Journal of Educational Administration

Exploring intersectionality and the employment of school leaders

Edward Fuller, Liz Hollingworth, Brian P. An,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Edward Fuller, Liz Hollingworth, Brian P. An, (2019) "Exploring intersectionality and the employment
of school leaders", Journal of Educational Administration, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2018-0133
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2018-0133
Downloaded on: 11 March 2019, At: 18:38 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 50 other documents.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 12 times since 2019*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:161304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Employment
Exploring intersectionality and of school
the employment of school leaders leaders
Edward Fuller
Department of Education Policy Studies, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Liz Hollingworth Received 24 July 2018
College of Education, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, and Revised 25 October 2018
14 January 2019
Brian P. An Accepted 15 January 2019
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

Abstract
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

Purpose – There is growing recognition of the importance of educator diversity. The purpose of this paper is
to examine the production, placement and employment of school leaders as assistant principals, principals
and school leaders in Texas by the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender over 23 years.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a quantitative study that employs multilevel logistic regression
analysis to examine using 25 years of educator employment data from Texas.
Findings – The authors find descriptive evidence of an increase in diversity of school leaders driven by a
decreasing percentage of white men educators and an increasing percentage of Latina educators. Important
differences, however, emerge when examining assistant principal vs principal positions, particularly with
respect to the odds of being hired. The authors find black male and Latino educators are more likely than
white male educators to be hired as an assistant principal but are less likely than white male educators to be
hired as a principal. Women educators, regardless of race/ethnicity were less likely to be hired as assistant
principals or principals relative to white male educators. Women of color had the lowest odds of being hired in
any position relative to white male educators. With respect to school leader preparation program
accountability, the authors find few program characteristics associated with placement and differences
between programs explained very little of the variation in placement rates, bringing into question efforts to
hold programs accountable for such outcomes.
Originality/value – A longitudinal examination of racial/ethnic and gender intersectionality over 25 years is
a unique contribution to the study of inequitable access to school leadership positions.
Keywords Leadership, Racial discrimination
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Research underscores the need to increase the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of school
leaders (Khalifa et al., 2016). Rationales for increasing leader diversity include evidence that
leaders of color positively influence a range of outcomes for teachers and students of color.
Most directly, leaders of color are more likely to employ teachers of color (Grissom and
Keiser, 2011; Grissom et al., 2015) who, in turn, have positive impacts on students of color.
For example, an increase in the percentage of teachers of color employed in a school is
associated with a reduction in differential discipline outcomes for students of color, an
increase in the likelihood of placement into gifted education programs for students of color,
the disproportionate placement of students of color into special education, an increase in
graduation rates for students of color and improvements in the overall achievement for
students of color (Grissom et al., 2015).
With respect to gender diversity, women leaders often lead differently than their male
counterparts (Gipson et al., 2017) and these differences are associated with more effective
leadership practices. For example, Eagly et al. (1992) concluded women principals employed
a more collaborative, participative and democratic style than men principals. Further, Urick Journal of Educational
Administration
and Bowers (2014) found women principals were associated with more positive schooling © Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-8234
outcomes for students, potentially because of how they lead. DOI 10.1108/JEA-07-2018-0133
 JEA While evidence continues to accumulate about the importance of diversity in school
leadership positions, studies concomitantly underscore the relatively slow progress made in
increasing the percentage of principals of color and women principals. For example, the
percentage of principals of color has increased from 13 percent in 1988 to 20 percent in 2012
while the percentage of women principals has increased from 25 to 52 percent over the same
time period (Hill, Ottem and DeRoche 2016). By 2012, the percentages of white, black, and
Latinx principals were 80, 10, and 7 percent, respectively (Hill et al., 2016). In contrast, the
percentages of white, black and Latinx students were 46, 15, and 29 percent, respectively
(Snyder et al., 2018). Thus, the racial/ethnic characteristics of principals are not
representative of student characteristics. With respect to gender, the percentage of
women principals was 52.4 percent in 2012 (Hill et al., 2016). However, at the middle- and
high-school levels, only 40.0 and 33.1 percent of principals were women (Hill et al., 2016) –
substantially lower than the percentage of female students which is approximately 50
percent in any given year.
What we know little about, however, is the intersectionality of the race/ethnicity and
gender of school leaders. By intersectionality, we mean the percentage of individuals with
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

specific racial/ethnic and gender characteristics such as being a black female or a white
male. Intersectionality is a legal antidiscrimination framework developed by Kimberle
Crenshaw to understand the “tendency to treat race and gender as mutually exclusive
categories of experience and analysis,” (Crenshaw, 1989, p. 139). This conceptual framework
was initially used to examine the degree to which individuals such as black women faced
“double jeopardy” in hiring and in the workplace – discrimination based on both their
race/ethnicity and gender. Researchers have adopted this framework to also examine the
phenomena of discrimination and bias against individuals – in particular, women of color
(e.g. Rosette et al., 2016; Breslin et al., 2017). This is a particularly pertinent conceptual
framework for our analysis given our study includes an examination of the degree to which
employment as a school leader is affected by the racial/ethnic and gender intersectionality of
educators.
Unfortunately, we could not find any national statistics about the intersection of race/
ethnicity and gender and we only found information for five states – Texas, Illinois, New
York, North Carolina and Tennessee. The National Center for Education Statistics does
collect survey data that would allow for estimates of the intersection of race/ethnicity and
gender for school leaders for all states and for the country, but has not yet made such
calculations available publicly. We suspect many states also collect the data to make such
calculations but simply have not done so.
Concomitant with a growing concern about the diversity of the educator workforce, there
has been growing interest in holding school leadership preparation programs (SLPPs)
accountable for their outcomes (Fuller and Hollingworth, 2018; Grissom et al., 2018). Indeed,
there have been calls for the adoption of SLPP accountability systems from organizations
such as the Alliance for the Reform of Educational Leadership (Briggs et al., 2013), the
National Conference of State Legislatures (Shelton, 2009) and New Leaders (Ikemoto et al.,
2014). These calls focus primarily on outcome measures such as the ability of graduates to
“secure jobs, retain jobs, [and] demonstrate an impact on student achievement” (Briggs et al.,
2013, p. 34). As of 2014, nine states already have used placement rates for SLPP
accountability (Yoder et al., 2014).
Thus, there are three primary reasons to examine the intersectionality of race/ethnicity
and gender with respect to becoming a school leader. First, such studies examine how
individuals can encounter different barriers and opportunities in their career based on the
intersection of their race/ethnicity and gender (Núñez, 2014), particularly women of color
(Núñez, 2014; Jean-Marie, 2013). Second, given the movement to hold SLPPs accountable for
outcomes such as the placement rate of graduates in school leader positions, identifying
 employment differences by the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender could have Employment
important implications for how the implementation of such accountability models might of school
affect SLPPs that graduate women educators of color. Third, we know the employment of leaders
leaders of color and women leaders often have positive outcomes for students, particularly
for students of color. Ensuring equitable hiring practices across the intersections of race/
ethnicity and gender is an important component of efforts to eliminate opportunity and
achievement gaps between different groups of students (Davis et al., 2017).
The purpose of our study, then, is three-fold. The first purpose is to examine the
percentage of individuals obtaining school leader certification in Texas over the past
20 years by the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender. The second purpose is to explore
the percentage of beginning school leaders by the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender.
Based on these descriptive analyses of the contexts of school leadership production and
employment, our third purpose is to identify the independent effects of the intersectionality
of race/ethnicity and gender on the odds of an educator finding employment as a school
leader in Texas.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

