals make hiring decisions autonomously or in

collaboration with their faculty and administrative staff.


4

The current study is the first to offer detailed information about how principals in an

urban district seek candidates and make decisions about whom to hire. We analyze interviews

with CPS principals to answer the following questions:

• How do principals search for prospective teachers during the hiring process?

• How do principals go about the decision-making process when deciding to whom

to make an offer?

• And, to what extent do principals share these responsibilities with their faculty,

administrators, and colleagues?

In addition to examining overall results, we explore variation across principals in higher- versus

lower-achieving schools and elementary versus high schools. We present results followed by a

discussion of the implications of our findings both for future research and for strategies for

training urban school leaders to locate and hire quality faculty.

Background

The extant literature on teacher hiring highlights the complexity of the process (Balter &

Duncombe, 2005; Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson, 2010; Jacob, 2007). Although research

on teacher labor markets has focused more on teacher supply (teachers’ decisions about entering

and exiting teaching and where they choose to teach) than demand (how district and school

administrators select teachers) recent work has begun to examine how teachers are identified and

selected (Jacob, 2007). The current study adds to this body of research by providing new

information about the processes through which principals identify and hire teachers.

Studies of the supply side of the teacher labor market examine factors influencing

teachers’ decisions to enter, remain in, and leave teaching. Both wages and working conditions

influence where teachers choose to teach and whether they remain in the profession, with


5

working conditions playing an important role in these decisions (Bacolod, 2007; Dolton & van

der Klaaw, 1999; Grissom, 2011; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Johnson, Kraft, & Papay,

2012; Ladd, 2011; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002; Loeb, Darling-Hammond, & Luczak,

2005; Scafidi, Sjoquist, & Stinebrickner, 2007; Stinebrickner, 1998). Another factor that

determines teacher supply is geography. Studies indicate that teachers take jobs in schools near

their hometown or the college they attended (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005b;

Reininger, 2012).

Research on the demand for teachers has examined the characteristics of teachers hired

by principals and districts. Several studies indicate principals may not hire the most effective

teachers. Ballou (1996) found that neither attending a highly selective university or college, nor

having a better GPA increased the likelihood of a prospective teacher being hired. Baker &

Cooper (2005) found that most principals do not give preference to teachers who attended highly

selective universities.

Studies of principals’ stated preferences for teacher characteristics have found that

principals search for a variety of characteristics when selecting candidates, preferring those who

are enthusiastic and have strong communication skills (Harris et al., 2010) as well as applicants

who are caring and can manage a classroom (Engel, 2013; Cannata & Engel, 2012). Principals in

lower-achieving schools appear to focus more on classroom management skills and a teacher’s

ability to improve test scores, suggesting that principals’ preferences may vary systematically by

school type, even within a single district (Engel, 2013). More generally, these studies find that

principals seek a mix of personal and professional characteristics and look for teachers who they

perceive will be a good fit in their schools (Engel, 2013; Harris, et al., 2010). These results


6

highlight the need to understand principals’ strategies and decision-making processes for

identifying and hiring teachers.

Several studies focus on another aspect of teacher hiring; timing. Teacher hires are often

made late– a large portion of hires are made at the end of summer or once the school year has

already begun (Engel, 2012; Levin & Quinn, 2003; Liu & Johnson, 2006). Urban and

disadvantaged schools and districts hire teachers later, on average, than their suburban

counterparts (Engel, 2012; Levin & Quinn, 2003). Levin and Quinn (2003) suggest that later

hires in large urban districts may be due to vacancy notification requirements, transfer

requirements that are set by teachers unions, and poor forecasting and delayed timetables for

budgeting for teaching positions.

Tools for selecting and screening applicants

Rutledge and colleagues (2008) describe four distinct phases of the hiring process

identified in the occupational literature: recruitment, screening, selection, and the job offer.

When they are screening and selecting applicants, administrators rely on tools including resumes,

work samples, and personality tests. Principals rely most heavily on interviews when making

teacher hiring decisions (Ralph, Kesten, Lang, & Smith, 1998; Rutledge et al., 2008; Theel &

Tallerico, 2004). Multiple interviews are common (Balter & Duncombe, 2005; Kersten, 2008)

although administrators in urban districts may spend less time interviewing and conduct fewer

second interviews (Balter & Duncombe, 2006; Papa & Baxter, 2008).

Prior research indicates that principals have a variety of goals when interviewing

candidates. These include assessing candidates’ communication skills (Ralph et al., 1998) or

honesty in responses (Braun, Willems, Brown, & Green, 1987) as well as determining if a

candidate is up to date in the field (Kersten, 2008).


7

Searching and decision-making

Studies have found that teacher recruitment and hiring practices at both the school and

district-levels are highly localized. Principals and district administrators tend to search for

candidates locally rather than across a broad geographic area (Balter & Duncombe, 2005; Papa

& Baxter, 2008; Strauss, Bowes, Marks, & Plesko, 2000). Our knowledge, however, about how

principals find teachers to fill the vacancies in their schools is limited.

Survey research provides initial insight on how decisions are made during the teacher

hiring process. Liu and Johnson (2006) examined teacher hiring in four states and found that in

most districts hiring decisions were made at the school-level. A New York study found that

while the principal was instrumental in the final stage of selecting candidates, other district

officials played an active role (Balter & Duncombe, 2006). These findings offer a broad picture

of the hiring process.

Although some studies note that stakeholders such as teachers and district officials may

be involved in teacher hiring (Balter & Duncombe, 2006; Kersten, 2008; Liu & Johnson, 2006),

little is known about the extent to which the hiring process is a collaborative endeavor. For

example, we do not know whether principals rely on colleagues or their faculty to help them find

prospective teachers. The current study contributes to research on teacher hiring using results

from qualitative interviews with principals to examine aspects of the teacher hiring process that

are not yet well understood.

Exploring teacher hiring through the lens of distributed leadership

We use distributed leadership theory to frame our analyses which examine how principals

find candidates and make decisions regarding whom to hire. We rely on Gronn’s (2002)

definition of distributed leadership as a mode of action in which multiple individuals “pool their


8

expertise… to solve a problem,” (p. 430). These collaborations, according to Gronn (2002), may

be spontaneous or ongoing. Accordingly, we explore the extent to which principals undertake

hiring tasks on their own or in partnership with their faculty and administrators. We consider

whether and how principals’ describe collaborating during hiring to be examples of distributed

leadership and the extent to which it varies both across principals and within principals across

tasks.

Elmore (2000) proposed that distributed leadership challenges the traditional borders of

leadership, replacing the notion of a hierarchal authority with that of a wider base of expert

knowledge. It is argued that the collective activity of distributed leadership can result in a

product that is greater than the sum of the expertise of individual participants. Recent

conceptions of school leadership have emphasized the reality that multiple individuals participate

in leading a school (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001; Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003;

Spillane, 2005). Theory on distributed leadership stresses that to understand how leadership is

enacted in schools, researchers must look beyond formal leadership roles and structures to the

actual practices individuals engage in (Spillane, et al., 2001; Spillane, 2005).

