Christopher Allen Final Dissertation

A Global Study of International School Principal Recruitment
by
Christopher Allen
An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the
Abraham S. Fischler College of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Nova Southeastern University
2016

ii

Approval Page
This applied dissertation was submitted by Christopher Allen under the direction of the
persons listed below. It was submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler College of Education
and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Education at Nova Southeastern University.
Donna Smith, PhD
Committee Chair
Marcia O’Neil, EdD
Committee Member
Lynne Schrum, PhD
Dean

iii

Statement of Original Work
I declare the following:
I have read the Code of Student Conduct and Academic Responsibility as described in the
Student Handbook of Nova Southeastern University. This applied dissertation represents
my original work, except where I have acknowledged the ideas, words, or material of
other authors.
Where another author’s ideas have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have
acknowledged the author’s ideas by citing them in the required style.
Where another author’s words have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have
acknowledged the author’s words by using appropriate quotation devices and citations in
the required style.
I have obtained permission from the author or publisher—in accordance with the required
guidelines—to include any copyrighted material (e.g., tables, figures, survey instruments,
large portions of text) in this applied dissertation manuscript.
Christopher Allen
Name
May 16, 2016
Date

iv

Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the many people who helped me throughout the
dissertation process. First I would like to thank my wife, Hong Juan (Jenny) Wang, for
her support. Next, I would like to thank Dale Cox and Theron Mott for allowing me to
use their own research as a starting point for mine, and for providing encouraging words
and advice along the way. Thank you to Richard Gaskell and Nick Brummit of
International Schools Consultancy Research for providing data on the growth of the
international school market over time.
Thank you to Jane Larson from the Council of International Schools, Laura Light
and Paul DeMinico from International Schools Services, Jessica Magagna and Gez
Hayden from Search Associates, Devereaux McClatchey, Art Charles, and John Chandler
from Carney, Sandoe and Associates, and Bambi Betts from the Principals’ Training
Center for International School Leadership. Each of these people, as well as other
members of their organizations, were instrumental in helping me to publish my survey
instrument to their members and answering questions throughout the process. Thank you
to Peter Mott, Anne Fowles, and Harlan Lyso for speaking with me about my research
topic and giving me advice and support.
I needed a lot of support during the writing and data analysis parts of my report,
and I would like to thank Neil Kilah for providing initial editing support, Elayne Reiss for
her invaluable support with statistical analysis, and Judy Lloyd for providing the final
assistance with editing. Thank you to my colleagues for taking the pilot survey, and to
Renee Rehfeldt specifically for giving me feedback on it. Finally, thank you to my initial
Nova Kuala Lumpur cohort and our guide, Dr. Vanaja Nethi. Without all of your support
I never would have made it this far!

v

Abstract
A Global Study of International School Principal Recruitment. Christopher Allen, 2016:
Applied Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S. Fischler College of
Education. Keywords: International School Recruitment, International Schools,
Principals, Work Experience
There is increasing demand to fill division principal and head of school positions in
international schools. International schools compete for the available division principal
candidates, and candidates have a greater variety of division principal vacancies from
which to choose. Increasing numbers of heads of school openings further decreases the
division principal candidate pool as current division principals are applying for these
positions to advance their career. This research study investigated the challenge for
international heads of school to find the best candidates for division principal position
openings in their schools.
This study focused on division principal recruitment in international schools as an
extension of research conducted by Cox, which focused on teacher recruitment in
international schools. Division principal candidates of the major international school
recruitment agencies and participants from the Principal Training Center were surveyed
to determine their perceptions of the following sets of factors that have an impact on the
selection of positions for application by division principal candidates: organizational
factors, school characteristics, and division principal characteristics.
The results from this study found administrative experience did not significantly impact
survey responses, but overseas administrative experience had a significant impact.
Respondents with less overseas administrative experience placed higher expectations
related to travel and culture than respondents with more overseas administrative
experience. Respondents with more overseas administrative experience placed greater
value upon school leadership and practices than those with less overseas experience.
Results from the career path inventory found the highest percentage of respondents stated
their 1st faculty position, 1st administrative position, and 1st division principal position
were located in the Asia-Pacific region; were in the 46- to 55-year-old age category;
became an educator before the age of 25 years old; became an administrator during the
25- to 35-year-old age category; became a division principal during the 36- to 45-year-
old age category; held a master’s degree; held U.S. citizenship; and were looking for
positions with schools located in Europe. A majority of respondents were male, and close
to 80% of respondents classified their race as White, European, or Caucasian.

vi

Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction........................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................1
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study................................................................................................8
Summary..................................................................................................................9

Chapter 2: Literature Review.............................................................................................10
Introduction............................................................................................................10
Recruitment in National School Settings...............................................................12
Recruitment in International School Settings ........................................................25
Research Questions................................................................................................30
Summary................................................................................................................31

Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................32
Introduction............................................................................................................32
Participants.............................................................................................................32
Instruments.............................................................................................................34
Procedures..............................................................................................................37
Limitations.............................................................................................................40

Chapter 4: Results..............................................................................................................41
Introduction............................................................................................................41
Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................41
Summary................................................................................................................62

Chapter 5: Discussion ........................................................................................................67
Introduction............................................................................................................67
Differences in Candidate Perceptions....................................................................67
Differences in Demographic Information..............................................................72
Career Path of Candidates......................................................................................74
Limitations.............................................................................................................76
Recommendations for Future Research.................................................................77
Summary................................................................................................................78

References......................................................................................................................... 80
Appendices
A ITRS................................................................................................................93
B CCPI ...............................................................................................................98
C IPRS..............................................................................................................104
D Item Loadings for Factors.............................................................................109

vii

Tables
1 Recruiting Fair Information, 2015-2016.........................................................33
2 Eigenvalues and Variance Explained by Factors............................................44
3 Correlations of Factors for Research Questions 2 and 3 ................................49
4 Levene’s Test Results for Research Question 2 .............................................49
5 One-Way ANOVA and Cohen’s d Results for Research Question 2.............50
6 Means and Standard Deviations for Factors by Years of Total
Administrative Experience .............................................................................51
7 Levene’s Test Results for Research Question 3 .............................................52
8 One-Way ANOVA and Cohen’s d Results for Question 3 ............................53
9 Means and Standard Deviations for Factors by Years of Overseas
Administrative Experience .............................................................................54
10 Frequencies for Respondent Ages at Each Major Professional Milestone.....55
11 Mean Years of Employment by Job Category (N = 281)...............................56
12 Frequencies for Country of Citizenship (N = 281).........................................56
13 Frequencies for Gender and Ethnicity ............................................................57
14 Frequencies for Employment-Seeking Behavior............................................58
15 Frequencies for Education and Training (N = 277)........................................59
16 Frequencies for Positions Held (N = 277) ......................................................60
17 Frequencies for Location of First Position (N = 277).....................................61
18 Frequencies for Location of Current and First Outside Home Country
Positions (N = 277) .........................................................................................61
19 Frequencies for Career Path Taken (N = 277)................................................62

1

Chapter 1: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
The topic. The topic of this research study was international school division
principal recruitment. A division principal is the overall manager for a specific division
of a school (i.e., lower school, primary school, elementary school, upper school,
secondary school, middle school, or high school). This research study is an extension of
Cox’s (2012) research on teacher recruitment in international schools and explored three
sets of factors that division principal candidates investigate when determining which
vacancies to apply for and which job offers to accept. The first set of factors is
organizational conditions. These are the working conditions for the position of a division
principal including the compensation package, support and supervision, school
governance, and career development opportunities. The second set of factors is school
characteristics. These are the variables of a school’s enrollment size, location, the
proprietary nature of the school, and demographic makeup. The third set of factors,
division principal characteristics, cover the personal variables of the candidate including
gender, age, marital status, education, and overall experience working in education.
The research problem. The problem examined in this research study was the
difficulty in finding high-quality candidates for positions as principals in international
schools (P. DeMinico, personal communication, February 8, 2013; G. Hayden, personal
communication, February 9, 2013; A. Charles, personal communication, February 11,
2013). With the increasing number of international schools being established, there is a
parallel increase in division principal and head of school openings (Carney, Sandoe, &
Associates, 2013; The International Educator (TIE), 2013; International Schools Services
(ISS), 2013; Search Associates, 2013). A head of school is the term used for the highest-

2

level administrator with responsibilities over every division of a school (Mott, 2011).
Unfortunately, there was no hard data available from the recruitment agencies
specifically related to the total number of advertised division principal positions. There
are several recruitment agencies international schools use to recruit division principals,
including Search Associates, ISS, Council of International Schools (CIS), TIE, and
Carney, Sandoe, and Associates. Search Associates has not historically kept track of this
information, but a finding from this study could lead to this organization beginning to
track these types of data (G. Hayden, personal communication, March 7, 2014). ISS has
recorded the total number of administrative position openings but it has not subdivided
this information into the different types of positions, such as head of school, division
principal, assistant principal, and so forth (L. Light, personal communication, March 13,
2014).
From 2009 to 2014, there was an increase of almost 2,000 international schools
worldwide (N. Brummitt, personal communication, September 3, 2013; ISC Research,
2013). In addition to the increasing number of new international schools opening, a large
number of veteran heads of school and division principals are projected to be retiring
soon, leading to a rapid increase in the numbers of vacancies that will become available
(Duevel, Pfannl, Hestor, & Stern, 2013). Caffyn (2010) found there is generally a high
turnover of leadership in international schools. These factors have led to increased
pressure for current heads of schools to fill division principal vacancies with high-quality
candidates. There is also increased difficulty in retaining those currently in these
positions and restricting the rate of transfer to other schools where they would receive a
promotion to head of school. This is because the next level of career advancement in
most international schools for a division principal is a head of school position. If a

3

division principal’s current head of school is not leaving, the division principal must look
for head of school openings in other international schools in order to advance to the next
career level. Harris (2013) found that 45% of international school heads believed the
current quality level of the division principal candidate pool was adequate, with only
8.6% saying the candidate pool quality was very high.
Background and justification. The number of international schools is at a
historical high, with over 7,000 international schools by the end of 2014 versus
approximately 5,000 in 2009 (N. Brummitt, personal communication, September 3,
2013). The fastest growing sector is proprietary international schools (Benson, 2011;
International School Consultancy [ISC] Group, 2013). A proprietary international school
is a school that has been created by investors in order to generate a profit.
International school administrators tend to use several recruitment agencies to
help with recruitment of staff, including division principals. In discussions with G.
Hayden (personal communication, February 9, 2013) of Search Associates, P. DeMinico
(personal communication, February 8, 2013) of ISS, and A. Charles (personal
communication, February 11, 2013) of Carney, Sandoe and Associates, the researcher
confirmed that the pool of high-quality applicants for the number of division principals
was comparatively smaller than in the past, with the numbers declining each year.
Harris’s (2013) findings showed that 45% of international school heads of school felt the
prospective division principal candidate pool was of adequate quality, with less than 9%
saying it was of very high quality. This trend mirrored the findings from research studies
conducted in national school systems (Chapman, 2005; Eadens, Bruner, & Black, 2011;
Fraser & Brock, 2006; Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003; Hancock, Black, & Bird, 2006;
MacBeath, 2009; Normore, 2004, 2007).

4

Deficiencies in the evidence. Many research studies focused on recruitment and
retention in the fields of business and education. Studies were conducted on recruitment
and retention of international school heads. Some initial research studies (Hawley, 1994,
1995; Mott, 2011) examined specific segments of the international school population,
such as schools that were designed to incorporate American or British components and
were located in international settings. Other researchers examined the broader
international school arena (Benson, 2011; Littleford, 1999). Research was also conducted
in relation to the recruitment and retention of teachers in international schools (Cox,
2012; Chandler, 2010; Mancuso, 2010; Mancuso, Roberts, & White, 2010). According to
Broman (2008), the Association of International School Heads and the Association for
the Advancement of International Education created a task force to address the “growing
recruitment crisis for international schools” but this was specific to teachers (p. 1).
Harris (2013) conducted a research study that was designed to assist international
school heads in different regions of the world to focus on critical areas, such as skills or
knowledge, that were most important for division principal candidates in their region.
However, there was little available direct research into division principal recruitment for
international schools; this researcher aimed to fill that gap in current research.
A concept explored in relation to the problem of this research study was the theme
of wanderlust, discussed in the Cox (2012) and Mancuso (2010) research studies on
teacher recruitment and retention. The researcher examined the impact it has on division
principal recruitment. Hanks, McLeod, and Urdang (1986) originally defined wanderlust
as “a great desire to travel or roam about” (p. 1708). Cox and Mancuso focused on
teachers as the participants. This researcher has added to that body of knowledge by
focusing on division principals in international schools as a response to this existing gap

5

in the research.
Audience. The researcher anticipates the heads of school in international schools
will be able to use the research findings to better focus recruitment efforts when seeking
highly qualified candidates for their school’s vacancies. Harris (2013) found that schools
in less desirable geographic locations, such as those in areas with less infrastructure,
political unrest, high levels of poverty, remote locations, or other problems leading to it
being considered a hardship post, tend to receive the lowest quality applicants for
division principal vacancies. This research may be additionally beneficial to heads of
school in these locations by using the results to better understand and then market their
school to potential candidates for division principal positions.
Candidates interested in division principal positions in international schools will
be able to use the results of this research study to compare their own experiences to those
of other candidates. Furthermore, findings from this research study may help division
principal candidates have a better understanding of their competitiveness in the current
market place and identify areas they need to improve upon to strengthen their candidacy.
The potential value to recruitment agencies is a better understanding of the current broad
situation related to division principal recruitment and, using this information, the
potential to provide better services to both the schools and candidates in international
schools. Finally, there is a potential value to heads of school to retain their current
division principals by using the findings of this research study to help better align their
schools with the sets of factors most desired by division principals.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this applied dissertation, several terms are defined.
Administrative experience refers to the total years of experience as head of

6

department, division coordinator, whole school coordinator, vice principal, assistant
principal, deputy principal, division principal, deputy head of school, and or head of
school. Division principal candidates need a minimum level of administrative experience
in order to improve their viability as a division principal candidate.
Career path refers to “the series of professional positions held since beginning in
the education profession” (Mott, 2011, p. 23).
Division coordinator refers to the person managing daily operations for a specific
educational division in an international school setting. It is usually related to the divisions
of Primary Years Programme, Middle Years Programme, and Diploma Programme,
which are components of the International Baccalaureate (IB). It also refers to the
position of Community, Action, and Service Coordinator or other similar positions.
Division principal refers to the overall leader for a specific division of a school
(i.e., lower school, primary school, elementary school, upper school, secondary school,
middle school, or high school). This position is a higher-level position than a division
coordinator.
Head of school refers to the chief administrative officer of an international school
who is responsible for the overall operation of the school and is accountable to the board
of directors or owner of the school (Mott, 2011).
International school refers to the various interpretations of the term international
school. It may refer to a school set up for expatriate students whose parents are working
in a foreign country. It may include a school where the curriculum is either international,
such as the IB, or is from another country outside of the host nation (e.g., an American
school that follows a U.S. style curriculum and has advanced placement (AP) classes for
its students). An international school could be international based on its student and or

7

staff population. All of these have been used to define individual schools as international
and for the purpose of this research study will be used (Benson, 2011; Cambridge &
Thompson, 2004; Hayden & Thompson, 1995b; Mancuso et al., 2010; Murakami-
Ramalho & Benham, 2010; Richards, 2001; White, 2010).
National school refers to a school set up to educate local children within a country
that follows local curriculum guidelines and other rules and regulations.
Organizational condition refers to the working conditions that surround the job of
a division principal including the compensation package, support and supervision, school
governance, and career development opportunities (Cox, 2012).
Proprietary international school refers to a school that has been created by
investors in order to generate a profit. Much of the increase in the number of division
principal openings available to the sample population results from the increasing number
of proprietary international schools (Mott, 2011).
Recruitment refers to “the process of locating, identifying, and attracting capable
applicants” (Robbins & DeCenzo, 2010, p. 114).
Recruitment cycle refers to the fact that the majority of international school heads
hire teachers and administrators during a recruiting season that extends from November
to June of a given school year. Contact between candidates and international school heads
is often facilitated by recruitment agencies that sponsor hiring fairs in large cities around
the world from November to June of each year (Cox, 2012).
School characteristics refer to the variables that define the school including the
school’s enrollment numbers, location, if the school is proprietary, and its demographic
makeup (Cox, 2012).
Whole-school coordinator refers to the person responsible for a specific focus

8

throughout the entire school, including such positions as curriculum coordinator,
information technology coordinator, or other such positions.
Wanderlust refers to “a great desire to travel or roam about” (Hanks et al., 1986,
p. 1708). This variable could impact a candidate’s desire to leave his or her current
location in search of a new employment position (Cox, 2012; Mancuso, 2010).
Purpose of the Study
Due to the increasing number of international schools, there are also increasing
numbers of openings for division principal and head of school candidates. There will be
more competition amongst heads of school to find the best candidate for the division
principal openings in their schools. The purpose of this research study was to examine
specific variables that are used by division principal candidates in the international school
setting when determining which vacancies to apply for and which job offers to accept.
The research study also examined career paths taken by current division principal
candidates. This information will potentially assist future division principal candidates,
and heads of schools to be aware of current trends and better focus their own recruitment
and or application efforts.
In all organizations, the best way to be competitive is to hire and retain the best
candidates possible for the positions within the organization. In order to complete this
successfully, the leaders of organizations must create strategic recruitment and or
employment plans to ensure they hire and retain the right people for the right positions at
the right times (Robbins & DeCenzo, 2010; Society for Human Resource Management,
2006).
In schools, the core business is teaching and the main product is education; it is
critical to attract the most effective teachers who will have the most significant positive

9

impact on student achievement (Goodwin, 2011; Marzano, 2003). Stewart (2012) found
that having highly skilled, dedicated, and knowledgeable teachers employed in a school
ensured the best educational outcomes were provided to the consumers; that is, directly to
the students and indirectly to the parents who are responsible for making the decision of
which school is most appropriate for their children. Other researchers believed the
division principal is the second biggest factor in student success in a school (Palmer,
2015). This was one reason the researcher hoped to build upon these findings by
expanding the field of knowledge to division principals in this research study.
D. Cox (personal communication, November 20, 2012), the head of school for an
international school in China, indicated that the potential findings of this research study
would be invaluable to school heads who are responsible for hiring the best leadership
candidates to fill the increasingly important role of division principal in an international
school setting.
Summary
A clear need has been expressed by both employees of the international school
recruitment agencies and heads of schools in international schools to build upon previous
research related to teacher recruitment in the international school setting by focusing on
division principal recruitment in the same setting. This research study filled the current
gap in related research literature by surveying potential candidates for division principal
positions in international schools to learn about their backgrounds, both personal and
professional, as well as their views on what was important to them when considering a
division principal position in an international school. The results of the current research
study will be a valuable resource to all stakeholders involved in division principal
recruitment in international school settings.