Personal characteristics and employment as a school leader

Gender
Most quantitative analyses have found women are less likely than men to become principals
(Davis et al., 2017; Fuller, Hollingworth and An, 2016; Fuller, Reynolds and O’Doherty, 2016;
Gates et al., 2003; Lankford et al., 2003). DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012), however, found no
statistically significant effect of gender on the odds of women educators actually applying
for, being offered, or accepting a school leadership position. Importantly, Fuller,
Hollingworth and An (2016) examined employment as an assistant principal in addition
to employment as a principal and they found women were also less likely to be hired in that
position as well. Thus, almost all studies conclude women are underrepresented in school
leadership positions and are less likely than their male peers to obtain employment as a
school leader – despite no evidence of any differences in job-seeking behavior.
There are numerous barriers to entry into school leadership for women educators. Fuller
Reynolds, and O’Doherty (2016) found recruitment into the school leadership pipeline often
relies on informal networks and current principals encouraging teachers to enter principal
preparation programs. Relying on such processes, however, disadvantages women teachers
because those in leadership positions often hold discriminatory stereotypes of who should
be a leader and the preferred traits of potential leaders (Koenig et al., 2011). Similarly, hiring
committees are often biased against the selection of women, even when those women are
equally or better qualified than male applicants (Gipson et al., 2017; Joy, 1998; Koenig et al.,
2011; Pounder et al., 2003; Riehl and Byrd, 1997). An additional barrier is the degree to which
individuals choose to enter the leadership pathway based on their own life situations and
perceived opportunities for advancement (Fuller et al., 2018). Despite the findings of
DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012), research has historically found women are often less likely
than men to seek school leader certification ( Joy, 1998; Lankford et al., 2003; Riehl and Byrd,
1997) although these choices are often influenced by experiences and perceptions of
discrimination, stereotypes and bias (Gipson et al., 2017; Koenig et al., 2011). Such
experiences lead many women to have preconceptions they are unprepared and unqualified
to lead despite evidence to the contrary (Hill et al., 2016).

Race/ethnicity
Studies also confirm the percentage of leaders of color has been increasing, albeit more
slowly than the changes in employment for women (DeAngelis and O’Connor, 2012; Gates
et al., 2003; Hill et al., 2016). Studies from different states, however, yield mixed results about
the relationship between an individual’s race/ethnicity and employment as a school leader.
 JEA For example, the Indiana placement rates for black graduates were lower than for white
graduates (Black, 2011). Similarly, in Texas, both black and Latinx educators with principal
certification were less likely than their white peers to become employed as a principal (Davis
et al., 2017; Fuller, Hollingworth and An, 2016). In contrast, DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012)
found no racial/ethnic differences in the six-year leader placement rates in Illinois. As with
women, there are a number of barriers to entry for people of color into school leadership
positions, including the lack of encouragement to apply, state certification requirements, as
well as discrimination and bias in the selection of applicants (Fuller, Reynolds and
O’Doherty, 2016).
With respect to encouragement to enter the leadership pipeline, school- and district-
leaders – historically, most often white males – are less likely to encourage teachers of color
to enter the leadership pipeline (Fuller, Reynolds and O’Doherty, 2016). For example, Myung
et al. (2011) found, “Principals tend to tap teachers who feel better equipped to take on the
principalship and who have more school-level leadership experience, but they also
disproportionately tap teachers who are male and share their ethnicity” (p. 696).
Even when choosing to enter the leadership pipeline, states often erect barriers to entry
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

that do not increase the quality of leaders but serve to screen out individuals of color. For
example, the adoption of certification examinations as a requirement to become a principal
and the ratcheting up of cut scores on such tests to “increase quality” can reduce the number
of leaders of color despite any evidence such tests predict principal performance (Grissom
et al., 2017). Discrimination and bias on hiring committees also often work against
applicants of color ( Joy, 1998; Pounder et al., 2003; Riehl and Byrd, 1997) particularly at the
secondary school level and for principals more than for assistant principals (Crawford and
Fuller, 2017). However, the experiences of pervasive bias and discrimination have not
depressed the efforts of educators of color to enter the school leadership pipeline. Indeed,
educators of color are actually more likely to seek and obtain principal certification than
their white colleagues (Fuller, Reynolds and O’Doherty, 2016).
Employment results can differ, however, between the roles of assistant principal and
principal. Indeed, Fuller, Hollingworth and An (2016) found black and Latinx graduates
were less likely than their white peers to find employment as a principal within five years of
certification, but were more likely than their white peers to be hired as an assistant principal.
Similarly, Gates et al. (2003) found both black and Latinx teachers were more likely to
become assistant principals than their white peers.
Thus, extant research suggests black and Latinx individuals are less likely than their
white peers to be hired as principals (Davis et al., 2017; Fuller, Hollingworth and An, 2016)
but may be more likely to be hired as assistant principals (Fuller, Hollingworth and An,
2016) which may, in turn, result in no statistically significant difference in job attainment
when job roles are combined into school leader positions (DeAngelis and O’Connor, 2012).

Intersectionality of race/ethnicity and gender

We identified only two studies that examined the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender in
educational leadership. First, black women educators in North Carolina had greater odds of
becoming a principal than other gender–race combinations (Gates et al., 2006). Second,
Davis et al. (2017) found black male and Latino teachers had greater odds of becoming
principals relative to white females. In both cases, the studies did not include an
examination of the role of assistant principal – an important omission given that many
principals use the assistant principal position as a stepping stone to the principalship.
We could not find any study examining the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender as well
as placement in both principal and assistant principal positions.
We contend the intersection of an individual’s race/ethnicity and gender could influence
their entry into school leadership positions because both an individual’s race/ethnicity and
 gender influence their desire and ability to enter the leadership pipeline. For example, Employment
women of color face “double jeopardy” because they encounter discrimination and bias of school
against their race/ethnicity and their gender. This study examines the degree to which these leaders
potential barriers might influence the hiring of educators with different racial/ethnic and
gender combinations as assistant principals and principals.