The concept of interdependence is central to understanding distributed leadership. More

than just the division of tasks, distributed leadership “stretches” responsibilities across

participants whose skills and knowledge are suited to solving particular problems (Copland,

2003; Spillane 2005). These collaborations can occur spontaneously during a crisis or can be

formalized as organizational structures (Gronn, 2000). To promote conjoint activity, leadership

boundaries must be open and flexible (Bennett, Wise, Woods & Harvey 2003).

Highlighting some of the challenges to implementing distributed leadership, Goldstein

(2003) explored the effects of a new teacher evaluation policy that shifted responsibility for this


9

task from the principal alone to the principal in collaboration with teachers. Findings from this

study suggest that to successfully open leadership boundaries, administrators and teachers must

confront the reality of entrenched institutional norms which often consider the principal as the

sole authority in the school (Goldstein, 2003). Other research describes how and among whom

leadership tasks are distributed.

Research exploring distributed leadership in education settings has found variation in

how leadership and responsibility is distributed both across schools and within schools across

tasks, activities, and individuals. For example, Camburn, Rowan, and Taylor (2003) found more

variation in the distribution of leadership activities within than across schools. Studies have also

found that principals tend to participate in a wide variety of leadership tasks (Camburn et al.,

2003), and that the type of leadership function (e.g., general versus specialized) determines both

whether a principal is likely to participate and who else is involved in the leadership task

(Spillane, Camburn, and Pareja, 2007).

Robinson (2008) critiqued prior research on distributed leadership for not articulating the

possible paths by which distributed leadership might affect student learning. It is noteworthy that

despite recent research suggesting that leadership tasks such as teacher hiring appear to be

associated with student achievement (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Horng, Klasik & Loeb, 2010), the

role of distributed leadership in teacher hiring is largely under-examined. One study investigated

leadership roles in schools undergoing sustained reform efforts, stressing the importance of

principals’ personnel decisions as part of these efforts (Copland, 2003). Other studies have noted

whether or not formal and informal school leaders participated in school staffing and managing

personnel (Leithwood et al., 2007; Spillane et al., 2007), but have not analyzed how leadership in

teacher hiring is distributed beyond noting participants.


10

One topic related to distributed leadership that has been explored by a number of studies

is the role of district administrators, principals, and teacher leaders relative to various leadership

responsibilities (e.g., Firestone & Martinez, 2007). Research has found that principals are less

likely to share leadership and responsibility when tasks are administrative in nature (Camburn et

al., 2003; Spillane et al., 2007). Prior research also finds more shared responsibility in leadership

activities related to professional growth and instruction (Spillane & Camburn, 2006). In

considering whether principals will engage in distributed leadership when hiring teachers, it is

important to note that teacher hiring is both an administrative task and a task that has major

implications for teaching and learning.

On the one hand, hiring teachers is a key administrative task – personnel are the largest

line item in any school’s budget. This might result in principals being less inclined to share

leadership responsibilities among their administrators and faculty. On the other hand, the central

function of a school is the teaching and learning that it engenders. As such, principals might

approach teacher hiring with the central goal of finding teachers who are most likely to have a

positive influence on student learning. In this case, we might anticipate the leadership activities

related to teacher hiring to be distributed among the administrators and faculty whom principals

believe are most likely to help them successfully reach that goal. Understanding the extent to

which principals collaborate when seeking prospective teachers and deciding whom to hire

provides new information on how leadership is distributed in practice.

Scholarship on distributed leadership has been critiqued for a lack of attention to how

distributed leadership practices might vary across sociocultural contexts (Bennett, et.al 2003).

Prior research has largely ignored the extent to which school context might influence how

leadership is distributed. While one study noted that schools implementing Comprehensive


11

School Reform had higher levels of distributed leadership, other, more fine-grained distinctions

about social and cultural contexts are notably absent (Camburn et al., 2003). The current study

examines whether and how leadership is distributed within and across schools in the teacher

hiring process. It contributes to research on distributed leadership by examining variation in the

distribution of leadership across schools by level (elementary versus secondary) as well as by

school-level student achievement.

Based on prior studies that find variation in the distribution of leadership tasks within

schools (Camburn et al., 2003; Spillane et al., 2007), we expect that both the extent to which

teacher hiring is a collaborative process across schools as well as the particular tasks in the hiring

process that are shared will vary substantially. Our data provide the opportunity for a careful

examination of how leadership in teacher hiring is distributed both within and across schools in

general as well as whether the distribution of leadership in relation to teacher hiring varies

systematically across particular school contexts.

Given that prior research on the distribution of teachers across schools finds that lower

achieving schools are much more likely to be staffed by inexperienced and lesser credentialed

teachers (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2005a; Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2006; Lankford,

Loeb & Wyckoff, 2002), we anticipate that sample principals in lower-achieving schools will be

less likely to rely on their faculty for informal referrals of prospective teachers. We also expect

that these principals will be less likely to report receiving a substantial number of unsolicited

resumes. Due to these anticipated resource constraints, we expect principals of lower-achieving

schools to be more likely to report using formal CPS resources (e.g., support from Office of

Human Resources) when seeking candidates to fill vacancies in their schools.


12

Because prior research indicates that principals will distribute leadership more when

leadership tasks require specialized knowledge (Spillane et al., 2007) or when leadership tasks

emphasize instruction (Spillane & Camburn, 2006), we anticipate that principals will collaborate

with their faculty and fellow administrators when making decisions about whom to hire. Further,

because teaching positions in high school are generally content-specific (e.g., math teachers,

English teachers), we expect that high school principals will engage in more collaborative

decision-making than their elementary school counterparts. Below, we provide an overview of

the hiring process in the Chicago Public Schools and a description of our sample. We explain our

analytic strategy and then describe our results. We conclude with a discussion of the contribution

of the current study to research on teacher hiring and distributed leadership.

Teacher Hiring in Chicago

CPS principals, like most U.S. principals, have substantial autonomy in the teacher hiring

process and are responsible for hiring teachers to fill the vacancies in their schools.1 CPS

principals are supported by the district in the teacher hiring process in several ways. The district

maintains a large, searchable database of applicants for principals which contains information on

individuals who have applied to teach in CPS through the district’s central office. The database

includes information from applicants’ resumes on areas of certification, years of teaching

experience, highest degree obtained, and degree granting institution. During the spring and

summer of 2006, the year that the interviews for this study were conducted, CPS sponsored five

job fairs. Although principals are not required to attend these job fairs, most report attending at

least one. Principals use fairs to find prospective teachers, generally engaging in brief

“interviews” with job fair applicants (Engel, Jacob, & Curran, 2014). Principals are also able to


13

advertise positions in a CPS electronic bulletin (“ebulletin”) distributed within the district,

however they are asked not to advertise vacancies externally.