10

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
Hiring a division principal is one of the most important decisions a head of school
will make as it can affect both teacher retention and student academic results (Clifford,
2010; DeAngelis, Peddle, & Trott, 2002; Palmer, 2015; Regional Educational Laboratory
Midwest, 2008; Walker & Kwan, 2012). High-quality principals have the largest impact
on schools that face the most challenges as well (Doyle & Locke, 2014). Concerns have
been raised about the decreasing number of division principal applicants and the
questionable quality of these applicants (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003), which has led
to an increased interest in how division principals are being recruited and chosen for
these positions (Walker & Kwan, 2009). The term division principal is not universally
used in educational systems around the world but the positions being discussed in each
country will be the equivalent of the position of division principal.
Because there has been more research done on division principal recruitment in
national school settings than international school settings, this chapter provides a detailed
overview of the research literature related to division principal recruitment and retention
policies and procedures for division principals in the following countries: England,
Germany, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America (USA).
The results of this analysis will be used as a background for the analysis of the
recruitment policies and procedures for division principals in international school
settings. The six countries chosen are located in four different continents, giving an
international perspective to the review that is more relevant in comparison with
international schools than if only one national system was used. Due to the limited
amount of current research relating to division principal recruitment in international

11

schools, the researcher has used personal communications with current employees of the
major recruitment agencies, as well as current and former heads of international schools
as a major source of information. This research process provided the researcher with the
most current information on the topic from individuals with direct knowledge and
experience of division principal recruitment in the international school setting (Cox,
2012).
In order for students and teachers in schools to reach their full potential, they need
strong and effective leadership (Stewart, 2012). Division principals are the most
important school leaders when it comes to the recruitment and assessment of teachers.
Heads of schools find it extremely important to hire the best division principals possible
so the division principal will then hire, retain, and lead the best teachers in order to get
the best student academic achievement results (Elmore & Burney, 2000). Effective
division principals are able to retain higher-quality teachers, as well as replace less
effective ones. Effective division principals are also better able to assist teachers to
improve faster, which will make the school more competitive in its individual market
place, such as within the city, country, or region the school is located (Clifford, 2010;
Beteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2009; Mancuso et al., 2010). Division principals have a
direct effect on school climate, and a positive school climate leads to better staff morale,
higher levels of student academic achievement, lower absenteeism, fewer discipline
problems, and lower school dropout rates (Guilfoyle, 2013). As Chapman (2005) stated,
[t]he recruitment, retention, and development of school principals are matters of
great importance for all school systems because effective educational leadership is
absolutely vital to bringing about improvements and advances in all those
activities, institutions, and processes that foster the provision of education and

12

student learning. (p. ii)
This research study addressed the gap in the research related to the topic of
division principal recruitment in international schools by expanding upon Cox’s (2012)
teacher recruitment study to focus on the population of division principal candidates.
Furthermore, it will also expand upon findings from Mott’s (2011) study on American-
sponsored overseas schools heads by focusing on the population of division principal
candidates. The results will be presented to both heads of schools and the employees of
recruitment agencies so they are more aware of what the sample population looks for in a
division principal position, as well as the career path they have taken to prepare for this
position.
Recruitment in National School Settings
National school systems in different countries differ with respect to the strategies
used to select school leaders. Many research findings indicated there is a recruitment
crisis for school leaders in national school settings in countries around the world and
concluded there are fewer high-quality candidates for the available positions (Brookings,
Collins, Cour, & O’Neill, 2003; Chapman, 2005; Eadens et al., 2011; Fraser & Brock,
2006; Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003; Hancock et al., 2006; Lumby, Crow, &
Pashiardis, 2008; MacBeath, 2009; Normore, 2004; Walker & Kwan, 2012). This trend is
mirrored in the international school setting.
Fink (2011) cautioned against the credibility of the findings from many research
studies discussing the lack of prospective school leaders because the information is often
politicized and questionable. Fink proposed that people can describe the situation as
worse in order to get something they desire, such as more funding. He concluded there
are more than enough people in the educational field who could fill the positions, but the

13

challenge is finding the right person, at the right time, for the right reasons. One issue
identified by a number of researchers (Barker, 2008; Barty, Thompson, Blackmore, &
Sachs, 2005; Curtis, 2008; The Learning Partnership, 2008; Pont, Nusche, & Moorman,
2008) in national school settings was the diminished interest of prospective candidates to
actually apply for positions rather than the lack of qualified candidates for division
principal openings. There are many people eligible for these positions, based on their
experience and training, but few of them actually apply for the positions, mainly due to
the increased responsibilities and accountability required for the position. Harris (2013)
concluded that although there may be a shortage of principal candidates in some areas,
this lack of high-quality candidates for these positions is of more concern. These findings
of Harris were based upon narrative data that were collected in which the respondents
noted, “There were many poor candidates and a great variability of quality and
experience in the candidate pool” (p. 69).
Division principal recruitment in England. In England, the term used for the
division principal is head teacher. The responsibility for filling a head teacher position
lies with the local school governing body, which is composed of “the school leader,
elected representatives of the parents, representatives of the teaching and the non-
teaching staff and of the LEA [local education authorities], and partly so-called ‘co-opted
members’ (invited influential representatives of politics and economy)” (Huber &
Pashiardis, 2008, p. 181). The local school governing body then informs the LEA of an
opening and then the position is advertised, most commonly using the Times Educational
Supplement, but also through online job websites and regional newspapers.
Huber and Pashiardis (2008) concluded there have been reports of local school
governing body members having difficulty filling their head teacher vacancies. Thomson

14

(2009) proposed that a major cause of this is the continued focus on examination results
or targets, such as graduation rates, and inspections from officers from the Office of
Standards in Education (OFSTED). Members of OFSTED inspect and regulate services
in the United Kingdom (UK) providing education and skills for learners of all ages. It
reports directly to Parliament on school standards. MacBeath (2009) suggested one
possible cause of the low number of applicants may be related to the fact that many
women still do not attempt to pursue the top level positions in England, limiting the
overall candidate pool.
P. Mott (personal communication, February 8, 2013), a former Head of School
and current Director of the Commission on American International Schools Abroad, a
division of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, stated that low
numbers of female applicants is also a problem in division principal recruitment in the
international school setting. The lack of women in division principal roles is also
reflected in other national settings. As a possible explanation, Sandberg (2010) suggested
that women frequently do not try to acquire leadership roles because they often
underestimate their own ability. The research findings of Barker (2008) and Curtis (2008)
called into question the fact there are not enough people for these positions. They
concluded a high number of qualified candidates are choosing not to apply for these
positions.
In terms of the general recruitment process, applicants usually submit their
applications from which school administrators create long lists that are then reviewed to
create short lists used for actual interviews (Huber & Pashiardis, 2008). Huber and
Pashiardis (2008) detailed that school leaders in England use a variety of different
methods to assess candidates, including panel interviews, presentations by the candidates,

15

and in some cases the use of external assessment centers. After candidates are screened,
references are checked for the successful candidate. The belief is that reference checks
have a low validity so they are used as an additional confirmation more than an actual
part of the decision-making process. Once this is done, the candidate is contacted and
offered a contract. In England, this is usually a lifetime contract (Huber & Pashiardis,
2008).
Head teacher recruitment in England and division principal recruitment in
international schools have some similarities, which include applicants sending their
applications directly to school administrators who then use this information to create long
lists. These are then reviewed by the current school administration to create short lists for
actual interviews. International schools are generally not able to use external assessment
centers, but the use of the recruitment agencies can and does act as a similar filtering
system during the review process. G. Hayden (personal communication, February 9,
2013), of Search Associates, emphasized that the confidential references filled out by
supervisors for their international school candidates are deemed more reliable than open
letters of reference by heads of school, thus giving them greater importance than in the
English recruitment process.
Division principal recruitment in Germany. In Germany, the education system
is administered by each state within the country and principals are given lifelong
contracts. Some states are piloting the creation of pools of candidates based on
professional development programs in which the candidates have earlier in their careers.
Once a position becomes vacant, it is advertised by the Ministry of Education (MOE)
using official publications, regional educational newsletters, and the Internet (Huber &
Pashiardis, 2008). The national average ranges from 1.3 candidates per vacancy to 5.6.

16

Even at the upper end of the range of candidates per vacancy, Huber and Pashiardis
(2008) considered the number quite a low ratio compared to what would be found in
recruitment of other positions in an educational setting. The members of each state’s
MOE conduct the principal recruitment process differently, with some using interviews
more heavily and others focused more on the candidate’s regular assessments by their
supervisors. The candidates’ professional abilities and performance as a teacher are
extremely important when determining if they will be promoted or appointed as principal.
In some states, the individual school administrators have input into who is hired but this
input is still limited (Huber & Pashiardis, 2008).
Based on the anecdotal findings of members of the major international school
recruitment agencies (ISS, Search Associates, and Carney, Sandoe, and Associates), the
number of high-quality candidates per each division principal vacancy were lower than in
the past. This number was still higher, however, than the lower end for German principal
recruitment. Unfortunately, there were no hard data to support these anecdotal findings
due to the fact that the recruitment agencies’ staff members had not collected these data.
It was based more upon feedback given to the recruiters by heads of school during the
recruiting process to fill their school’s division principal openings. Similar to the process
in Germany, the validity given to personal interviews and professional evaluations varied
for each head of school (P. Diminico, personal communication, February 8, 2013; G.
Hayden, personal communication, February 9, 2013; A. Charles, personal
communication, February 11, 2013).
Division principal recruitment in Singapore. In Singapore, members of the
MOE administer schools, with the division principals mainly following instruction given
to them by the MOE; then determining whether instruction is of a high quality; and

17

finally leading improvement efforts, when required (Huber & Pashiardis, 2008). The
results of this research study did not show how the vacancies were advertised, but the
candidates were mainly selected based on the academic achievement of students in
classes they taught and the professional teacher evaluation reports given to them. The
Singaporean education system is driven by academic results based on standardized
examinations students take on a regular basis. The candidate must hold at least a master’s
degree but that is the only postsecondary requirement. The MOE members make the final
decision on which applicant is hired, but how that decision is made is not transparent
(Huber & Pashiardis, 2008).
Student achievement results from standardized examinations from teachers would
not be used as a common criterion for division principal recruitment in international
schools because the data are not readily available. Heads of school could ask each
candidate about student results in their current school but the majority of division
principal candidates would have limited recent class teaching experience. Based on the
personal experiences of the researcher and discussions with colleagues, master’s degrees
are also not always a requirement for division principal candidates in international
schools, but a higher-level degree in some field of educational leadership is often seen by
heads of school as an indication a candidate has educational and experience levels
directly relevant to the division principal role.
Division principal recruitment in Australia. Similar to Germany, each state in
Australia has its own school system. At the division principal level, the majority of
appointments are for a specific period but there can be lifetime appointments made.
Although the number varies from state to state, a panel of members usually chooses the
new principal. In the state of Queensland, school parents, citizens associations, or school

18

councils are directly involved in the selection of principals (The State of Queensland,
2014). Vacancies are posted in the government gazette of the relevant state or territory
and, for commonwealth vacancies, in the Commonwealth Government Gazette.
Members of many schools and school systems also use career websites, online
classified advertisements, and targeted government employment websites, such as the
New South Wales Government website (N. Kilah, personal communication, May 24,
2014; New South Wales Government, 2014). Candidates send in applications, references
are checked, and external consultants are sometimes used to assist in the process of
identifying the candidates to short list for interviews. These candidates are then
interviewed by the panel. A merit-based system of assessment is used to make their final
decision (Huber & Pashiardis, 2008). The criteria for this merit-based system were not
included in the research study results.
In common with England and Germany, there has been a perceived lack of
qualified principal applicants for the number of vacancies in Australia (Gronn &
Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003). In the Catholic system of schools in Australia, some school
administrators have gone to the extent of adding such perks as a car to the benefits
package to attract applicants (Fraser & Brock, 2006). Gronn and Rawlings-Sanaei’s
findings challenged the findings of Barty et al. (2005) by concluding that the problem
was not a lack of qualified candidates for division principal openings but instead a large
number of qualified candidates chose not to apply.
Fraser and Brock (2006) examined reasons why current division principals chose
to look for new positions in other schools. They proposed a major factor was the desire
for a new location and the challenges a new community would give. Some division
principals were no longer satisfied in the current locations of employment or felt they had

19

contributed as much as possible in their current school. The overall feeling was that many
principals wanted a new challenge and “the feeling of renewal that a new school would
provide” (Fraser & Brock, 2006, p. 434). This coincided with the idea of wanderlust as
discussed by Cox (2012) and Mancuso (2010) in their study of teacher recruitment.
Division principals in Australia clearly also shared this desire to move from one location
to another. One focus of this research study was to determine the impact of this
phenomenon on division principal candidates in international schools.
Division principal recruitment in New Zealand. In the late 1980s and early
1990s, the members of the New Zealand government made a major change to how
division principals were recruited and placed. Lange’s (1988) comprehensive report,
Tomorrow’s Schools; The Reform of Education Administration in New Zealand, became
the standard guideline used to organize schools within the country, and the title of the
report has become the common name used for all of the changes that took place. One of
the most dramatic changes for the appointment of division principals was that under the
new guidelines, members of local Boards of Trustees became responsible for appointing
all staff in schools (Gusscotts, 2004). Before these changes the career paths of most
principals followed the common progression of upward mobility seen in other
educational settings, where teachers moved into senior teacher roles, then assistant
principal roles, then deputy principal roles before often becoming principal of a school
(Gusscotts, 2004). There was also horizontal movement where educators would become
principal of a small school, which was a relatively simple administrative role, and then
transfer into principal positions in larger schools (Education Review Office, 1996).
After the guidelines were initiated, members of the Boards of Trustees began
appointing division principals (Gusscotts, 2004). Experience as an assistant principal or

20

deputy principal in a large school setting, rather than having division principal experience
in a small school setting, began to be perceived as better preparation for candidates for
division principal positions in larger schools, which limited the amount of horizontal
movement for division principal candidates looking to progress into larger school settings
(Education Review Office, 1996). In an attempt to increase the interest in division
principal positions offered in areas deemed less attractive due to location or economic
reasons, school boards can apply for a Principal Recruitment Allowance, which is an
additional amount of money to the other remuneration being offered to candidates of the
position (MOE, 2016).
As with the findings of Sandberg (2010) in the UK, Lacey (2003) found that
fewer women pursue division principal positions than men. In New Zealand, there had
been a modest increase in the overall percentage of women in principal positions from
34.1% in 1999 to 37.4% in 2002 (Gusscotts, 2004). By 2007, the overall percentage had
risen to 43.2% (MOE, 2007). There was still a large imbalance between the genders
regarding the percentage of women in division principal roles compared to the percentage
of women in teaching roles, which stood at 73.0% in 2003 (MOE, 2003). The results of
Neidhardt’s (2009) research showed that women made up 82.0% of teachers in primary
schools and held 80.0% of the senior management positions in those schools yet made up
only 40.0% of the principal positions.
Fowles and Fischer (2013) identified a range of other differences between men
and women pursuing division principal positions. Men do not consistently progress from
one administrative position to another but tend to skip stages in their upwardly mobile
career paths. Women, in comparison, move up more steadily, progressing from one level
to the next more consistently. Only 48% of men were deputy principals before receiving

21

their first division principal position, while 70% of women had taken this lesser position
before achieving their first division principal position (Fowles & Fischer, 2013). On
average, men achieved their first division principal position within 11 years of beginning
their careers in education, while women took an average of 21 years to reach the same
level (Fowles & Fischer, 2013).
Similar gender discrepancies were evident for principals advancing from their
first division principal position. Men tended to move to schools with populations 2.1
times larger, while women only moved up in schools with populations that were 0.62
times larger. Men, on average, tended to have three further division principal positions
after their initial appointment, while women tended to only have one more position
before the end of their career (Fowles & Fischer, 2013).
Division principal recruitment in the United States. There was a great deal of
research available on principal recruitment in the USA. Otto (1955) conducted a
foundational research study that concluded as follows:
[m]ost large city school systems have an orderly plan for the recruitment and
selection of prospective principals, but such is not the case in the great majority of
school systems in this country. The majority of superintendents depend primarily
upon ‘the old eagle eye’ to discover those members of the local staff who might
make good principals . . . [o]bviously local standards for appointment are low or
non-existent. (p. 29)
Sixty years later these problems with finding qualified principal candidates for the
available positions are still evident (Cushing & Kerrins, 2004; Eadens et al., 2011;
Elmore & Burney, 2000; Palmer, 2015; Pounder & Young, 1996; Rammer, 2007;
Renihan, 2012; Winter, Rinehart, Keedy, & Bjork, 2004). Kowal and Hassel’s (2011)