State context
The state context of Texas is critical to understanding the importance and generalizability
of this study. There are seven aspects of Texas that are important to consider, including the
number and characteristics of students, the demographics of teachers and the state
policy context.
First, Texas has experienced rapid demographic changes such that the student population
has changed from majority white and not economically disadvantaged to majority students of
color and students living in poverty (Fuller, Hollingworth and An, 2016). Understanding the
response of the leadership pipeline to changes in student demographics may help inform
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

responses in other states as they experience similar demographic shifts.

Second, the number of K-12 students has increased dramatically from around 3.2m in
1990 to nearly 5.2m in 2014. This rapid growth in students led to an increase in schools from
5,678 in 1990 to 8,574 in 2014, thus creating nearly 3,000 additional principal positions and
thousands of additional assistant principal positions. This is important to understand
because the labor market dynamics in a fast-growth state like Texas may differ
substantially from a state with lower growth in the number of students and schools.
Third, the racial/ethnic diversity of Texas teachers has increased over time while the
percentage of teachers who were women has remained constant (Fuller Hollingworth and
An, 2016). These trends are important because the pool of individuals eligible to become
assistant principals and principals is largely drawn from the pool of employed teachers. The
increasing racial/ethnic diversification of teachers, coupled with the relatively constant
percentage of women teachers, would suggest a more racially/ethnically diverse applicant
pool for principal and assistant principal positions.
Fourth, the number of individuals earning principal certification varied from a low of about
1,700 in 2000 to a high of almost 3,600 in 2011. On average, almost 2,700 individuals earned
principal certification each year between 1995 and 2011. In terms of newly hired school leaders
(either assistant principals or principals), the low was about 1,100 in 1995 with a high of about
2,000 in 2008. The yearly average of new hires was about 1,600 individuals. The ratio of
individuals certified to individuals hired in the year after certification ranged from a low of
about 0.97 in 2001 to a high of nearly 2.55 in 2010. The average ratio was about 1.6. Thus, not
all individuals obtaining principal certification could become employed as a school leader in
the year in which they obtained certification because of the lack of an ample number of
openings for all graduates to find employment as a school leader.
Fifth, Texas had a large number and wide variety of SLPPs which is not necessarily true
for other states. For example, based on information from the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System, Fuller et al. (2019) found New York and Texas were the only states
with at least 50 institutions of higher education that granted master’s degrees in educational
leadership. While additional entities can certify individuals as principals, this finding reveals
is different than most states regarding the number of preparation programs. With respect to
variety, 14 SLPPs had a yearly average of fewer than ten individuals obtaining certification
while three SLPPs had a yearly average of at least 100 individuals obtaining certification. The
median number of individuals obtaining certification was 19 and the average number of
individuals obtaining certification was 36[1]. With respect to the geographic location of the
SLPP, 54 percent were located in urban areas, 27 percent were located in cities not large
enough to be considered urban, and the remaining 19 percent were located in small towns in
 JEA rural parts of the state. In addition, around five SLPPs – depending on the year – offered
preparation experiences online rather than residentially.
Sixth, the state of Texas does not provide any fiscal incentive or fiscal support for
obtaining a master’s degree of any kind. The state does not require districts to provide
additional pay to teachers with a master’s degree nor does the state require districts to fund
enrollment in a postsecondary institution of higher education. Individual districts, however,
do provide some type of fiscal incentive to obtain a master’s degree.
Finally, studying the trends in Texas is important because the state offers a typical
policy context, with many of the same requirements and opportunities for leadership
licensure and placement as other states. For example, individuals must complete at least two
years of teaching, complete a principal preparation program, and pass a state certification
test to become a fully certified assistant principal and principal (Kaye and Makos, 2012).
Furthermore, principal preparation programs include both university-based and alternative
programs and a handful of the programs are online. Thus, all individuals have access to a
principal preparation program.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

Data sources
We used data from the Texas Education Agency that included all individuals obtaining
principal certification in Texas from 1993 through 2013, the year in which they obtained
certification, the SLPP from which they graduated, and their personal characteristics (age,
race/ethnicity, and gender). Data also included public school employment information for all
individuals between 1993 and 2014, which allowed us to identify if a person was employed
as a school leader – either an assistant principal or principal – in a particular year as well as
the number of schools and the annual percentage change in the number of schools in each
labor market.
For our analysis of the production of school leaders, we relied on the population of
individuals obtaining principal certification, which included teachers and non-teachers. For the
descriptive analyses, we relied on 60,880 individuals obtaining principal certification between
1990 and 2013. Our descriptive analysis of beginning school leaders was based on the full
population of 40,691 newly hired assistant principals and principals between 1990 and 2014.
For our regression analyses of placement, we included 31,719 individuals who obtained
certification from 59 different in-state SLPPs between 1993 and 2007. We removed
SLPPs with fewer than 10 total graduates. This time frame allowed for a five-year window
in which candidates might obtain jobs as school leaders for all cohorts and no missing data
for our variables.

Variables
A number of measures were used in this study, with most of them being variables included
in the original data sets. Several measures were constructed as described below.
Program type. We used the 1994 Carnegie classification for all higher education
institutions in Texas to identify program type (see Shulman, 2001 for a description of
institution types). Alternative certification programs were included as a separate program
type. While the Carnegie classification system was not intended to serve as a measure of
program quality, Fuller et al. (2011) found graduates from institutions classified as research
or doctoral institutions were associated with greater increases in student achievement
through the building of better qualified teams of teachers over time. While some of the
current programs are online, we do not include online programs as a separate type for three
reasons. First, the number of such programs was less than five in any given year under
study. Second, the number of graduates from such programs was quite small. Third, some
programs offered both residential and online options while others transitioned from
 residential to online. The data does not differentiate the type of program within an Employment
institution, thus there would be some error in the identification of graduates. Thus, we could of school
not identify a clear option in how to include such programs in the analysis. leaders
School leader. We define school leader as an individual employed as either an assistant
principal or principal. This is consistent with the purpose of SLPPs – to prepare individuals
for employment in either of these two positions. Our more inclusive definition of school
leader contrasts with the narrow definition employed by Davis et al. (2017) that focused only
on employment as a principal.
Percentage employed within X years after certification. These measures were constructed
by determining whether an individual obtained employment as a school leader within X
years after the academic year in which certification was obtained. Our dependent variable
for our regression analysis was a binary variable indicating if an individual had obtained
employment as a school leader within five years after certification.
Percent change in school administrators in region. This variable was constructed by
calculating the percentage change in the number of administrators within each region for each
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

set of consecutive years. Finally, we calculated the mean change for each cohort by averaging
the change for three consecutive years, starting with the year of certification. In this way, we
captured the change over the years when graduates often take positions.

