Skip to main content
Log in

Examining the generalizability of administrative personnel allocation decisions

  • Published:
The Urban Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the effect of district and school size on principal teacher allocation decisions. The study tested the invariance of a personnel allocation decision making model for elementary school principals from three categories of school and district size. The sample consisted of elementary school principals from small, medium, and large schools and districts. The results confirmed the fit of the model across schools of all sizes and across small and medium size districts. For large school districts the proposed decision-making model did not fit the data. This result implies that district size has an effect on the personnel allocation decisions made by elementary school principals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Averich, H., Carroll, S., Donaldson, T., Kiesling, H., and Pincus, J. (1972). How effective is schooling? A critical review and synthesis of research findings. Report R-56-PCSF/RC, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., and Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.Psychological Bulletin 88: 588–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidwell, C., and Kasarda, J. (1980). Conceptualizing and measuring the effects of schooling.American Journal of Education 88(4): 401–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, J. R. (1979). Expertise and power in professional organizations.Sociology of Work and Occupations 6(1): 103–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossert, S., Dwuer, D., Rowan, B., and Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal.Educational Administration Quarterly 18(3): 34–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, E. M. (1982). Research on the school administrator: the state of the art 1967–1980.Educational Administration Quarterly 18(3): 12–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • California State Department of Education (1977). School effectiveness study: the first year. Sacramento, Calif.

  • Cattell, R. B. (1962). The basis of recognition and interpretation of factors.Educational and Psychological Measurement 22: 667–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowson, R. L., and Porter-Gehrie, C. (1980). The discretionary behavior of principals in large-city schools.Educational Administration Quarterly 16(1): 45–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deal, T. E., and Celotti, L. D. (1980). How much influence do (and can) educational administrators have on classrooms?Phi Delta Kappan 61(7): 471–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreeben, R., and Barr, R. (1988). Classroom composition and the design of instruction.Sociology of Education 61(3): 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, D. L., Showers, B. K., and Imber, M. (1981). Studying shared decision making in schools. In S. Bacharach (ed.)Organizational Behavior in Schools and School Districts. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasman, N. S. (1986).Evaluation-Based Leadership: School Administration in Contemporary Perspective. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasman, N. S., and Heck, R. H. (1988). Evaluation in decision making: the case of assigning teachers to classrooms.Administrator's Notebook 32(5): 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, E. M. (1979).Educational Administration and Organizational Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R. H., Marcoulides, G. A., and Glasman, N. S. (1989). The application of causal modeling techniques to administrative decision making: the case of teacher allocation.Educational Administration Quarterly 25(4): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations.Psychometrika 36: 409–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D. (1984–86).Lisrel VI. Mooreville, IN: Scientic Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., and Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement.Review of Educational Research 52(3): 309–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiter, J. (1983). Classroom composition and achievement games.Sociology of Education 56(3): 126–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., and McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effects of sample size.Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 391–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D., and Kirchner, C. (1983). Collective bargaining and teacher policy. In L. Shulman and G. Syke (eds),Handbook of Teaching and Policy. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monk, D. (1987). Assigning elementary pupils to their teachers.Elementary School Journal 88(2): 167–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P. (1976).School Politics Chicago Style. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sally, C., McPherson, R., and Baehr, M. (1979).National Occupational Analysis of the School Principalship. Chicago: Industrial Relations Center, University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heck, R.H., Marcoulides, G.A. Examining the generalizability of administrative personnel allocation decisions. Urban Rev 21, 51–62 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108462

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108462

Keywords

Navigation