Page 55

Journal for Effective Schools

Volume 11, Number 1

In addition to the three teacher and three principal efficacy measures, a number of dummy variables based on rewards and punishments awarded to schools and their principals for meeting or failing to meet performance standards were investigated as predictors of commitment to teaching. The SASS 2003-04 PQ asked principals questions about three different types of rewards (if their school met performance standards) and eight different types of punishments (if the school did not meet performance standards). These questions and their descriptive statistics are presented in Table 6. Each of these eleven questions were answered as either “yes” or “no” and was coded as a dummy variable with a value of 1 for yes and a value of 0 for no. The three reward questions are denoted by Rs (s = 1, 2, 3) and the eight punishment questions are denoted by Xt (t = 1, 2,…, 8). Data analytic approach After validating all the scales, the three teacher efficacy measures and the three principal efficacy measures were used to predict commitment to teaching. All six predictors were standardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. The principals were divided into four groups based on whether or not the state or school district had established school performance standards, whether or not the school was evaluated on such standards during the last school year (2002-03), and whether or not the school met those performance standards. The groups were formed in such a way that they were mutually exclusive and a principal could belong to one and only one of these groups. Group 1 (n = 550) included only those principals whose district or state had not established any school performance standards. This group was not evaluated on such standards. Group 2 (n = 600) included principals whose district or state had established school performance standards but the school performance was not evaluated during the 2002-03 school year. Group 3 (n = 3,360) included principals whose district or state had established school performance standards, the performance was evaluated in 2002-03 and the school partially met or failed to meet the standards. Group 4 (n = 3,390) included principals whose district or state had established school performance standards, the performance was evaluated in 2002-03 and the school met the standards. The school principal group membership decision process is summarized in Figure 1. Each of the first three groups was represented by a dummy variable that took a value of 1 if the principal belonged to that group and 0 otherwise. Group 4 served as the reference category. Once the school principal groups were formed, a series of HLM models were estimated. Following Raudenbush and Bryk (2002), the first of these is the unconditional or base model (model 1). This model allowed us to separate the proportion of variation in commitment to schooling that was due to differences between teachers (i.e. within principals) from that attributable to differences between principals. 45

Journal for Effective Schools - Spring 2013  

Vol. 11, #1

Journal for Effective Schools - Spring 2013  

Vol. 11, #1

Advertisement