Methods
Because we examined the impact of both the characteristics of individuals and SLPPs, our
data are nested (individuals are grouped together in specific SLPPs), which creates several
analytic issues. First, individuals within a SLPP are likely more similar to each other than
individuals randomly selected from the population of aspiring leaders, thus violating an
important assumption of random sampling – independent errors (Heck et al., 2012). If the
nested nature of the data is not accounted for statistically, the results would lead to
underestimation of the standard errors and, hence, increase the odds for making a Type I
error. Second, employment of a single-level model would weigh SLPP characteristics based
on the number of graduates from the SLPP rather than the number of SLPPs. In doing so,
we would overestimate the precision of SLPP characteristics.
Thus, we employ a multilevel logistic regression to estimate the effect of SLPP graduate
characteristics (level 1), time-varying program covariates (level 1) and SLPP characteristics
(level 2) on SLPP graduates’ employment as a school leader. Given the time demands and
difficulty in estimating randomly varying parameters, as well as the lack of a strong
conceptual justification for these random slope effects, we only include a single random
effect – the random intercept – in our models. We used Stata 14.0 to conduct our analyses.
We express the general multilevel logistic regression model by the following Level 1
(educator and time-varying program covariates) and Level 2 (program) equations.
Level 1:
pij ¼ b0j þb1j Personal Characteristicsij þb2j % Change School Leadersij
þb3j Production Total ij þ b4j Certtif ication Y ear ij ; (1)
where i denotes the education or time-varying program covariates, and j denotes the program.
Level 2:
b0j ¼ g00 þg01 Average Agej þg02 Average % Femalej þg03 Average % W hitej
þg04 Carnegiej þm0j : (2)
The level-1 slopes for background variables (β1–β4) are typically defined as fixed. We
allowed for the intercept (g00) to vary among programs (μ0j).
 JEA In the vector of personal characteristics, we include seven variables that capture the
intersection of race/ethnicity and gender: white women, black men, black women, Latinos,
Latinas, “other” men and “other” women. Because of the small number of individuals
identified as Asian, American Indian, mixed race and of unknown race/ethnicity,
we created a group that encapsulates all of these individuals and designate the group
as “other.”
Our multilevel logistic regression analysis is designed to examine the effects of the
personal- and SLPP-characteristics on the odds of becoming employed as a school leader,
assistant principal and principal within five years of obtaining certification with a focus
on the intersectionality of the individual by race/ethnicity and gender. Our Level 1
controls include the age of the individual and if the person had obtained a temporary
principal certificate. We also control for the change in the number of school leader
positions in the region in which the SLPP attended by the individual was located as well as
several time-varying preparation program characteristics (total number of individuals
obtaining certification in a given year, average age of individuals, average percentage of
individuals identified as female and average percentage of individuals identified as white).
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

Our Level 2 control variables included the Carnegie classifications of the preparation
programs (Researchs I and II, Doctorals I and II, and Masters and Undergraduate
Comprehensive II combined with Baccalaureate I), and the alternative status of the
preparation program.

Rationale for a five-year time frame and binary approach

Many studies employ hazard modeling to examine length of time to placement (Davis et al.,
2017). This approach, however, is unlikely to align with SLPP accountability measures that
typically employ a binary approach to measuring program effectiveness (Fuller and
Hollingworth, 2016, 2018). For example, a state might adopt a metric such as the one
included in the State Evaluation of Principal Preparation Programs Toolkit (New
Leaders and University Council for Educational Administration, 2016, p. 17) that recommends
calculating the, “Percentage of graduates (licensed/endorsed) hired as school leaders (assistant
principals and principals) within three years in the state.” Other organizations such as the
National Conference of State Legislatures (Shelton, 2009) and Alliance to Reform Educational
Leadership (Briggs et al., 2013) have made similar proposals. Furthermore, the Center on
Reinventing Public Education (Campbell and Gross, 2012) recommended adopting a five-year
placement rate as one SLPP accountability measure.
This five-year time period, moreover, aligns with the 5.1 years between certification and
finding employment as a principal in North Carolina (Bastian and Henry, 2014) and the
findings from Texas (Fuller, Hollingworth and An, 2016; Davis et al., 2017) that the median
length to becoming a school leader or principal, respectively, is about five years.
Our use of a five-year time period could be considered a limitation given that individuals
continue to seek and gain employment as a school leader after five years. However, our
analysis finds that nearly 59 percent of individuals obtaining certification become employed
as a school leader within five years of certification. Only an additional 12 percent of
individuals obtain employment as school leader over years six through ten. Less than 4
percent of individuals obtaining certification become employed as a school leader after ten
years post-certification. Thus, limiting our analysis to five years excludes a relatively small
percentage of individuals obtaining employment.
Importantly, the aforementioned organizations do not recommend the use of statistical
approaches that employ the use of control variables to isolate the independent effect of
SLPPs on the placement of graduates. In fact, we found states currently calculate a simple
percentage of individuals from a SLPP obtaining certification who then become employed as
a school leader within some specific time range, generally between one and five years.
 Thus, this study is a mix of a traditional statistical investigation of the factors associated Employment
with employment as a school leader and a policy analysis that examines such factors within of school
a politically imposed time frame so the results could be used to evaluate SLPPs and hold leaders
them accountable.

Limitations
Our primary limitation is the lack of information about individuals’ application and
acceptance behaviors. We do not know how differences in application and acceptance
behaviors across educators with different personal characteristics influence our findings.
While DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012) found non-white and women educators apply for
and accept job offers at similar or greater rates than white and male educators,
respectively, we do not know whether this holds true in Texas. Further, we have limited
information on the actual qualifications of individuals. If unobserved measures of
qualifications are systematically associated with educators’ personal characteristics, our
study could incorrectly infer an association between personal characteristics and the odds
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

of employment.
Further, we do not have access to indicators about the quality of SLPPs that might
influence placement. Thus, our analysis cannot determine if specific policies, practices or
procedures are associated with placement or if any research-based practices such as being
selective in accepting applicants are practiced by any specific group of SLPPs. Including
such information would greatly enhance our understanding of the relationship between
preparation and placement.