22

research concluded that the current division principal candidate pool is stretched to
capacity. In line with the findings of Barker (2008) and Curtis (2008) in England, and
Barty et al. (2005) in Australia, Muth and Browne-Ferrigno (2004) found there were as
many as 250,000 credentialed administrators in the USA who did not accept division
principal positions when they were offered to them. Doyle and Locke (2014) found one
reason for the lack of interest in these positions from qualified candidates was the
inadequate pay and grueling work involved. High-poverty and lower-performing schools
have even more difficulty, as research showed most newly hired principals in these
schools did not have previous leadership experience; as soon as they gained this by
working in these schools, they left for more attractive locations (Finn & Northern, 2014).
As in Germany and Australia, educational policy is controlled by members of
individual state governments with varying expectations of principal candidates. There is a
close connection between the university system in the USA and the route to becoming a
principal. In every state in the USA there is a requirement to be certified to become a
principal and the route to this certification is usually through a university program of
study (Finn & Northern, 2014; Huber & Pashiardis, 2008). Most of the training
prospective principals receive is completed outside of their own school context and is
therefore more generic, instead of being specific to the challenges they would face in
their own schools (Elmore & Burney, 2000). Many division principal preparation
programs consist of courses related to management principals, school law, administrative
requirements, and procedures (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2010).
The requirements for division principals in the USA vary from state to state. Forty-four
states require a graduate degree, 30 states require teaching certification, and 39 states
require teaching experience, among other requirements (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth,

23

2008). There are often state-issued licenses for principals as well as required internships
(Education Portal, 2015).
Hammond, Muffs, and Sciascia (2001) estimated that 40% of the current division
principals in the USA would retire by 2014. Battle and Gruber (2010) reported that 45%
of public school principals and 22% of private school principals who left their jobs retired
in the 2008-2009 school year. Gates, Ringel, Santibanez, Ross, and Chung (2003) stated
that the increased amount of stress from the job of being a division principal will lead to
an even higher number of current division principals retiring. In response to
superintendents’ claims about the shortage of qualified candidates for available division
principal positions, some state education officials have initiated alternative methods to
achieve certification, recognizing the university route is both time-consuming and
expensive.
Government officials in California created the School Leaders’ Licensure
Assessment test designed to increase the number of potential principal candidates
(Cushing & Kerrins, 2004). In Florida, officials in Broward County Public Schools
partnered with officials in Florida Atlantic University to create an intensive principal
internship program (Palmer, 2015). The New Leaders for New Schools program was
created to strengthen the leadership skills of potential division principal candidates (Finn
& Northern, 2014). As in other countries, evidence showed there were also a low number
of female candidates, which reduced the size of the pool of possible candidates. An
additional factor in the USA is the low number of candidates from minority groups
(Cushing & Kerrins, 2004; MacBeath, 2009). The New York City (NYC) Leadership
Academy was founded in 2003, in cooperation with the NYC Department of Education,
to help fill the need for new principals in the city within a short period of time (NYC

24

Leadership Academy, 2015). The Relay Graduate School of Education, also found in
New York, also offers job-embedded practicum for prospective division principals (Finn
& Northern, 2014).
In general, leaders of individual school districts are responsible for recruiting
division principals. The recruitment policies of many school districts appear to limit the
candidate pool, decreasing their ability to attract the best candidates (Clifford, 2010).
Typically, a hiring or selection committee from an individual school has the power to
interview and hire candidates for a division principal position. When a vacancy occurs, it
is usually posted on the school district vacancy website, on various professional
association websites, and or in newspapers (Huber & Pashiardis, 2008). Clifford’s (2010)
research findings indicated the hiring requirements and policies in large school districts in
the USA led to delays of up to 1 year to hire a new division principal, while smaller
districts on average took less time to fill openings. This hiring process does not match the
process used in international schools for division principal recruitment. The outcome,
however, of widely varying times taken for the process does resemble the situation for
head of school recruitment in large international schools compared to smaller ones
(Carney, Sandoe, & Associates, 2013; CIS, 2013; ISS, 2013; Search Associates, 2013).
Most previous research studies focused on candidate attraction to administrative
positions in education in the USA, which was similar to the focus of this research study.
Winter, Rinehart, Keedy, and Bjork (2004, 2007) conducted two research studies as a
response to Pounder and Young’s (1996) call for more empirical studies examining
factors that influence administrator recruitment. The results of this study, which focused
on principal recruitment, indicated there was an even distribution of participants based on
gender in administrator preparation programs (Winter et al., 2004, 2007). This was in

25

dramatic contrast to the empirical evidence for international schools. P. Mott (personal
communication, February 8, 2013) emphasized there is a lack of female candidates. Mr.
Mott is a former head of school and current head of the Commission on American
International Schools Abroad, a division of the New England Association of Schools and
Colleges. However, the results of Winter et al.’s (2004, 2007) research did show the
majority of participants were Caucasian, which supported the conclusion by P. Mott that
there is a lack of minority candidates (personal communication, February 8, 2013).
Another direct connection between the research findings of the USA studies and
this research was the focus on career paths of the participants looking for principal
positions. Winter et al. (2004) found that 56% of the participants had administrative
experience, including assistant principal experience, and all had the minimum
requirements for the position of principal. In contrast, the findings showed very few
candidates were able to convince school administrators to interview them for principal
vacancies, and even fewer were given a job offer. One potential benefit of this current
research study was to determine whether the same situation was applicable in the
international school setting.
Recruitment in International School Settings
Unlike the division principal position in national education systems, international
schools do not have to meet any overriding governmental or school district requirements.
In order to understand the division principal position, it is crucial to define an
international school. This is a complex issue and there is no common agreement on the
topic. As White (2010) concluded, there are nearly as many definitions as there are
international schools in the world. The international school market doubled from 2003 to
2013, resulting in almost 7,000 international schools; the expectation is that this number

26

will also double by 2023 (Brummitt, 2013). By the end of 2014, it was expected there
would be approximately 7,200 international schools, and within 10 years, the number was
expected to be close to 11,000 (Keeling, 2014). This is an exponential increase from an
estimated 50 schools in 1964 (Bereday & Lauwerys, 1964) and an estimated 1,000 in the
1990s (Hayden & Thompson, 1995a). In the year 2000, there were 2,584 international
schools (N. Brummitt, personal communication, September 2, 2013).
Over the past 10 to 15 years, there has been a dramatic change in the types of
international schools in terms of governance and ownership. Through the 1990s, most
international schools were either connected to the embassies or consulates of foreign
countries or founded by expatriate families living in a location and in need of a school for
their children. The proprietary status of these schools tended to be not-for-profit and the
schools were usually governed by a school board (Benson, 2011). Much of the increase in
the number of division principal openings available to the sample population resulted
from the increasing number of proprietary international schools (Mott, 2011). R. Gaskell
(personal communication, November 8, 2012) of ISC Research confirmed this. The
current ratio between proprietary international schools and nonproprietary international
schools is 2:1. The proprietary school sector is projected to double in size in the next 10
years; this ratio will be closer to 4:1 (N. Brummitt, personal communication, February
13, 2014). D. Cox (personal communication, November 20, 2012) informed the
researcher this new dynamic is having a substantial impact on the recruitment of both
teachers and administrators in international schools and is worthy of ongoing research.
International schools tend to use recruitment agencies to hire teachers and
administrators. The major companies used are Search Associates, ISS, the CIS, and TIE.
Another company, Carney, Sandoe and Associates, is a consulting agency involved in

27

higher-level administrative searches in international schools. Search Associates, ISS, and
CIS have online databases of member candidates and member schools with electronic
versions of biographical professional data, as well as confidential references that the
member schools can use when looking for candidates to fill positions. Each company also
conducts job fairs in various locations around the world where international school
administrators and teaching and administrative candidates come together for face-to-face
interviews. TIE, in contrast, is exclusively an online position vacancy board where
member schools can post openings and member candidates can e-mail the schools
directly to apply for the positions. The researcher collected quantitative data through a
survey, which was administered to division principal candidates listed with Search
Associates; CIS; ISS; Carney, Sandoe, and Associates, as well as from past participants
in the Principal Training Center (PTC). Cox (2012) found this methodology to be the
most effective approach for data collection, and the researcher aimed to replicate this
approach with division principal candidates rather than teacher candidates.
Although division principal recruitment can be conducted using the process, many
division principal vacancies are filled through targeted searches specifically contracted
with one of the recruitment organizations. This typically takes several months. Generally,
the recruitment organization creates a short list of candidates, which is then reduced to
two to four finalists who are invited to the school for onsite interviews. A common
outcome is a final offer being made by the head of school to one of the finalists (Russell
& Larsson, 2000). G. Hayden (personal communication, February 9, 2012) of Search
Associates stated there is also a more recent trend towards schools increasingly hiring
division principals directly.
Because there are generally no external supervising bodies determining what

28

candidates require in order to be qualified for the position of division principal in an
international school, administrators in each individual school determine what is required
for their opening. These requirements will include any work visa requirements of the host
country’s government for any employees who are not a citizen of the country or when
there is no cross-border employment agreement in place, such as in the European Union.
Some governments may require specific education credentials from candidates in order to
secure this visa. Some schools may require an advanced degree in leadership.
An alternative form of certification has been created specifically for international
schools. The PTC was created by a former head of school to help people get training
more relevant to the role of a principal in an international school than that provided by
programs from universities in national systems. It was seen that university programs
primarily focused on preparation for administrative positions in their own national
education systems (Jahr, 2014; PTC, 2012). The PTC offers a variety of weeklong
courses that are taught by current and former international school administrators in
London and Miami during June and July each year. Upon successful completion of four
courses chosen from four separate categories, a Certificate of International School
Leadership is awarded. With the successful completion of four more courses, an
Advanced Certificate of International School Leadership is awarded. Many international
schools now accept these qualifications as relevant training for the role of division
principal (Stucker, 2012).
In discussions with employees of the major recruitment agencies, A. Fowles
(personal communication, February 14, 2013), the head of an international school in
Malaysia, and H. Lyso (personal communication, February 23, 2013), the former head of
an international school in South Korea and consultant for ISS, the consensus was there

29

was a larger overall number of applicants but a smaller percentage of high-quality
applicants for division principal openings. The research findings of Harris (2013)
confirmed this finding. Similar to the pattern in some of the examples of national
principal recruitment, P. DeMinico (personal communication, February 8, 2013) of ISS
and P. Mott (personal communication, February 8, 2013) highlighted there are few
minority and female applicants for these positions. Given these factors, the logical
conclusion is that with the ever-increasing number of international school openings each
year, there will be a greater demand on this candidate pool, which will be proportionally
smaller into the future.
In a discussion with the researcher focusing on recent trends in international
schools, P. Mott (personal communication, February 8, 2013) stressed that institutional
loyalty appears to be a diminishing factor in international school employment. Teachers
and school administrators are no longer imagining themselves staying in one place for an
extended period, leading to “a certain restlessness” among international school educators.
This lack of institutional loyalty is a topic to consider when further researching
international school division principal recruitment from the perspective of both
candidates and the heads of schools conducting the recruiting. This concept of
restlessness was given the term wanderlust in Mancuso’s (2010) research on teacher
recruitment and retention and was further discussed in Cox’s (2012) research findings
related to teacher recruitment in international schools.
When searching for international school employment, most educators tend to
select a country as well as a specific school. According to Chandler (2010), the same is
true in reverse when leaving a school with educators often actively choosing to leave a
country. The location of the school is as much a part of the decision to take a job as it is

30

to leave it, and it is reasonable to assume this factor is common for division principals
and teachers in international schools.
School administrators must prepare for this variable when recruiting principal
candidates. Heads of schools must determine what is attractive about their school and
what is not. Heads of schools are in competition with each other over the same candidates
and they must be able to attract, and hopefully retain, recruits for as long as possible.
Hardman (2001) concluded that 3 years was the minimum period needed for teachers to
implement change successfully in an international school and can be reasonably assumed
this would also be the absolute minimum needed for a principal.
Research Questions
The research questions were adapted from Cox’s (2012) study, which focused on
teacher recruitment in the international school setting. The researcher was given written
permission from Cox to use his research questions and adapt accordingly for the current
research study. The current research study differed in that the focus was on international
school division principal recruitment and the time frame focused on the initial stages of
recruitment only, rather than the initial and final stages of recruitment. The research study
also explored the career paths of the international school division principal candidates,
which was an adaption from the research study of Mott (2011). The researcher was given
written permission from Mott to use his research questions in this research study as well.
As the current study only focused on the candidates’ responses at the beginning of the
recruitment process, the number of research questions was reduced from seven to four
and revised to focus on division principals instead of teachers or heads of American
overseas schools. The research questions were as follows:
1. What factors impact international school division principal candidate

31

perceptions of school and job variables?
2. What is the relationship between the perceptions of international school
division principal candidates regarding these factors and total administrative experience?
division principal candidates regarding these underlying factors and international
administrative experience?
4. What is the most common career path for international school division
principal candidates?
Summary
This chapter presented a review of research findings relating to division principal
recruitment in the national school settings of England, Australia, Singapore, Germany,
and New Zealand, as well as in the international school setting. A common finding of
research studies was that the pool of high-quality applicants was inadequate to meet the
current and projected demand for division principals in both national and international
school settings. Researchers varied in identifying the reason for this shortage. Some
concluded there was an insufficient number of qualified candidates and others that
insufficient qualified candidates were actually applying for the positions when they
became available. The research questions guiding this research study were provided. Due
to the limited number of peer-reviewed reference sources available related to this topic,
personal communications between the researcher and experienced professionals in the
international school community and international school recruitment industry were used.

32

Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
The intent of this research study was to add to the research regarding division
principal recruitment in international school settings by adapting previous research
studies that related to teacher recruitment in international schools and heads of American
overseas schools (Cox, 2012; Mott, 2011). This chapter will provide a description of the
participants involved in the research study, as well as the survey instrument the
researcher used to collect their responses, the procedures for its use, the data analysis
methods used to analyze participant responses, and the possible limitations of the study.
Participants
The target population for this research study was candidates applying for division
principal vacancies in international schools during the 2015-2016 recruitment cycle. The
sample used division principal candidates that responded to the survey request sent out by
members of the recruitment agencies and the PTC on the researcher’s behalf who were in
the databases of the major international school recruitment agencies (Search Associates;
ISS; CIS; and Carney, Sandoe and Associates), as well as past participants of the PTC
who were actively searching for division principal positions during this period.
Recruitment agencies organize recruitment fairs where school administrators can
meet and interview prospective employees. There are often heads of schools interviewing
people for division principal openings in these fairs. The schedules and locations for the
recruitment fairs offered by Search Associates, ISS, and CIS during the 2015-2016
recruitment cycle are listed in Table 1. Most of the locations listed represented only one
recruitment fair. Where a number is given in parentheses after the location, this
represents the number of recruitment fairs hosted by the company in that location but at

33

different times during the year. The information in Table 1 is provided to show the
typical recruitment cycle followed by heads of international schools to fill vacancies in
their schools and does not represent data collection opportunities for this research study.
Table 1
Recruiting Fair Information, 2015-2016
_____________________________________________________________________________
Agency
No. of
Fairs Fair locations Fair season
_____________________________________________________________________________
Council of International Schools 1 London, UK January
International Schools Services 4 Atlanta, USA
December-
January
Doha, Qatar
Bangkok, Thailand
Seattle, USA
Search Associates 13
Cape Town, South
Africa November-April
Melbourne, Australia
Bangkok, Thailand (3)
Hong Kong, China
London, UK (2)
Toronto, Canada
Cambridge, USA
Bogota, Colombia
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
_____________________________________________________________________________
Note. Number in parentheses after the location represents number of recruitment fairs hosted by the
company in that location but at different times during the year; UK = United Kingdom; USA = United
States of America.
Other respondents included educators who participated in PTC courses in Miami
and London and were members of the PTConnection online network. As PTC courses are
created for current and aspiring international school principals, these participants were
ideal research subjects due to their interest in division principal positions within

34

international schools (PTC, 2012).
The sample population included both male and female participants. A voluntary
sampling method was used in the research study because potential participants self-
selected as to whether they participated in the survey (Stattrek, 2014). This replicated the
data collection process Cox (2012) used in his research study but was modified to add
potential respondents from Carney, Sandoe, and Associates and the PTC; additions
suggested to the researcher by D. Cox (personal communication, November 20, 2012) in
a conversation the researcher had with him on how to modify his research study for
division principal candidates instead of teacher candidates in international school
settings. The estimated sample size in Cox’s study was 3,428 potential respondents, with
the total number of actual respondents 1,543. The total number of potential respondents
to the current research study was less, as there were fewer candidates looking for division
principal positions than there were for teaching positions in international schools (D.
Cox, personal communication, November 20, 2012; G. Hayden, personal communication,
February 9, 2013; P. DeMinico, personal communication, February 8, 2013; A. Charles,
personal communication, February 11, 2013).
A conservative estimate for potential respondents to the research study would be
25% of the number of Cox’s potential respondents. This would equal 857 potential
respondents. If a similar response rate to Cox’s research followed, this would be equal to
approximately 385 respondents. In the end, the researcher received 281 responses to the
survey instrument.
Instruments
The research study used an online survey instrument, called the International
Principal Recruitment Survey (IPRS) to collect data from the sample candidates. This

35

survey was a modified version of the International Teacher Recruitment Survey (ITRS)
used in Cox’s (2012) research study on teacher recruitment, with the addition of career
path questions taken from Mott’s (2011) Characteristics and Career Paths Inventory
(CCPI). The researcher received written approval to use both Cox’s and Mott’s survey
instruments. The modifications made for this research study related to the focus being on
division principal candidates in the international school setting rather than teachers (Cox,
2012) or heads of overseas American schools (Mott, 2011). Responses were collected
through the online survey instrument SurveyMonkey, which provided a link to the online
survey instrument that was e-mailed to potential respondents by members of the
recruitment agencies and the PTC on the researcher’s behalf. The respondents’ responses
were analyzed based on two dimensions of experience: total administrative experience
and overseas administrative experience. The sample included those participants who
completed all elements of the survey (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996).
The IPRS was divided into four sections that collected different categories of
data. The first three sections were adapted directly from the ITRS (Cox, 2012). The first
category collected demographic information including gender, marital status, age, highest
academic degree, overall administrative experience, overseas administrative experience,
and nationality. Cox’s (2012) findings using these variables were shown to be helpful in
better understanding the decision making of each group. This was important information
for heads of school when reviewing candidates for openings in their schools and was
identified to increase the probability of success in their recruitment efforts. Based on
Cox’s findings, it was assumed this information would also be important in the
recruitment of division principals.
The second category collected data using a 5-point Likert-type scale focusing on

