MOTIVATIONS: MORE MONEY OR MORE MEANING?
A LOOK AT COLLEGE GRADUATES’ CHOICES TO PURSUE
AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERSHIP
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Education
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Education
(Higher Education Leadership)
by
Angela R. Gonzales
SPRING
2012
MOTIVATIONS: MORE MONEY OR MORE MEANING?
A LOOK AT COLLEGE GRADUATES’ CHOICES TO PURSUE
AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERSHIP
A Thesis
by
Angela R. Gonzales
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Rosemary Blanchard
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. José Chávez
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Angela R. Gonzales
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Geni Cowan
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
MOTIVATION: MORE MONEY OR MORE MEANING?
A LOOK AT COLLEGE GRADUATES’ CHOICES TO PURSUE
AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERSHIP
by
Angela R. Gonzales
Brief Literature Review
The focus of this research is to examine the types of motivations in graduate
students in the field of higher education leadership. According to Hegarty (2010), no
comprehensive investigation on the motivation of graduate students exists. While this
research does not attempt to provide a comprehensive investigation on the motivation of
graduate students, the researcher is attempting to add to the body of knowledge by
providing insight into the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of graduate students
choosing to pursue advanced study in the field of higher education leadership.
Relatively few studies have explored the motivations of students in pursuing a
graduate degree and it appears even fewer studies exist exploring the motivations of
students pursuing a graduate degree in the field of educational leadership. The literature
review demonstrates that additional research is needed surrounding the study of why
iv
graduate students choose to pursue an advanced degree in higher education leadership
(Young, et al, 2009).
Statement of Problem
The purpose of this research is to explore the reasons, or motivations, for why
people who have a degree pursue advanced study in the Leadership and Educational
Policy (LEP) program. In general, what are the reasons why people who have a degree
pursue a graduate degree? Specific questions to be addressed include: 1) what are the
personal factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate degree, 2) what are
the economic factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate degree, 3) what
is the relationship between personal and economic factors that may influence the choice
to pursue a graduate degree, and 4) what are some of the other challenges that
respondents encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in higher education at this time?
Sources of Data
The researcher collected data from current graduate students in the LEP program.
The students have been selected from two current LEP cohorts. A sample of two cohorts
from the LEP Program was selected and surveys were administered to participants in a
classroom setting and by email. The surveys contained 28 questions in a Likert-scale
format exploring the motivations among college graduates for choosing to pursue an
advanced degree in the field of higher education. The questions were designed to help
the researcher understand the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, or reasons, for choosing
to pursue a graduate degree in higher education leadership.
v
Conclusions Reached
Overall, the results of the researcher’s data analysis indicated that a majority of
respondents were intrinsically motivated to pursue an advanced degree in the field of
higher education leadership. Based on the findings, it appears that the researcher’s
hypothesis that extrinsic motivators would be primarily responsible for a college
graduates choice to pursue an advanced degree in higher education leadership rather than
intrinsic motivators was incorrect; however, the number of responses indicating intrinsic
and extrinsic responses was very close. Of the several questions asking about challenges
faced while pursuing a graduate degree, only two challenges were identified as
significant; specifically, respondents indicated that their job responsibilities are extremely
time consuming and take time away from their academic work and that some of the
challenges were due to their family responsibilities getting in the way of working on their
degrees.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Rosemary Blanchard
_______________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you, Lord, for the gift of higher education. The successful completion of
this thesis is a reflection of the grace, help and favor that comes from You alone. You
bring joy and meaning to my life every day and I am truly blessed. Thank you, Dr.
Rosemary Blanchard; your insight and integrity have made the contents of this thesis
relevant for today’s challenges in higher education. Your inviting conversation, patience,
and encouragement made this possible. Thank you to Dr. Cowan and Dr. Chavez for
challenging me to think critically, act effectively, and teaching me how to make an
impact as a leader in higher education. I appreciate your guidance and support.
vii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis
To Kris, thank you for being steady and strong. Your faith in God’s plan for me pulled
me through the many moments I wanted to give up. Thank you for making me laugh
even as you wiped away the tears. Hold my hand and walk with me through the coming
seasons…everything is possible with you by my side. The ride is breathtaking and I pray
it lasts far into our twilight years. Until then, I’ll enjoy not always knowing where I end
and you begin. I love you.
To my Family (all of you), thank you for reminding me of the importance of family,
quality time spent together, and for believing in me;
To my Mom for giving me hugs, a listening ear and words of encouragement when I
needed them most; it is from you I learned to look to the Lord for the fulfillment of all
my heart’s desires and He has been faithful, doing much more than I could ask or think.
I admire the love in your heart and hope to be like you;
To my Dad, for your love that gave me the confidence to dream and for instilling in me
the importance of hard work so that I could fulfill my dreams.
I admire the wisdom that stems from your faith.
You are my inspiration and so this achievement belongs to you.
.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii
Dedication ........................................................................................................................ viii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................ 2
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 2
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 3
Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis ................................................................. 4
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...................................................................... 5
Theoretical Frameworks ................................................................................................. 6
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs .................................................................................... 6
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory .................................................................................. 8
Personal Causation ...................................................................................................... 9
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) .............................................................................. 9
Motivating Factors ........................................................................................................ 11
Leadership Theories ...................................................................................................... 11
Trait Theory .............................................................................................................. 12
Higher Education Leadership ....................................................................................... 13
Higher Education and the United States Economy ....................................................... 14
ix
The Current State of Higher Education..................................................................... 15
Impact of Limiting Higher Education Access........................................................... 17
Higher Education’s Role in Reaching National Policy Goals ...................................... 26
Role of Community Colleges .................................................................................... 29
Keeping College Affordable ..................................................................................... 34
The Importance of Emphasizing Completion ........................................................... 38
The Historic and Current Role of Higher Education Leadership ................................. 39
Historical Context of Graduate Programs in Educational Leadership ...................... 39
The Era of Professionalization .................................................................................. 42
Exploring Leadership Preparation in Education ....................................................... 45
Candidates in Educational Leadership Graduate Programs ...................................... 47
Rationale for the Study ................................................................................................. 50
3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 52
Setting of the Study....................................................................................................... 53
Population and Sample ................................................................................................. 53
Design of the Study....................................................................................................... 54
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 55
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 56
Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................. 58
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 60
4. DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 61
Personal Factors ............................................................................................................ 63
Economic Factors ......................................................................................................... 66
Personal and Economic Factors .................................................................................... 68
Other Challenges........................................................................................................... 81
x
5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 92
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 92
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 93
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 97
Appendix A Email For Student Consent Form ................................................................ 99
Appendix B Academic Motivation Scale © .................................................................. 100
Appendix C Consent To Participate .............................................................................. 104
Appendix D SPSS Variables .......................................................................................... 106
References ....................................................................................................................... 108
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
Table 1 Variable Encouraged_Ppl_Matter........................................................................ 59
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
Figure 1
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ....................................................................... 8
Figure 2
California Workforce in 2025 ..................................................................... 18
Figure 3
Unemployment Rates for College Graduates .............................................. 22
Figure 4
Wages are Higher for California College Graduates................................... 23
Figure 5
Variable Encouraged_Ppl_Matter ............................................................... 63
Figure 6
Variable Passionate_About_FieldHE .......................................................... 64
Figure 7
Variable Contrib_Research_HE .................................................................. 65
Figure 8
Variable Increase_Prof_Knowledge ........................................................... 66
Figure 9
Variable HE_Reform_Country ................................................................... 67
Figure 10
Variable Build_Career_Field_Like ............................................................. 68
Figure 11
Variable Better_Choice_Career_Orient ...................................................... 69
Figure 12
Variable Enjoy_Working_Well_Positioned ............................................... 70
Figure 13
Variable Advanced_Degree_Help_Prep ..................................................... 71
Figure 14
Variable Secure_Hi_Pay_Job ..................................................................... 72
Figure 15
Variable Prestige_Job ................................................................................. 73
Figure 16
Variable Earn_Better_Salary ...................................................................... 74
Figure 17
Variable Pursue_Higher_Degree ................................................................ 75
Figure 18
Variable Field_Growing ............................................................................. 76
Figure 19
Variable Changes_HE_Admin.................................................................... 77
Figure 20
Variable Change_Field_Prof_Prepd ........................................................... 78
Figure 21
Variable Trend_Dev_HE ............................................................................ 79
Figure 22
Variable Job_Responsibility ....................................................................... 81
Figure 23
Variable Colleagues_No_Support_Involve ................................................ 82
Figure 24
Variable Family_Responsibility ................................................................. 83
Figure 25
Variable Family_No_Support_Involve ....................................................... 84
xiii
Figure 26
Variable Lack_Support_Acad_Prog_Lvl.................................................... 85
Figure 27
Variable Lack_Support_Dept_Lvl .............................................................. 86
Figure 28
Lack_Support_College_Univ_Lvl .............................................................. 87
Figure 29
Variable Difficult_Acad_Resrch_Write ..................................................... 88
Figure 30
Variable Don’t_Like_Acad_Rsrch_Write .................................................. 89
Figure 31
Variable Cost_Degree_Problem ................................................................. 90
Figure 32
Variable Not_Working_Field ..................................................................... 91
xiv
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The research literature provides valuable information about the role of higher
education in achieving national policy goals and improving economic stability. The