While CPS provides these resources to help schools find and screen candidates,

principals have sole responsibility for deciding how to structure the hiring process and for

selecting candidates. Once a candidate has accepted an offer from a principal, the rest of the

hiring process is handled centrally, and paperwork for payroll and benefits is handled through the

CPS central office.

Methods

Data

Data used in this analysis come from qualitative interviews about the hiring process with

a sample of 31 CPS principals. Interviews were completed during September and October of

2006, with a response rate of 97 percent.2 During these interviews, which lasted from 40 to 90

minutes, principals answered detailed questions about how and where they found teachers to fill

their vacancies each year. During most interviews, this conversation began with a general, open-

ended question about what sources principals used to find candidates. To ensure as thorough a

response as possible, prompts were used to probe for details regarding how principals found

candidates. We define formal resources as the opportunities and infrastructure provided by the

CPS Office of Human Resources (HR) for the specific purpose of helping principals hire

teachers. The formal resources that principals were asked about include CPS job fairs, direct

contact with staff in HR, an ebulletin to list available positions, and an online system that allows

candidates to post resumes in a database for principals to view. Principals were also asked about

whether they network within their schools with teachers, administrators and other employees,


14

whether they hire their own student and/or substitute teachers, network within CPS with

principals and administrators from other schools, and whether and how they search for

prospective teachers outside of CPS.

Principals were asked about whether and how they included other administrators and/or

faculty in the teacher hiring process, with whom they collaborated when hiring, and about the

extent to which they collaborated during various stages of the hiring process including screening,

interviewing, and decision-making.

Sample

The sample of 31 principals was selected using several different methods. Twenty five

schools were part of a stratified random sample.3 Schools were stratified by region and level

(elementary and secondary). The regional strata captured variation in both the racial and

achievement composition of schools. Additionally, six schools were sampled purposively: two

higher achieving elementary schools were included as pilot schools for testing the interview

protocol, and two higher achieving charter schools and two top achieving CPS schools (one

elementary and one high school) were also included. This small number of charter and top

achieving CPS schools were included in the sample in order to see whether principals’ hiring

practices differed in these particular contexts. The purposively sampled schools are included in

the analyses that follow, and when results for these schools are noteworthy, they are discussed.

Table 1 compares demographic characteristics of sample schools and all CPS schools.

The sample and population were similar in terms of student achievement and principal gender.

The proportion of high schools was larger in the sample (34 versus 15 percent); they were

purposefully over-sampled to include a large enough number (n=11) to allow for comparison

across elementary and high schools. The sample included 14 schools that are grouped as “lower-


15

achieving.” These schools were below the median CPS school-level achievement in reading for

the 2005-2006 school year.

Table 2 provides additional descriptive statistics for the 31 sample schools. As the table

indicates, sample schools had an average enrollment of around 800 students. As would be

expected, elementary schools were much smaller than high schools, with averages near 600 and

1200 students, respectively. High schools also had twice the number of vacancies in May of

2006, with an average of eight, compared with only four for the average elementary school in the

sample. On average, 84 percent of students in sample schools were eligible for free or reduced

price lunches. In schools that were below the median CPS achievement, 92 percent were eligible.

Analytic Strategy

Principal interviews were transcribed verbatim. We read full interview transcripts to look

for themes in principals’ experiences and to help describe the hiring process in general, as well

as how it varied across principals in different types of schools (i.e., above versus below the

median CPS achievement, primary versus secondary). We then sorted principals’ responses

topically into broad categories representing both the subjects discussed during interviews and the

overarching themes common across interviews.

Once coding was completed for a particular topical area, we read through the interview

excerpts about that topic to describe, overall, how principals discussed the topic. For example,

as we read through interview transcripts, we coded any conversations with principals about the

extent to which their hiring decisions are made collaboratively under the heading

“collaboration.” Once we had read through all of the interviews and coded all of the excerpts

that fit under this domain, we then read through the entire coded text for the domain to further

code for the various aspects of collaboration during the teacher hiring process that principals


16

mentioned. Thus, under the heading of collaboration, there are multiple sub-headings describing

aspects of collaboration and decision-making mentioned multiple times by principals. For

example, we coded how collaborative the decision-making process was, ranging from not at all

collaborative to decisions that are made through joint effort on the part of the principal and her

committee. Once this second iteration of coding was completed, we read within the sub-codes to

look for themes and examples (e.g., what reasons do principals give for making hiring decisions

collaboratively versus on their own?). See Appendix for examples of interview questions.

Results

In the sections below, we report our findings on how CPS principals search for

prospective teachers as well as how they describe the decision-making process used to determine

to whom they will offer a position. We begin by providing an overview of how principals

described these processes in their schools. We then examine variation by school-level

achievement and across elementary and high schools. Tables 3 and 4 provide detailed results on

how many principals reported various hiring practices. Table 3 reports percentages of principals

who used the various means to find candidates, both overall and for subgroups by achievement

and level. Table 4 provides results regarding principal reports of collaboration during hiring.

We provide these fine-grained tallies of responses in order to increase the transparency of

our analyses and to provide readers with details that support the descriptions that follow. We

used the tallies as part of the analysis process to show evidence regarding patterns of principals’

responses. This practice improves our capacity to provide an objective analysis of our data and

provides information for researchers who conduct similar studies that will allow them to examine

the extent to which their results replicate or challenge the findings reported below.

Searching: How CPS principals find candidates


17

Summary of overall results

All sample principals reported using at least one formal resource within CPS to find

teachers to fill vacancies in their schools. All 29 eligible principals (the two charter school

principals did not have access to the ebulletin or to the CPS online system, but were invited to

attend all CPS job fairs) reported posting jobs in the ebulletin and/or using the online system to

search for candidates. This is not surprising as principals are expected to post vacancies in the

ebulletin. The vast majority of principals reported attending at least one job fair to find

prospective teachers. Many principals reported using CPS HR or other CPS departments (e.g.

Special Education or Math and Science) to find applicants.

In terms of informal networking, the vast majority of principals reported doing some type

of informal networking within CPS, both within and outside of their schools. Most frequently,

principals reported using referrals from their faculty and administrators (e.g., vice principals,

department heads). About half of principals reported hiring student teachers who had been

placed in their schools. Most principals reported networking with CPS colleagues outside of

their schools to find candidates. Principals also described looking for candidates outside of the

CPS system altogether. While over two-thirds of sample principals reported doing some type of

networking outside of CPS, in most cases it was quite limited. For the majority of principals, this

meant using contacts at one or two local schools of education. Finally, most principals reported

receiving resumes, often unsolicited, from prospective job candidates. Principals reported

receiving them through mail, email, fax, and from candidates dropping them off in person.