36

the characteristic of wanderlust. These questions determined the relative importance of
travel opportunities, cultural enrichment, and working with international students. The
third category also used a 5-point Likert-type scale that focused on the importance of
school and job variables including salary, benefits, work conditions, job security, safety,
and school location.
Each of the first 3 categories were adapted from Cox’s (2012) ITRS survey
instrument, which was adapted from Mancuso’s (2010) International Teacher Mobility
Survey (ITMS). Mancuso adapted the ITMS from the National Center for Educational
Statistics’ Schools and Staffing Survey and Teacher Follow-up Survey (Mancuso et al.,
2010). Each of these survey instruments had been tested thoroughly for their validity and
reliability (Cox, 2012). Adaptations made to the survey questions (see Appendix A) on
the IPRS from the ITRS were in response to the focus of the current research study being
division principal candidates in international school settings rather than teachers in
international school settings.
The fourth category was adapted from Mott’s (2011) CCPI (see Appendix B),
which was designed to examine the topic of the career path of candidates. The CCPI’s
validity and reliability was based upon its alignment with survey instruments used in
previous studies (Brewitt, 1993; Glass & Franceschini, 2007; Hawley, 1991; Vogel,
1992). To further test its validity Mott used a test-retest data collection process with two
separate pilot groups. The survey questions used on the IPRS are in Appendix C.
The researcher field-tested the IPRS with several colleagues to gather feedback on
the survey instrument. The researcher created the survey using the SurveyMonkey
website and then sent the link for the survey to 10 colleagues who held leadership
positions within the international school in which he was currently employed, asking

37

them to complete it and then give any comments or suggestions for improvements to him.
The feedback received was positive. The researcher was initially concerned the overall
length of the survey instrument might be too long, but the respondents to the field-test
reported it took them approximately 15 minutes to complete and that it was “very click
friendly” (R. Rehfeldt, personal communication, December 14, 2014).
One area for improvement mentioned was around the wording for some of the
questions. One question combined potential recognition and support from the head of
school but it was noted that these two were not synonymous with each other, so they
might need to be separated into two different questions. There were two questions about
safety, with one related to the expected safety of the environment and the other the
expected personal security and safety of the host country. It was noted these were very
similar and might not need to be given as two separate questions. Although the researcher
agreed that both of these observations were valid points, he had taken the questions
directly from the survey instrument used by Cox (2012) and did not change the questions
beyond the main focus (i.e., division principal positions instead of teaching positions) to
limit any potential negative effect on the instrument.
Procedures
Design. The design of the research study was based on a correlational approach
with an explanatory design. This provided the researcher with the ability to measure the
extent to which two or more variables covaried (Creswell, 2008). This design was
appropriate for this research study because the purpose of this research study was to
investigate the relationship of the variables of overall administrative experience and
international administrative experience to the respondents’ answers for the school-
specific, job-specific, and career path variables in order to determine causal relationships.

38

In the research design, a link to an online survey conducted by the researcher
using SurveyMonkey was sent via e-mail to potential participants from the major
recruitment agencies and the registered PTC participants in the autumn of 2015. Personal
information about respondents was confidential and secure because SurveyMonkey
allows the creator of the survey to choose not to show the respondents’ details, such as e-
mail address, name, or other identifying information. Survey research is valuable due to
the ability of a researcher to use data collected from it to express the principles of
correlational research, as well as providing people’s thoughts, opinions, and feelings
accurately and efficiently (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Zechmeister, 2002).
This design was adapted from the design used in Cox’s (2012) study, which
surveyed teacher candidates of the three main recruitment agencies (Search Associates,
ISS, and CIS) international schools. The adaptations made were to send the survey
instrument to potential respondents in these three recruitment agencies, as well as a fourth
recruitment agency, Carney, Sandoe, and Associates, and past participants of the PTC. D.
Cox (personal communication, November 20, 2012) recommended these changes to the
researcher in discussions on how best to expand the initial research study for the different
population. Instead of focusing on teacher candidates in each of these organizations, this
research study focused on division principal candidates by changing the wording of the
survey questions to reflect this focus.
Another adaptation was that the researcher collected data from potential
respondents once, whereas Cox (2012) collected data over two separate periods. This
change was made based on the conclusion by Cox that during his research the additional
round of data collection was unnecessary, as it did not give any added value, and he
suggested that it be eliminated in future research (D. Cox, personal communication,

39

November 20, 2012).
The final adaptation was the addition of Mott’s (2011) CCPI to the survey
instrument. The researcher believed that data from this instrument would be valuable as it
permitted heads of schools to compare the relationship between the career paths taken by
respondents and their responses to the questions in the survey. The resultant
discrepancies would inform the research study with regard to the candidate pool when
selecting a new division principal for their school. Analyzing the trends in the findings of
this section of the research study also would allow future international school division
principal candidates to compare their own career paths in order to determine their
competitiveness in the marketplace.
Cox (2012) received a response rate of 45% to his initial survey administration
from the estimated sample size of 3,428 potential respondents. Because some candidates
registered with more than one recruitment agency, as well as registering for PTC courses,
potential respondents could receive more than one survey. In order to limit multiple
responses, the researcher requested prospective respondents at the beginning of the IPRS
to complete the survey no more than once, regardless of how many times they received it.
SurveyMonkey has an option that limits the number of times a person using an Internet
Protocol (IP) address can respond, helping to ensure this requirement. This coincided
with the process used for administering the ITRS (Cox, 2012).
A cover letter was provided to potential participants in the e-mail explaining the
purpose of the research study and how the results would be used. Participation was
voluntary and anonymous and candidates were able to stop participating at any time. The
research study followed all accepted procedures and expectations for human-subject
research required by Nova Southeastern University.

40

Data analysis. The data from each respondent were analyzed based on total
administrative experience, overseas administrative experience, and the career path taken.
Replicating the work of Cox (2012), the researcher separated respondents into two
groups: those with 5 or fewer years of international schools experience and those with
more than 5 years of international schools experience. The researcher conducted two
MANOVA tests with an alpha level set at .05 in order to establish any differences
between total administrative experience and international school administrative
experience in relation to the responses given in the IPRS. The researcher then conducted
an ANOVA test to identify which factors accounted for the most significant differences
and, finally, Cohen’s d was used to calculate effect size from these results (Cox, 2012).
Limitations
Mott’s (2011) study compared his survey results to previous surveys completed
almost 20 years earlier by Brewitt (1993) and Vogel (1992). Mott’s research focused on
heads of American-sponsored overseas schools and, consequently, this study did not
produce directly comparable results. Therefore, it was not possible to use the two-sample
z-test to compare the results with those found in Mott’s original research results.
A further limitation was that the potential respondents from the four recruitment
agencies (ISS; Search Associates; CIS; and Carney, Sandoe, and Associates), as well as
the participants in the PTC courses, did not include every possible candidate for
international school division principal positions. It was possible for candidates to learn
about openings in a variety of ways, including viewing individual schools’ websites,
other recruitment agencies, or through word of mouth. Due to these factors, collecting
data from the entire potential population was not practical, but the sample was relatively
large and highly representative.

41

Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
This chapter provides the detailed results of the survey that was administered to
potential division principal candidates for job openings in international schools. The
statistical analysis of the survey responses was completed using statistical software to
answer the following questions:
1. What factors impact international school division principal candidate
perceptions of school and job variables?
division principal candidates regarding these factors and total administrative experience?
division principal candidates regarding these underlying factors and international
administrative experience?
4. What is the most common career path for international school division
principal candidates?
Findings for each question are reviewed. Displays of the results, in the form of
tables, are provided and quantitative findings are reported. The chapter ends with a brief
conclusion of the reported findings.
Research Question 1
The first research question was designed to explore the factors that impacted
international school division principal candidate perceptions related to their schools and
jobs. Cox (2012) used a principal component analysis with Varimax rotation to identify
seven underlying factors among the Likert-type variables in the survey: relationship with
school leadership, external work conditions, professional satisfaction, personal well-

42

being, professional growth, compensation and career advancement, and wanderlust.
However, the current study utilized a slightly expanded version of the survey used by
Cox. Specifically, additional questions asked respondents to indicate the level of
importance of having opportunities for increased travel and cultural exposure in both
work and family life. The addition of these eight questions, as well as the difference in
populations between Cox’s study (teachers) and the current study (school leaders),
prompted the need to run an exploratory factor analysis to discover the underlying factors
among the survey items.
SPSS, Version 22, was used to conduct the factor analysis, which utilized
principal component method with a Varimax rotation. Principal component method
results in the uncovering of the greatest amount of variability between items, which
allows for ease in the interpretation of underlying factors. Furthermore, because total
correlation between all extracted factors could not be expected, the orthogonal Varimax
rotation method was selected, as an oblique rotation such as Promax assumes correlation
among every factor (Rencher, 2002). Prior to interpreting the variable groupings from the
factor analysis, the appropriateness of the analysis with this data set was examined via the
results of the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measure for sampling adequacy. According to Schwab
(2007), the test’s value of .84 indicates a solid level of acceptability in interpreting the
results of the factor analysis.
The standard for defining a grouping of variables as a factor was through the
examination of a scree plot and eigenvalues (Rencher, 2002). An eigenvalue represents
the variance of a factor (Institute for Digital Research and Education, 2016), while the
scree plot is a visual representation of these eigenvalues. Only the extracted components
with an eigenvalue greater than 1 would be interpreted as a factor. An eigenvalue of 1 is

43

equivalent to the variability explained by a single survey item (Rencher, 2002) and
therefore does not represent the creation of a factor or group of items. Additionally,
factors should be clearly interpretable from a conceptual perspective and typically have at
least three variables to be considered desirable (Yong & Pearce, 2013)
Using these standards, nine factors were created and retained. An additional two
factors were initially created with eigenvalues greater than 1; however, they were
dropped for not meeting other criteria for the retention of variables. The item for
perceived professional prestige loaded onto its own factor, which was well below the
recommendation of a minimum of three variables. Furthermore, the items of (a) job
description or responsibilities and (b) desire to share Western-style education with the
people of other countries loaded onto their own factor, but the recommendation of clear
interpretation from a conceptual perspective could not be followed. The factor analysis
results regarding these items will be presented within this section; however, results for
subsequent research questions will not involve these two additional factors.
Table 2 presents the eigenvalues and percentage of variance explained for each
factor. The factors, in descending order of strength of influence, were (a) cultural/travel
expectations, (b) work conditions, (c) school leadership and practices, (d)
accomplishment, (e) professional development, (f) school demographics, (g) school
environmental factors, (h) personal and family benefits, (i) monetary benefits, (j)
prestige, and (k) other. Across all 11 factors, 66.5% of the variability in responses could
be explained. Among the nine retained factors, all except prestige and other, 61.5% of the
variability in responses, could be explained. The greatest amount of variability in
responses could be explained by the cultural/travel expectations factor (21.6%), while the
smallest amount of variability in responses among retained factors could be explained by

44

the monetary benefits factor (2.9%).
Table 2
Eigenvalues and Variance Explained by Factors
________________________________________________________________________
Factor Eigenvalue
% Variance
explained
Cumulative %
variance
explained
________________________________________________________________________
Cultural/travel expectations 9.06 21.6 21.6
Work conditions 3.68 8.8 30.3
School leadership and practices 2.60 6.2 36.5
Accomplishment 2.40 5.7 42.2
Professional development 2.15 5.1 47.4
School demographics 1.81 4.3 51.7
School environmental factors 1.57 3.7 55.4
Personal and family benefits 1.37 3.3 58.6
Monetary benefits 1.21 2.9 61.5
Prestige 1.10 2.6 64.1
Other 1.01 2.4 66.5
________________________________________________________________________
Appendix D contains the rotated component matrix with the factor loadings of
each item. These factor loadings represent the strength of correlation of each item with
the factor; for example, the item of “travel opportunities for myself and my family” had a
factor loading of .81, which represented a stronger loading than that of the item for
“desire to work/live in different cultures often supersedes other reasons to move from one
school to another,” which had a factor loading of .68. A minimum loading of .40 had to
be reached to appear on a factor at all (Yong & Pearce, 2013); therefore, the school
facilities item, with a loading of .39 on Factor 11, did not appear at all. Several instances

45

of cross loading occurred, in which an item yielded a correlation of at least .40 with more
than one factor. In most cases, the stronger correlation determined the final factor of
association; however, the interpretability of the loading also factored into the decision.
The first factor was cultural/travel expectations. Five items loaded onto this
factor. From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “travel opportunities for
myself and my family,” (b) “anticipated opportunities for travel and cultural exploration,”
(c) “desire to experience as many cultures and countries as possible in my career,” (d)
“cultural enrichment for myself and my family,” and (e) “desire to work/live in different
cultures supersedes other reasons to move from one school to another.” The highest
factor loading was .81 and the lowest was .68.
The second factor was work conditions. Six items loaded onto this factor. From
strongest to weakest loading, these were (a) “expected manageability of workload,” (b)
“expected general work conditions,” (c) “expected ability to balance personal life and
work,” (d) “anticipated availability of resources and materials/equipment for doing job,”
(e) “expected job security,” and (f) “expected procedures for performance evaluation.”
The last item cross loaded with the 11th factor, other, but was retained within the second
factor due to more logical interpretation. The highest factor loading was .73, and the
lowest was .42.
The third factor was school leadership and practices. Eight items loaded onto this
factor. From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “the way the head of
school communicates respect for the value of division principals,” (b) “expected support
from head of school,” (c) “perception of the way things are run at the school,” (d)
“anticipated autonomy over my division of the school,” (e) “expected autonomy or
control over your own work,” (f) “expected influence over workplace policies and

46

practices,” (g) “potential recognition and support from head of school,” and (h) “desire to
work in a school with a more international student body.” Two of the variables,
“expected autonomy or control over your own work” and “potential recognition and
support from head of school,” cross loaded onto other factors but were retained within
this factor due to more logical interpretation and strength of loading. The highest factor
loading was .67, and the lowest factor loading was .43.
The fourth factor was accomplishment. Three items loaded onto this factor. From
strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “expected sense of personal
accomplishment,” (b) “anticipated intellectual challenge,” and (c) “expected opportunity
to make a difference in the lives of others.” The highest factor loading was .84, and the
lowest factor loading was .76.
The fifth factor was professional development. Four items loaded onto this factor.
From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “opportunities for learning from
colleagues,” (b) “expected opportunities for professional development,” (c) “potential
social relationships with colleagues,” and (d) “opportunities for professional
advancement or promotion.” The highest factor loading ranged was .81, and the lowest
factor loading was .41.
The sixth factor was school demographics. Four items loaded onto this factor.
From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) size of school, (b) type of school
(nonprofit, proprietary, company-sponsored, etc.), (c) curriculum offered (i.e., American,
IB, AP, etc.), and (d) reputation of school. The highest factor loading ranged was.78, and
the lowest factor loading was .63.
The seventh factor was school environmental factors. Three items loaded onto this
factor. From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “expected personal

47

security and safety in the host country,” (b) “expected safety of environment,” and (c)
“school location.” The highest factor loading ranged was .78, and the lowest factor
loading was .64.
The eighth factor was personal and family benefits. Three items loaded onto this
factor. From strongest to weakest loading, these items were (a) “desire to have a better
education for my children,” (b) “desire to pursue better professional opportunities than
are available in my country of origin,” and (c) “employment for partner.” The highest
factor loading ranged was .78, and the lowest factor loading was .65.
The ninth factor was monetary benefits. Although only two variables were
included, it was considered a viable factor due to its usefulness in content. The two items
that loaded onto it were (a) salary, with a factor loading of .84, and (b) benefits (e.g.,
health insurance, retirement plan), with a factor loading of .77.
The 10th factor only consisted of a single item, “perceived personal prestige,”
with a loading of .72. The final factor, known as other due to its lack of cohesiveness,
contained the items (a) “desire to share Western-style education,” with a factor loading of
.60, and (b) “job description or responsibilities,” with a factor loading of .53. One final
item, school facilities, did not achieve a factor loading of at least .40 with any factor and
was therefore unassociated.
Research Question 2
The second research question explored the relationship between perceptions of
international school division principal candidates, as measured by the retained factors
from Research Question 1, and the total amount of administrative experience earned by
these individuals. A one-way MANOVA was utilized to explore this research question.
The nine retained factors from Research Question 1 served as the dependent variables.