literature shows that the success of the United States economy depends on the successful
preparation of highly skilled workers in order to meet future demands and the field of
higher education is being called upon to prepare the leaders in the field as well as to
prepare workers for high-skill or specialized employment.
Given these economic drivers and the pressures placed upon the field of higher
education to meet these economic needs, master’s programs that prepare future leaders in
higher education have grown in number over the past few decades and the field of higher
education has become increasingly professionalized. This research focuses on the
growing need for higher education leaders and how the field of higher education has
changed and developed to meet that need.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this research is to explore the reasons, or motivations, for why
people who have a degree pursue advanced study in the Leadership and Educational
Policy (LEP) program. In general, what are the reasons why people who have a degree
2
pursue a graduate degree? Specific questions to be addressed include: 1) what are the
personal factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate degree, 2) what are
the economic factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate degree, 3) what
is the relationship between personal and economic factors that may influence the choice
to pursue a graduate degree, and 4) what are some of the other challenges that
respondents encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in higher education at this time?
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the phrase “people who have a degree” is defined
as persons who have graduated with a baccalaureate degree. The terms “higher
education professional” and “higher education leader” are used interchangeably.
Further, motivators may include intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. “Intrinsic motivation”
is defined as taking pleasure in an activity rather working towards an external reward.
“Extrinsic motivation” is defined as an incentive to do something that arises from factors
outside the individual, such as a reward or punishment.
Limitations
This research was limited to graduate students in the Leadership and Educational
Policy program at North Central State University (NCSU). Therefore, the research
results are only directly applicable to graduate students in the LEP Program at NCSU.
While the conclusions may provide insights into the characteristics of students in other
3
higher education leadership graduate programs, they are not generalizable beyond the
population studied.
Additionally, since some respondents answered the survey in class and some
answered it online, there was not an absolute consistency in the way the survey was
administered. This was compensated for by the larger pool of respondents. Also, the
study involves students in one professional program in one public university in one state
at one time. This affects the ability to generalize the results beyond the population
specifically studied.
Significance of the Study
This research is intended to contribute to the broad field of educational leadership
by identifying the motivating factors of people who have a degree to pursue advanced
study in the field of higher education leadership. Additionally, the current role higher
education is being called to fulfill in the economic stability of the United States is
important to research because it has contributed to the increasing professionalization of
the field of higher education. The results of this research may be useful to those seeking
to understand the historical and current role of higher education in an increasingly
technological and global society.
4
Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis
Chapter 2 contains the review of related literature and research related to the
problem being investigated, such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and leadership trait
theory. Further, the literature review provides historical context for the development of
the field on higher education, the historic and current role of higher education as well
higher education’s role in the economy. The methodology, setting of the study,
population and sample, data collection, instrumentation, and data analysis will be
presented in Chapter 3. The data analysis and findings to emerge from the study will be
contained in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 will encompass a summary of the study and findings,
conclusions drawn from the findings, and recommendations for further study.
5
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Relatively few studies have explored the motivations of students in pursuing a
graduate degree and it appears even fewer studies exist exploring the motivations of
students pursuing a graduate degree in Leadership and Educational Policy (LEP) studies.
The literature review demonstrates that additional research is needed surrounding the
study of why graduate students choose to pursue advanced degrees in higher education
leadership. The researcher contends that the theoretical framework of Self-Determination
Theory (SDT) is well-suited to addressing the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for
graduate students.
In this chapter, the researcher presents a brief historical perspective on
motivational research as well as the development of contemporary motivational and
leadership theories; the current focus of this research is discussed in light of this context.
A brief summary discussion is offered to provide context for the researcher’s study on
motivation in graduate students. The focus of this research is to examine specifically the
types of motivation in graduate students in the LEP program at North Central State
University since, according to Hegarty (2010), no comprehensive investigation on the
motivation of graduate students exists. While this research does not attempt to provide a
comprehensive investigation on the motivation of graduate students, the researcher is
6
attempting to add to the body of knowledge by providing insight into the motivations of
graduate students choosing to pursue advanced study in the LEP Program.
This research explores the source of motivation among graduate school students
to determine the reasons for pursuing graduate study – whether they are motivated
students who are passionate about academics or individuals seeking a degree for external
reasons, such as to earn a better salary or to obtain a more prestigious job position. It is
the hope of this researcher to add to the body of knowledge already existing on
motivation in graduate students.
Theoretical Frameworks
Motivation research continues to evolve as do motivational theories (Hegarty,
2010). While no study on motivation can be complete without discussion of the more
important theories and their influences on how the motivation and performance of
individuals has been studied by researchers, the scope of this research prevents listing all
motivational theories. Instead, this researcher provides a brief summary of the theories
relevant to this study.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Perhaps the most famous theory on motivation, this theory combined the roots of
early studies and has continued to be ingrained in all modern studies concerning
motivation. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs takes us through the basic needs of human
beings for food, air, and shelter, to man’s need for affiliation, respect and achievement
7
(Maslow, 1954). As can be seen in Figure 1, Maslow listed a person’s basic needs from
lowest to highest. According to Maslow, one’s primary concern is physiological, such as
food and water. Once this need has been met, one is then motivated to satisfy the need
for shelter and safety. Next, one is concerned with belonging to and being part of a social
group consisting of family and friends. Continuing up the hierarchy, one is then
motivated to achieve respect among professional peers. Finally, one is motivated to
achieve self-actualization whereby one becomes a decision-maker and achieves one’s full
potential. One does not proceed along this hierarchy until one’s motivation satisfies
one’s needs at each level. Maslow’s hierarchy has served as a great picture of one’s
motivational development from basic physiological needs to higher cognitive motives.
As a result, it has remained popular in educational settings in assisting individuals’
understanding of the progress of motivation research (Hegarty, 2010). It is this
researcher’s expectation that the graduate students who participate in the sample survey
occupy the upper levels of motivation on Maslow’s hierarchy.
8
Figure 1
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
Briefly, Herzberg’s theory highlighted the notion that motivation has been, and
continues to be a complicated issue that goes well beyond the satisfaction of basic needs
and wants. This theory emphasized that motivation has been a personal issue and
optimum performance levels can only be achieved when an individual makes a personal
commitment to a task. Basically, Herzberg proposed that this commitment has at its
foundation an individual’s genuine interest in performing a task well (Herzberg, Mausner
& Snyderman, 1959). For example, it would point to the fact that graduate students
arrived at a university with a variety of personal reasons for pursuing graduate
coursework. Consequently, each student’s personal reasons for attending graduate school
might be indicative of a level of motivation that was strong enough to ignite a personal
interest in the coursework (Hegarty, 2010).
9
Personal Causation
This theory by DesCharms (1968) stated that motivation has been and continues
to be a personal issue based upon an individual’s priorities. Personal priorities, he
posited, were a greater source of motivation than external controls. He claimed that what
really determines motivation are an individual’s personal “causes” for achievement and
the more important an issue to a person the more motivated in action they would be.
Consequently, the strength of motivation will have determined the course of action an
individual would take. DeCharm’s theory clearly understood and conveyed that
motivation, a personal phenomenon, was a complex issue (DeCharm, 1968). Graduate
students arrive at graduate school with a variety of reasons for undertaking the challenge
of completing a degree. DeCharm’s theory would suggest that personal priorities of the
student determines the strength of their motivation. An individual’s strength of
motivation would then in turn determine the amount of effort extended to successfully
complete a program (Hegarty, 2010).
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
According to Hegarty (2010), SDT has continued to be in the forefront of all
research on educational motivation and is a macro theory of human motivation concerned
with the development and functioning of personality within social contexts. According to
this theory, there are three basic psychological needs that when satisfied enhance intrinsic
motivation and lead to autonomous internalization of behaviors of initial extrinsic origin
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). Application of SDT would examine the intensity and source of
10
motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) and the internal motivation of students in the learning
process (Hegarty, 2010).
The three psychological needs posited by SDT are the need for autonomy, the
need for relatedness, and the need for competence. The need for autonomy refers to the
need to feel a sense of full volition and “choicefulness” regarding one’s activities and
goals, a feeling that emerges when one’s actions and goals are experienced as emanating
from one’s authentic self (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The need for relatedness refers to the
need to feel closely related to other people. The need for competence is the need to be
effective in one’s interactions with the environment and to feel that one is capable of
mastering challenges (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000).
SDT placed a particularly heavy emphasis on the role the need for autonomy in
promoting intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT-based
research has shown that autonomy-supportive contexts enhance both intrinsic motivation
and well-being (Deci, 1972; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In SDT, provision
of choice has been treated as a practice aimed at supporting autonomy. Yet, theoretical
definitions of the need for autonomy highlight aspects other than choice as fundamental.
In this theory and its related studies, the need for autonomy has typically been equated
with the striving for self-realization and self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Central
to this theory has been the idea that the individual determine how he or she is to be
motivated - internally or externally. Motivation without intention could lead to passive
acceptance of events and their outcomes (Hegarty, 2010).
11
Motivating Factors
The researcher plans to examine the motivational factors associated with graduate
students' choices to apply to graduate school and the reasons for doing so. The purpose
of the present study is to explore the relationships among the pursuit of advanced study
and a student’s various intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Examples of intrinsic
motivation include pursuing graduate study for a personal sense of satisfaction or
achievement. Extrinsic motivation includes earning a higher salary or improving career
competence. The researcher hypothesized that graduate students chose to pursue
graduate programs in educational leadership for reasons that were associated with higher
extrinsic motivation levels, such as earning a higher salary or being prepared for a
promotion, and less with intrinsic motivation levels, such as achieving a person goal to
complete a master’s degree.
Leadership Theories
Leadership development has long been considered an important outcome of
higher education (St. John, Rowley, & Hu, 2009) and has been defined as “the process of
influencing others to achieve group or organizational goals” (Williams, 2007, p. 450).
Influencing others requires their motivation.
12
Trait Theory
This theory proposed that certain individuals possess the ability to naturally lead
others. Researchers Bowditch, Buono and Stewart (2008) stated that great leaders
possess the following characteristics:
Drive – ambition, tenacity and initiative
Leadership Motivation – a desire to lead
Honesty and Integrity – truthful with others
Self-confidence – emotional stability that others admire
Resonance – ability to promote enthusiasm in others
Cognitive ability – strong knowledge of their field
Although not all leaders possess these traits in ample amounts, they have been
considered to be the building blocks of strong leadership. Strong leadership inspires
confidence in others to behave in a motivated manner to achieve desired outcomes
(Hegarty, 2010). Effective qualities of leadership were found to be critical in education
and in schools where minds are influenced, nurtured and changed. Positive leadership
and a genuine interest in the subject matter were found to be crucial to motivate students
to higher achievement. The graduate students the 21st century will, in some cases, be the
leaders of organizations tomorrow. Therefore, their leadership skills, and the ability to
motivate others, are crucial to society (Hegarty, 2010).
The interdependence of leadership and motivation cannot be underestimated.