Differences across principals from higher-achieving and lower-achieving schools4

We find that principals’ reports of how they search for candidates vary systematically

across higher- versus lower-achieving schools. Principals in lower-achieving schools were


18

somewhat more likely to use formal means for finding candidates than principals in higher-

achieving schools. More striking, however, were differences in how principals across these

contexts used informal means for finding candidates. Specifically, principals of higher-achieving

schools were more likely to take referrals from their teachers and from colleagues in other CPS

schools than principals in lower-achieving schools. In contrast, principals in lower-achieving

schools were more likely to report hiring student and substitute teachers. Below, these

differences are discussed in detail.

While differences were small, in all cases principals from lower-achieving schools were

more likely to report using formal CPS resources than their counterparts from higher-achieving

schools. Principals who reported going to Human Resources for assistance in finding candidates

said that when they had a vacancy, particularly if they were having trouble finding a candidate,

they called the central office to see if they knew of a candidate who might be a good fit. For

example, one principal of an elementary school that served over 700 students, over 95 percent of

whom were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch noted how helpful this resource was.

INTERVIEWER: Where are your top places for finding your candidates? RESPONDENT: Human Resources…They do a tremendous job of sending candidates. Because we were in a crunch at the end of the school year – at the end of the summer, because we had unexpectedly had a couple of people that went on to do something else…And she sent some awesome resumes (principal, lower-achieving elementary school).

Principals who reported enlisting help from Human Resources often noted that they were most

likely to do so if they had learned of the vacancy late in the hiring season or when they were

trying to fill hard-to-staff positions such as Special Education.

Results indicate that sample principals from lower- and higher-achieving schools used

informal resources within their schools in different ways. Principals from higher-achieving

schools were more likely to use referrals from their faculty and administrators. These principals


19

generally reported that they liked interviewing, and when possible, hiring teachers who were

referred internally. They noted that they trusted the opinions of their teachers and administrators

and felt as if it gave them additional or inside information.

… I’ve found that the best person to recommend a teacher is another teacher in the building. And if you know the teacher – well, I believe that if the teacher in the building is a very good teacher, they would not recommend someone who would not be good. So those candidates are great also (principal, higher-achieving high school).

Noting that his favorite referral source is his faculty, this principal of a school where over 85

percent of students were African American (with the vast majority qualifying for free or reduced-

price lunch) suggests if a teacher he thinks favorably of recommends a candidate, he trusts that

recommendation. Another sample principal, this one from a school with a majority of students

from higher income backgrounds, also took referrals from within his school and described

another approach.

I am not above asking my teachers that are new to my building if there’s anybody at their last building that they thought we might be interested in speaking to. Of course I would never steal another principal’s teachers, but if one of their colleagues contacts them and tells them there’s an opening, you know, I would definitely want to meet them (principal, higher-achieving elementary school).

This principal described an aggressive tactic, asking newer teachers in his building about talented

teachers from their previous schools that might be worth recruiting. While some principals, such

as this one, made a point of asking their current faculty whether they knew any prospective

teachers, the charter school principals interviewed took a step further. Interestingly, both charter

school principals described using monetary incentives to encourage internal referrals. In both

schools, an employee who made an internal referral that resulted in a successful hire was

rewarded several hundred dollars.


20

As can be seen in Table 3, principals from higher-achieving schools were also somewhat

more likely to report contacting fellow CPS principals and administrators in other schools for

recommendations for prospective teachers. Some noted that they would call their colleagues

when they were trying to fill a vacancy to see if they had received any promising resumes.

Similarly, other principals explained that once they had filled a vacancy but still knew of

candidates they thought would make good teachers; they would often refer those candidates to

their colleagues.

I had a woman walk in here – oh, my God. You asked where you get ideas. So I have a [school name] parent who I helped get a position about eight years ago as a Kindergarten teacher in another school. She’s great, they love her. So I told her, you know, what you owe me now is, when you see a good person coming through student teaching, call me. She called me and said I cannot believe it, the numbers; they had to cut this woman. She’s wonderful. So I had her come meet me. I have nothing for her. But I know my friend at [school name] had just told me he’s looking for a primary. So I called him up, 3:30 in the afternoon, this poor girl’s standing here, she’s crying, because she’s moved from New York, now she has no job. So he said have her come see me. So at 7:30 in the morning he met her and hired her…. so you try to help each other. You try to find out where there are good people. And you try and stay in that network (principal, higher-achieving elementary school).

Other principals in higher-achieving schools mirrored this sentiment, suggesting they would be

happy to help a colleague out with a referral or a resume and would call fellow principals when

seeking candidates.

While principals from lower-achieving schools were less likely to report taking referrals

from within their schools and other informal sources within the district, they were more likely

than their counterparts from higher-achieving schools to hire substitute and student teachers.

Principals who hired student and substitute teachers noted two reasons that these hires were

appealing: they provided an unusual opportunity for observing these teachers in the classroom,

and the teachers themselves already had experience with the school’s culture and student


21

population. One principal of a school where over 90 percent of students qualified for free or

reduced-price lunch described the information she gleans from observing a student teacher she is

considering for a position:

I’ve actually found some great teachers that actually started off as substitutes. You know if you’re bringing in a day-to-day sub, and you’re bringing them in and you’re walking down the corridor to check on them, you say my goodness. And then you bring them in three or four more times and you’re walking down the corridor, children are engaged…and I don’t think, necessarily, that a quiet room is a good room, because if they’re doing a project, you know the difference between good noise and just noise. And I’ve hired at least three or four teachers over the years that were actually subs, and I mean they were just awesome (principal, lower-achieving elementary school).

Another principal describes positive experiences with hiring substitute teachers into full-time

positions.

INTERVIEWER: Do you ever hire subs or student teachers, or interns from within? RESPONDENT: Yes. Oh, yes. INTERVIEWER: Is that a common way? RESPONDENT: Very common. In fact, we have three members on staff right now that did their student teaching here and have been hired. Then I have a teacher that subbed in here, and she was so good I ended up hiring here. She subbed like two years ago. She subbed for me like four or five months… she was a day-to-day, and then I got a position for her, and I hired her the next year (principal, lower-achieving elementary school).

For these principals and a number of their colleagues in lower-achieving schools, hiring

substitute and student teachers was viewed as a viable means for filling teaching vacancies in

their schools. For these principals, getting to know student teachers and substitutes who were

placed in their schools for the short term allowed them to vet the teachers and provided an

opportunity for the teacher to know more about the school as well, ideally resulting in a

permanent hire that would be a good fit.

However, many principals reported that they did not hire student or substitute teachers;

this was particularly true among principals of high-achieving schools. One principal explained


22

that her substitute teachers were rarely qualified to fill her vacancies. Another principal who had

hired substitutes and student teachers provided a somewhat negative perspective on the practice.