48

IPRS Question 6, to which respondents provided their amounts of administrative
experience, served as the independent variable.
Standardization occurred in the creation of the dependent variables. Each factor
variable consisted of differing numbers of items, so adding the item values and dividing
by the number of items created the factor. By utilizing this approach, each survey
question’s value was equally weighted and averages for the factors could be compared on
the same scale, where 1 represented not at all important, 2 represented slightly important,
3 represented somewhat important, 4 represented very important, and 5 represented
extremely important. This approach created a good level of understandability in the
interpretation. In staying consistent with Cox’s (2012) research, the independent variable
representing amount of administrative experience was categorized into two groups
consisting of respondents who had (a) 5 or fewer total years of administrative experience
and (b) over 5 total years of administrative experience. All tests were conducted at the α
= .05 level of statistical significance.
Prior to interpretation of the MANOVA results, critical assumptions were
checked. First, correlations between dependent variables were calculated for any signs of
multicollinearity. These correlations should remain below a value of r = .90 (Verma,
2015). Correlations between factors are provided in Table 3. The correlations ranged
from a low of .01 to a high of .57, so none were particularly strong. Box’s test checks for
equality of covariance matrices (Rencher, 2002). Box’s test, F(45, 31,196) = 1.17, p =
.20, was not statistically significant, which indicated the assumption was not violated.
Equality of error variances for each of the nine individual factors was checked as well
through Levene’s test (Verma, 2015); results are presented in Table 4. None of the tests
were statistically significant at α = .05, so there was no indication of this assumption

49

being violated.
Table 3
Correlations of Factors for Research Questions 2 and 3
____________________________________________________________________
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
____________________________________________________________________
1. Cultural/travel expectations
2. Work conditions .24
3. School leadership and
practices .12 .57
4. Accomplishment .08 .29 .46
5. Professional development .23 .47 .50 .35
6. School demographics .13 .35 .35 .11 .30
7. School environmental factors .31 .45 .24 .14 .18 .33
8. Personal and family benefits .12 .21 .19 -.02 .30 .29 .09
9. Monetary benefits .20 .30 .17 .01 .21 .10 .31 .07
____________________________________________________________________
Table 4
Levene’s Test Results for Research Question 2
____________________________________________________
Factor F p
____________________________________________________
Cultural/travel expectations 0.04 .85
Work conditions 0.71 .40
School leadership and practices 0.21 .65
Accomplishment 0.30 .58
Professional development 0.24 .63
School demographics 0.01 .94
School environmental factors 0.33 .57
Personal and family benefits 0.93 .34
Monetary benefits 0.91 .34
____________________________________________________
Note. df1 = 1, df2 = 279 for all tests.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The first portion of the MANOVA run in SPSS indicated the presence of any

50

multivariate significance. Of the indicators generated by the test, Wilks’ Lambda was
selected due to its appropriateness with two independent groups (Verma, 2015). The test,
Wilks’ λ = 0.97, F(9, 271) = 1.03, p = .42, did not indicate statistical significance. The
amount of total administrative experience did not indicate significantly different
behaviors within the factors.
One-way ANOVA tests were run for each factor to verify the lack of significant
statistical differences between the two groups. The results of these tests are shown in
Table 5. The table also presents values for Cohen’s d, which is a measure of effect size.
The greatest effect size was .23, which was not large by Cohen’s (1988) standards, but
could yield greater interest in the magnitudes of the factors of cultural/travel expectations
and accomplishment as compared to school environmental factors and school leadership
practices, which had very small effect size values.
Table 5
One-Way ANOVA and Cohen’s d Results for Research Question 2
______________________________________________________________________
Factor F p d
______________________________________________________________________
Cultural/travel expectations 2.34 .13 -.23
Work conditions 1.12 .29 -.16
School leadership and practices 0.02 .88 .02
Accomplishment 2.09 .15 .23
Professional development 1.53 .22 -.19
School demographics 0.11 .74 .05
School environmental factors 0.01 .94 .01
Personal and family benefits 0.50 .48 -.11
Monetary benefits 0.11 .74 -.05
______________________________________________________________________
Note. df = 1 for all tests.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Although statistical significance was not found, basic descriptive results can be

51

presented. Personal and family benefits were rated the least important for the 5 years or
fewer group (M = 3.23, SD = 1.03) and the more than 5 years group, which valued them
even less (M = 3.12, SD = 1.13). On the other end of the spectrum, respondents in the 5
years or fewer group valued accomplishment the most (M = 4.19, SD = 0.56), as did the
more than 5 years group (M = 4.33, SD = 0.67), which valued the concept even greater.
All means fell below 3 (somewhat important) and 4 (very important), with the exception
of accomplishment. However, as stated earlier, none of these differences were
statistically significant. All of the means and standard deviations, as well as the values for
Cohen’s d, are shown for each factor in Table 6.
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations for Factors by Years of Total Administrative Experience
______________________________________________________________________________
< 5 years’ experience
(n = 54)
_________________
> 5 years’ experience
(n = 227)
_________________
Factor M SD M SD
______________________________________________________________________________
Cultural/travel expectations 3.49 0.84 3.29 0.83
Work conditions 3.67 0.65 3.56 0.70
School leadership and practices 3.93 0.51 3.95 0.58
Accomplishment 4.19 0.56 4.33 0.67
Professional development 3.78 0.60 3.65 0.68
School demographics 3.39 0.77 3.43 0.76
School environmental factors 3.82 0.78 3.83 0.76
Personal and family benefits 3.23 1.03 3.12 1.13
Monetary benefits 3.84 0.80 3.81 0.70
______________________________________________________________________________
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was analyzed using a one-way MANOVA, in which the nine
factors identified in Research Question 1 served as the dependent variables, and Survey
Question 7 in the demographics section of the IPRS (“How many total years of overseas

52

administrative experience do you have?”) was used to create the independent variable.
The interdependent variable was constructed in the same fashion as in Research Question
2 (5 or fewer years versus more than 5 years) but using the overseas specific question
instead. All tests were conducted at the α = .05 level of significance.
As in Research Question 2, assumptions were first run to ensure the
appropriateness of the test. The correlation of the dependent variables, displayed in Table
3, was checked in the Research Question 2 analysis, and because this had nothing to do
with the independent variable, this check did not have to be rerun for Research Question
3. Box’s test checked for equality of covariance matrices, with F(45, 253,571) = 1.14, p =
.25 was not statistically significant, which indicated the assumption was not violated. The
equality of error variances for each of the nine individual factors was checked as well,
with the results shown in Table 7. None of the tests were statistically significant at α =
.05, so there was no indication of this assumption being violated either.
Table 7
Levene’s Test Results for Research Question 3
_____________________________________________________________
Factor F p
_____________________________________________________________
Cultural/travel expectations 0.14 .71
Work conditions 0.41 .52
School leadership and practices 0.35 .56
Accomplishment 2.25 .14
Professional development 2.55 .11
School demographics 1.54 .22
School environmental factors 0.01 .93
Personal and family benefits 0.39 .54
Monetary benefits 1.55 .21
_____________________________________________________________
Note. df1 = 1, df2 = 279 for all tests.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The MANOVA first tested for multivariate significance. Wilks’ Lambda was used

53

as the selected multivariate test again because only two groups were being compared.
This time a statistically significant difference, Wilks’ λ = 0.88, F(9, 271) = 3.97, p <
.001, was indicated, showing the amount of total overseas administrative experience did
indicate significantly different behaviors within the factors.
Because statistical significance was found in the multivariate test, individual
between-subject tests were run for each factor. The results of these tests are shown in
Table 8. Interpretations of these results work best when coupled with the means shown in
Table 9.
Table 8
One-Way ANOVA and Cohen’s d Results for Question 3
__________________________________________________________
Factor F p d
__________________________________________________________
Cultural/travel expectations 11.43 .001** -.40
Work conditions 0.83 .36 -.11
School leadership and practices 4.12 .04* .24
Accomplishment 3.49 .06 .22
Professional development 0.36 .55 .07
School demographics 2.92 .09 .20
School environmental factors 0.34 .56 -.07
Personal and family benefits 5.28 .02** .27
Monetary benefits 0.12 .73 .04
__________________________________________________________
Note. df = 1 for all tests.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Means differed significantly between the two groups for three dependent
variables. First, respondents with less overseas administrative experience placed higher
expectations in travel and culture more (M = 3.50, SD = 0.84) than did those with greater

54

overseas administrative experience (M = 3.17, SD = 0.80). Second, respondents with
greater overseas administrative experience placed greater value upon school leadership
and practices (M = 4.01, SD = 0.53) than did those with less overseas administrative
experience (M = 3.87, SD = 0.59). Finally, respondents with greater overseas
administrative experience valued personal and family benefits to a greater extent (M =
3.29, SD = 1.08) than did those with less overseas administrative experience (M = 2.98,
SD = 1.13).
Table 9
Means and Standard Deviations for Factors by Years of Overseas
Administrative Experience
_______________________________________________________________________
< 5 years experience
(n = 54)
________________
> 5 years experience
(n = 227)
________________
Factor M SD M SD
_______________________________________________________________________
Cultural/travel expectations 3.50 0.84 3.17 0.80
Work conditions 3.62 0.67 3.54 0.72
School leadership and practices 3.87 0.59 4.01 0.53
Accomplishment 4.23 0.70 4.37 0.59
Professional development 3.65 0.63 3.70 0.70
School demographics 3.34 0.79 3.49 0.73
School environmental factors 3.86 0.75 3.80 0.78
Personal and family benefits 2.98 1.13 3.29 1.08
Monetary benefits 3.80 0.76 3.83 0.69
_______________________________________________________________________
As with Research Question 2, accomplishment provided both the highest means
and the only ones that exceeded 4 (very important). Personal and family benefits
provided the lowest means. Almost all factors were between 3 (somewhat important) and

55

4 (very important). In terms of effect sizes, cultural/travel expectations indicated a
moderate one, with an effect size of d = .40, which was notably higher than those of the
other factors. Again, school environmental factors showed indications of not being
valued particularly differently by either group, with an effect size of d = -.07.
Research Question 4
This research question was addressed by examining basic trends among all of the
demographic questions in the IPRS. Each question will be discussed individually.
Age. Respondents were asked to provide their current age, as well as the age at
which they achieved three different professional milestones: becoming a full-time
educator, becoming an administrator, and becoming a division principal. The latter two
milestones were not applicable to all respondents, so the percentages were calculated out
of all applicable respondents. The results for this question are shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Frequencies for Respondent Ages at Each Major Professional Milestone
______________________________________________________________________________________
Years of age
_____________________________________________________________
< 25
_________
25-35
________
36-45
_______
46-55
_______
56-65
________
65+
______
Milestone N No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
______________________________________________________________________________________
Current 281 0 0.0 11 3.9 96 34.2 126 44.8 44 15.7 4 1.4
Became educator 281 172 61.2 99 35.2 7 2.5 3 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0
Became administrator 278 9 3.2 150 54.0 94 33.8 22 7.9 3 1.1 0 0.0
Became division
principal 222 1 0.5 66 29.7 112 50.5 36 16.2 7 3.2 0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________________________
Years of experience. Respondents were asked to provide the number of years of
employment experience they had in a variety of categories. Because responses were
open-ended and not in explicitly defined categories, exact means and standard deviations

56

could be calculated. Values of zero were provided for respondents who did not hold the
position. The results of this question are shown in Table 11.
Table 11
Mean Years of Employment by Job Category (N = 281)
_________________________________________________________________
Employment category M SD Min Max
_________________________________________________________________
Total overseas education 11.6 9.0 0 40
Administrative 11.5 7.2 0 43
Overseas administrative 6.9 6.3 0 38
Division principal 5.7 6.0 0 33
Overseas division principal 3.5 4.5 0 29
_________________________________________________________________
Nationality. Respondents provided their country of citizenship. Most provided a
single country but some respondents were dual citizens. Eighty-four percent of
respondents were from the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, or New Zealand. The total
breakdown of nationalities is shown in Table 12.
Table 12
Frequencies for Country of Citizenship (N = 281)
________________________________________________
Nationality No. %
________________________________________________
American 141 50.2
British/UK 44 15.7
Canadian 31 11.0
Australian 20 7.1
New Zealand 10 3.6
South African 6 2.1
Other 18 6.4
Dual citizenship 11 3.9
________________________________________________
Gender and ethnicity. Gender results were clear, with the majority being male.

57

In total, 56.9% of the respondents were male, and 43.1% were female. For ethnicity,
respondents had a free response box in which to provide their ethnic background. Some
suggestions were given (e.g., European, African, etc.) but some data cleanup and
categorization had to take place in order to yield any sort of usable results. A number of
respondents gave ethnic backgrounds of American or Canadian, which are more
traditionally recognized as nationalities rather than ethnicities (with the exception of
Native American or First Nations people). These responses were grouped to avoid
confusion with the other category, which addressed multiracial respondents. The majority
of respondents (79.5%) who provided an answer to this question identified as White,
European, or Caucasian. The results for the question regarding gender and ethnicity are
shown in Table 13.
Table 13
Frequencies for Gender and Ethnicity
__________________________________________________
Category No. %
__________________________________________________
Gender (N = 281)
Male 160 56.9
Female 121 43.1
__________________________________________________
Ethnicity (N = 278)
White/European/
Caucasian 221 79.5
African/Black 10 3.6
Asian 10 3.6
Hispanic/Latino 11 4.0
American/Canadian 15 5.4
Other 11 4.0
__________________________________________________
Employment seeking behavior. Almost half (45.9%) of respondents expressed

58

that their partner would be seeking employment at the same school, while a similar
percentage of respondents (47%) noted they would have dependent children coming with
them to their new place of employment. The same percentage of respondents (47.0%)
expressed having a specific region of interest they would target in their job search, which
they were allowed to then specify up to two regions in their response. Of the 132
respondents who noted having a specific region of interest, over half were most interested
in working in either Europe (60.6%) and or in the Asia-Pacific region (53.8%). Africa
(9.1%) was the region in which respondents were the least interested in working. The
results of this survey question are shown in Table 14.
Table 14
Frequencies for Employment-Seeking Behavior
____________________________________________________________________
Category No. %
____________________________________________________________________
Partner seeking employment in school (N = 281)
Yes 129 45.9
No 152 54.1
Accompanying dependent children (N = 281)
Yes 132 47.0
No 149 53.0
Specific region targeted (up to two; N = 132)
Europe 80 60.6
Asia-Pacific 71 53.8
South America 33 25.0
Middle East 26 20.0
North America 18 13.6
Other 13 9.8
Africa 12 9.1
____________________________________________________________________
Education and training. A majority of respondents held either a master’s or a
doctoral degree (86.7%), with most holding a master’s degree (68.6%). Furthermore,

59

most of the responses to the other category were from individuals who held multiple
master’s degrees, an educational specialist degree, or were All But Dissertation (ABD)
for their doctoral degree, meaning this rate of postbaccalaureate completion is even
greater than it was initially believed to be. Respondents were also able to select as many
applicable certifications as they had earned. Most respondents (90.3%) had or currently
held a teacher certification, while a majority (76.2%) held a principal/administrator
certification. The results from this survey question can be seen in Table 15.
Table 15
Frequencies for Education and Training (N = 277)
__________________________________________________
Category No. %
__________________________________________________
Highest degree earned
Bachelor's 14 5.1
Master's 190 68.6
Doctorate 50 18.1
Other 23 8.3
__________________________________________________
Certifications earned
Teacher 250 90.3
Principal/Administrator 211 76.2
Superintendent 35 12.6
Counselor 11 4.0
N/A 6 2.2
Other 32 11.6
__________________________________________________
Positions held. Table 16 shows the distribution of the positions held by
respondents. The largest number of respondents either was, or is currently, a high school

60

teacher or counselor (65.0%).
Table 16
Frequencies for Positions Held (N = 277)
______________________________________________________________
Position No. %
______________________________________________________________
Elementary teacher/counselor 144 52.0
Middle/junior teacher/counselor 171 61.7
High teacher/counselor 180 65.0
Elementary administrative 124 44.8
Middle/junior administrative 122 44.0
High administrative 146 52.7
Kindergarten-Grade 8 administrative 76 27.4
Grades 6-12 administrative 89 32.1
Head of school (combined w/other position) 39 14.1
Head of school (not combined w/other position) 65 23.5
Other 71 25.6
______________________________________________________________
Locations of positions of employment. Tables 17 and 18 explore trends related
to respondents’ locations of their first positions along their individual career paths. Table
17 provides the distribution of whether respondents’ first administrative and
nonadministrative positions were inside or outside of their home countries. Table 18
shows both the location of respondents’ current positions as well as the locations of their
first faculty, administrative, and division principal positions outside of their home
countries.
Career path. Table 19 displays the career paths respondents took to their current
positions. Not all paths were listed; in fact, the other option received the most responses

61

(23.1%). However, of the specific paths that were listed, the path of teacher to assistant
principal to division principal was the most common (21.7%).
Table 17
Frequencies for Location of First Position (N = 277)
______________________________________________________________________________
Home country
_____________
Outside home
country
___________
NA
___________
Position No. % No. % No. %
______________________________________________________________________________
First nonadministrative 223 80.5 54 19.5 0 0.0
First administrative 132 47.7 140 50.5 5 1.8
First division principal 83 30.0 135 48.7 59 21.3
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. NA = not applicable.
Table 18
Frequencies for Location of Current and First Outside Home Country Positions (N = 277)
______________________________________________________________________________
Current
___________
First faculty
___________
First admin
__________
First div principal
______________
Region No. % No. % No. % No. %
______________________________________________________________________________
Africa 21 7.6 18 6.5 18 6.5 18 6.5
Asia-Pacific 80 28.9 75 27.1 90 32.5 67 24.2
Europe 48 17.3 55 19.9 39 14.1 36 13.0
Middle East 30 10.8 42 15.2 35 12.6 29 10.5
North America 55 19.9 24 8.7 20 7.2 20 7.2
South America 18 6.5 19 6.9 23 8.3 15 5.4
Other 25 9.0 44 15.9 16 5.8 13 4.7
NA 0 0.0 0 0.0 36 13.0 79 28.5
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. admin = administrative; div = division; NA = not applicable.
Respondents were also asked whether their first division principal positions were

62

internal promotions within the same school in which they were previously employed. Of
the 277 respondents, 103 (37.2%) noted it was an internal move, while 124 (44.8%) noted
it was an external move. The question was not applicable to the remaining 50 respondents
(18.1%).
Table 19
Frequencies for Career Path Taken (N = 277)
__________________________________________________________________________
Position No. %
__________________________________________________________________________
Teacher, assistant principal, division principal 60 21.7
Teacher, HOD/HOG, assistant principal 28 10.1
Teacher, coordinator, division principal 26 9.4
Teacher, HOD/HOG, coordinator, division principal 26 9.4
Teacher, HOD/HOG, division principal 25 9.0
Teacher, coordinator, assistant principal 16 5.8
Teacher, HOD/HOG, coordinator, assistant principal 14 5.1
Teacher, HOD/HOG 7 2.5
Teacher, HOD/HOG, coordinator 6 2.2
Teacher, coordinator 5 1.8
Other 64 23.1
__________________________________________________________________________
Note. HOD = head of department. HOG = head of grade.
Summary
The four research questions were answered using the results from statistical
analysis software and a variety of statistical tests. For Research Question 1, SPSS was
used to conduct the factor analysis, which utilized principal component method with a
Varimax rotation. The results of this led to the creation of 11 initial factors: (a)
cultural/travel expectations, (b) work conditions, (c) school leadership and practices, (d)