Leaders have the responsibility of motivating others to achieve desired outcomes. The
13
strength of leadership and quality of motivation displayed by leaders has been found to
have a direct effect on the behavioral patterns of others (Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osborn,
2008). As a result, to have studied motivation is to have studied leadership for insight on
the needs and drives of human beings (Hegarty, 2010).
Higher Education Leadership
The current presidential administration has emphasized the important of a highquality education and its direct relationship to the United States’ ability to compete in the
global economy. For example, President Obama (2011) stated:
A world-class education is the single most important factor in determining not just
whether our kids can compete for the best jobs but whether America can outcompete countries around the world. America's business leaders understand that
when it comes to education, we need to up our game. That's why we’re working
together to put an outstanding education within reach for every child. (White
House, 2011, “Education,” para. 1)
According to a White House online article entitled, “Making College More
Affordable” (2012), the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act represented a
historic investment in higher education – expanding educational opportunity for
America’s students and families. The legislation has strengthened the Pell Grant
program, invested in community colleges, extended support for Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and other Minority Serving Institutions, and helped student
14
borrowers manage their student loan debt. It has paid for these investments while
reducing the federal deficit by ending government subsidies currently given to financial
institutions that make guaranteed federal student loans.
Higher Education and the United States Economy
Further, the role of higher education has been directly tied to the country’s
economic growth. Specifically, President Obama has stated that "Higher education can't
be a luxury; it is an economic imperative that every family should be able to afford"
(Field, 2012, para. 5). In recent decades, the California economy has largely kept pace
with the U.S. economy (Kolko, 2011). California’s economic performance has closely
tracked that of the nation as a whole. The broadest measure of California’s economic
performance—employment growth—also has typically followed the nation’s growth rate
very closely. Job growth over the past 30 years has averaged 1.2 percent annually for the
nation and 1.1 percent annually for California. In the first 10 months of 2010, California
employment grew 0.4 percent, below the national rate of 0.8 percent. Although
California has so far emerged from the recession somewhat more slowly than other
regions of the country, its long-term growth rate is likely to remain similar to that of the
nation (Kolko, 2011).
The literature shows that, although increased investment alone will not solve all
of the state’s educational challenges, cuts in education funding work against the state’s
long-term interests. California has already been facing a “skills gap” that threatens its
15
future economy. The Public Policy Institute of California concluded that more — not
less — support for education is needed to narrow that gap (Johnson, 2009). The PPIC
study pointed out that California’s economy has become increasingly dependent on
highly educated workers. However, unless young adults’ college-going and college
graduation rates increase substantially and include the relevant disciplines, the PPIC
study warned that the supply of graduates is not likely to meet the demand.
PPIC researchers projected that by 2025, 41 percent of jobs will require at least a
bachelor’s degree — but only 35 percent of California adults will have college diplomas,
or stated another way, if current trends persist, the state would be expected to face a
shortfall of one million college graduates. Moreover, adults with a high school diploma
or less will outnumber the jobs available to people with that level of education (Johnson,
2009).
The Current State of Higher Education
The recent downturn in the economy has been well documented in much of the
current literature. The impact on the State of California alone has produced staggering
figures. According to the California 2025 report issued by the Public Policy Institute of
California (PPIC), education spending was an obvious target when the budget had to be
cut since it made up the largest portion of the state budget (Johnson, 2009). In 1980,
education spending comprised 17% of the state budget; in recent years, it has dropped to
only 10% (Johnson, 2009), and that 10 percent of a diminishing total budget. These cuts
16
have been felt around the state in local school districts, which eliminated jobs and
programming.
Additionally, the CSU and UC systems have continued to reduce the size of their
admissions because of mandatory budget cuts across the state. While immediate
solutions to the state’s budget are required, these cuts to higher education have created a
dynamic that works against the state’s long-term interests (Johnson, 2009) and, as a
result, higher education has recurrently faced major problems in the budget (Johnson, and
Li, 2010). The impact of previous quick fixes can be felt today among college students
throughout California. College students have experienced furloughs from work, the
reduced availability of furloughed instructors, increased fees at school and decreased
access to higher education. Headlines throughout the state have demonstrated that the
impact of these decisions has been felt by many stakeholders within the community
served by the universities and colleges (Johnson, and Li, 2010).
The responsibility for public institutions to prioritize education cannot be
understated. Private educational institutions enroll less than 20% of students in
California while public institutions have typically awarded 75% of all bachelor’s degrees
each year. California’s lack of funding for the K-12 system has already demonstrated the
consequences of the state’s failure to prioritize education. After all, research has shown
that students who do not get a good high school education are less likely to pursue
college (Johnson, 2009). Research also has shown that California’s ratings as a provider
of educational services to its people have declined and are no longer very positive. For
17
instance, the state ranks 19th in the percentage of high school graduates who enroll
directly in a 4-year college; 18th in the percentage who enroll in any college, including
community colleges and 18th in the ration of degrees awarded (Johnson, 2009; Johnson,
and Li, 2010). In addition, in 2011, California ranked 31st in the nation on its per-pupil
expenditures on students in K-12 at $9,015 in the state compared to $9,509 nationally ,
which further demonstrated that the state has not been spending the money required to get
students college ready (Taylor, 2011).
Impact of Limiting Higher Education Access
According to the literature, a growing proportion of the nation’s economy has
become dependent on highly skilled workers and, thus, educational attainment has
become a strong predictor of a strong labor market (Johnson & Li, 2010). However, the
proportion of young adults attending college has declined, resulting in a prediction of a
shortfall of educated workers to meet the demand for highly skilled jobs (Johnson & Li,
2010). It has been projected that by 2025, there will be a shortage of one million college
graduates in California (Hanak & Baldassare, 2005; Neumark, 2005; Reed, 2008;
Johnson & Sengupta, 2009; Johnson, 2009; Johnson & Li, 2010). Specifically,
workforce studies have predicted that by 2025, 41% of jobs will require at least a
bachelor’s degree but only 35% of California adults will possess one. Additionally, the
same projections have warned that by 2025 those adults with only a high school diploma
or less will outnumber the jobs available for persons with their education and
qualifications (Johnson, 2009). See Figure 2.
18
Figure 2
California Workforce in 2025
Source: PPIC, Educating California: Choices for the Future, 2009.
For several years, governors and state policymakers have focused considerable
attention on policies related to students’ success at such institutions — how to get more
students into postsecondary institutions and how to help more students graduate. In fact,
many of the nation’s governors are participating in the National Governors Association
(NGA) 2010-2011 Chair’s Initiative, Complete to Compete, which focuses on helping
states improve their students’ college graduation rates (Sparks & Waits, 2011).
However, a growing number of governors and state policymakers have
recognized that higher education, including community colleges, four-year colleges, and
research universities, cannot help drive economic growth in their states unless students’
academic success is linked to the needs of the marketplace. Thus, some governors and
state policymakers have begun to move beyond their focus on getting more students to
get degrees to asking, “Degrees for what jobs?” (Sparks & Waits, 2011, p.2).
19
The American economy has faced gale-like market forces—rapid globalization,
accelerating innovation, and relentless competition. Higher education’s role has been
expected to help drive economic growth and students’ academic success will have to tie
to the needs of the marketplace—not only to ensure that students get jobs, but also to
maximize the value of an educated workforce to the economy as a whole (Sparks &
Waits, 2011).
The deeper trends included, of course, rapid globalization, accelerated innovation,
and relentless competition. These three forces dramatically raised the bar for
performance in America. As a result of these forces, a number of routine tasks that once
characterized middle class work have either been eliminated by technological
improvements or have been conducted by low-wage but highly skilled workers in other
countries. Technological changes have led to 80 percent of technology becoming
obsolete and, within 10 years, are expected to be replaced with new, more advanced
technologies (Sparks & Waits, 2011).
In addition, businesses and states have not had the talent they wanted—and
students and job seekers have not obtained the jobs they wanted. There have been
problems with quality. For instance, employers responded to a survey and estimated that
40 percent of college graduates available to them did not have the necessary applied skills
required to meet their needs. Almost one-third of U.S. manufacturing companies said
they are suffering from some level of skills shortages. There have also been problems
with quantity. In the health sector, for instance, there was a shortage of nurses. In 2010,
20
of the 50 states, 46 face nursing shortages, ranging from a shortage of 200 nurses in
Alabama to a shortage of 47,600 in California. Even though shortages have existed in
such well-paying jobs as nurses and manufacturing, over 30 percent of American college
graduates between the ages of 25 and 29 were working in low-skilled jobs (Sparks &
Waits, 2011).
Consequently, the U.S. had a mismatch between the skills employers needed and
the degrees and certificates students received. An official of the Minneapolis Federal
Reserve Bank calculated that if a normal match between the skills workers possessed and
the skills employers required existed, then the U.S. unemployment rate would have been
6.5 percent instead of 9.6 percent in 2011. Further, by 2018, it has been estimated that
the United States will come up at least 3 million postsecondary degrees short of
employers’ demands. Human resources executives have also indicated very high talent
shortages in the United States in technology, trade, financial services, real estate, health
care, and education by 2030. Of 10 countries (including China, Brazil, India, and the
United Kingdom), the United States faced the second most pressing talent gap across 10
sectors of the economy after Japan. And perhaps even more disturbing, the U.S.
remained behind many competitor countries when it came to degree attainment among
young adults (Sparks & Waits, 2011).
According to Friedman (2012), in the past, workers with average skills, doing an
average job, could earn an average lifestyle. But, the author warned, “average is
officially over. Being average just won’t earn you what it used to” (Friedman, 2012,
21
para. 3). When so many more employers have so much more access to so much more
above average cheap foreign labor, cheap robotics, cheap software, cheap automation and
cheap genius, average won’t cut it. Therefore, everyone needs to find their extra — their
unique value contribution that makes them stand out in whatever is their field of
employment.
In addition, Friedman (2012) stated there will always be change — new jobs, new
products, new services. However, trends have shown that with each advance in
globalization and the technology/internet revolution, the best paying and most prestigious
jobs will require workers to have more and better education to make themselves “above
average” (Friedman, 2010, para. 8). The unemployment rates posted by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics in February, 2012 for Americans over 25 years old paint the following
picture: those with less than a high school degree, 13.8 percent; those with a high school
degree and no college, 8.7 percent; those with some college or associate degree, 7.7
percent; and those with bachelor’s degree or higher, 4.1 percent (Friedman, 2012).
Not only has workforce research projected a shortage of college graduates in
appropriate fields by 2025, but also research has indicated that a workforce shortage
already exists in California. In part, this is due to the changing nature of California’s
shift toward jobs requiring bachelor’s degrees (Reed, 2008). The economic future of
California is expected to face significant challenges posed by the state’s need for more
college graduates. Without a degree, California’s citizens are also expected to face
significant limits to their income earning potential. For the past few decades, college
22
graduates have fared better than those with a high school degree or less, particularly in
times of economic downturn, college graduates were twice as likely to be employed as
high school graduates (Johnson, 2009). See Figure 3.
Figure 3
Unemployment Rates for College Graduates
In addition, the economic relationship between possessing a college degree and
possessing a high school degree is interesting to consider as well. Economists stated that
college graduates in the 1980s earned about 39% more than someone with a high school
diploma while by 2006, that percentage increased substantially to 86%. Further, research
has shown that there is a significant difference in the earnings of college graduates and
high school graduates. For instance, California has reached record levels and college
graduates here earn almost double the wage per hour than high school graduates
(Johnson, 2009; Johnson, and Li, 2010). See Figure 4. Research has shown that
educational attainment results in improvement to wages, tax revenue and less dependency
23
on social services (Brady, Hout, and Stiles, 2005; Offenstein and Shulock, 2009;
Johnson, and Li, 2010).
Figure 4
Wages are Higher for California College Graduates
These projected changes are expected to impact California’s economic future
dramatically. Given the expected retirement of baby boomers – those born between 1946