I don’t like it very much... Well, it’s great for people to get an experience somewhere else before they come here. It’s almost like a family business, you know. Best you go work somewhere else before you work in your own dad’s company (principal, higher achieving high school).

Despite the convenience that hiring her own student teacher might provide, this principal

indicated that she would prefer that teachers gain experience in another environment rather than

moving directly from student teaching to filling a vacancy within her school. Principals who

discussed their reasons for choosing not to hire substitute and student teachers reported that they

chose not to do so because they generally did not perceive these teachers as being optimal hires

for their schools.

Interestingly, while principals in lower- and higher-achieving schools were equally likely

to look to colleges and universities to find candidates, principals from higher-achieving schools

were substantially more likely to report additional networking – beyond local teacher training

programs – outside of their schools. These principals’ efforts included contacting Golden Apple

(an Illinois nonprofit focused on teacher development), taking referrals from friends, making

presentations at local churches, advertising in newspapers or on websites, or using head hunters.

Finally, principals from higher-achieving schools reported receiving unsolicited resumes at a

much higher rate – 88 percent – versus only 57 percent of principals from lower-achieving

schools.

Among the five principals who reported that they did not network with fellow CPS

principals and administrators for hiring, few provided an explanation. However, one principal

noted she believes that other principals would keep the best candidates for themselves. Another


23

principal indicated that she believed her colleagues would send her teachers they were trying to

remove from their own schools.

So why take the time, when sometimes even the outcomes are not guaranteed? You know, you took all that time to write up this teacher, to provide him or her with training and help and support, and with whatever else you’re asked to do, and at the end, the outcome might not be necessarily that he or she will leave you. You’re still stuck with that person. So I have been kind of like – I have experienced that already, where colleagues of mine just like here, you know, you’re stuck with it, and it’s lalalala, well, when he was in my school, he was doing great, what’s going on with you? (principal, lower-achieving elementary school).

Providing a very different perspective from the majority, this principal indicated that she does

not like referrals from colleagues because she worries that they may be trying to unload inferior

teachers. Three of these principals came from higher-achieving schools and two were principals

of lower-achieving schools.

After principals identified candidates, they described embarking on a decision-making

process to determine which candidates they preferred. The process included screening and

conducting interviews to determine which candidates would receive an offer. We describe this

process, and the extent to which the process was collaborative, below.

Collaboration: How CPS principals decide whom to hire

Summary of overall results

Almost all principals reported using committees when hiring new faculty. Frequently,

principals noted that the nature of the vacancy determined which administrators and faculty were

appointed to the committee. Most often, hiring committees included assistant principals and/or

teachers. About half of principals reported including faculty with specialized knowledge (e.g.,

department chair, literacy specialist).

During interviews, principals discussed the extent to which they collaborated with their

faculty and administrators across three dimensions of the hiring process: screening candidates,


24

interviewing prospective teachers, and deciding whom to hire. Most principals collaborated with

their faculty when screening. Principals were most likely to report collaborating, or using their

hiring committee, during interviews. Principals who interviewed collaboratively reported both

valuing discussions about candidates and trusting committee members’ opinions. Principals

often described debriefing with their team after conducting interviews.

We analyzed whether and how principals collaborated with their faculty and

administrators when deciding whether to extend a job offer to a particular candidate, finding that

the extent to which principals collaborated when making hiring decisions varied substantially.

While some principals collaborated extensively, with a handful even indicating that they rely on

the committee to make the decision, others reported using committee input in a limited way or

not at all.

All but one principal reported collaborating with staff on at least one dimension of hiring,

and a large minority of principals collaborated on all three aspects that we analyzed – screening,

interviewing, and decision-making. As Table 4 shows, both the extent to which principals

reported collaborating with their staff and the role that staff members played in the hiring process

varied across elementary versus secondary schools.

Differences across high school and elementary school principals

In analyzing how principals collaborated during the hiring process, we found systematic

differences in how elementary and high school principals described collaborating with their

administrators and faculty. In general, elementary school principals were less likely to

collaborate during the hiring process than high school principals. Further, elementary school

principals reported both assembling and working with their hiring committees in ways that

differed from descriptions provided by high school teachers.


25

Overall, hiring committees were composed of assistant principal(s) and/or teachers.

However, the extent to which principals included faculty with particular expertise differed

substantially across elementary and high schools. Elementary school principals were much less

likely than their high school counterparts to report including faculty with specialized content

knowledge. One reason high school principals offered for including these teachers was because

their expertise lent itself to assessing the pedagogical content knowledge of the prospective hire.

A high school principal of a school serving nearly 1200 students explained how this is helpful.

You may bring in the department chair to help along with the interview, just to see exactly what this person teaching strategy (sic). Do they really understand the methods that need to be used in teaching Social Studies, and, speak the language, basically, as we say (principal, lower-achieving high school).

The role of the specialist was generally very clear among high school principals: they wanted

the specialist to evaluate the candidate’s knowledge of subject matter and subject-specific

teaching skills.

Elementary school principals were also less likely to collaborate during the initial

screening process than their high school counterparts. Some principals described using hiring

committees to increase efficiency and capitalize on faculty expertise. For example, one principal

explained that she had department chairs validate the candidates she has chosen. In another case,

an assistant principal described dividing resumes among her fellow assistant principals for

screening based on subject area.

INTERVIEWER: And what kind of screening process do you use ahead of time? Who sifts through the resumes and decides who is going to be interviewed? RESPONDENT: The three assistant principals. We all have an area. See I’m over science and English, and the reading arts. There’s another assistant principal that’s over fine arts, math, Special Ed, that kind of thing. So we divide up the resumes by content area, and say mine is all science. So based on what we need, I just go through the resumes (assistant principal, higher achieving high school).


26

Again, high school principals relied more on the expertise of their faculty in terms of gleaning

whether candidates had subject matter expertise than did elementary school principals. Relatedly,

only a quarter of elementary school principals reported using recommendations from their hiring

committees when deciding whom to interview compared with over half of high school principals.

In general, principals were most likely to report collaborating when interviewing

candidates, with the majority of both elementary and high school principals reporting

collaboration during interviews. Interestingly, a number of high school principals reported that

they delegated the first interview to their committees, with the committee deciding whom to

recommend for a second interview with the principal. This practice was very infrequent among

elementary school principals.

Principals were less likely to report collaborating with faculty when deciding whom to

hire than during interviews. Here again, elementary school principals were much less likely than

high school principals to report that deciding whom to hire was a joint process. Among

elementary school principals who reported collaborating during decision-making, most reported

soliciting input from their faculty. However, these principals took ultimate responsibility for

selecting the new hire. They actively sought assistance from faculty and/or their hiring

committee because they valued their opinions, but in the end, they decided whom to hire. One

principal described allowing her team to share opinions, but also that she was up front about the

decision ultimately being hers.