63

accomplishment, (e) professional development, (f) school demographics, (g) school
environmental factors, (h) personal and family benefits, (i) monetary benefits, (j)
prestige, and (k) other. The final two factors were dropped from further inclusion due to
not meeting all criteria for the retention of variables.
Research Question 2 utilized a one-way MANOVA, using the total amount of
administrative experience earned by respondents as the independent variable, which was
divided into (a) having 5 or fewer total years of administrative experience and (b) having
over 5 total years of administrative experience. The results showed the amount of total
administrative experience did not indicate significantly different behaviors within the
factors.
Research Question 3 also utilized a one-way MANOVA, using the total amount
of overseas administrative experience as the independent variable, which was also
divided into 5 or fewer years versus more than 5 years. The results showed the total
amount of overseas administrative experience did indicate significantly different
behaviors within the factors. First, respondents with less overseas administrative
experience placed higher expectations on travel and culture than respondents with a
greater amount of overseas administrative experience. Second, respondents with a greater
amount of overseas administrative experience placed greater value upon school
leadership and practices than those with less overseas administrative experience. Finally,
respondents with a greater amount of overseas administrative experience valued personal
and family benefits to a greater extent than those with less overseas administrative
experience.
Research Question 4 asked what the most common career path was for
international school division principal candidates. The results were based upon a

64

combination of demographic data and respondents’ answers to questions about their
individual career paths. When determining the “most common career path,” the
researcher used the highest percentage response rate for each subquestion. The most
common responses for each subquestion were as follows:
• Current age: 46-55 years old (44.8%)
• Age became an educator: <25 years old (61.2%)
• Age became an administrator: 25-35 years old (54%)
• Age became a division principal: 36-45 years old (50.5%)
• Years of total overseas education employment experience: 11.6 years
• Years of total administrative experience: 11.5 years
• Years of overseas administrative experience: 6.9 years
• Years of division principal experience: 5.7 years
• Years of overseas division principal experience: 3.5 years
• Nationality of respondents: USA (50.2%)
• Gender of respondents: Male (56.9%)
• Ethnicity of respondents: White/European/Caucasian (79.5%)
• 45.9% of respondents had a partner/spouse who was also seeking employment
in the same school.
• 47% of respondents had dependent children coming to their new place of
employment.
• 47% of respondents expressed having a specific region of interest they would
target in their job search. Of these respondents, 60.6% listed Europe as a region
upon which they would focus, while 53.8% gave Asia-Pacific as a region upon

65

which they would focus.
• 68.6% of respondents had a master’s degree.
• 90.3% of respondents had teacher certification.
• 76.2% of respondents had principal or administrative certification.
• 65% of respondents held a high school teacher/counselor position during their
career; 61.7% of respondents held a middle school teacher/counselor position
during their career; and 52.7% of respondents held a high school administrative
position during their career.
• The vast majority of respondents (80.5%) received their first nonadministrative
position in their home country.
• The majority of respondents (50.5%) received their first administrative position
outside their home country.
• Most respondents (48.7%) received their first division principal position
outside their home country.
• Most respondents (28.9%) were employed in the Asia-Pacific region.
• Most respondents (27.1%) received their first faculty position outside their
home country in the Asia-Pacific region.
• Most respondents (32.5%) received their first administrative position in the
Asia-Pacific region.
• Most respondents, who held a division principal position, received their first
one in the Asia-Pacific region. The largest percentage of respondents (28.5%)
has not held a division principal position yet.
• Finally, the survey question specifically about the career paths taken by

66

respondents listed 11 possible options, of which “other” was a choice. The
highest percentage of respondents who chose a specific career path chose
“teacher-assistant principal-division principal” (21.7%). However, the highest
percentage of respondents chose the other option (23.1%).

67

Chapter 5: Discussion
Introduction
In this chapter the researcher presents a discussion of the research findings
reported in Chapter 4. Similarities and differences between the findings in this research
study and those of Cox (2012) and Mott (2011) in the areas of candidate perceptions and
demographic information will be discussed, as well as limitations of the study and
recommendations for future research. This study addressed the gap in the research
literature related to international school division principal recruitment. By extending the
findings of the Cox’s research study related to international school teacher recruitment,
and using Mott’s Career Path Inventory, international heads of school will now be able to
use the findings of this research study to inform their recruitment efforts in the areas of
attracting candidates and selecting candidates for their schools. Similar to the
implications in Cox’s study, being able to create a recruiting strategy and craft
recruitment messages for potential candidates has not been widely available, and the
findings of this research study could be used to help inform this for heads of school.
Differences in Candidate Perceptions
Although the labels and groupings of this research study are not exactly the same,
there is still the ability to compare results between the research studies. When Cox (2012)
examined the relative strength of factors, he confirmed “that the relationship between
school leadership and teachers is the most important to candidates” (p. 55). As with
Cox’s study, this study explored the difference of perceptions between respondents’
overall experience, in this case overall administrative experience and overall experience
working outside of their home country, again specifically the amount of overseas
administrative experience. This research study found that accomplishment was the most

68

important factor for division principal candidates, both for respondents with less than 5
years of administrative experience and those with 5 or more years of administrative
experience. This difference could be caused by the candidates’ desire to apply for a
leadership position in a school, specifically the division principal position, which one
would assume would be connected to an individual’s level of personal accomplishment
within a school setting.
The least important factor found in this research study was personal and family
benefits, which was even lower for respondents who had more administrative experience.
This seems to demonstrate that people who were exploring administrative positions,
especially those who already had more experience in this area, did not see international
schools as more attractive for these types of positions than they might otherwise have
found in national or independent schools in their home country.
The researcher concluded that when the amount of overseas administrative
experience was used as the dependent variable, there was greater difference between
respondents, which mirrored Cox’s (2012) findings. Similar to the findings above,
personal and family benefits had the lowest overall response for respondents with less
than 5 years of overseas administrative experience. International school heads of school
should take note of this, as focusing on this factor will have the least impact on
candidates looking to work overseas for the first time. Although still low in relation to the
other factors, personal and family benefits were more important for people who already
had a higher amount of overseas administrative experience. This showed that once they
had left their home of origin for several years, these factors tended to become more
important. The subfactors that made up the personal and family benefits factor were (a)
desire to have a better education for my children, (b) desire to pursue better professional

69

opportunities than are available in my country of origin, and (c) employment for partner.
It is possible that respondents with a higher amount of overseas experience had a better
understanding of what was available in international schools than respondents with less
overseas experience, and therefore appreciated them to a higher degree.
School leadership and practices was rated as being more important for candidates
with a higher amount of overseas administrative experience than those without. A
possible cause for this could be that respondents for this research study had more
experience working in international schools, which tended to be smaller than schools in
national school systems, and had seen the greater level of influence individual school
leaders can have upon a school and the employees in it. They are therefore more likely to
pay attention to this area than someone coming more recently from a national school
system where individual school leaders tend to have less of an impact due to the various
layers of bureaucracy seen in those settings. Cox (2012) also found that leadership was
more important to more experienced teachers in his research as well.
Cox (2012) specifically focused on the topic of wanderlust, which he hoped to
expand upon from Mancuso’s (2010) findings. This research study found similar results
to Cox in this respect, where cultural/travel expectations, which fit the wanderlust
context, were less important to candidates with a higher amount of overseas
administrative experience. In fact, it was the lowest scoring factor of all nine for the
respondents with 5 or more years of overseas administrative experience. International
school heads of school should also pay close attention to this finding, as they can modify
their recruitment conversations when trying to convince individual division principal
candidates to come work in their schools. Research findings from this study indicated that
international school heads of school should focus more on the job itself, and specifically

70

the accomplishments that come with the job, for candidates with more overseas
administrative experience, and they can focus more on the travel and adventure
opportunities available to candidates with less overseas administrative experience.
Based on the results of this research study, it would be beneficial when preparing
advertisements for the division principal positions in their schools that heads of school
focus on the areas found to be most important in the results of this report. If a head of
school wants to attract candidates with more overall administrative experience, they
should highlight slightly different things than if they are looking for a less experienced
candidate. A head of school looking to attract candidates with more overseas experience
would therefore highlight different areas than one looking for a candidate with less
overseas experience. Because the results indicated there is greater differentiation based
upon the amount of overseas administrative experience than overall administrative
experience, focusing on these results would have a higher likelihood of success in finding
the desired candidate. Conversely, as Cox (2012) stated, you cannot sell what you do not
have.
Based on this research study, it can be concluded that if a head of school is having
difficulty attracting and or retaining the desired division principal candidates, then he or
she could review his or her own leadership practices and culture in the school for which
he or she is and then attempt to make changes to better fit the desires of these types of
candidates. It was shown that accomplishment was the most important factor overall for
division principal candidates, which consisted of expected sense of personal
accomplishment, anticipated intellectual challenge, and expected opportunity to make a
difference in the lives of others. If a head of school determines there is less opportunity
for a division principal to be directly involved in what is happening in the school, and

71

therefore less likely to be able to feel the desired sense of accomplishment, then changes
could be made to increase opportunities for this to take place.
If the desire is to attract and or retain candidates with more overseas
administrative experience, then utilizing the factor of school leadership and practices
could be beneficial due to the high level of importance placed upon it by respondents.
This factor included eight subfactors: the way the head of school communicates respect
for the value of the division principal, the expected support from the head of school, the
perception of the way things are run at the school, the expected autonomy over your
division of school, the expected autonomy or control over your own work, the expected
influence over workplace policies and practices, potential recognition and support from
the head of school, and the desire to work in a school with a more international student
body. This factor fits quite well with Cox’s (2012) factor of relationship with school
leadership, which he found to be the most important factor for teacher candidates.
Furthermore, if a head of school sees he or she is not empowering his or her
leadership team (and specifically the division principals) with autonomy, or is not giving
them adequate recognition and support, then this can be changed. Once this positive
culture has been established, it can be conveyed to recruits using different methods, such
as testimonials on the school website and in presentations on the school’s strengths and
weaknesses (Cox, 2012).
Although focusing specifically on the recruitment of division principal candidates
in international schools, the results of this research study can also be used by
international heads of school to try to retain their division principals instead of losing
them to other schools. Seeing what is most important to candidates, based upon their
overall amount of administrative experience, but more so upon the amount of overseas

72

administrative experience, will help a head of school see the areas of strength for his or
her school and or location. Furthermore, it will enhance the use of these areas to focus
retention conversations with their division principals when the time comes for them to
either renew their contract with the school or look for a position in another school.
Differences in Demographic Information
With regard to demographic details of respondents, it will be beneficial to
compare these with the results of Cox’s (2012) and Mott’s (2011) studies in order to
provide valuable findings. When combined with the Career Path Inventory, this will help
give the full description of the candidate pool, which will better inform all stakeholders.
Candidates will be able to assess their own competitiveness within the overall candidate
pool; the recruitment agencies will better know their potential client base, which can then
be used to try to target specific groups to increase diversity; and international school
heads of school will be better able to compare the candidates who have applied for
division principal positions in their school in relation to the overall candidate pool.
This research study’s findings fit the researcher’s expectation that candidates for
division principal positions would have a higher average age than those who were
applying for teaching positions in Cox’s (2012) study. Cox’s respondents averaged
approximately 40 years in age, while 61.9% of respondents to this research study were
aged 46 and above.
Mott (2011) found the average age of respondents in his study, which focused on
current heads of school, was 56 years old, which was appropriate because a person would
most likely become a division principal and gain several years of experience before
becoming a head of school. There was also a strong similarity for the nationality of
division principal candidates, where 84% of respondents were from the USA, Canada, the

73

UK, Australia, or New Zealand. This mirrored the findings of Cox (2012), whose
research found 84.5% of respondents citing citizenship from these five nations and
Mott’s findings where 94.0% of respondents came from the USA, UK, Canada, or
Australia. A possible reason for this could be that the majority of international schools
use English as the language of instruction, and these are the majority of the English
speaking nations in the world.
The gender results showed that 56.9% of the respondents were male. This differed
from Cox’s (2012) results, where almost 60.0% of respondents were female, but it does
fit the pattern shown in the literature review of national division principal recruitment
(Lacey, 2003; Sandberg, 2010), where the majority of applicants were male. It also
confirms the anecdotal evidence with which the researcher was presented for
international schools (P. Mott, personal communication, February 8, 2013). As Fowles
and Fischer (2013) presented, this could be because many female educators feel the need
to spend more time at home with their family in the “traditional care giver role,” and
therefore are not willing to spend the additional time outside of normal operational hours
of a school that are required in the division principal role. Because of this, there would be
fewer female applicants for division principal positions, even though, as Cox found, there
was a larger number of female applicants for teaching positions.
The majority of respondents (79.5%) who provided an answer to this question of
ethnicity responded as White, European, or Caucasian. This followed both the same trend
found in national schools (Cushing & Kerrins, 2004; MacBeath, 2009; Winter et al.,
2004, 2007) and anecdotal evidence from international schools (P. DeMinico, personal
communication, February 8, 2013; P. Mott, personal communication, February 8, 2013).
Mott (2011) also found the vast majority of respondents (94.3%) cited European ancestry

74

in his study on head of American overseas schools, which would be considered the next
level above division principal on the career path inventory.
These results may be disappointing for anyone hoping there would be a more
diverse candidate pool for international school division principals. Unfortunately, it
seems the stereotypical middle-aged, White male continues to be overly represented in
division principal roles in international schools as well as in national ones (Cushing &
Kerrins, 2004; MacBeath, 2009; Winter et al., 2004, 2007).
Career Path of Candidates
The final section of the research study focused on the career path candidates had
taken before applying for division principal positions in international schools. Mott
(2011) found that his respondents were around 24 years old when they became educators.
The majority of respondents in this research study (61.2%) were also less than 25 years
old when they began working in education. Mott found that respondents were
approximately 35 years old upon becoming an administrator, whereas this research study
found 54.0% of respondents became an administrator between the ages of 25 and 35
years old, while another 33.8% became one between the ages of 36 and 45 years old.
A major factor that impacts a candidate’s career path is his or her education level.
Mott (2011) found 63.1% of respondents held a master’s degree, and 36.3% held a
doctorate degree, whereas 68.6% of respondents to this research study held a master’s
degree, and 18.1% held a doctorate degree. The higher percentage of doctorate degrees
found in Mott’s research study was most likely due to those respondents holding a head
of school position, which could have come with the requirement that people in this
position hold this degree.
Candidates’ certification to hold specific positions can also impact a candidate’s

75

career path. Mott (2011) found 93.0% of respondents held teacher certification, 75.2%
held principal/administrative certification, and 38.9% held superintendent certification.
This research study found 90.3% of respondents held teacher certification, 76.2% held
principal/administrator certification, and 12.6% held superintendent certification. Similar
to respondents holding a doctorate degree, superintendent certification could be a
requirement to hold the head of school position in some schools, which could be the
reason for the respondents to Mott’s research study having a higher percentage than the
respondents to this research study.
Candidates’ career paths included specific positions they held throughout their
career. Mott’s (2011) research study asked respondents what was their first position in
education, as well as administrative positions held, while this research study asked
respondents to list all previous positions held. Although the two sets of questions were
not identical, comparisons could still be made between each research studies’ results.
Mott found 24.8% of respondents’ first position was as an elementary school teacher,
31.8% was as a middle school teacher, and 31.2% was as a high school teacher. This
research study found 52.0% of respondents had been an elementary school teacher or
counselor, 61.7% had been a middle school teacher or counselor, and 65.0% had been a
high school teacher or counselor. Both studies reported former elementary school
teachers being the least represented. From the researcher’s prior experience, elementary
divisions in international schools have relatively fewer administrative positions than
secondary divisions (which are composed of middle schools and high schools). Having
fewer administrative opportunities could lead to a lower number of elementary teachers
advancing to higher positions in their career paths than colleagues in secondary schools,
which could be the reason this group was less represented in both research studies.