Findings
Intersectionality and the production of school leaders
In Figure 1, we present the three-year rolling averages of the percentages of educators
obtaining principal certification by the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender for 1991
through 2012. Most noticeably, there has been a steady decline in the percentage of white
men obtaining certification, from about 27 percent in 1991 to 17 percent in 2012. This was
the greatest percentage-point change for any group. There was an increase of slightly more

50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0 Other Male

Other Female
30.0
Black Male
25.0 Black Female

20.0 Latino
Latina
15.0 Figure 1.
White Male
Three-year rolling
10.0 White Female average of the
percentage of
5.0 individuals obtaining
principal certification
0.0 by race/ethnicity ×
gender (1991–2012)
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
 JEA than five percentage points for Latina educators and about a four percentage point increase
for black women. There was also a slight increase in the percentage of Latino educators
obtaining certification from 1993 through 2008, but by 2011, the percentage had decreased
back to levels observed in 1993. Finally, the percentage of white women obtaining
certification slowly decreased from 1993 through 2008, but then increased from 2008
through 2011.

Intersectionality and beginning school leaders

In this analysis, we define a beginning school leader as an educator who obtained
employment as a school leader (assistant principal or principal) for the first time in a Texas
public school. As shown in Figure 2, there were three prominent trends. First, the percentage
of white men decreased precipitously from 35 percent in 1991 to 19.5 percent in 2013.
Second, the percentage of individuals obtaining certification who were Latina increased
from 8.5 percent in 1991 to 18.5 percent in 2012. Thus, by 2012, a beginning school leader
was almost as likely to be a Latina educator as a white male educator. The narrowing of this
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

hiring gap was driven primarily by greater numbers of Latina educators hired as assistant
principals, rather than as principals. Third, the percentage of beginning school leaders from
other racial/ethnic and gender combinations remained relatively stable over time, although
there was a four percentage-point increase for black women.

Intersectionality and placement within five years of certification

As shown in Table I, only 21 percent of individuals who obtained certification became
employed as a principal as compared to nearly 51 percent who became employed as an
assistant principal. When combining employment in either position, about 58 percent of
individuals obtained employment within five years of certification.
With respect to employment as a principal, nearly 33 percent of white men had found
employment. The only other group of individuals to surpass 20 percent employment as a
principal was Latino educators and men in the “other” race/ethnicity category. The lowest
level of employment was 11.8 percent for black women. With respect to employment as an
assistant principal, black men and Latino educators had employment rates of at least
64 percent – the only two groups to surpass 60 percent. Only two groups had less than
50 percent employment – white women and women educators from the “other” race/
ethnicity category. Finally, with respect to employment in either position, all four racial/
ethnic groups of men had employment rates of at least 63 percent. In contrast, black

50.0
45.0
40.0 Other Male
35.0 Other Female
30.0 Black Male
25.0 Black Female
20.0 Latino
Figure 2. 15.0 Latina
Three-year rolling
average of the 10.0 White Male
percentage of 5.0 White Female
beginning school
leaders by race/ 0.0
ethnicity × gender
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
 women educators and women educators from the “other” race/ethnicity category had Employment
employment rates of less than 50 percent after five years (see Table II). of school
Our multilevel logistic regression analyses yielded numerous conclusions (see Table III). leaders
Our most policy-relevant finding is that the selection of the outcome variable substantially
alters the employment analysis results. Indeed, employment rates differ dramatically across
and within group of individuals based on the choice of employment as an assistant
principal, principal, or school leader as the outcome variable.
With respect to employment as a principal, all other racial/ethnic–gender combinations
have lower odds of being employed as a principal relative to white men. In particular, we
find women from any racial/ethnic group have substantially lower odds than white men of
becoming employed as a principal and, moreover, have lower odds than men of color. Thus,
the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender influences the odds of an individual obtaining
employment as a principal.
In contrast, we find black men and Latino educators are more likely to be employed as an
assistant principal. Similar to the findings for employment as a principal, women from any
racial/ethnic group have lower odds of becoming an assistant principal than white men.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

There is, however, less of a disparity in the odds of becoming an assistant principal than in
the odds for employment as a principal between women of any racial/ethnic background
and white men. Other-race men did not have odds of employment that were statistically
significantly different than those for white men.
Interestingly, black men and Latino educators have greater odds of becoming a school
leader than white men but that this finding reflects their greater odds of employment as an
assistant principal rather than as a principal. In fact, as noted earlier, black men and Latino
educators are less likely to become employed as a principal relative to white men.
Given the findings for assistant principals and principals, our conclusion that women
from all racial/ethnic groups have lower odds of becoming a school leader than white men is
not surprising. This was true even for Latina educators despite the previous descriptive
results that found a dramatic increase in the percentage of beginning Latina principals.
We also find statistically significant results for the relationship between age and
employment for all three outcomes. Specifically, younger and older individuals are less
likely to find employment for all three outcome positions than their “middle-aged” peers.
This is consistent with prior research on the employment of graduates from both teacher-
and leader-preparation programs.
We find few statistically significant relationships for variables outside of the category of
personal characteristics. Individuals obtaining an emergency certificate have substantially
greater odds of becoming a school leader than educators without an emergency certificate.
This is an unsurprising finding given that the rationale behind emergency certificates
is to enter a position immediately. Indeed, an individual would generally not obtain an

% employed through Year 5

Race/ethnicity and gender Number of individuals Principal Asst principal School leader

Other male 193 24.2 57.6 63.6

Other female 369 15.8 42.2 47.3
Black male 1,131 18.4 67.8 70.5 Table I.
Black female 3,298 11.8 44.4 47.3 Percentage of SLPP
Latino 2,057 22.9 64.2 68.9 individuals employed
Latina 4,403 16.2 51.6 56.9 within five years of
White male 6,835 32.5 57.3 68.9 certification in
White female 13,433 19.1 45.1 52.0 selected positions by
Total 31,719 21.0 50.7 57.6 race/ethnicity × gender
 JEA Variable names Mean SD Min. Max.