I have opened it up to them. And I always make it clear that I make the decision and am just accepting input into the decision. And truly, I do appreciate it, because I think many times, if I’m not the only person interviewing, that I can then look at this person and take a couple minutes without being focused on the interview, and then I can see. So I think it is a good practice (principal, high-achieving elementary school).


27

This principal explained that part of the reason that she interviews with a team is because

it allows her to observe the candidate during the interview, which is difficult if she is

interviewing alone.

In contrast, high school principals reported making hiring decisions by consensus with

the hiring committee, or noted that input from the committee was crucial to the decision-making

process. They characterized the process as a “group” one and believed that choosing a candidate

was not solely their decision.

Typically I would like to look at my top three candidates along with my team. Because, again, it’s not about [states name] making all the decisions. I rely heavily on feedback (principal, lower-achieving high school).

In a comment typical of principals coded as joint decision-makers, this principal of a school

where approximately 90 percent of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch noted that

input from his team was crucial to the final hiring decision.

Three high school principals explained that they consider committee members to be the

primary decision-makers and see their role as approving the committee’s recommendations.

Another principal of a school with a high population of lower-income students explained the

process.

…We sort of sit down and talk a little bit about what are we looking for, what’s the position we’re going to be hiring for? You know, what kind of person do we want to have here? What are the needs of the school? And then they do some interviewing, and then they usually bring in the candidate to me, and then I talk with them. And I usually just ratify what the chairs are going to – because the chairs are the people that are going to be working with them…not me. I may think they’re great, but I mean, I’m not going to work with them (principal, higher-achieving high school).

This comment was typical of how these principals explained their role: they support the choices

made by their department chairs since they will be required to work most closely with a new hire

in their department. Similarly, another principal explained that he allows his committee to make


28

the decision, describing his job as “rubber stamping”. These principals indicate that since their

teachers will work directly with the new hire, it is important for them to feel comfortable with a

candidate.

Interestingly, three elementary school and two high school principals reported making

hiring decisions on their own, without input from their faculty or administrators. These principals

indicated that they were the only decision-maker in the hiring process.

INTERVIEWER: And then is the decision joint, in the end? RESPONDENT: I tell people straight out, no, it’s going to be mine. I, you know – the times I haven’t, or when I argued about it, I said just remember those. Just remember. This is not my pick, and if it comes back, you’re going to have to help me with, you know, helping the people move on, you know. But that usually doesn’t happen. Nobody has that memory (principal, higher-achieving high school).

In this principal’s view, she is ultimately responsible for the teacher who is hired, and she

therefore prefers to remain in control of the decision. Principals in this category sometimes noted

that they would bring someone in to conduct an additional interview, or might have a discussion

with their hiring committee, but in the end, they made the decision about whom to hire with little

or no input from others.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study provides an in-depth exploration of how 31 CPS principals search for and

make decisions about prospective teachers in a large urban school district. Our analyses reveal a

number of general trends in hiring practices across sample principals. First, most principals used

the formal resources provided by CPS – job fairs, human resources, and online services – to find

candidates. However, principals also reported using an array of informal networking strategies

within their schools and within CPS. Principals were less likely to search for candidates outside

of the district.


29

The fact that CPS principals searched for candidates almost exclusively within the CPS

system adds to a growing body of evidence underscoring the highly local nature of teacher labor

markets. This finding is similar to prior research at the district-level that highlights how efforts to

find prospective teachers tend to be highly localized (Balter & Duncombe 2005, 2006; Strauss,

Bowes, Marks & Plesko 2000). Research on teacher supply has also found that teachers prefer to

teach close to where they are from (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005a, 2005b) and are

more likely to “stay local” than other professionals (Reininger, 2012).

We also examined the extent to which sample principals collaborate with their

administrators and faculty when hiring teachers. Overall, principals described the hiring process

as collaborative; the vast majority form committees to support their hiring efforts. Most

principals reported collaborating when interviewing, and many also collaborated during

screening and decision-making. In fact, nearly forty percent of principals worked with their

faculty and administrators during all three phases of hiring including screening candidates,

interviewing, and making final hiring decisions.

It is important to note that the degree to which principals hired collaboratively varied

substantially both across principals and within principals across tasks. For about a third of our

sample, the process of teacher hiring was described as being truly distributed in nature. These

principals talked about the decision regarding which teachers to hire as one that was made jointly

with their faculty and/or administration. Thus, we find that for a large minority of CPS

principals, teacher hiring is task for which leadership is distributed among colleagues. In

contrast, many principal described a hiring process that was more top-down in nature. Just over

forty percent of principals in our sample indicated that while they typically solicit input (to

varying degrees) when hiring, the decision regarding whom to hire is ultimately their own.


30

The current study contributes to research on distributed leadership in several ways. It is

the first in-depth study to explore the distribution of leadership tasks in relation to teacher hiring,

adding to a small but growing body of applied research on how leadership is distributed, in

practice, within schools. Corroborating evidence from previous studies, we find substantial

variation in how leadership is distributed across schools (Spillane, et al., 2007). As we argue

earlier in this paper, teacher hiring is both an administrative and pedagogical task. Given that

prior studies of distributed leadership indicate that principals are less likely to share leadership

when tasks are administrative in nature (Camburn et al., 2003; Spillane et al., 2007) and more

likely to do so when tasks relate to instruction (Spillane & Camburn, 2006), it is not surprising

that we find extensive variation in terms of whether and how principals shared leadership in

relation to teacher hiring.

We also explored whether there was systematic variation in the distribution of leadership

across school contexts; an aspect of distributed leadership that has been largely underexplored in

both theory and research (Bennett, et al., 2003). We find considerable variation in the

distribution of leadership across higher- versus lower-achieving schools as well as across

elementary versus secondary schools. The fact that how leadership is distributed varies

systematically across different school contexts, even within a single district, indicates that studies

of distributed leadership need to be more attuned to the possibility of contextual variation.

Based on prior research on the uneven distribution of teachers across schools, we

anticipated that principals in higher-achieving schools would be more likely to share leadership

in the teacher hiring process, simply because they are more likely to have more experienced and

better credentialed teachers to rely on (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2005a; Clotfelter,

Ladd & Vigdor, 2006; Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2002). We do, in fact, find systematic


31

differences in how principals distribute leadership across higher- versus lower-achieving schools.

Principals in higher-achieving schools were more likely to report networking within their

schools, with other CPS principals, and outside CPS to find teachers to fill the vacancies in their

schools. At the same time, they were less likely to use formal CPS resources than their

counterparts in lower-achieving schools and were also less likely to report hiring their own

substitute and student teachers. In general, principals in higher-achieving schools were more

likely to use informal networks and resources to find job candidates, except in the case of hiring

substitute and student teachers from within their own schools.