76

Finally, both Mott’s (2011) research study and this research study included a
question on their survey instruments asking respondents to give their exact career path
and gave respondents a list of possible career paths from which to choose, including an
option of other if the respondent’s career path was not listed. The positions listed in each
research study were not identical but, as with the teaching positions mentioned earlier,
comparisons could be made. The focus of each research study was different, with Mott
investigating heads of school, and this study investigating division principals. Because of
this, the highest position listed was the focus of the research study (i.e., head of school for
Mott’s investigation and division principal for the current research study). Regardless, it
was still possible to compare some of the data, such as how Mott found 31.8% of
respondents had followed a career path that included teacher, vice principal, and
principal, and the current research study found 21.7% of respondents listing a career path
that included these positions.
Limitations
This research study had several limitations in its data collection and statistical
analysis of the data, which could impact upon the results and conclusions presented by
the researcher. The first limitation related to the survey question asking respondents to
give their ethnicity. Respondents were given a free response box, rather than a list of
specific ethnicities. Some suggestions were given for respondents (e.g., Caucasian,
African, etc.), but a number of respondents indicated their ethnic backgrounds were
American or Canadian. These responses are more traditionally recognized as nationalities
rather than ethnicities. As a result, these responses were grouped with the other category.
This resulted in a limitation because these respondents’ actual ethnicities were not given,
so the results are not as accurate as desired. These responses only accounted for 5.4% of

77

total responses so this should have little statistical impact upon the findings, which
showed a lack of ethnic diversity amongst respondents.
Another limitation pertained to the survey question asking respondents to choose
the career path option that best fit their own career path. Respondents were given 11
options from which to choose, including an “other” option for those whose career paths
did not match a choice listed. Although a spread of responses was given to this question,
the option with the highest response rate (23.1%) was the other option. The findings from
this survey question were, therefore, much less statistically relevant due to the fact almost
one quarter of respondents were not able to select their actual career path.
The third limitation related to the adaptations made to the career path question
and the prior experience question in the current research study from the original questions
found in Mott’s (2011) study. The questions were adapted in an attempt to increase
relevance of the data to the current research study, but one consequence of this was the
inconsistency of results to those found in Mott’s study.
A fourth limitation could be length of the survey instrument, which could have
resulted in respondent fatigue due to the large number of questions. Combining the ITRS
of Cox (2012) with a section of the CCPI of Mott (2011) in order to create the IPRS
resulted in a longer survey instrument. The decision to use all of the questions from the
ITRS instead of creating a completely independent survey instrument was related to this
limitation as well. The decision to use only a survey instrument instead of including other
instruments, such as focus groups or interviews, could also have been a limitation.
Recommendations for Future Research
It would be beneficial if future research could be designed to address the
limitations that pertained to this research study. It may be beneficial to use other data

78

collection instruments such as interviews or focus groups in order to help limit
respondent fatigue. It may be beneficial not to adhere as closely to the ITRS and CCPI as
the IPRS did but instead create questions and response options that allow more accurate
data to be collected. A research study could be designed to provide further information
about the fact that accomplishment was the most important factor for division principal
candidates.
Summary
In conclusion, the findings from this research study provide insight into the
perceptions and experiences of international school division principal candidates, which
could be beneficial to international school heads hoping to hire people for these positions
in their schools, as well as the candidates themselves. One finding was that
accomplishment was the most important factor for division principal candidates, both for
respondents with more overseas experience as well as for those with less overseas
experience. The least important factor for both groups of respondents found in this
research study was personal and family benefits.
The researcher concluded that when the amount of overseas administrative
experience was used as the dependent variable, the difference between respondents was
more, which mirrored Cox’s (2012) findings. Cox specifically focused on the topic of
wanderlust, which he hoped to expand upon from Mancuso’s (2010) findings. This
research study found similar results to Cox in this respect, where cultural/travel
expectations, which fit the wanderlust context, were much less important to candidates
with a higher amount of overseas administrative experience.
When comparing the findings of the demographic information and career path
inventory sections of this research study with the corresponding sections of Cox’s (2012)

79

and Mott’s (2011) research studies, a number of similarities are found. The majority of
respondents in each research study was ethnically White/Caucasian and came from either
the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. Respondents to this research study
tended to be older than those in Cox’s study but of a similar age to those in Mott’s study.
Although Cox’s study found the majority of respondents were female, this study mirrored
the findings of Mott’s study, where the majority was male. The majority of respondents
to both Mott’s study and this one held a master’s degree, and respondents with
experience as elementary teachers were the least represented in both studies.

80

References
Barker, I. (2008, May 11). Headship trainees to be halved. Times Educational
Supplement. Retrieved from https://www.tes.com/article.aspx?storycode=
2602456
Barty, K., Thompson, P., Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2005). Unpacking the issues:
Researching the shortage of school principals in two states of Australia. The
Australian Educational Researcher, 32, 1-18. doi:10.1007/BF03216824
Battle, D., & Gruber, K. (2010). Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2008-
09 principal follow-up survey (NCES 2010-37). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences.
Benson, J. (2011). An investigation of chief administrator turnover in international
schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 10(1), 87-103.
doi:10.1177/1475240911398779
Bereday, G. Z. F., & Lauwerys, J. A. (Eds.). (1964). The yearbook of education 1964:
Education and international life. London, England: Evans Brothers.
Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2009). Effective schools: Managing the
recruitment, development, and retention of high-quality teachers (Working
paper). Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in
Education Research: Urban Institute.
Brewitt, R. W. (1993). A study of the career paths of the heads of American style
international schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(12), 4312.
Broman, F. (2008). AAIE and AISH to tackle recruitment crisis: Task force being formed

81

to address candidate shortages. The International Educator, 22(4), 1, 13.
Brookings, K., Collins, G., Cour, M., & O’Neill, J. (2003). Getting below the surface of
the principal recruitment ‘crisis’ in New Zealand primary schools. Australian
Journal of Education, 47, 146-158. doi:10.1177/000494410304700204
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2008). Recruitment and retention of quality principals:
Essential for successful schools. CAPEA Education Leadership and
Administration, 20, 19-45.
Brummitt, N. (2013, October 17). International school market intelligence reports.
Available from http://www.iscresearch.com/services/isc-market-intelligence-
reports.aspx
Caffyn, R. (2010). Enabling long-term effective school leadership: Nine ways to
understand and utilize micropolitics in international schools. International
Schools Journal, 29(2), 50-59.
Cambridge, J., & Thompson, J. (2004). Internationalism and globalization as contexts for
international education. Compare, 34(2), 161-175. doi:10.1080
/0305792042000213994
Carney, Sandoe, & Associates. (2013). Global faculty recruitment, leadership search and
strategic consulting services for independent and like-kind schools. Retrieved
from http://www.carneysandoe.com
Chandler, J. (2010). The role of location in the recruitment and retention of teachers in
international schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 9, 214-226.
doi:10.1177/1475240910383917
Chapman, J. D. (2005). Recruitment, retention, and development of school principals
[Education policy series]. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/iiep

82

Clifford, M. (2010). Hiring high quality school leaders: Challenges and emerging
practices. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/resource/hiring-quality-school-
leaders-challenges-and-emerging-practices
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Council of International Schools. (2013). Shaping the future of international education.
Retrieved from http://www.cois.org
Cox, D. S. (2012). A global study of international teacher recruitment (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI No. 3510077)
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curtis, P. (2008, June 19). Schools “timebomb: As 55 percent of heads near retirement.
Guardian.
Cushing, K. S., & Kerrins, J. A. (2004, Fall). Simple but incorrect solutions to complex
problems. Educational Leadership and Administration, 16, 11-21.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. T. (2010). Preparing
principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership
programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
DeAngelis, K. J., Peddle, M. T., & Trott, C. E. (2002). Teacher supply in Illinois:
Evidence from the Illinois teacher study [Policy Research Report]. Retrieved from
http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/kdReport1202_Teacher_Supply.pdf
Doyle, D., & Locke, G. (2014). Lacking leaders: Challenges of principal recruitment,
selection, and placement. Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws

83

.com/publication/pdfs/Lacking-Leaders-The-challenges-of-Principal-Recruitment-
Selection-and-Placement-Final.pdf
Duevel, L., Pfannl, B., Hestor, C., & Stern, E. D. (2013). Closing the gender gap: Female
heads urge future leaders to step forward. International School, 16(1), 27.
Eadens, D., Bruner, D., & Black, W. (2011). The intentions of Florida educational
leadership graduate students to pursue administrative positions. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (EJ971504)
Education Portal. (2015). School principal: Educational requirements to become a
principal. Retrieved from http://education-portal.com/articles/School_
Principal_Educational_Requirements_to_Become_a_Principal.html
Education Review Office. (1996). Professional leadership in primary schools (Education
Evaluation Reports No. 7). Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (2000). Leadership and learning: Principal recruitment,
induction and instructional leadership in Community School District #2, New
York City. Unpublished manuscript.
Fink, D. (2011). Pipelines, pools, and reservoirs: Building leadership capacity for
sustained improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 670-684.
doi:10.1108/09578231111174811
Finn, C., Jr., & Northern, A. M. (2014). Foreword. In D. Doyle & G. Locke, Lacking
leaders: Challenges of principal recruitment, selection, and placement (pp. 1-5).
Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs
/Lacking-Leaders-The-Challenges-of-Principal-Recruitment-Selection-and-
Placement-Final.pdf
Fowles, A., & Fischer, D. (2013, November). An interactive discussion on leadership

84

styles. In D. Krajczar (Chair), Learning without limits. Symposium conducted at
the meeting of East Asia Regional Council of Schools Leadership Conference,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Fraser, J., & Brock, B. L. (2006). Catholic school principal job satisfaction: Keys to
retention and recruitment. Catholic Education, 9(4), 425-440. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1335&context=ce
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction.
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gates, S., Ringel, J., Santibanez, L., Ross, K., & Chung, C. (2003). Who is leading our
schools? An overview of school administrators and their careers. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND.
Glass, T. E., & Franceschini, L. A. (2007). The state of the American school
superintendency: A mid-decade study. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
Education.
Goodwin, B. (2011). Simply better: Doing what matters most to change the odds for
student success. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Gronn, P., & Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (2003). Principal recruitment in a climate of leadership
disengagement. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 172-184. doi:10.1177
/000494410304700206
Guilfoyle, C. (2013). Principal evaluation and professional growth. ASCD Policy
Priorities, 19(2), 1-3, 5-7.
Gusscotts, S. (2004). Roads to principalship: A study of the career paths, effectiveness
and leadership styles of principals in Auckland primary schools (Unpublished

85

master’s thesis). University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Hammond, J., Muffs, M., & Sciascia, S. (2001, November). The leadership crisis: Is it for
real? Principal, 8(2), 28-29, 31-32.
Hancock, D. R., Black, T., & Bird, J. J. (2006). A study of factors that influence teachers
to become school administrators. Journal of Educational Research and Policy
Studies, 6(1), 91-105.
Hanks, P., McLeod, W. T., & Urdang, L. (Eds.). (1986). Collins dictionary of the English
language. London, England: Collins.
Hardman, J. (2001). Improving recruitment and retention of quality overseas teachers. In
S. Blandford & M. Shaw (Eds.), Managing international schools (pp. 123-135).
London, England: Routledge Falmer.
Harris, D. W. (2013). Perceptions of international school heads towards the
identification of quality principal candidates (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3589904)
Hawley, D. B. (1991). Factors associated with the employment duration of
superintendents of overseas schools. Boston, MA: Harvard Graduate School of
Education.
Hawley, D. B. (1994). How long do international school heads survive? A research
analysis (Part I). International Schools Journal, 14(1), 8-21.
Hawley, D. B. (1995). How long do international school heads survive? A research
analysis (Part II). International Schools Journal, 14(2), 23-36.
Hayden, M. C., & Thompson, J. J. (1995a). International education: The crossing of
frontiers. International Schools Journal, 15(1), 13-20.
Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (1995b). International schools and international education:

86

A relationship reviewed. Oxford Review of Education, 21, 327-345. doi:10.1080
/0305498950210306
Huber, S., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). The recruitment and selection of school leaders. In J.
Lumby, G. Crow, & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), International handbook on the
preparation of school (pp. 176-202). New York, NY: Routledge.
Institute for Digital Research and Education. (2016). Annotated SPSS output: Factor
analysis. Retrieved from the University of California, Los Angeles website:
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/output/factor1.htm
The International Educator. (2013). Fostering entrepreneurship globally. Retrieved from
http://www.tie.org
International School Consultancy Group. (2013). ISC research. Retrieved from
http://www.iscresearch.com/
International Schools Services. (2013). About us. Retrieved from http://www.iss.edu
Jahr, R. (2014). Qualities desired in international heads of school. Retrieved from
http://www.searchassociates.com/News-Events/News.aspx?id=109
Keeling, A. (2014). ISC research: Market growth is imminent. The International
Educator, 28(3), 1, 13.
Kowal, J., & Hassel, E. A. (2011). Importing leaders for school turnarounds: Lessons
and opportunities. University of Virginia, Richmond.
Lacey, K. (2003). Understanding principal class leadership aspirations: Policy and
planning implications. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Education and
Training School Leadership Development Unit.
Lange, D. (1988). Tomorrow’s schools: The reform of education administration in New
Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer.

87

The Learning Partnership. (2008). Final report: Succession planning: Schools and school
boards. Retrieved from http://www.thelearningpartnership.ca
Littleford, J. (1999). Leadership of schools and the longevity of school heads.
International Schools Journal, 19(1), 23-35.
Lumby, J., Crow, G., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). International handbook on the
preparations and development of school leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.
MacBeath, J. (2009). Recruitment and retention of senior school leaders: meeting the
challenge. European Educational Research Journal, 8, 407-417. doi:10.2304
/eerj.2009.8.3.407
Mancuso, S. (2010). An analysis of factors associated with teacher turnover in American
overseas schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Mancuso, S. V., Roberts, L., & White, G. P. (2010). Teacher retention in international
schools: The key role of school leadership. Journal of Research in International
Education, 9, 306-323. doi:10.1177/1475240910388928
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ministry of Education. (2003, 13 May). Statistics on teaching staff at March 2002.
Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Ministry of Education. (2007). Education counts. Retrieved from http://www
.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/ts/teaching_staff/teaching_staff_apri
l_2007/teaching-staff-april07.xls
Ministry of Education. (2016). Principal recruitment allowance. Retrieved from
http://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/specific-initiatives/investing-

88

in-educational-success/principal-recruitment-allowance-2/
Mott, T. J. (2011). The American sponsored overseas school headship: Two decades of
change and the road ahead. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3510114)
Murakami-Ramalho, E., & Benham, M. (2010). Around the fishing net: Leadership
dynamics for change in an American international school. Educational
Management Administration and Leadership, 38, 625-643. doi:10.1177
/1741143210373736
Muth, R., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2004). Why don’t our graduates take administrative
positions, and what’s the cost? In C. S. Carr & C. L. Fulmer (Eds.), Educational
leadership: Knowing the way, showing the way, going the way (pp. 294-306).
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Neidhardt, C. (2009). Speed bumps and l-plates: Female deputy principals’ perceptions
of the barriers in aspiring to primary principalship (Unpublished master’s thesis).
University of Waikato, New Zealand.
New South Wales Government. (2014). Teach. Retrieved from http://www.dec.nsw.gov
.au/about-us/careers-centre/school-careers/jobfeed
Normore, A. (2007). A continuum approach for developing school leaders in an urban
district. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3), 1-45. doi:10.1177
/194277510700200305
Normore, A. H. (2004). Recruitment and selection: Meeting the leadership shortage in
one large Canadian school district. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 30. Retrieved from https://www.umanitoba.ca
/publications/cjeap/articles/normore.html

89

NYC Leadership Academy. (2015). What is NYCLA’s history? Frequently asked
questions. Retrieved from http://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/about/faqs
/index
Otto, H. J. (1955, October). Principal preparation at the crossroads. Educational
Leadership, 28-32. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals
/ed_lead/el_195510_otto.pdf
Palmer, B. (2015). Principal selection methods matter: Common core implementation
means human resource managers should update principal selection methods.
District administration. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com
/article/0815-palmer?utm_content=bufferca773&utm_medium=
social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership: Policy and
practice: Executive summary. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
Pounder, D. G., & Young, I. P. (1996). Job desirability of the high school principalship:
A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 27-
57. doi:10.1177/0013161X01371003
Principal Training Center. (2012). The principals training center for practicing &
aspiring principals in international schools. Retrieved from http://theptc.org
/principals-training-center/
Rammer, R. A. (2007). Call to action for superintendents: Change the way you hire
principals. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 67-76. doi:10.3200/JOER.101.2
.67-77

90

Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. (2008). REL Midwest task 1.1: Regional
education needs analysis [Year 2 Report]. Naperville, IL: Author.
Rencher, A. C. (2002) Methods of multivariate analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John
Wiley and Sons.
Renihan, P. J. (2012). Leadership succession for tomorrow’s schools. Procedia—Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 138-147. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.487
Richards, N. (2001). The emperor’s new clothes? The issue of staffing in international
schools. In M. Hayden & J. Thompson (Eds.), International schools and
international education: Improving teaching management and quality (pp. 173-
183). London, England: Kogan Page.
Robbins, S. P., & DeCenzo, D. A. (2010). Supervision today! Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Russell, D. D., & Larsson, J. (2000). School staff: Recruitment and experiences. In R. J.
Simpson & C. R. Duke (Eds.), American overseas schools (pp. 123-180).
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International.
Sandberg, S. (2010, December). Why we have too few women leaders [Video podcast].
Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_
too_few_women_leaders.html
Schwab, A. J. (2007). Measures of appropriateness of factor analysis. Retrieved from the
University of Texas website: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/schwab/sw388r7
/Tutorials/PrincipalComponentsAnalysisintheLiterature_doc_html/027_Measures
_of_Appropriateness_of_Factor_Analysis.html
Search Associates. (2013). Leadership vacancies. Retrieved from http://www
.searchassociates.com/Leadership-Vacancies/Default.aspx

91

Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., & Zechmeister, J. S. (2002). Research methods in
psychology. Retrieved from http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/psychology
/shaugh/ch04_summary.html
Society for Human Resource Management. (2006). The essentials of strategy. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Stattrek. (2014). Survey sampling methods. Retrieved from http://stattrek.com/survey-
research/sampling-methods.aspx
Stewart, V. (2012). A world-class education: Learning from international models of
excellence and innovation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Stucker, J. (2012, November). Seeking your next (or maybe your first) principal position.
In D. Krajczar (Chair), The “why” of school in 2030. Symposium conducted at
the meeting of East Asia Regional Council of Schools Leadership Conference,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
The State of Queensland. (2014). Principal recruitment. Retrieved from
http://education.qld.gov.au/hr/recruitment/teaching/principal-recruitment.html
Thomson, P. (2009). School leadership: Heads on the block. London, England:
Routledge.
Verma, J. P. (2015). Repeated measures design for empirical researchers. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley and Sons.
Vogel, K. R. (1992). A longitudinal study of the selected characteristics of chief
administrative officers in American-sponsored overseas schools. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53(11), 3771.
Walker, A., & Kwan, P. (2009). Are we looking through the same lens? Principal

92

recruitment and selection. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 51-
61. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2009.03.003
Walker, A., & Kwan, P. (2012). Principal selection panels: Strategies, preferences, and
perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 188-205. doi:10.1108
/09578231211210549
White, A. (2010). Missions impossible? An examination of how international schools
utilize their mission statements within recruitment and selection processes
(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom.
Winter, P. A., Rinehart, J. S., Keedy, J. L., & Bjork, L. G. (2004). Recruiting certified
personnel to be principals: A statewide assessment of potential job applicants.
Planning and Changing, 35(1 & 2), 85-107.
Winter, P. A., Rinehart, J. S., Keedy, J. L., & Bjork, L. G. (2007). Superintendent
recruitment: A statewide assessment of principal attraction to the job. Planning
and Changing, 38(1 & 2), 35-59.
Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on
exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology,
9(2), 79-94. Retrieved from http://www.tqmp.org/RegularArticles/vol09-
2/p079/p079.pdf

94

International Teacher Recruitment Survey (ITRS)
This survey will be distributed by several recruiting agencies near the beginning and
again near the end of the recruiting season. Candidates registered with more than one
recruiting agency may receive this survey more than once. Each candidate should
complete this survey only once near the beginning and only once near the conclusion of
the recruiting process. If you have already responded through another recruiting agency,
to prevent duplication please close your browser and do not continue.
Indicate the level of importance that EACH of the following plays in your decision to
apply to a particular international school.
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely
important important important important important
Salary
Benefits (e.g. health insurance, retirement plan)
Expected opportunities for professional advancement or promotion
Expected opportunities for professional development
Potential opportunities for learning from colleagues
Potential social relationships with colleagues
Potential recognition and support from administration
Expected influence over workplace policies and practices
Expected autonomy or control over your own work
Perceived professional prestige
Expected procedures for performance evaluation
Expected manageability of workload
Expected ability to balance personal life and work
Anticipated availability of resources and materials/equipment for doing job
Expected general work conditions
Expected job security

95

Anticipated intellectual challenge
Expected sense of personal accomplishment
Expected opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others
Anticipated opportunities for travel and cultural exploration
Class size
Perception of the way things are run at the school
The way the principal/head communicates respect for the value of teachers
Teaching assignment (subject or grade level)
Expected classroom resources
Facilities
Expected support from administrators
Job description or responsibilities
Anticipated autonomy over my classroom
Expected safety of environment
School location
Expected personal security and safety of the host country
Employment for partner
How significant a role do the following factors play in your desire to work and live
overseas?
1 2 3 4 5
Important important important important important
Travel opportunities for myself and my family
Cultural enrichment for myself and my family

96

Desire to experience as many cultures and countries as possible in my career
Desire to work in a school with more worldly students
Desire to have a better education for my children
Desire to pursue better opportunities than are available at home
Desire to share Western education with the people of other countries
My desire to work and live in different cultures often supersedes other reasons to move
from one school to another
What is your gender?
Male
Female
What is your age?
What is your nationality?
US
Canadian
British
Australian
New Zealand
UK
Other
How many total years of full-time teaching experience do you have?
How many total years of full-time overseas teaching experience do you have?
Do you have a partner who is also seeking teaching employment at the same school with
you?
Yes
No
Do you have dependent children who would accompany you to your next job?
Yes
No
What is your single most preferred school level to teach?
Elementary
Middle School
High School

97

High School IB or AP
Are you targeting a specific region or regions as you look for a position?
If you are targeting specific regions for employment, please indicate your top choices
(maximum of two) from the following:
Africa
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Middle East
North America
South America
Other, please specify
If you are targeting specific schools in your job search, please indicate your top two
below (please use full names of schools).
How many recruiting agencies have you registered with this recruiting season?