Dependent variable
Employed in a School leadership position 0.58 0.49 0 1
Employed as a principal 0.21 0.41 0 1
Employed as an assistant principal 0.51 0.50 0 1
Personal characteristics (Level 1)
Age 39.36 8.080 22 91
Black male 0.116 0.320 0 1
Black female 0.162 0.369 0 1
Latino male 0.199 0.399 0 1
Latino female 0.202 0.402 0 1
White male 0.662 0.473 0 1
White female 0.615 0.487 0 1
Other-race male 0.023 0.149 0 1
Other-race female 0.021 0.143 0 1
Emergency permit 0.050 0.220 0 1
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

Time-varying program context (Level 1)

% Chg Sch Ldrs (Region) 3.5 1.86 −2.8 10.63
Time-varying prog characteristics (Level 1)
Production total 79.91 53.65 1 274
Avg age 39.36 1.98 27.3 52
Avg % female/10 (e.g. 10 ¼ 100%) 6.78 0.97 0 10
Avg % white/10 (e.g. 10 ¼ 100%) 6.39 2.26 0 10
Certification year (Level 1)
1994 0.05 0.22 0 1
1995 0.06 0.23 0 1
1996 0.05 0.23 0 1
1997 0.06 0.23 0 1
1998 0.06 0.24 0 1
1999 0.09 0.28 0 1
2000 0.05 0.22 0 1
2001 0.06 0.23 0 1
2002 0.07 0.26 0 1
2003 0.07 0.26 0 1
2004 0.09 0.28 0 1
2005 0.10 0.30 0 1
2006 0.07 0.25 0 1
2007 0.08 0.28 0 1
Program characteristics (Level 2)
Research (I and II) 0.03 0.18 0 1
Doctoral (I and II) 0.23 0.42 0 1
MUC I 0.63 0.36 0 1
MUC II/BACC I 0.06 0.23 0 1
Alternative 0.05 0.21 0 1
Table II. Notes: Data are derived from the Texas Education Agency. Sample size is 31,719 educators in
Descriptive statistics 59 principal programs

emergency certificate unless the potential for employment was extremely high. In addition,
the total number of individuals obtaining certification from a SLPP was negatively
associated with an individual’s odds of obtaining employment as an assistant principal or
school leader. This may signal an over-supply of applicants in a particular labor market or
that large programs are less effective in preparing individuals with the knowledge and skills
 Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

School leadership Assistant principal Principal

Coef. SE OR Coef. SE OR Coef. SE OR

Level 1 fixed effects

Personal characteristics
Age 0.109*** (0.014) 1.115 0.079*** (0.014) 1.083 0.105*** (0.018) 1.111
Age squared −0.002*** (0.000) 0.998 −0.002*** (0.0002) 0.998 −0.001*** (0.0002) 0.999
Black Male 0.221** (0.075) 1.247 0.520*** (0.073) 1.683 −0.501*** (0.085) 0.606
Black Female −0.776*** (0.049) 0.460 −0.503*** (0.048) 0.605 −0.957*** (0.064) 0.384
Latino Male 0.145* (0.059) 1.156 0.410*** (0.057) 1.507 −0.266*** (0.064) 0.767
Latino Female −0.368*** (0.046) 0.692 −0.140** (0.045) 0.869 −0.623*** (0.055) 0.537
White Female −0.684*** (0.033) 0.504 −0.484*** (0.032) 0.616 −0.634*** (0.035) 0.531
Other-Race Male −0.237 (0.156) 0.789 0.006 (0.152) 1.006 −0.387* (0.172) 0.679
Other-Race Female −0.910*** (0.112) 0.403 −0.712*** (0.112) 0.491 −0.745*** (0.148) 0.475
Emergency Permit 1.163*** (0.072) 3.199 0.968*** (0.067) 2.632 0.739*** (0.073) 2.095
Time-varying program Context
% Chg Sch Ldrs (Region) 0.002 (0.010) 1.002 0.006 (0.010) 1.006 −0.009 (0.012) 0.991
Time-varying program Characteristics
Production Total −0.001** (0.000) 0.999 −0.001** (0.0005) 0.999 −0.0002 (0.001) 1.000
Average Age 0.006 (0.009) 1.006 0.001 (0.009) 1.001 0.012 (0.011) 1.012
Average % Female/10 0.001 (0.017) 1.001 0.019 (0.017) 1.019 −0.035**** (0.020) 0.966
Average % White/10 0.013 (0.014) 1.013 0.006 (0.014) 1.006 0.034**** (0.018) 1.034
Level 2 fixed effects
Program characteristics
Research (I and II) 0.481* (0.243) 1.618 0.351 (0.241) 1.421 0.512**** (0.277) 1.669
Doctoral (I and II) 0.142 (0.166) 1.153 0.277**** (0.166) 1.319 0.018 (0.193) 1.019
MUC II/BACC I −0.052 (0.194) 0.949 −0.046 (0.194) 0.955 0.055 (0.225) 1.056
Alternative 0.052 (0.160) 1.053 0.052 (0.158) 1.053 0.253 (0.183) 1.288
Constant −1.066* (0.479) 0.344 −0.819**** (0.475) 0.441 −3.091*** (0.574) 0.045
Random effects
Variance Component 0.1436797*** (0.033) 0.143*** (0.032) 0.191*** (0.047)
Intraclass correlation (%) 4.2*** 4.2*** 5.5***
Notes: Data are derived from the Texas Education Agency. Sample size is 31,719 educators in 59 principal programs. Standard error in parenthesis. The results for the
individual certification years are available upon request. OR, Odds ratio. *p o 0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001; ****p o0.0001 (two-tailed)
Employment

leaders
of school

regression of

after certification
five years
employment within
Table III.
Multilevel logistic
 JEA sought by districts. These effects, however, were statistically significant at the p o0.10 level
only. Research by Fuller et al. (2011) using Texas data suggests there may be some
evidence in support of the second possibility. Our evidence as well as extant research
suggests programs with between 15 and 40 students in a cohort tend to be more effective
than other programs as measured by various outcomes including placement. This, however,
is true only for university-based programs. We lack sufficient information on other types
of programs.
With respect to Level 1 SLPP demographics, the percentage of women in a program
was negatively associated with becoming a principal while the percentage of white
educators in a program was positively associated with becoming a principal. Surprisingly,
we did not find any measures of demand such as the number of open positions to be
associated with placement rates. In our final model, the percentage change in the number
of school leader positions was not statistically significant. In other models, the number of
vacant positions was not statistically significant after controlling for other factors.
Our other variations of estimates of vacant positions were also not statistically significant.
We believe, however, that further investigation into the potential impact of demand
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

is warranted.
Further, while Davis et al. (2017) found the geographic locale (urban, suburban, town and
rural) of the school in which a teacher was employed was associated with the odds of being
hired as a principal, our analysis did not find that the geographic locale of the SLPP was
associated with the odds of being hired as a school leader. The discrepancy in findings
between our study and the Davis et al. (2017) study could be the result of different samples,
different outcomes, and different foci. Specifically, we focus on all individuals obtaining
certification rather than the smaller sample of only teachers obtaining certification. Further,
we focus on employment as assistant principal and principal while the Davis et al. (2017)
study focused only on employment as a principal. Finally, we focus on the location of the
SLPP rather than the location of the individual. We do believe that further investigation of
these issues should be undertaken.
With respect to program-level effects, we find a positive relationship between being
enrolled in a Researchs I/II program and the odds of becoming a principal and school leader.
Finally, we found a statistically significant and positive relationship between being an
individual from a Doctorals I/II institution and the odds of employment as an assistant
principal. This finding, however, was statistically significant at the p o0.10 level only.