In sum, principals in higher achieving schools seem more likely to access and mobilize

social capital when searching for teachers compared with their counterparts in lower achieving

schools. This may, in part, be driven by the fact that principals in higher achieving schools have

more access to social capital than principals in lower-achieving schools and that they have an

easier time recruiting candidates to fill positions than their colleagues who are in schools that are

considered less desirable by many applicants. These differences may be cause for concern if the

broader range of strategies reported by principals in higher-achieving schools results in their

amassing larger and/or better pools of applicants from which to select new teachers.

Similarly, the fact that principals in lower-achieving schools are more likely to hire

substitute or student teachers may be concerning in that it suggests the possibility that these

principals may not be considering a large or varied pool of applicants to fill these vacancies and,

therefore, may settle for inferior teachers. On the other hand, it is possible that principals who

hire substitute or student teachers – in our sample nearly 60 percent of principals of lower-

achieving schools reported doing so – may in fact be gaining crucial information about these


32

teachers in terms of their content and pedagogical knowledge and their ability to engage students

in the classroom. Future research should explore these and related questions.

In addition to asking principals about how they find candidates, we also queried them

about whether and how they collaborate with their staff when hiring. Here, we expected to see

differences across elementary versus secondary schools. Specifically, we anticipated that

elementary school principals would be less likely to share hiring responsibilities with their

faculty and administrators. Because elementary school principals are less likely to be hiring

content area specialists than their high school counterparts, they might be less inclined to engage

faculty with specific knowledge around content and instruction in the area in which they are

hiring.

In our study, elementary school principals were nearly three times less likely than their

high school counterparts to report including faculty with specialized content knowledge on their

hiring committees. This disparity may reflect differences in principals’ perceptions across

contexts regarding the importance of content area expertise for teachers as well as differences in

the extent to which principals believe they can assess candidates’ content knowledge.

Principals in elementary schools were also less likely to report collaborating across all

three phases of the hiring process. It is worth considering why these principals were generally

less collaborative than their high school counterparts. It is possible that the organizational

structure of elementary schools – typically arranged by grade levels – does not facilitate sharing

leadership tasks associated with hiring new teachers. It is also important to note that sample

elementary schools had, on average, half the number of students and half the number of

vacancies than their high school counterparts. It seems likely that the fact that elementary school


33

principals typically had fewer hires to make as well as fewer administrators and faculty with

whom to share hiring responsibilities also contributed to the differences we observe.

The current study is not without limitations. First, it is important to keep in mind that

principal interviews were conducted with 31 principals in a single district. The Chicago Public

Schools is a large urban district serving a highly disadvantaged student population. While

understanding the teacher hiring process in this context is valuable, it should be noted that these

results may not generalize to other contexts, particularly those serving dramatically different

student populations or those where principals have less autonomy in the teacher hiring process.

Further, the extent to which our results might generalize to all CPS principals is unclear.

These results are based on principal self-reports of their hiring process and preferences.

While principals generally seemed comfortable and open while talking about how they go about

hiring teachers, it is possible both that principals provided answers that they thought would be

socially desirable (e.g., principals may over-report collaborating with their faculty because it

seems like a good thing to say) or that principals would misreport their behaviors simply because

they have forgotten what they actual do. These challenges are relevant to all studies that use

self-reported data. Future research should examine whether a) observations of principals during

the hiring process and/or b) faculty reports of the hiring process corroborate principal reports.

Further, while we find interesting variation across higher- and lower-achieving CPS

schools, we are unable to examine the extent to which these differences result in principals hiring

more effective teachers. It would be useful for future research to replicate and extend the current

study by collecting data on job offers and eventual hires to examine the extent to which principal

networking and collaboration in teacher hiring is associated with identifying and hiring more

qualified teachers and/or teachers who then perform better on the job. Finally, future research


34

should also explore the extent to which principals’ hiring practices might vary by principal

characteristics such as race/ethnicity, gender, and years of experience. While we did not find

systematic differences by individual principal characteristics, it is possible that future studies

with varied samples of principals may uncover subgroup variation. Given recent evidence

indicating that prospective teachers’ preferences vary systematically by race/ethnicity (Engel,

Jacob, & Curran, 2014), and evidence indicating that teacher applicants seek schools and districts

that are familiar (Cannata, 2010), it is important to understand whether principals’ hiring

preferences might also reveal hemophilic tendencies.

In addition to providing new information, the current study generates a number of

questions and ideas about urban principals’ hiring practices. It suggests that some principals

systematically engage in behaviors such as low levels of networking and limited collaboration

with faculty that may lead them to hire less qualified teachers. Future research should replicate

the current study in different contexts to examine the extent to which CPS principals’ hiring

practices generalize to principals in other contexts (e.g., rural or suburban districts).

It is also possible that the extent to which principals collaborate with their faculty when

hiring varies by the specific criteria they are looking for in a prospective hire. The fact that

nearly half of principals in our sample reported including faculty members with content or grade-

level expertise on their hiring committees suggests that this is likely the case. It is also important

to note that the extent to which principals collaborate with their faculty when hiring may vary

systematically and be determined by whether collective bargaining agreements allow teachers to

be involved in hiring for their schools. CPS principals and teachers faced no constraints in this

regard, but this is likely not the case in all contexts.


35

Finally, our results illustrate the need for those training current and future school leaders

(administrators and teacher leaders alike) to anticipate the highly collaborative nature of the

hiring process. Possible areas to emphasize in training include discussion of strategies for

deciding whom to include in the hiring process and at what stages collaboration might be most

beneficial.

Our results may also have further implications for practice. If strategies seen with more

frequency among principals in higher-achieving schools such as more extensive external

networking to find candidates and greater collaboration in decision-making result in their finding

better candidates – teachers who are more effective and are a better fit for their schools – then

less experienced principals as well as those who are more isolated (whether by choice or by

circumstances) may benefit from additional support and training around hiring strategies.

If future research finds that more extensive networking does, in fact, lead to principals’

hiring teachers who are more effective or a better fit for their schools, this would suggest that

new principals and principals who are less likely to network or collaborate when hiring could

benefit from support and training with regard to building strong networks and the development

of hiring teams. More generally, all principals stand to benefit from understanding how various

teacher hiring practices might result in improvements in teacher hiring at both the school and

system-levels.


36

Notes

1 Nationally, 75 percent of public school principals report that they have a high degree of

autonomy in the teacher hiring process. Authors’ calculation using 1999-2000 Schools and

Staffing Survey.

2 The initial sample included 32 schools. One principal refused to participate in the study.

3 Only schools with vacancies for the 2006-2007 academic year were included. Special education

schools, alternative schools, and schools that had formed in the last year were excluded from the

sample. In two high schools assistant principals were interviewed. In both cases, the assistant

principals had primary responsibility for hiring teachers. In two schools, principals invited their

assistant principals to join the interview.

4We also explored variation in principals’ responses by principal experience, race/ethnicity, and

gender. We did not find systematic differences by these principal characteristics.