99

Characteristics & Career Paths Inventory (CCPI)
Personal Characteristics
If you served as a head of school while also serving as a teacher or principal at the same
time, please answer the following questions as the head of school, not as a teacher or as a
principal (i.e. don’t include those years as both teaching experience and as head of school
experience. Only count those years as head of school experience).
1. Demographic Data
a. Current Age
b. Age upon becoming a full-time educator
c. Age upon becoming an administrator
d. Age upon becoming a school head
2. Additional Demographic Data
a. Gender
b. Nationality
c. Ethnic Heritage (European, Latino, Asian, Middle Eastern, African, etc.)
3. Please indicate ALL DEGREES that you have earned:
a. Bachelors
b. Masters
c. Doctorate
d. Other (please describe here)
4. Please indicate ALL CERTIFICATIONS that you have earned (both current and
no longer current):
a. Teacher
b. Counselor
c. Principal/Administrator
d. Superintendent
e. Other (please describe here)
5. Please indicate ALL of the positions you have held in education including your
first position (teacher includes librarian and other support positions). If you
served in multiple roles at the same time, please note that in the “Other” section.
a. ES Teacher or Counselor
b. MS/Jr. High Teacher or Counselor
c. HS Teacher or Counselor
d. ES Administrator
e. MS/Jr. High Administrator
f. HS Administrator
g. K-8 Administrator
h. 6-12 Administrator
i. Central Office Administrator
j. Head of School (combined with another position)
k. Head of School (NOT combined with another position
l. Other (please describe here)
6. Please indicate the FIRST position you held in education (teacher includes

100

librarian and other support positions)
a. ES Teacher
b. MS/Jr. High Teacher
c. HS Teacher
d. Counselor
e. Assistant Principal
f. Principal
g. Central Office
h. Head of School
i. Other (please describe here)
7. Where was your FIRST position in education held (non-administrative)?
a. Home Country
b. Outside of Home Country
c. N/A
8. Where was your FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE position held (non-head of
school)?
a. Home Country
c. N/A
9. Where was your FIRST HEAD OF SCHOOL position held?
a. Home Country
c. N/A
10. Please list the total number of years you have served as a TEACHER (includes
positions like counseling, librarian, other support positions, etc.- do not count
here if you served as a teacher/principal or a teacher/head).
11. Please list the total number of years you served as an ADMINISTRATOR (not
including Head of School- do not count here if you served as principal/head or
any other position combined with head of school).
12. Including this year, please list the total number of years you served as a HEAD
OF SCHOOL (include years spent as a teacher/head of school or a principal/head
of school).
13. Which of the following BEST describes your career path in education (Teacher
includes positions like counseling, librarian, etc. and Central Office includes
positions like curriculum director, business manager, HR director, deputy head,
etc.)?
a. Teacher-Principal-Head of School
b. Teacher-Principal-Central Office-Head of School
c. Teacher-Assistant Principal-Principal-Head of School
d. Teacher-Assistant Principal-Principal-Central Office-Head of School
e. Teacher-Central Office-Head of School
f. Teacher-Head of School
g. Other (please describe here)
14. In each box below, please write the approximate STUDENT POPULATION of
the school(s) where your:
a. CURRENT head’s position is held (do not duplicate below)
b. First head’s position was held

101

c. Second head’s position was held
d. Third head’s position was held
e. Fourth head’s position was held
f. Fifth head’s position was held
g. Sixth head’s position was held
15. In each box below, please write your LENGTH OF STAY AS HEAD at the
school where your:
a. CURRENT head’s position is held (do not duplicate below)
b. First head’s position was held
c. Second head’s position was held
d. Third head’s position was held
e. Fourth head’s position was held
f. Fifth head’s position was held
g. Sixth head’s position was held
16. Contract Length
a. What was the length (in years) of the INITIAL CONTRACT for your
current position?
b. If your current contract is a RENEWAL CONTRACT, what is the length
(in years) of your current contract?
17. Will you be leaving your current position as head of school at the end of the
2010-2011 school year?
a. Yes, I will be leaving my current position at the end of this school year.
b. No, I will not be leaving my current position at the end of this school year.
18. Was your first head’s position in the same school in which you served prior to
obtaining that position (internal move)?
a. Yes
b. No
19. Please provide any information that you feel is important to clarify your
responses on this page.
Recruitment & Retention
The following questions are designed to inform current heads and prospective heads who
will be seeking positions over the next few years. These data will also inform Boards of
Directors and recruiters seeking highly qualified head of school candidates. Please
answer as honestly and accurately as possible keeping in mind that your responses will
only be reported anonymously and in aggregate with other respondents.
20. In which region was your:
a. First FACULTY position OUTSIDE of your home country
b. First ADMINISTRATIVE position OUTSIDE of your home country
c. First HEAD position OUTSIDE of your home country
21. Regional Preference
a. Given the choice, in which region would you most prefer to serve as a
school head?
22. At this point in your career, what school and community conditions would most
affect your decision to apply for a school head position? Please rate the following

102

(you may use the same rating more than once)
a. Living conditions in the city and country
b. Size of school
c. Salary and benefits as compared to cost of living
d. Curriculum offered (international, American, IB, AP, etc.)
e. Position available for spouse
f. Quality of education for your own children
g. Reputation of school
h. Type of school (non-profit, proprietary, company-sponsored, etc.)
i. Comments (optional)
23. Please indicate the principal reason(s) why you left your most recent position
(These are drop down box options)
a. Reason:
b. Reason:
c. Reason:
d. Other (please specify)
24. Given that most overseas school heads do not remain in a single school for their
whole career, what might be the principal reason(s) why you might leave your
current position? (These are drop down box options)
a. Reason:
b. Reason:
c. Reason:
d. Other (please specify)
25. Salary
a. Is your salary performance-related (i.e. merit pay)?
b. How is your salary determined (i.e. negotiated, fixed scale, etc.)?
c. What is your annual salary for this year (in US Dollars not including
benefits)?
d. Do you feel your salary is appropriate for your position given the cost of
living in the city where your school is located?
26. Where do you see yourself in 5 years? Choose the one option that most reflects
your thinking today (This is a drop down box option)
a. I see myself:
b. Other (please specify)
27. In your opinion what is the most important reason your current board hired you?
(This is a drop down box option)
a. The board hired me for my:
28. In your opinion which of the following is your current board’s primary
expectation of you as a head of school? (This is a drop down box option)
a. The board’s primary expectation is that I served as:
29. Please provide any information that you feel is important to clarify your
responses on this page.
Current School Name & Region

103

The following information is needed to facilitate targeted follow-up for non-responders.
Your school name will be removed from the data to ensure the anonymity of your
responses once you’ve been marked as a responder. Researchers will take measures to
ensure full confidentiality of information contained in this survey.
30. What is the name of the organization & city where you currently serve as head of
school?
31. In what region is your school located?

105

International Principal Recruitment Survey (IPRS)
1. Indicate the level of importance that each of the following factors plays in your
decision to apply to a particular international school for a division principal position.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Salary
2. Benefits (e.g. health insurance, retirement plan)
3. Opportunities for professional advancement or promotion
4. Expected opportunities for professional development
5. Opportunities for learning from colleagues
6. Potential social relationships with colleagues
7. Potential recognition and support from head of school
8. Expected influence over workplace policies and practices
9. Expected autonomy or control over your own work
10. Perceived professional prestige
11. Expected procedures for performance evaluation
12. Expected manageability of workload
13. Expected ability to balance personal life and work
14. Anticipated availability of resources and materials/equipment for doing job
15. Expected general work conditions
16. Expected job security
17. Anticipated intellectual challenge
18. Expected sense of personal accomplishment
19. Expected opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others
20. Anticipated opportunities for travel and cultural exploration
21. Perception of the way things are run at the school
22. The way the head of school communicates respect for the value of division
principals
23. School facilities
24. Expected support from head of school
25. Job description or responsibilities
26. Anticipated autonomy over my division of the school
27. Expected safety of environment
28. School location
29. Expected personal security and safety in the host country
30. Employment for partner
31. Curriculum offered (American, IB, AP, etc.)
32. Size of school
33. Type of school (non-profit, proprietary, company-sponsored, etc.)
34. Reputation of school

106

2. Indicate the level of importance the following factors play in your desire to work and
live overseas?
1 2 3 4 5
1. Travel opportunities for myself and my family
2. Cultural enrichment for myself and my family
3. Desire to experience as many cultures and countries as possible in my career
4. Desire to work in a school with a more international student body
5. Desire to have a better education for my children
6. Desire to pursue better professional opportunities than are available in my country
of origin
7. Desire to share Western style education with the people of other countries
8. Desire to work and live in different cultures often supersedes other reasons to
move from one school to another
3. Demographic Data: Please select the best response for each question
1. Current age- Below 25, 25-35, 35-45, 45-55, 55-65, 65+
2. Age upon becoming a full-time educator- Below 25, 25-35, 35-45, 45-55, 55-65,
65+
3. Age upon becoming an administrator (defined as any position of responsibility
above that of a classroom teacher, i.e. Head of Department, Curriculum
Coordinator, Assistant Principal, etc.)- Below 25, 25-35, 35-45, 45-55, 55-65, 65+
4. Age upon becoming a division principal (if you have not been a division
principal, select N/A).- Below 25, 25-35, 35-45, 45-55, 55-65, 65+
5. How many total years of overseas (i.e. outside your home country) full time
employment in education do you have?
6. How many total years of administrative experience do you have?
7. How many total years of overseas administrative experience do you have?
8. How many years of division principal experience do you have?
9. How many years of overseas division principal experience do you have?
10. Gender- Male____ Female____
11. Nationality-
12. Ethnicity (European, Latino, Asian, Middle Eastern, African, etc.)
13. Do you have a partner who is also seeking employment in the same school as
you?
14. Do you have dependent children who would accompany you to your next job?
15. A.) Are you targeting a specific region or regions as you look for a position?
B.) If you are targeting specific regions for employment, please indicate your top
choices (maximum of two) from the following:
a. Africa
b. Asia-Pacific
c. Europe
d. Middle East
e. North America

107

f. South America
g. Other: ___________________________________________
C.) How many recruiting agencies have you registered with this recruiting
season?
D.) Please indicate the highest level degree that you have earned:
a. Bachelors
b. Masters
c. Doctorate
d. Other (please describe here)
E.) Please indicate ALL CERTIFICATIONS that you have earned (both current
and no longer current):
a. Teacher
b. Counselor
c. Principal/Administrator
d. Superintendent
e. Other (please describe here)
F.) Please indicate ALL of the positions you have held in education, including
your first position (teacher includes librarian and other support positions). If
you served in multiple roles at the same time, please note that in the “Other”
section.
a. Elementary School Teacher or Counselor
b. Middle School/Junior High Teacher or Counselor
c. High School Teacher or Counselor
d. Elementary School Administrator
e. Middle School/Junior High Administrator
f. High School Administrator
g. K-8 Administrator
h. 6-12 Administrator
i. Head of School (combined with another position)
j. Head of School (NOT combined with another position)
k. Other (please describe here)
G.) Where was your FIRST position in education held (non-administrative)?
a. Home Country
H.) Where was your FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE position held?
a. Home Country
c. N/A
I.) Where was your first DIVISION PRINCIPAL position held?
a. Home Country
c. N/A
J.) Which of the following BEST describes your career path in education
(Teacher includes positions such as counselor and librarian. Coordinator
includes any position in charge of a specific curricular division of the school,
i.e. Primary Years Programme Coordinator, Middle Years Programme
Coordinator, Diploma Programme Coordinator, Curriculum Coordinator,

108

etc.). HOD/HOG includes any middle management positions, such as Head of
Department, Head of Grade, etc.)
a. Teacher – Head Of Department/Head Of Grade
b. Teacher- Coordinator
c. Teacher- Head Of Department/Head Of Grade- Coordinator
d. Teacher- Head Of Department/Head Of Grade- Assistant Principal
e. Teacher- Coordinator- Assistant Principal
f. Teacher- Head Of Department/Head Of Grade- Coordinator- Assistant
Principal
g. Teacher- Head Of Department/Head Of Grade- Division Principal
h. Teacher- Coordinator- Division Principal
i. Teacher- Assistant Principal- Division Principal
j. Teacher- Head Of Department/Head Of Grade- Coordinator- Division
Principal
k. Other (please describe here)
K.) Please write your average length of stay in the following positions:
a. Division Principal
b. Other administrative position (non-division principal)-
c. Other educational position (i.e. teacher, counselor, etc.)
L.) Was your first division principal position in the same school in which you
served prior to obtaining that position (i.e. was it an internal move)?
M.)In which region (i.e. Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle East, North
America, South America, Other) was your first FACULTY position
OUTSIDE of your home country?
N.) In which region was your first ADMINISTRATIVE position OUTSIDE of
your home country (write N/A if you have not held an administrative
position)?
O.) In which region was your first DIVISION PRINCIPAL position OUTSIDE of
your home country (write N/A if you have not held a division principal
position)?
P.) In which region are you currently employed?

109

Appendix D
Item Loadings for Factors

110

Factor
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Travel opportunities for myself and my
family
.81
Anticipated opportunities for travel and
cultural exploration
.78
Desire to experience as many cultures
and countries as possible in my career
.76
Cultural enrichment for myself and my
family
.75
Desire to work/live in different cultures
supersedes other reasons to move from
one school to another
.68
Expected manageability of workload .73
Expected general work conditions .72
Expected ability to balance personal life
and work
.68
Anticipated availability of resources and
materials/equipment for doing job
.68
Expected job security .54
Expected procedures for performance
evaluation
.42 .46
The way the head of school
communicates respect for the value of
division principals
.67
Expected support from head of school .66
Perception of the way things are run at
the school
.62
Anticipated autonomy over my division
of the school
.62
Expected autonomy or control over your
own work
.54 .41
Expected influence over workplace
policies and practices
.49
Potential recognition and support from
head of school
.46 .44
Desire to work in a school with a more
international student body
.43
Expected sense of personal
accomplishment
.84
Anticipated intellectual challenge .83
Expected opportunity to make a
difference in the lives of others
.76
Opportunities for learning from
colleagues
.81
Expected opportunities for professional
development
.76
Potential social relationships with
colleagues
.57
Opportunities for professional
advancement or promotion
.41
Factor
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Size of school .78

111

Type of school (non-profit, proprietary,
company-sponsored, etc.)
.71
Curriculum offered (i.e. American, IB,
AP, etc.)
.64
Reputation of school .63
Expected personal security and safety in
the host country
.78
Expected safety of environment .76
School location .64
Desire to have a better education for my
children
.78
Desire to pursue better professional
opportunities than are available in my
country of origin
.71
Employment for partner .65
Salary .84
Benefits (e.g. health insurance,
retirement plan)
.77
Perceived personal prestige .72
Desire to share Western style education .60
Job description or responsibilities .53
Note. Factor loadings < .40 were suppressed. Factor 1 = Cultural/travel expectations. Factor 2 = Work
conditions. Factor 3 = School leadership and practices. Factor 4 = Accomplishment. Factor 5 = Professional
development. Factor 6 = School demographics. Factor 7 = School environmental factors. Factor 8 = Personal
and family benefits. Factor 9 = Monetary benefits. Factor 10 = Prestige. Factor 11 = Other.

Christopher Allen Final Dissertation

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

Similar to Christopher Allen Final Dissertation (20)

Christopher Allen Final Dissertation