Discussion and policy implications

In this study, we have examined the production and hiring of beginning school leaders by
the intersection of the race/ethnicity and gender of individuals as well as the impact of
personal- and SLPP-characteristics have on the odds of an educator obtaining
employment as an assistant principal, principal or school leader within five years after
certification. We find greater racial/ethnic and gender diversity in both the percentage of
individuals obtaining principal certification and the percentage of individuals hired as
beginning school leaders. Moreover, we find these trends are driven primarily by
decreases in the percentages of white men and increases in the percentage of Latina
educators. We also find the intersection of racial/ethnic and gender characteristics
influences the odds of educators obtaining employment in all three job positions
and these relationships differ depending on the job position used as the dependent
variable. Importantly, we find women and men of color still have lower odds of becoming a
principal relative to white men despite the relative rapid diversification of assistant
principals. Finally, our results suggest personal characteristics exert a stronger
influence than program characteristics on the odds of an educator obtaining a job.
Indeed, once we considered the impact of personal characteristics, there were only minimal
 differences across programs in the odds of an educator finding employment in any of the Employment
three positions. of school
There are several important policy-relevant findings. First, districts must closely leaders
examine their hiring processes to ensure a more equitable hiring process – particularly for
principal positions – in order to increase the racial/ethnic, and gender diversity of school
leaders. This must happen as a matter of fairness and equity as well as to employ leaders in
schools that are more effective in improving outcomes for students of color.
Second, state efforts to evaluate or hold SLPPs accountable for the placement of
graduates must consider the appropriate job positions that are designated as “successful”
placement for SLPP graduates. If states consider successful placement as only in the role of
principal, then states might consider many SLPPs ineffective. For example, Davis et al.
(2017) contend, “Recruitment and selection [of SLPPs] should be aimed toward generating
practicing principals” (p. 28). They further argue SLPPs should be held accountable for their
low placement of graduates in principal positions. We strongly disagree with the stance of
Davis et al. (2017). Indeed, our own research in Texas suggests many leaders spend time as
an assistant principal before advancing into the principalship (Crawford and Fuller, 2017),
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

and doing so is associated with greater principal retention (Baker et al., 2010) and principal
effectiveness (Grissom et al., 2018).
Third, our findings document the intersectionality of aspiring leaders substantially
influences the odds of obtaining employment. If, states do adopt SLPP accountability
systems that rely on overall percentages of graduates who obtain employment and do not
adjust the calculations by the personal characteristics of graduates, then the
accountability systems could very likely create a strong disincentive for SLPPs to
recruit and admit female educators and educators of color. If SLPPs follow the incentive
structure created by simplistic accountability system – and evidence is that any such
system that is high-stakes will result in organizations responding to such
incentives – then state action could actually decrease the racial/ethnic and gender
diversity of K–12 leaders. Thus, states should be cautious in examining the incentive
structure created by any SLPP accountability system to ensure the incentives do not work
at cross-purposes with diversity goals.
Fourth, our results suggest the influence of personal characteristics on placement as a
school leader is equal to or greater than the influence of program characteristics. Once we
control for personal characteristics, in fact, program characteristics are not consistently
associated with placement rates. Moreover, differences across preparation programs
explain only a small proportion of the variation in placement rates. Thus, state
policymakers should think carefully about whether apparent differences in placement
rates actually reveal something about the quality of SLPPs. Our findings, as well as those
of Grissom et al. (2018), suggest placement rates – in particular, simplistic placement rate
calculations – provide little valuable information about differences in program quality.
We contend policymakers must be careful in implementing accountability systems and be
wary of making conclusions about differences in quality across SLPPs without also
conducting in-depth reviews of programs.
Finally, our findings do not shed light on why personal characteristics influence the
odds of obtaining employment. Further studies should investigate potential differences in
the application and job acceptance behaviors of SLPP graduates by personal
characteristics and of the behaviors of school district committees responsible for hiring
school leaders. Such studies can shed light on whether dramatic differences in the odds of
employment by personal characteristics are driven by supply-side issues, demand-side
issues or some combination of the two. Only then can we begin to develop strategies and
policies that target the underlying causes of inequitable access to school leadership
positions identified in this study.
 JEA Note
1. There has been recent interest in Lamar University, which transitioned from a residential program
to an at-home/on-line program in 2008 – just after the last year included in our analysis. In 2007,
Lamar University had 45 individuals obtain certification – which increased to over 1,200 in 2010.
Our descriptive analysis suggests no discernible difference between the Lamar University
placement rate and the average placement rate for all other preparation programs combined.
Including Lamar University in our regression analysis did not change any of the results.

References
Baker, B., Punswick, E. and Belt, C. (2010), “School leadership stability, principal moves, and
departures: evidence from Missouri”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 523-557.
Bastian, K.C. and Henry, G.T. (2014), “The apprentice pathways to the principalship and student
achievement”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 600-639.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

Black, W. (2011), “Who are we? Collaborative inquiry and the description of one state’s principal
preparation landscape”, International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Breslin, R.A., Pandey, S. and Riccucci, N.M. (2017), “Intersectionality in public leadership research: a
review and future research agenda”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 160-182.
Briggs, K., Cheney, G., Davis, J. and Moll, K. (2013), Operating in the Dark: What Outdated State Policies
and Data Gaps Mean for Effective School Leadership, George W. Bush Institute, Dallas, TX.
Campbell, C. and Gross, B. (2012), Principal Concerns: Leadership Data and Strategies for States, Center
on Reinventing Public Education, Seattle, WA.
Crawford, E. and Fuller, E. (2017), “A dream attained or deferred? Examination of production and
placement of Latino administrators”, Urban Education, Vol. 52 No. 10, pp. 1167-1203.
Crenshaw, K. (1989), “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of
antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics”, University of Chicago
Legal Forum, Vol. 1989 No. 1, pp. 139-167.
Davis, B.W., Gooden, M.A. and Bowers, A.J. (2017), “Pathways to the principalship: an event history
analysis of the careers of teachers with principal certification”, American Educational Research
Journal, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 207-240.
DeAngelis, K.J. and O’Connor, N.K. (2012), “Examining the pipeline into educational administration an
analysis of applications and job offers”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 468-505.
Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J. and Johnson, B.T. (1992), “Gender and leadership style among school principals:
a meta-analysis”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 76-102.
Fuller, E.J. and Hollingworth, L. (2016), “Evaluating principal-preparation programs based on
placement rates problems and prospects for policymakers”, Journal of Research on Leadership
Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 237-271.
Fuller, E.J. and Hollingworth, L. (2018), “Questioning the use of outcome measures to evaluate principal
preparation programs”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 1-22.
Fuller, E.J., Hollingworth, L. and An, B. (2016), “The impact of personal and program characteristics on
the placement of school leadership preparation program graduates in school leader positions”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 643-674.
Fuller, E., LeMay, M. and Pendola, A. (2018), “Who should be our leader? Examining female
representation in the principalship across geographic locales in texas public schools”, Journal of
Research in Rural Education, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 1-21.
 Fuller, E., Reynolds, A. and O’Doherty, A. (2016), “Recruitment, selection, and placement of educational Employment
leadership students”, in Crow, G. and Young, M. (Eds), Handbook of Research on the Education of school
of School Leaders, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 77-117.
leaders
Fuller, E., Young, M. and Baker, B.D. (2011), “Do principal preparation programs influence student
achievement through the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal? An
exploratory analysis”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 173-216.
Fuller, E., Perrone, F., Sanzo, K. and Young, M. (2019), “Developing a diverse pipeline of educational
leaders: an examination of university practices”, unpublished manuscript, University Council for
Educational Administration, Charlottesville, VA.
Gates, S.M., Ringel, J.S. and Santibanez, L. (2003), Who is Leading our Schools? An Overview of School
Administrators and Their Careers (No. 1679), Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Gates, S.M., Ringel, J.S., Santibanez, L., Guarino, C., Ghosh-Dastidar, B. and Brown, A. (2006), “Mobility
and turnover among school principals”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 289-302.
Gipson, A.N., Pfaff, D.L., Mendelsohn, D.B., Catenacci, L.T. and Burke, W.W. (2017), “Women and
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