37

References

Bacolod, M. (2007). Who teaches and where they choose to teach: College graduates of the

1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(3), 155-168.

Baker, B. D. & Cooper, B.S. (2005). Do principals with stronger academic backgrounds hire

better teachers? Policy implications for improving high-poverty schools. Educational

Administration Quarterly,41(3), 449-479.

Ballou, D. (1996). Do public schools hire the best applicants? The Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 111(1), 97-133.

Balter, D. & Duncombe, W. (2006). Staffing classrooms: Do teacher hiring practices affect

teacher qualifications? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education

Finance Association, Denver, CO, March 24.

Balter, D. & Duncombe, W. (2005). Staffing classrooms: How do New York school districs find

their teachers? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance

Association, Louisville, KY, March 17.

Bennett, N., Woods, C., Philip, A. & Harvey, J.A. (2003). Distributed leadership: A review of

the literature. National College for School Leadership.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2005a). Explaining the short careers of high-

achieving teachers in schools with low-performing tudents. The American Economic

Review, 95(2), 166-171.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2005b). The draw of home: How teachers'

preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management, 24(1), 113-132.

Braun, J. A., Willems, A., Brown, M. & Green, K. (1987). A survey of hiring practices in

selected school districts. Journal of Teacher Education. 38(2), 45-49.


38

Camburn, E., Rowan, B. & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of

elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373.

Cannata, M. (2010). Understanding the teacher job search process: Espoused preferences and

preferences in use. Teachers College Record, 112(12), 2889-2934.

Cannata, M. & Engel, M. (2012). Does Charter Status Determine Preferences? Comparing the

Hiring Preferences of Charter and Traditional Public School Principals. Education

Finance and Policy 7(4), 375-424.

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H.F. & Vigdor, J.L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the

assessment of teacher effectivenes. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 778-820.

Copland, M.A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school

improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375-395.

Dolton, P.J., & van der Klaaw, W. (1999). The turnover of teachers: A competing risks

explanation. Review of Economocis and Statistics, 81(3), 543-552.

Ehrenberg, R. G. & Brewer, D.J. (1994). Do school and teacher characteristics matter?

Evidence from high school and beyond. Economics of Education Review, 13(1), 1-17.

Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a new structure for leadership. The Albert Shanker Institute:

Washington, DC.

Engel, M. (2013). Problematic Preferences? A Mixed Method Examination of What Principals

Look for when Hiring Teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly. 49(1). p. 52-91.

Engel, M. (2012). The Timing of Teacher Hires and Teacher Qualifications: Is there an

Association? Teachers College Record. 114(12).


39

Engel, M., Jacob, B., & *Curran, F.C. (2014). New Evidence on Teacher Labor Supply.

American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 36-72.

Firestone, W.A. & Martinez, M.C. (2007). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership:

Changing instructional practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 3-35.

Goldstein, J. (2003). Making sense of distributed leadership: The case of peer assistance and

review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 397-421.

Grissom, J. A. (2011). Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? Linking

principal effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff environments.

Teachers College Record, 113(11), 2552-2585.

Grissom, J.A. & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of

parents, teachers, and assistant Principals identify the central importance of managerial

skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091-1123.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,

423-451.

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that

refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 1-20.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A

review of empirical research, 1980-1995, Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1),

5-44.

Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J.F. & Rivkin, S.J. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal

of Human Resources, 34, 326-354.


40

Harris, D. N., Rutledge, S.A., Ingle, W.K. & Thompson, C.C. (2010). Mix and match: What

principals really look for when hiring teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 5(2), 228-

246.

Horng, E., Klasik, D. & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal time use and school effectiveness. American

Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-523.

Jacob, B. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future of

Children, 17(1), 129-153.

Kersten, T. (2008). Teacher hiring practices: Illinois principals' perspectives. The Educational

Forum, 72, 355-368.

Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Working Conditions How Predictive of

Planned and Actual Teacher Movement?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

33(2), 235-261.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools:

A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62.

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007).

Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system.

Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37-67.

Levin, J. & Quinn, M. (2003). Missed opportunities: How we keep high-quality teachers out of

urban classrooms. Report, The New Teacher Project, New York.

Liu, E. & Johnson, S.M. (2006). New teachers' experiences of hiring: Late, rushed, and

information-poor. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 324-360.

Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L. & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher

turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44-70.


41

Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to

improved student learning: Final report of research findings. Retrieved November,

2010, from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/Knowledge

Topics/Current AreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Documents/Learning-from-

Leadership-Investigating-Links-Final-Report.pdf

Papa, F. & Baxter, I. (2008). Hiring teachers in New York's public schools: Can the principal

make a difference? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(1), 87-117.

Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools:

The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their

students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1-39

Ralph, E. G., Kesten, C., Lang, H. & Smith, D. (1998). Hiring new teachers: What do school

districts look for? Journal of Teacher Education, 49(1), 47-57.

Reininger, M. (2012). Hometown disadvantage? It depends on where you’re from: Teachers’

location preferences and implications for staffing schools. Educational Evaluation and

Policy Analysis, 34(3), 127-145 .

Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability: What

research says. The Urban Institute, Washington, D. C.

Robinson, V. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational

outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 241-256.

Rutledge, S., Harris, D., Thompson, C. & Ingle, W. (2008). Certify, blink, hire: An examination

of the process and tools of teacher screening and selection. Leadership and Policy in

Schools, 7(3), 237-263.


42

Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D.L. & Stinebrickner, T.R. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility.

Economics of Education Review, 17(2), 127-136.

Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.

Spillane, J. P. & Camburn, E.M. (2006). The practice of leading and managing: The distribution

of responsibility for leadership and management in the schoolhouse. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E.M., & Pareja, A.S. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the

school principal’s workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103-125.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice:

A distributed perspective. Educational Research, 30(3), 23-28.

Stinebrickner, T.R. (1998). An empirical investigation of teacher attrition. Economics of

Education Review, 19, 387-415.

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, 387-415.

Supovitz, J., Serenides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and

learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 31-56.

Theel, R. K. & Tallerico, M. (2004). Using portfolios for teacher hiring: Insights from school

principals. Action in Teacher Education, 26(1), 26-33.


43


44


45


46


47

Appendix

Principal Interview Protocol, selected Questions

Principal/Interviewee Background

Do you do most of the hiring for your school? If not, how do you delegate these responsibilities?

Can you describe your general process for hiring new teachers?

The Hiring Process

What sources do you rely on to find candidates?

Other principals/administrators?

Other word of mouth?

Subs/student teachers/interns in your school?

Contacts at education schools?

Job fairs?

Advertising (how, where)?

Other?

What sources do you prefer? Why?

How do you interview (probe 1 on 1, with teachers, with a team)?

What kind of screening process do you use?

Are teachers or other administrators part of the hiring process? How so?