and 1964 – the state is expected to suffer the loss of many highly skilled workers and
college graduates. It was projected that 3 million baby boomers will leave the workforce
from 2005 to 2025 (Johnson, 2009). According to Johnson (2009), while workforce
changes have occurred before, California is not expected to have enough college
graduates to meet the demand for highly skilled and educated workers after the baby
boomers retire. Specifically, 35% of 55- to 59-year-olds have degrees while only 26% of
25- to 29-year-olds have degrees (Johnson, 2009).
24
To further exacerbate the problem, in addition to the retirement of baby boomers,
researchers attributed the shortage to the high rate of high school dropouts in California.
Some research estimated that one in four high school graduates will leave before
graduation. Among Latinos, the dropout rate was even higher at approximately one in
three dropouts. While this research is not about the Latino population, information about
them is important because they are projected to make up a substantial portion of
California’s workforce by 2025. Specifically, the California Department of Finance
estimated that, by 2016, Latinos will be the largest ethnic group and, by 2025, are
expected to make up 29% of the state’s population (Johnson, 2010).
Research has shown, even among high school graduates, there is a large portion
of graduates who do not attend college or pursue a degree. In California, that rate is
around 56% of high school graduates (Johnson, 2009). Although projections have
indicated some improvement in educational attainment, the improvements alone will not
have been enough to keep up with workforce demand (Johnson, 2009; Reed, 2008).
Potential solutions have been identified and will be discussed further; however,
one option, which has not been shown to help California, is the in-migration of skilled
workers to meet the state’s needs. Specifically, since 2000, California lost slightly more
college graduates that it gained from other states. As a result, the literature showed that
California cannot rely on college graduates from other states filling the skills gap
(Johnson, 2009). Taking these projections into account, researchers estimated that to
address this problem, an immediate increase in the number of graduates by 60,000 each
25
year was needed. Recognizing the improbability of this solution, it has been
recommended that options to narrow the gap be considered instead (Johnson, 2009).
According to a report issued by the Harvard School of Education (2011), the
higher education system has placed far too much emphasis on a single pathway to
success: attending and graduating from a four-year college after completing an academic
program of study in high school. Yet, only 30 percent of young adults successfully
completed this preferred pathway, despite decades of efforts to raise the numbers. And
too many of them graduated from college without a clear conception of the career they
wanted to pursue, let alone a pathway for getting there (Pathways, 2011).
The Georgetown Center projected that 14 million job openings—nearly half of
those that would be filled by workers with post-secondary education—would go to
people with an associate’s degree or occupational certificate. Many of these would be in
“middle-skill” occupations such as electrician, and construction manager, dental
hygienist, paralegal and police officer. While these jobs may not be considered as
prestigious as those filled by B.A. holders, they were found to pay a significant premium
over many jobs open to those with just a high school degree. More surprisingly, they
were found to pay more than many of the jobs held by those with a bachelor’s degree. In
fact, 27 percent of people with post-secondary licenses or certificates—credentials short
of an associate’s degree—earned more than the average bachelor’s degree recipient
(Pathways, 2011).
26
Demand for middle-skilled professionals has exploded in the nation’s hottest
industry, healthcare, which has added over half a million jobs during the Great Recession
year of 2008-2012. Openings for registered nurses and health technologists— positions
that typically require an associate’s degree—are expected to grow by more than 1 million
by 2018. There will also be exceptionally rapid growth in such healthcare support jobs as
nursing aide, home health aide and attendant. Though such positions have still been open
to high school graduates, they have been increasingly filled by people with some postsecondary education or a certificate. Similarly, over half of massage therapists and dental
assistants were found to have a post-secondary certificate. (Pathways, 2011).
A huge number of job openings in so-called blue-collar fields like construction,
manufacturing, and natural resources has also been projected, though many are expected
to be replaced by retiring baby boomers. These fields are expected to provide nearly 8
million job openings, 2.7 million of which would require a post-secondary credential. In
commercial construction, manufacturing, mining and installation, and repair, this kind of
post-secondary education—as opposed to a B.A.—has often been anticipated to be the
ticket to a well-paying and rewarding career (Pathways, 2011).
Higher Education’s Role in Reaching National Policy Goals
Setting national policy goals related to higher education has been a recurring
theme throughout President Obama’s campaign agenda and he has promised college
students that his administration “will provide the support necessary for you to complete
27
college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest
proportion of college graduates in the world" (White House, 2009, “Making College
More Affordable, para. 1).
The U.S. Department of Education hosted a symposium meant to advance the
administration's goal of increasing the nation's number of college graduates (Kelderman,
2012). The president has said that he wants the United States to have the highest rate of
college completion in the world by 2020 (Kelderman, 2012). However, according to the
Education Secretary, the administration has focused more on getting students into college
than on helping them finish their degrees(Kelderman, 2012), "To this point, we have been
working on access,"—for example, by increasing the amount of federal Pell Grants for
low-income students. "We have not done enough to incent completion," he said
(Kelderman, 2012, para. 3). Stan Jones, president of the nonprofit group Complete
College America, said the issue of increasing completion rates was still emerging and that
many in higher education were unaware of how low graduation rates are at many
institutions (Kelderman, 2012). "The topic that has received the most attention in the
higher-education literature for the past 40 years is student persistence," said Mr. George
D. Kuh, emeritus professor of higher education at Indiana University (Kelderman, 2012,
para. 7).
President Obama focused his State of the Union address in January 2012 on the
struggles of the nation's middle class and urged Congress to invest in worker retraining
and make college more affordable for the average American family (Field, 2012). Mr.
28
Obama called for an expansion of job-training programs at community colleges, an
extension of the tuition tax credit, and a doubling of Federal Work Study jobs (Field,
2012). The president also reminded lawmakers of the importance of basic research, and
asked them not to gut support for academic research from the federal budget (Field,
2012). "Don't let other countries win the race for the future," he said. "Support the same
kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new
American jobs and new American industries" (Field, 2012).
Moreover, President Obama called on the nation's community colleges to produce
five million more graduates by the year 2020 and proposed spending $12 billion over 10
years to improve programs, courses, and facilities at two-year institutions (Hebel, 2009).
The goal President Obama set for moving more people through two-year campuses was a
means to achieving the broader benchmark he established earlier in 2009 for the United
States to have the world's highest proportion of college graduates by 2020. (Hebel,
2009).
Community College leaders have recognized that California's community colleges
need to increase the number of certificates and degrees they award by one million by
2020 (Keller, 2010). This ambitious pledge has sought to contribute California's share to
a goal set by President Obama, who has called for an additional five million communitycollege graduates in the next decade. In 2010, California's 112-campus system enrolled
about one-fifth of the nation's community-college students (Keller, 2010).
Recommendations made to improve community college graduation numbers have
29
included closing participation and achievement gaps among underserved groups,
especially Latino students (Keller, 2010).
Meeting the graduation goal will be an immense challenge in a system that has
traditionally focused more on enrolling students than on awarding credentials. Colleges
would need to nearly triple the number of students who graduate with a certificate or an
associate degree each year. On average, each college would need to increase annual
completions to 3,500 from 1,200 (Keller, 2010).
The changes would be required even as state support for colleges is expected to
remain shaky. In November 2010, lawmakers learned that the state would soon face a
new budget deficit estimated at $25.4 billion, which college officials feared could lead to
new cuts in state support (Keller, 2010). "Nevertheless, while current budget constraints
leading to reduced access, lost purchasing power, and student-service program cuts make
the goal daunting, the commission believes that it is necessary to establish a goal that
meets the economic needs of the state and nation," stated a report issued by the
Commission on the Future (Keller, 2010).
Role of Community Colleges
In the 2012 State of the Union address, President Obama called the inability of
many hard-working Americans to enjoy the American Dream “the defining issue of our
time” (Kahlenberg, 2012, para. 1). He stated that Americans shouldn’t “settle for a
country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of
Americans barely get by,” and called for restoring “an economy where everyone gets a
30
fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
(Kahlenberg, 2012, para. 1). In the speech, Obama emphasized the role of education, and
community colleges in particular, in restoring equal opportunity for individuals of all
backgrounds. As open-access institutions with lower tuition levels than four-year
universities, community colleges have been identified as the heart of the president’s
larger goals of restoring social mobility and making the U.S. the most educated country
in the world. But at the very moment that community colleges have been asked to do
more, they have also become the subject of budget cuts and have faced demographic
changes that make their job more difficult (Kahlenberg, 2012). President Obama was
right to highlight the importance of community colleges. If society is serious about
wanting to make sure that everyone has a “fair shot” at the American Dream,
strengthening community colleges must be at the core of the nation’s efforts (Kahlenberg,
2012).
On the jobs front, Mr. Obama called for retraining two million workers through
new partnerships between businesses and community colleges (Field, 2012). "I hear
from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States, but can't find workers
with the right skills," Mr. Obama said. "You need to give more community colleges the
resources they need to become community career centers, places that teach people the
skills businesses are looking for now" (Field, 2012).
A recent example includes a partnership between Edmonds Community College
and aerospace companies in Washington State who have found a new way to replenish
31
their aging work force with young, high-skilled factory workers (Eaton, 2011). The
college, in Lynnwood, Washington, offered an intensive 12-week course that taught
students how to drill into metals like titanium and other skills connected with building
aerospace products. Students who passed the course got an automatic interview with the
Boeing Company, a major employer in the state and one of the world’s biggest airplane
makers. So far, 424 of Edmond’s students have passed the course – a 90% graduation
rate – and more than 75% have found jobs at Boeing (Eaton, 2011).
The president's call for community colleges to graduate 5 million more students
has propelled community colleges to an unusually prominent position in the federal
higher-education policy arena (Hebel, 2009). The proposals also reflected the president's
view "of the centrality of community colleges in providing higher-education
opportunities and promoting higher levels of educational achievement," (Hebel, 2009).
Most of the money—about $9 billion—would go toward creating two grant programs for
two-year campuses and states to test promising programs and practices, including those
designed to improve student learning and training, increase completion rates, and better
track student progress. A "challenge grant" program would award funds on a competitive
basis to community colleges that planned to put in place new partnerships, training,
student services, and other programs that have proved promising, Mr. Kvaal said (Hebel,
2009). White House officials wanted to use the "challenge grants" for a number of
purposes, he said, including to help community colleges work with businesses to develop
curricula that can better meet employers' needs; to foster closer connections among
32
community colleges, four-year colleges, and high schools to align requirements and make
it easier for students to transfer academic credit; and to help community colleges improve
remedial education for students who need extra help to prepare for college-level work
and adult education (Hebel, 2009).
Higher education administrators called the president's planned announcement "an
extraordinary moment" for community colleges and said the level of federal spending
proposed would be "a game changer" for these institutions. "For the first time, the
federal government is recognizing that community colleges are really the bedrock," Gail
O. Mellow, president of La Guardia Community College said (Hebel, 2009, “Money,”
para. 13). Ms. Mellow said the money could not come at a better time for her institution,
which she said is "bursting at the seams" (Hebel, 2009, “Money,” para. 15). She said she
especially welcomed the focus on data gathering and hoped that the president's plan
would lead to the development of national gauges to track the five million students who
are enrolled in noncredit courses at community colleges. Most states and the federal
government do not keep information about students in those courses and how well
institutions prepare them for jobs, Ms, Mellow said. Giving community colleges a way
to measure how well they help those students, she said, "would make an extraordinary
difference” (Hebel, 2009, “Money,” para. 16).
Community colleges' two roles--academic preparation for transfer into a four-year
degree program and vocational preparation for a skilled occupation--increasingly require
similar levels of preparation. The skilled occupations for which students seek preparation
33
often require advanced skills in language arts and math, in science and human relations.
Vocational education is more than "job training," and increasingly it takes more than one