leadership: selection, development, leadership style, and performance”, The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 32-65.
Grissom, J.A. and Keiser, L.R. (2011), “A supervisor like me: race, representation, and the satisfaction
and turnover decisions of public sector employees”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 557-580.
Grissom, J.A., Blissett, R.S. and Mitani, H. (2018), “Evaluating school principals: supervisor ratings of
principal practice and principal job performance”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 446-472.
Grissom, J.A., Kern, E.C. and Rodriguez, L.A. (2015), “The ‘representative bureaucracy’ in education:
educator workforce diversity, policy outputs, and outcomes for disadvantaged students”,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 185-192.
Grissom, J.A., Mitani, H. and Blissett, R.S. (2017), “Principal licensure exams and future job
performance: evidence from the school leaders licensure assessment”, Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 248-280.
Grissom, J.A., Mitani, H. and Woo, D.S. (2018), “Principal preparation programs and principal
outcomes”, Educational Administration Quarterly.
Heck, R.H., Thomas, S. and Tabata, L.N. (2012), Multilevel Modeling of Categorical Outcomes Using IBM
SPSS”, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, NY.
Hill, C., Miller, K., Benson, K. and Handley, G. (2016), Barriers and Bias: The Status of Women in
Leadership, American Association of University Women, Washington, DC.
Hill, J., Ottem, R. and DeRoche, J. (2016), Trends in Public and Private School Principal Demographics
and Qualifications: 1987-88 to 2011-12. Stats in Brief, NCES 2016-189. National Center for
Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
Ikemoto, G., Taliaferro, L., Fenton, B. and Davis, J. (2014), Great Principals at Scale: Creating District
Conditions That Enable All Principals to Be Effective, New Leaders, New York, NY.
Jean-Marie, G. (2013), “The subtlety of age, gender, and race barriers: a case study of early career
African American female principals”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 615-639.
Joy, L. (1998), “Why are women underrepresented in public school administration? An empirical test of
promotion discrimination”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 193-204.
Kaye, E.A. and Makos, J.J. (2012), Requirements for Certification of Teachers, Counselors, Librarians,
Administrators for Elementary and Secondary Schools, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Khalifa, M.A., Gooden, M.A. and Davis, J.E. (2016), “Culturally responsive school leadership: a
synthesis of the literature”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 1272-1311.
Koenig, A.M., Eagly, A.H., Mitchell, A.A. and Ristikari, T. (2011), “Are leader stereotypes masculine? A
meta-analysis of three research paradigms”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 137 No. 4, pp. 616-642.
 JEA Lankford, H., O’Connell, R. and Wyckoff, J. (2003), Identifying the Next Generation of School Leaders,
Center for Policy Research, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY.
Myung, J., Loeb, S. and Horng, E. (2011), “Tapping the principal pipeline: identifying talent for future
school leadership in the absence of formal succession management programs”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 695-727.
New Leaders and University Council for Educational Administration (2016), State Evaluation of
Principal Preparation Programs Toolkit, Wallace Foundation, New York, NY.
Núñez, A.M. (2014), “Employing multilevel intersectionality in educational research: Latino identities,
contexts, and college access”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 85-92.
Pounder, D.G., Galvin, P. and Shepherd, P. (2003), “An analysis of the United States educational
administrator shortage”, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 133-145.
Riehl, C. and Byrd, M.A. (1997), “Gender differences among new recruits to school administration:
cautionary footnotes to an optimistic tale”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Rosette, A.S., Koval, C.Z., Ma, A. and Livingston, R. (2016), “Race matters for women leaders:
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 18:38 11 March 2019 (PT)

intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 429-445.
Shelton, S.V. (2009), Strong Leaders, Strong Schools: 2008 State Laws, National Conference of State
Legislatures, Washington, DC.
Shulman, L.S. (2001), The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, Carnegie
Publication, Menlo Park, CA.
Snyder, T.D., de Brey, C. and Dillow, S.A. (2018), Digest of Education Statistics 2014, NCES 2016-006,
National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
Urick, A. and Bowers, A.J. (2014), “What are the different types of principals across the United States?
A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership”, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 96-134.
Yoder, R., Freed, D. and Fetters, J. (2014), “Improving School Leader Preparation: Collaborative Models
for Measuring Effectiveness. Ask the Team”, Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, American
Institutes for Research, Washington, DC.

Further reading
Black, W., Bathon, J. and Poindexter, B. (2007), Looking in the Mirror to Improve Practice: A Study of
Administrative Licensure and Masters’ Degree Programs in the State of Indiana, University of
Indiana, Bloomington, IN.
Goldring, R., Gray, L. and Bitterman, A. (2013), “Characteristics of public and private elementary and
secondary school teachers in the United States: results from the 2011-12 schools and staffing
survey: first look”, NCES 2013-314, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC,
pp. 1-62.
Pendola, A. and Fuller, E. (2018), “Principal stability and the rural divide”, Journal of Research in Rural
Education, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-20.

Corresponding author
Liz Hollingworth can be contacted at: liz-hollingworth@uiowa.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com