year to accomplish and more than simply vocational courses to achieve (Kasper, 2002 &
2003).
The growing need for academic skills to undergird vocational preparation is
reflected in the emphasis of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act
of 2006 on integration of academic and vocational education. The newly reauthorized
Act provides an increased focus on the academic achievement of career and technical
education students. It includes expectations for articulation of courses and programs and
places a priority on rigorous academic standards and accountability as well as vocational
preparation (Blanchard et al., 2009).
For students who do not already have a postsecondary degree or credential, the
advantage of completing at least an associate degree is apparent and well documented by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Brown (1999) reports that in the mid-1990s, students who
completed certificates and associate degrees from California community colleges
received a 15% and 11% return respectively in increased income from their high school
graduate peers. Four-year college graduates did even better. However, young adults who
attended "some college" but did not graduate did not fare as well as those who attended
community colleges and earned associate degrees. In addition, Brown reports, the
projected rate of growth in occupations that require an associate degree is greater than the
34
expected rate of growth in occupations requiring a bachelor's degree in this decade
(Blanchard et al., 2009).
Keeping College Affordable
President Obama asked Congress to prevent the interest rate on student loans from
doubling, from 3.4 percent, to 6.8 percent, as it is scheduled to do in July 2012 (Field,
2012). If Congress failed to prevent the interest-rate doubling, borrowers who took out
the maximum $23,000 in subsidized student loans could have expected to see their
interest increase by $5,200 over a 10-year repayment period, according to the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group (Field, 2012). The President also had some tough words for the
nation's colleges, putting them "on notice" that the government would not continue to
"subsidize skyrocketing tuition" (Field, 2012). "If you can't stop tuition from going up,
the funding you get from taxpayers will go down," he said.
The administration has planned to reward colleges and states that hold down
tuition and maintain their higher-education budgets (Field, 2012) by proposing a $1
billion grant competition for states that keep costs under control (Field, 2012). The
administration would judge states based on their "long-term policies in place to stabilize
tuition" (Field, 2012). "We can't restrict tuition increases—that's not the role of the
federal government," she said. "But we want to provide incentives to states" to provide
stable funds for higher education (Field, 2012). "I certainly agree with him that we need
bold action to address the spiraling costs of higher education and to promote college
35
success," said Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, the committee's chairman, in an opening
statement. "This is one of those issues that affect all Americans." (Field, 2012).
President Obama kicked off a broad campaign for college affordability, calling
higher education "an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to
afford." (Blumenstyk, 2012). College-cost themes would set the tone for a continuing
national discussion that will be central his administration's coming budget plans
(Blumenstyk, 2012). Mr. Obama challenged states to spend more on higher education,
describing cuts by Michigan and 39 other states as "the largest factor in tuition increases
over at public colleges over the past decade." (Blumenstyk, 2012). And he warned that
colleges themselves needed to do more to cut costs and not assume they can "just jack up
tuition every single year" (Blumenstyk, 2012, para. 5). Government "can't just keep on
subsidizing skyrocketing tuition," he said (Blumenstyk, 2012, para. 5). He continued,
“We should push colleges to do better," said Mr. Obama. "We should hold them
accountable if they don't." (Blumenstyk, 2012, para. 6). The secretary of education, Arne
Duncan, said the public sees higher education as unaffordable, and "that's simply
unacceptable." (Blumenstyk, 2012, para. 7). Details on a federal aid formula are still
being refined, but a document released by the White House said it would reward
institutions that admitted and graduated a relatively higher proportion of low-income
students, demonstrate that their students complete college and find employment, and set
"responsible tuition" policies (Blumenstyk, 2012, para. 12). Mary Sue Coleman, the
president of the University of Michigan, said the plan showed that the administration
36
understands the complexity of issues, including the role of states and the need for
universities to curtail costs (Blumenstyk, 2012). While many higher education leaders
were wary of the proposal to change federal aid programs, Peter McPherson, president of
the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, however, said the ideas deserve a
try, assuming the right metrics could be designed and states do their part. "It's important
to focus on value and quality," he said (Blumenstyk, 2012, “Mixed,” para. 20). He'd like
to see Mr. Obama’s ideas tested with new federal investment in the campus-based
programs. "We think it's time to move to access plus completion" he said (Blumenstyk,
2012, “Mixed,” para. 20). Secretary Duncan said the administration also recognizes that
state budgets are squeezed but that states have a responsibility to commit more money to
higher education, too. "Budgets are not just numbers," he said. "Budgets reflect our
values" (Blumenstyk, 2012, “Mixed,” para. 22). "It's not just about access, it's about
completion," said Mr. Duncan, and emphasized the formula would recognize
affordability and "net tuition" when calculating aid awards to colleges (Blumenstyk,
2012, para. 13).
To encourage states to develop systemic programs to improve affordability and
higher rates of college completion, the administration has also proposed a new $1 billion
higher education competition, modeled after the Race to the Top competition it offered to
states for public-school reforms. Mr. Duncan said Mr. Obama has seen "some amazing
leadership" on cost containment from the presidents he met with recently at the White
37
House, and others, including here at Michigan. "We want to make that the norm rather
than the exception." (Blumenstyk, 2012, “Mixed,” para. 24).
Cost cutting has been nothing new to university officials. Michigan now ranks
39th in state support for higher education, down from 10th place a decade ago. Yet even
as this campus represented the challenges of promoting access in the face of state cuts,
Ms. Coleman said those actions were no substitute for public investment (Blumenstyk,
2012).
President Obama brought his campaign for college affordability to college
students and pledged that his administration would be "putting colleges on notice" over
rising costs. As part of his campaign for college affordability, he issued a call for
continued public support for higher education by states so that the United States would
not become a nation where education is reserved for the well-to-do (Blumenstyk, 2012,
para. 1). Without grants and loans, Obama pointed out, his mother would never have
been able to attend college, and neither would he, he said. "I am only standing here today
because scholarships and loans gave me a shot at a decent education," said Mr. Obama.
"How we keep that promise alive is the defining issue of our time" (Blumenstyk, 2012,
para. 4).
The White House released a package of proposals aimed at pushing colleges and
states to make higher education more affordable, effective, and consumer-friendly
(Blumenstyk, 2012).
38
The Importance of Emphasizing Completion
An additional program President Obama proposed was an "access and completion
fund," according to the White House (Hebel, 2009, “Grants,” para. 9). That program,
too, would give money to community colleges to test promising ideas, such as providing
performance-based scholarships to reward students who made progress toward
graduation. It would also make money available to states to, among other things, help
them develop data systems to track student progress at community colleges and to
measure campuses' graduation rates and the employment outcomes for their students
(Hebel, 2009).
Community colleges have been brimming with programs and policies designed to
help students complete their studies (Gonzalez, 2012). For example, practices that
required orientation and established early academic warning systems have sprouted since
2009, when President Obama announced that he wanted to make the United States the
best-educated country in the world by 2020 (Gonzalez, 2012). However, scaling up
programs at community colleges continued to be a challenge, especially because of
financial constraints. That has led to what the report, "A Matter of Degrees: Promising
Practices for Community College Student Success" Center for Community College
Student Engagement calls "pockets of success rather than widespread improvement"
(Gonzalez, 2012, “Requiring,” para. 17). Community colleges around the country are
stuck and need to find a way to "re-engineer the college experience," a professor in
39
higher education stated, from one that is seen as exceptional for some students to one that
becomes typical for all students (Gonzalez, 2012, “Requiring,” para. 17).
The Historic and Current Role of Higher Education Leadership
Historical Context of Graduate Programs in Educational Leadership
A review of the literature of leadership preparation programs with an emphasis on
graduate education. The author explained how leadership preparation programs have
evolved over time and how these programs were configured for content, delivery, and
influence on professional practice. The literature review provided the historical context
of graduate education with a focus on educational leadership (Jean-Marie and Normore,
2010). Fundamental shifts in the thinking of graduate programs in educational leadership
have created a need to think differently about the profession of school leadership and the
education of school leaders (Jean-Marie and Normore, 2010). Since 1985, a variety of
interrelated activities have helped catapult reform initiatives in educational leadership
programs. According to the American Association of College for Teacher Education
(AACTE), school administrators risk becoming an anachronism if their preparation
programs in schools, colleges and departments of education do not respond to calls for
change in preparing them for professional leadership function (AACTE, 1998).
Higher education leadership programs have been critiqued over the past several
decades. While some of the critiques were harshly stated, the nature of the criticisms
may provide insight to why educational leadership programs were developed, why the
40
need was identified for them and may also contribute to the reasons why and how they
developed over time to become so numerous at colleges and universities across the
United States today (Jean-Marie and Normore, 2010).
Young et al (2009) stated that the huge expansion in the number of programs over
the past 10 years (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007), paired with a lack of rigor in selection,
without a doubt contributes to the oversupply of credentialed administrators in the United
States who are not fit for practice. According to Miklos (1988), a serious crisis in
educational leadership preparation programs was identified in the late 20th century and
research shows that it was referred to as “troubled times” in the 1980s. Specifically,
many analysts have commented on the propensity of graduate programs in educational
leadership to prepare managers rather than leaders (Murphy, 1992). Others have shown
that the current structure of graduate programs has driven a wedge between the academic
and the practicing professional (McCarthy, 1999; McCarthy et al, 1988). In fact, one of
the most serious critiques of leader preparation content focuses on the belief that it does
not reflect the realities of the workplace (Hess & Kelly, 2005; Lakomski, 1998; Murphy,
2006b; Young et al., 2002). Such content is therefore, at best, irrelevant to the jobs
trainees assume and, at worst, dysfunctional in the actual world of practice (Sergiovanni,
1989).
Further, the criticisms of educational leadership preparation programs were
numerous and included questions ranging from how students were recruited and selected
into training programs (Pounder & Young, 1996), the content emphasized, and the
41
pedagogical strategies employed in various leadership preparation programs (Hart &
Weindling, 1996; Levine, 2005; Jean-Marie, Normore & Brooks, 2009). In addition,
other issues of weaknesses in leadership preparation programs that critics have addressed
include the separation of the practice and academic arms of the profession (Bruner,
Greenlee and Somers-Hill, 2007); inadequate attention to diversity and social justice
including issues of gender, race and sexual orientation (Jean-Marie et al., 2009; Preiss et
al.,2007); inappropriate instructional approaches (Normore &Paul Docher, 2007);
certification and employment issues (Preiss et al., 2007). In spite of these sharp
criticisms, research throughout the last quarter century in education has underscored
leadership as a crucial theme in the school improvement narrative (Murphy, 2006).
To further understand the purpose, structure and pedagogy of graduate
preparation programs in educational leadership, this chapter explains how graduate
programs in educational leadership have evolved over time and how they are currently
configured for content, delivery and influence on professional practice. The chapter is
intended to highlight the historical context of graduate education with a focus on
educational leadership (Jean-Marie and Normore, 2010).
First, the development of leadership programs has been well-documented by
Murphy (1992, 1993, 2006) into four broad eras: the era of ideology (pre-1900); the
prescriptive era (1900-1945); the era of professionalism/behavioral science (1946-1985);
and the emerging, dialectic era (1985-the present). The formal training of school leaders
has been a fairly recent development (Cooper & Boyd, 1987; Silver, 1982), one for which
42
the information bank for the early decades is scant (Murphy, 1992). Because of the
limited scope of this research, this literature review focused on only two eras – the era of
professionalism/behavioral science and the dialectic era.
The Era of Professionalization
In the 1940s, American society and issues confronting its school leaders began to
change (and as in the past, administrative preparation programs responded in turn by
requesting for a science of administration in general and of school administration in
particular (Griffiths, 1988). Culbertson (1964) recognized that the explicit valuesorientation of the human relations movement and the prescriptive framework of the first
50 years of preparation programs were coming under increasing scrutiny. Concurrent
with the debate over the proper knowledge base and the role of values in preparation
programs, “criticisms were being leveled at practicing administrators, and preparation
programs were being exhorted to develop stronger programs to protect the public against
ill-prepared or indifferent practitioners” (Goldhammer, 1983). Murphy (1992) indicated
that several educational leadership organizations began to emerge in response to these
criticisms. Among those was the National Conference of Professors of Educational
Administration (NCPEA) in the 1950s (Murphy, 1992). The NCPEA had critical views
of existing preparation programs and helped buttress the belief that a science of
administration could provide an appropriate new direction for the profession (Murphy,
1992). This was followed by the Cooperative Project in Educational Administration
(CPEA) – an organization made up of eight universities with regional or national
43
leadership character (Murphy, 1992) – whose primary goal, according to Moore (1964),
was to function as a “large-scale improvement program that would result not so much in
discovery of pronouncements as in changes in the institutions which prepare school
administrators. From CPEA grew the Committee for Advancement of School
Administration – an organization that established standards for the preparation of school
administrators which took the committee into areas of state certification regulations and
professional certification (Moore, 1964).
A final milestone of the transition occurred in the 1950s (Murphy, 1992, 1993)
when numerous programs in school administration at leading universities formed the
University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). Its primary goal was to
improve graduate programs in educational administration through the stimulation and
coordination of research, the publication and distribution of literature growing out of
research and training activities, and the exchange of ideas (Campbell, Fleming, Newell &
Bennion, 1987). It later became the dominant force in shaping the study and teaching of
educational administration in the 1960s and 1970s and a major force in the advancement
of preparation programs (Campbell et al., 1987).
Since the 1980s, educational administration has been in the throes of an era that
appeared to be accompanying the shift from scientific to a post-scientific or dialectic era
in school administration (Murphy, 2006). Known also as the cultural era (Sergiovanni,
1989), the dialectic era has appeared to be fueled by devastating attacks on the state of
preparation programs, critical analyses of practicing school administrators, and references
44
to alternative visions of what programs should become (Murphy, 2006). According to
McCarthy (1999), to fully understand university programs that prepare school leaders, it
was necessary to explore the external forces that have helped shaped them. Murphy
(2006) explored the changing environment of school administration and the forces
associated with the evolution to a postindustrial, informational postmodern world and the
forces changing the nature of schooling of which school administration has been an
integral component. Murphy (2006) further iterated that the changing economic
substructures, the social, cultural, and political foundations of the democratic welfare
state have redefined the education industry and understanding of school leadership.
The literature has identified several sociopolitical trends including a growing
sense of personal insecurity (Dahrendorf, 1995), a less predictable worldlife (Hawley,
1995), the destruction of important features of community life (Dahrendorf, 1995),
weakening of the world known as democratic civil society (Elshtain, 1995), plummeting
public support for government (Chibulka, 1999), lack of trust by citizens in public
officials (Hawley, 1995), issues of poverty Chibulka, 1999; Reyes, Wagstaff & Fusarelli,
1999), the trend toward private wealth and public squalor (Bauman, 1996), social
exclusion and injustice (Normore, Rodriguez & Wynne, 2007; Poliner-Shapiro &
Hassinger, 2007), and declining social welfare of children and their families (Normore &
Blanco, 2006; Reyes et al., 1999). In support of current research (Normore & Cook,
2009) these data reveal a society populated increasingly by groups of residents that
historically have not fared well in the United States, especially marginalized populations
45
(i.e. ethnic minorities, English language learners, immigrants [documented and
undocumented]special needs learners).
The worlds of research and practice now need to know whether these changes in
preparation programs produced more successful school leaders who do a better job of
creating educationally effective learning environments (Walker, Golde, Jones, ConklinBueschel, & Hutchings, 2008). New views of politics, governance, ad organization; new
views of internal and external collaborative partnerships, interdisciplinary content and
delivery systems; new views of technology; and new views of learning and teaching; all
call for a quite different understandings of school leadership and redesigned models of
developing school leaders (Murphy, 2006).
Exploring Leadership Preparation in Education
The education of school and school system leaders has been the subject of
considerable research and theorizing because effective leadership has been believed to be
critical to improving educational outcomes and student performance. Until recently,
however, there has been little research to demonstrate the effectiveness of program
models and features or even agreement on outcome measures on which to assess
effectiveness (Young et al., 2009).
The purpose of this section of the review is to historically contextualize the
growing recognition in the field of higher education that a robust agenda of research was
needed on the preparation and development of school leaders. In addition, we review
many of the events which fueled many significant developments in the field, such as
46
reform initiatives, activities and reports that have shaped and continue to influence the
overhaul of leadership preparation. Finally, the review provides a review of what was
known about research on preparation programs in recent years (Young et al., 2009).
Looking at the profession as a whole, Young et al. (2009) provided an overview
of the expanding number of preparation programs in educational leadership and that these
programs are granting escalating numbers of graduate degrees (Baker et al., 2007). At
the time of the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration (1987)
report, 505 institutions were offering coursework in educational leadership, with “less
than 200 hav[ing] the resources and commitment to provide the excellence called for by
the Commission” (p.20). As of this writing, the number has grown to just under 500, and
many have opened in the last 10 years. In fact, from 1993 to 2003, master’s degree
programs increased by 16% and the number of master’s degrees granted increased by
90% (Young et al., 2009). In addition, investment in these programs has increased
dramatically. Since 2001, the Wallace Foundation alone has invested over $43 million
on educational administration and leadership initiatives (Young et al., 2009).
As the number of preparation programs increased nationally, educational
administration departments began to open their doors to and actively recruit individuals
(Daresh, 1984) to increase enrollments. Although that action generates tuition dollars,
many program participants seek graduate degrees for salary – not career – advancement
(Young et al., 2009). According to Young et al. (2009), many students take school
administration courses and complete master’s programs in educational administration and
47
leadership simply to move up the salary scale, bring to their studies of school
administration and leadership little or no desire to make a difference. While researchers
might imagine that their experiences enrich their work lives, there has been no data on
this. In fact, it has been estimated that as many as 250,000 educators credentialed as
school administrators never have used their credentials to get an administrative position
(Muth & Browne-Ferrigno, 2004).
Candidates in Educational Leadership Graduate Programs
The literature on the types of candidates pursuing educational leadership graduate
study has been limited and data collection about these candidates can be improved. The
literature about participants in educational administration and leadership programs has
been framed by two propositions (Young et al., 2009). The first has been that the intent
of leadership preparation is to produce leaders (Milstein, 1992) able and willing to
assume responsibilities as educational administrators of prekindergarten though grade 12
(pre-K to 12) schools and districts. The second has been that leadership preparation is a
developmental process that prepares individuals for new responsibilities and career
opportunities (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Lashway, 2006). Viewed from these two
perspectives, information about the characteristics and experiences of individuals actively
engaged in formal leadership development positions – prospective candidates for school
administrator and leader positions – has been critically important for assessing the
effectiveness of leadership preparation (Young et al, 2009).
48
Yet, the field’s research on program participants as the unit of study has been
sparse; instead, they have been routinely overlooked (McCarthy, 1999) in research on
preparation programs. Indeed, a limited body of empirical knowledge (Murphy, 2006)
about prospective candidates has been evident in the results of an analysis of articles
published in key journals between 1975 and 2002 (Murphy & Vriesenga, 2004, 2006).
Additionally, Young et al. (2009) reviewed numerous studies by professors and doctoral
students published between 2001 and 2007 and likewise found few examinations of
candidates in educational administration and leadership programs. In contrast, studies
about career paths of program graduates are more common (Young et al., 2009).
Describing participants in educational administration and leadership programs has
been complicated further by the fact that not much research has been available about
candidates who are actively engaged in leadership development activities (Murphy,
2006). Only rarely do the researchers report demographic information about candidates
(Murphy & Vriesenga, 2004). Within the limited body of research on leadership
preparation, participants indeed are routinely overlooked (McCarthy, 1999). Further,
because recruitment and admission practices among programs vary considerably across
the United States, the individuals enrolled may or may not mirror the existing
demographic composition of the local district and community (Carr, Chenowith, & Ruhl,
2003). Thus, the location of a program does not necessarily predict characteristics of
participants in it, an issue in a time when calls for diverse leadership, particularly in
urban schools, are so prominent (Young et al., 2009).
49
Further, research on program graduates typically has targeted those serving as
administrators, whose contact information was supplied by state certification or licensure
offices (Young et al., 2009). Data about program graduates choosing to remain in
teaching or pursue other career paths rarely have been collected. The discussion about
candidates in educational administration and leadership that follows was gleaned from
information provided by research published between 1975 and 2007 (Young et al., 2009).
In the Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (Murphy & Seashore
Louis, 1999), McCarthy cited the need for “a national database on the personal and
professional characteristics of educational leadership graduates. Data collected nationally
and maintained at a single location would allow the field to conduct trend analyses about
candidate’s attitudes and characteristics, their assessments of changes in program design
and delivery, and their career paths following program completion. A national database
likewise would build the reputation of the educational leadership profession by having
data readily available to publicize the performance of program completers (BrowneFerrigno, Barnett & Muth, 2003).
Among the minority of professors of educational administration and leadership
who conduct disciplined inquiry and publish findings in leading journals of the field
(Murphy & Vriesenga, 2006), few have selected candidates in educational leadership as
the unit of study. When professors collect data from those participating in preparation
programs, their intent typically was to assess effectiveness of program design formats or
learning activities. Only one published study was found that intentionally sought to
50
capture participants’ perspectives on their learning – at multiple intervals throughout their
active engagement in preservice preparation – to assess professional growth attributed to
program experiences (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003). Thus, it has been troubling that
“practically no empirical investigations of students inside preparation programs”
(Murphy, 2006) are found in published research. Without evidence-based information
collected regularly from candidates at multiple intervals from their entry to their exit of
formal preparation, the field has been without a foundation for understanding program
influences on candidate’s leadership development and their eventual career choices
(Young et al., 2009).
Rationale for the Study
The researcher has selected this research topic to study because of the current
state of higher education and the critical role it has been identified to play in the growth
and success of the United States future economic stability. Higher education institutions,
including community colleges and four-year universities, have been identified as the key
to achieving national policy goals. The goals have been identified as graduating more
students who can meet the demands of the increasingly technological economy and filling
other specialized or highly-skilled labor demands, such as nurses and police officers. In
addition, goals include keeping college affordable and accessible, so that Americans can
obtain some form of postsecondary education.
51
Summary
Coinciding with the demand for skilled higher education administrators, the field
of higher education has become more professionalized over the past quarter century and
the field has seen a dramatic increase in both the number of higher education leadership
programs and the number of degrees issued in the field.
Higher education’s role in reaching national policy goals has also placed
community colleges in the forefront and the community college system is now being
expected to function as career colleges which prepare students for jobs in high-skilled
and high-demand areas. However, the challenges remain as community colleges and
other higher education institutions are operating under tighter budgets and with more
limited resources.
Further, institutions of higher education which have typically focused on access
and completion, are now required by economic forces to redirect their efforts toward
identifying and matching the types of jobs for which there will be high demand to the
types of degrees awarded.
Given these critically important challenges, the field of higher education
administrators and leaders must be prepared to handle such complex changes within the
field of higher education and to understand more fully the implications of external global
economic forces on the future of the nation’s economic stability and growth.
52
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this research was to explore the reasons, or motivations, for why
people who have a degree pursue advanced study in the Leadership and Educational
Policy (LEP) program. In general, what are the reasons why people who have a degree
pursue a graduate degree? Specific questions to be addressed include:

What are the personal factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate
degree?

What are the economic factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate
degree?

What is the relationship between personal and economic factors that may influence
the choice to pursue a graduate degree?

What are some of the other challenges that respondents encounter in pursuing a
graduate degree in higher education at this time?
Given the critical importance of obtaining information about prospective candidates
for school administration and leadership positions (Young, et al., 2009), the findings
obtained through the researcher’s data collection add to the existing body of knowledge
by providing valuable information about the motivations among college graduates to
pursue an advanced degree in the field of higher education leadership. Identifying these
53
motivations is useful when exploring the trend of professionalizing the field in higher
education.
Setting of the Study
Research was conducted at North Central State University. The campus is home
to over 28,000 students, 22% of which are graduate students. Thirty-six percent of
graduate students are between the ages of 25-29. Graduate women make up 68% and
42% of the students are White followed by 21% Asian/Pacific. In addition, 57% of
graduate students are full-time (CSUS Office of Institutional Research, 2011).
Population and Sample
The sample was taken from the population of currently enrolled students at North
Central State University during the Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 academic school year.
They were identified from the Department of Leadership and Educational Policy as part
of a current LEP cohort. The population size consisted of both male and female students.
A random sample was used whereby members of two LEP cohorts were asked to
participate in a survey either by email or in a classroom setting. The sample size was 41
students – 21 students were emailed the questionnaire and 20 students were in the
classroom; however, only 33 total responses were collected.
54
Design of the Study
This research will utilize a quantitative method. Quantitative research has to do
with quantifying data and analyzing it and generally begins with a clearly stated
hypothesis, purpose or question. In the case of this research, that purpose is to explore the
motivations behind why graduate students choose to pursue an advanced degree in higher
education leadership.
The survey response collection was done through the use of a paper version of the
questionnaire as well as through a Word document sent by email (see Appendix B). It
was completed voluntarily and anonymously by LEP students who attended NCSU in the
Spring of 2012. The research was designed to understand the motivations, whether
intrinsic or extrinsic, among college graduates and their choices to pursue a graduate
degree in the field of higher education leadership. All 28 questions on the student survey
were close-ended with responses within a range of Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
An email (see Appendix A) was sent to the students by the researcher using the
cohort’s group contact information provided in class by each student. The email
contained an introduction to the researcher, an explanation of the purpose of the survey,
and the contributions of the survey towards the researchers study. It also contained an
attached Consent to Participate form (see Appendix C), in which submission and
completion of the survey was considered valid student consent, a statement to assure
confidentiality of all voluntary participants, and contact information for the researcher.
55
The email concluded with the researcher’s appreciation and reference to the attached
survey.
In the classroom setting, the Consent to Participate form was distributed to each
student explaining that participation in the survey was considered valid consent. A hard
copy of the survey was distributed to each student for his/her completion. The surveys
were confidential and no identifying information was collected. The surveys were
collected and the researcher concluded with appreciation for participation.
The first 17 questions asked for the students to rate their personal and professional
motivations, or reasons, for choosing to pursue an advanced degree in the field of higher
education leadership. Question 18, which includes Questions 18a through 18k, asked for
the challenges they have encountered in pursuing a graduate degree in higher education at
this time.
The sample was fairly representative of the students who were enrolled in the
LEP Program during the selected time period. However, this design may not be entirely
representative of the complete population of LEP students. The data was analyzed using
SPSS software and analysis procedures are discussed below.
Data Collection
The researcher collected data from current graduate students in the LEP program.
The students have been selected from two current LEP cohorts. A sample of two cohorts
from the LEP Program was selected and surveys were administered to participants in a
classroom setting and by email. In order to survey students within the first cohort, the
56
researcher collaborated with a professor of the cohort to arrange an in-class
administration of the survey. To administer the survey to the second cohort, the
researcher emailed the cohort the survey in a Word document and students responded at
their convenience.
A total of 33 respondents participated in the survey – 14 responses were by email
and 18 responses were from the classroom. Using a 5-point Likert scale, 18 questions
regarding the student’s motivations, or reasons, for choosing to pursue an advanced
degree were asked. No qualitative data was collected. Specifically, graduate students
from current LEP cohorts were asked, in the classroom and by email, to respond to an 18question survey regarding their personal and professional reasons for choosing to pursue
an advanced degree in higher education leadership. Consent forms were provided, and by
taking the survey, the respondents agreed to the confidentiality terms of the consent form
and gave the researcher permission to include the responses in the final analysis.
Instrumentation
There were two methods used to distribute the survey questionnaire. First, an
electronic form of the student survey was distributed to selected students by email, and
acknowledgement of consent was verified through participation in the survey. Next, a
hard copy of the survey was administered in a classroom setting. Once the respondents
answered the questions, the results were saved in an Excel spreadsheet created by the
researcher. At the end of the data collection period, the researcher was able to collect the
survey results with responses for different respondents and a compilation of percentages
57
of respondents answering each question for each of the different possible Likert-scale
scores.
Participants were informed in the introduction to the questionnaire that their
participation was strictly voluntary and confidential. Only those who wished to
participate completed the questionnaire either by email or in the classroom. The surveys
contained 28 questions in a Likert-scale format exploring the motivations among college
graduates for choosing to pursue an advanced degree in the field of higher education. The
questions were designed to help the researcher understand the intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations, or reasons, for choosing to pursue a graduate degree in higher education
leadership.
The survey consisted of 28 questions and used a 5-point Likert scale to measure
responses. Likert scaling is a scaling method, measuring either positive or negative
responses to a statement.The Likert scale is designed to measure the level of agreement
or disagreement with a particular statement. It is considered symmetric, or balanced,
because there are equal amounts of positive and negative positions. The questions were
developed to learn more about the personal and professional reasons, or motivations, that
each respondent felt were significant in their choice to pursue an advanced degree in the
LEP program.
After all data is gathering, each response will be analyzed and summed to create a
score for a group of responses. A key factor to accept is that Likert scales are arbitrary.
The value assigned to a Likert item has no unique mathematical property; the value
58
assigned for each Likert item is simply determined by the researcher as providing the
necessary detail for their research. The Likert scale ranges from “1 = Strongly Disagree”
to “5 = Strongly Agree”. Further, the distance between each successive Likert item is
equal. For example, in the above 5-point Likert Scale, the inference is that the ‘distance’
between items ‘1’ and ‘2’ is the same as between items ‘3’ and ‘4’.
Data Analysis Procedures
Data collected through the student survey was analyzed to evaluate the students'
motivations and challenges associated with pursuing a graduate degree in higher
education leadership. The researcher entered the survey responses into an Excel
spreadsheet which consisted of the 28 questions and their respective answers. Once in
Excel, the researcher entered the data into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS), which is a computer program used for statistical analysis.
In SPSS, data were added and each question from the original questionnaire was
assigned an abbreviated name. For example, the opening question begins “Why did you
choose to pursue an advanced degree in the field of Higher Education Leadership?” the
first selection is “Because I was encouraged to pursue this degree by people who matter
to me”. This particular question was assigned a variable name in SPSS; specifically, the
variable name is “Encouraged_Ppl_Matter”. A variable name was assigned to each of the
28 questions in a similar fashion. See Appendix D for list of variables and the associated
question used in SPSS.
59
Once all the data were entered and each question assigned a variable name, using
the descriptive analysis function in SPSS, frequencies were run. Frequencies provide the
sum total a particular response occurred to a specific question as well as the frequency
percentage. For instance, using the same question above, the frequencies and percentages
associated with this question were as follows:
Table 1
Variable Encouraged_Ppl_Matter
Encouraged_Ppl_Matter Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree
5
15.2%
Disagree
2
6.1%
Neutral
5
15.2%
Agree
13
39.4%
Strongly Agree
8
24.2%
Total
33
100%
Of the 33 respondents, nearly two-thirds of respondents (21 of 33 or 63.26%)
either agreed or strongly agreed with the first statement indicating that most graduate
school students in the LEP Program were encouraged by people who mattered to them to
pursue graduate study in the field of higher education leadership. See Chapter 4 for
detailed data analysis.
60
Limitations
This research was limited to graduate students in the LEP program at North
Central State University. Therefore, the research results are only directly applicable to
graduate students in the LEP Program at NCSU. While the conclusions may provide
insights into the characteristics of students in other higher education leadership graduate
programs, they are not generalizable beyond the population studied.
Additionally, since some respondents answered the survey in class and some
answered it online, there was not an absolute consistency in the way the survey was
administered. This was compensated for by the larger pool of respondents. Also, the
study involves students in one professional program in one public university in one state
at one time. This affects the ability to generalize the results beyond the population
specifically studied.
61
Chapter 4
DATA ANALYSIS
The purpose of this research was to explore the reasons, or motivations, for why
people who have a degree pursue advanced study in the Leadership and Educational
Policy (LEP) program. In general, what are the reasons why people who have a degree
pursue a graduate degree? Specific questions to be addressed include:

What are the personal factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate
degree?

What are the economic factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate
degree?

What is the relationship between personal and economic factors that may influence
the choice to pursue a graduate degree?

What are some of the other challenges that respondents encounter in pursuing a
graduate degree in higher education at this time?
The data of this research is presented and analyzed in this chapter. Specifically,
each of the 28 questions is placed into one of the five categories identified above. This
study sought to explore the various motivations among college graduates for pursuing an
advanced degree in higher education. The research findings yielded data from several
categories within the methodology such as the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for
pursuing graduate study in the field of higher education.
62
Of the 21 students who received the survey via email, 14 responded within three
weeks of receiving the survey. Of the 20 students who took the survey in the classroom
setting, 18 students provided responses. Those responses were analyzed and, in this
chapter, they are presented in the form of bar graphs.
In the subsequent material, each question is followed by a bar graph presenting
the responses to each question from the student surveys with an initial analysis of the
student responses. The summary to this chapter addresses how the data obtained from
these two categories of subjects through the two kinds of data gathering processes shed
light on the research questions that led to this study. The overarching question is “Why
did you choose to pursue an advanced degree in the field of higher education leadership?”
The responses to the questions are as follows.
63
Personal Factors
Question 1: Because I was encouraged to pursue this degree by people who matter
to me.
Figure 5
Variable Encouraged_Ppl_Matter
Figure 5 illustrates that nearly two-thirds, or 64%, of respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that they chose to pursue an advanced degree in the field of higher
education leadership because they were encouraged to do so by people who mattered to
them: 15.2% strongly disagreed, 6.1% disagreed, 15.2% were neutral, 39.4% agreed and
24.2% strongly agreed. The data show that being encouraged by someone important to
the college graduate is an important extrinsic motivator when choosing to pursue
graduate study in the field of higher education leadership.
64
Question 2: Because I am passionate about the field of higher education and
desire to make a difference.
Figure 6
Variable Passionate_About_FieldHE
Figure 6 presents an overwhelming indication that most, nearly 88%, of
respondents chose to pursue an advanced degree in this field because they are passionate
about the field of higher education: 60.6% strongly agree, 27.3% agree, 6.1% are neutral
and 6.1% disagree. The data show that passion for the field of higher education is a
significant intrinsic motivator for college graduates choosing to pursue an advanced
degree in this field.
65
Question 16: Because I want to contribute to research in the field of higher
education.
Figure 7
Variable Contrib_Research_HE
Respondents indicated that an extrinsic motivation, or reason, for choosing to pursue
an advanced degree in higher education leadership was because they want to contribute to
research in the field of higher education; however, interestingly, 39.4% of respondents
were neutral while 12.1% strongly agreed, 27.3% agreed, 15.2% disagreed and 6.1%
strongly disagreed. See Figure 7.
66
Economic Factors
Question 10: Because I want to increase my professional knowledge and skills in
my current occupational field.
Figure 8
Variable Increase_Prof_Knowledge
Figure 8 illustrates how a significant percentage of respondents, a total of 75.8%
agreed (30.3%) or strongly agreed (45.5%) with the choice to pursue an advanced degree
in higher education leadership in order to increase their professional knowledge and skills
in their current occupational field indicating an important extrinsic motivation, while
18.2% were neutral, 3% disagreed and 3% strongly disagreed.
67
Question 17: Because I believe that higher education reform is necessary for the
economic wellbeing of our country.
Figure 9
Variable HE_Reform_Country
In Figure 9, the majority of respondents, nearly 85% indicated they strongly agreed or
agreed that higher education reform is necessary for the economic well-being of our
country indicating a strong extrinsic motivation for pursuing a graduate degree in higher
education leadership.
68
Personal and Economic Factors
Question 3: Because eventually it will enable me to build a career in a field that I
like.
Figure 10
Variable Build_Career_Field_Like
69
Question 4: Because this will help me make a better choice regarding my career
orientation.
Figure 11
Variable Better_Choice_Career_Orient
Overall, respondents strongly agreed (66.7%) and agreed (24.2%) that choosing to
pursuing graduate study in the field of higher education leadership would help them to
build a career in a field they like: only 3% disagreed and only 3% were neutral while no
one strongly disagreed indicating a very significant intrinsic motivation for choosing to
pursue an advanced degree in the field of higher education (Figure 10). Further, twothirds (66.7%) of respondents said that pursuing an advanced degree in the field of higher
education would help them make a better choice regarding their career orientation.
Interestingly, the remaining one-third of neutral, disagree and strongly disagree
70
responses, totaling 33.3%, indicated that, while a significant portion of respondents felt
an advanced degree in this field would help them make a better choice regarding their
career orientation, one third of respondents indicated that their choice to pursue this
degree was not influenced by needing to make a better choice regarding their career
orientation (Figure 11). An inference here might be that one-third of college graduates
were intrinsically motivated to pursue an advanced degree in the field of higher education
and had already made “better choices” regarding their career orientation.
Question 5: Because I enjoy working in higher education and I want to be well
positioned for a career in this field.
Figure 12
Variable Enjoy_Working_Well_Positioned
71
Question 6: Because I think that an advanced degree will help me better prepare
for the career I have chosen.
Figure 13
Variable Advanced_Degree_Help_Prep
Overall, a majority of respondents indicated that the choice to pursue an advanced
degree in the field of higher education leadership was driven by intrinsic motivations.
Specifically, respondents indicated that nearly 94% strongly agreed and agreed that they
enjoyed working in the field and wanted to be well-positioned in the field of higher
education leadership (Figure 12) while 97% strongly agreed and agreed that they think
that an advanced degree in the field of higher education leadership would help them
better prepare for their chosen careers (Figure 13).
72
Question 7: Because I do not believe I can secure a higher-paying job in this field
later on with only a bachelor’s degree.
Figure 14
Variable Secure_Hi_Pay_Job
73
Question 8: Because I want to obtain a more prestigious job in the future.
Figure 15
Variable Prestige_Job
74
Question 9: Because I want to earn a better salary in the future.
Figure 16
Variable Earn_Better_Salary
Respondents indicated that they chose to pursue an advanced degree in higher
education leadership because they do not believe they can secure a higher-paying job in
this field later on with only a bachelor’s degree: 87.9% strongly agreed and agreed, 9.1%
were neutral and 3% disagreed (Figure 14); because they want to obtain a more
prestigious job in the future: 75.8% strongly agreed and agreed, 21.2% were neutral, and
3% disagreed (Figure 15); and because they want to earn a better salary: 90.9% strongly
agreed and agreed, 6.1% were neutral and 3% disagreed (Figure 16). No respondents
indicated they strongly disagreed with any of these three choices. Overall, the data show
75
that these specific extrinsic factors were significant motivators for college graduates
choosing to pursue an advanced degree in the field of higher education leadership.
Question 11: In order to be qualified to pursue an even higher
academic/professional degree at a later time, such as an Ed.D or a Ph.D.
Figure 17
Variable Pursue_Higher_Degree
As seen in Figure 17, respondents indicated that another extrinsic reason for choosing
to pursue an advanced degree in higher education leadership was so that they would be
qualified to pursue an even higher academic or professional degree at a later time, such as
an Ed.D or a Ph.D. The data show that responses were distributed with only slightly
more respondents indicating they strongly agree (27.3%) and agree (15.2%) than those
that were neutral (24.2%) or disagreed (24.2%).
76
Question 12: Because I believe that the field of higher education administration is
a growing field with great potential.
Figure 18
Variable Field_Growing
77
Question 13: Because there are changes I want to help bring about in the ways
higher education is administered.
Figure 19
Variable Changes_HE_Admin
78
Question 14: Because the field of higher education administration is changing and
I need to be professionally prepared to do well in the changed environment.
Figure 20
Variable Change_Field_Prof_Prepd
79
Question 15: Because I am interested in knowing more about trends and
developments in higher education.
Figure 21
Variable Trend_Dev_HE
Overall, respondents agreed with the following intrinsic motivations, or reasons,
indicating that they think the field is growing and has great potential and they want to be
part of the changes in the way higher education is administered. Specifically, in Figure
18, respondents indicated they believe that the field of higher education administration is
a growing field with great potential: Strongly agreed (15.2%), agreed (39.4%), neutral
(33.3%) and disagreed (12.1%). No respondents strongly disagreed. Further, in Figure
19, respondents indicated because there are changes they want to help bring about in the
80
ways higher education is administered: Strongly agreed (36.4%), agreed (45.5%), neutral
(12.1%), disagreed (3%), and strongly agreed (3%).
Moreover, in Figure 20, respondents also indicated that the following intrinsic
motivations were reasons they are pursuing graduate study: because the field of higher
education administration is changing and they need to be professionally prepared to do
well in the changed environment: Strongly agreed (51.5%), agreed (12.1%), neutral
(27.3%), and disagreed (9.1%). No respondents strongly disagreed. Further, in Figure
21, respondents indicated another intrinsic motivation for pursuing graduate study was
because they are interested in knowing more about trends and developments in higher
education: Strongly agreed (36.4%), agreed (45.5%), neutral (15.2%) and disagreed (3%).
No respondents disagreed.
81
Other Challenges
Question 18: What are some of the challenges you encounter in pursuing a
graduate degree in higher education at this time?
This is also an over-arching question and the responses are as follows:
Question 18a: My job responsibilities are extremely time consuming and take
time away from my academic work.
Figure 22
Variable Job_Responsibility
Over half of the respondents (54.5%) indicated that some of the challenges they
encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in higher education at this time is that their job
responsibilities are extremely time consuming and take time away from their academic
work (see Figure 22).
82
Question 18b: My colleagues don’t support my involvement in my degree
program.
Figure 23
Variable Colleagues_No_Support_Involve
Over three quarters (nearly 82%) of respondents indicated they strongly disagreed
and disagreed that their colleagues don’t support their involvement in their degree
program (see Figure 23).
83
Question 18c: My family responsibilities get in the way of working on my degree.
Figure 24
Variable Family_Responsibility
Respondents indicated that they strongly agreed and agreed (42.4%) that some of the
challenges they encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in higher education were due to
their family responsibilities get in the way of working on their degree while 21.2% were
neutral and 36.4% disagreed and strongly disagreed (see Figure 24).
84
Question 18d: My family does not support my involvement in my degree
program.
Figure 25
Variable Family_No_Support_Involve
As represented in Figure 25, nearly all respondents strongly disagreed and disagreed
(93.9%) that some of the challenges they encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in
higher education were due to families which do not support their involvement in this
degree program. Only 3% agreed or were neutral (3%).
85
Question 18e: Lack of support at the academic program level.
Figure 26
Variable Lack_Support_Acad_Prog_Lvl
Respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed that some of the challenges they
encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in higher education was due to a lack of support
at the academic program level: 42.4% strongly disagreed or disagreed while 36.4% of
respondents were neutral. Only 18.2% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement and
one respondent (3%) did not provide a response (see Figure 26).
86
Question 18f: Lack of support at the department level.
Figure 27
Variable Lack_Support_Dept_Lvl
Respondents generally were neutral or disagreed with the statement that some of the
challenges they encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in higher education were due to
a lack of support at the department level; specifically, 45.5% were neutral, 36.4%
strongly disagreed or disagreed, and 18.2% strongly agreed or agreed (see Figure 27).
87
Question 18g: Lack of support at the college and university level.
Figure 28
Lack_Support_College_Univ_Lvl
Almost half of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed (48.5%) with the
statement that some of the challenges they encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in
higher education were due to a lack of support at the college and university level while
only 12.1% strongly agreed or agreed (see Figure 28).
88
Question 18h: I find it difficult to get back into academic research and writing.
Figure 29
Variable Difficult_Acad_Resrch_Write
Respondents indicated that some of the challenges they encounter in pursuing a
graduate degree in higher education were because they find it difficult to get back into
academic research and writing; specifically, 36.4% strongly disagreed or disagreed,
33.3% strongly agreed or agreed, 27.3% were neutral and 3% did not respond (see Figure
29).
89
Question 18i: I don’t like doing academic research and writing.
Figure 30
Variable Don’t_Like_Acad_Rsrch_Write
Respondents provided a tie between disagreeing or being neutral toward the statement
that some of the challenges they encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in higher
education were due to respondents who don’t like doing academic research and writing:
39.4% strongly disagreed or disagreed, 39.4% were neutral, 18.2% strongly agreed or
agreed and 3% did not respond (see Figure 30).
90
Question 18j: The cost of my degree is a problem.
Figure 31
Variable Cost_Degree_Problem
Respondents indicated they were mostly neutral to the statement that some of the
challenges they encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in higher education were due to
the cost of their degree being a problem: 36.4% were neutral, 33.3% strongly disagreed
or disagreed, and 30.3% strongly agreed or agreed (see Figure 31).
91
Question 18k: I am not working in the field I am studying just now.
Figure 32
Variable Not_Working_Field
Two-thirds of respondents (66.7%) disagreed with the statement that some of the
challenges they encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in higher education were due to
their not working in the field they are studying just now: 27.3% strongly agreed or agreed
and 6.1% were neutral (see Figure 32).
92
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
Summary
As stated in previous chapters, the purpose of this research was to explore the
reasons, or motivations, for why people who have a degree pursue advanced study in the
Leadership and Educational Policy (LEP) program. In general, what are the reasons why
people who have a degree pursue a graduate degree? Specific questions to be addressed
include:

What are the personal factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate
degree?

What are the economic factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate
degree?

What is the relationship between personal and economic factors that may influence
the choice to pursue a graduate degree?

What are some of the other challenges that respondents encounter in pursuing a
graduate degree in higher education at this time?
Data collected through the student survey was analyzed to evaluate the students'
motivations and challenges associated with pursuing a graduate degree in higher
education leadership. The researcher used Excel and SPSS to analyze the data.
93
Conclusion
The findings of this study contribute to the body of knowledge on the motivations,
or reasons, why college graduates choose to pursue an advanced degree in higher
education. Specifically, the answers to the four research questions previously presented
can be addressed by the data collection. The researcher noted that both intrinsic and
extrinsic motivators were present in responses to personal and economic.

What are the personal factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate
degree?
The data showed that there were clear and identifiable personal factors that
influenced the college graduate’s choice to pursue an advanced degree in higher
education leadership, including being encouraged by someone important to the college
graduate, passion for the field of higher education, and because they wanted to contribute
to research in the field of higher education. These personal factors were both intrinsic
and extrinsic.

What are the economic factors that may influence the choice to pursue a graduate
degree?
The data showed that the economic factors that influenced the choice to pursue a
graduate degree in the field of higher education leadership was attributed to increasing
one’s professional knowledge and skills in their current occupational field indicating an
extrinsic motivation. Further, the data showed that the majority of respondents indicated
they strongly agreed or agreed that higher education reform is necessary for the economic
94
well-being of our country, indicating an extrinsic motivation. The economic factors were
extrinsic only.

What is the relationship between personal and economic factors that may influence
the choice to pursue a graduate degree?
Respondents strongly agreed (66.7%) and agreed (24.2%) that choosing to pursuing
graduate study in the field of higher education leadership would help them to build a
career in a field they like indicating a very significant intrinsic motivation (Figure 10).
Further, two-thirds (66.7%) of respondents said that pursuing an advanced degree in the
field of higher education would help them make a better choice regarding their career
orientation indicating an intrinsic motivation (Figure 11). Further, respondents indicated
that nearly 94% strongly agreed and agreed that they enjoyed working in the field and
wanted to be well-positioned in the field of higher education leadership (Figure 12) while
97% strongly agreed and agreed that they think that an advanced degree in the field of
higher education leadership would help them better prepare for their chosen careers
(Figure 13).
Moreover, the data show that specific extrinsic factors were significant motivators for
college graduates choosing to pursue an advanced degree in the field of higher education
leadership; specifically, respondents indicated that they chose to pursue an advanced
degree in higher education leadership because they do not believe they can secure a
higher-paying job in this field later on with only a bachelor’s degree: 87.9% strongly
agreed and agreed (Figure 14); because they want to obtain a more prestigious job in the
95
future: 75.8% strongly agreed and agreed, (Figure 15); and because they want to earn a
better salary: 90.9% strongly agreed and agreed (Figure 16).
As seen in Figure 17, respondents indicated that another extrinsic reason for choosing
to pursue an advanced degree in higher education leadership was so that they would be
qualified to pursue an even higher academic or professional degree at a later time, such as
an Ed.D or a Ph.D. The data show that respondents indicated they strongly agreed
(27.3%) and agreed (15.2%).
Overall, respondents agreed with the following intrinsic motivations, or reasons,
indicating that they think the field is growing and has great potential and they want to be
part of the changes in the way higher education is administered. Specifically, in Figure
18, respondents indicated they believe that the field of higher education administration is
a growing field with great potential: Strongly agreed (15.2%), agreed (39.4%). Further,
in Figure 19, respondents indicated because there are changes they want to help bring
about in the ways higher education is administered: Strongly agreed (36.4%), agreed
(45.5%).
Moreover, in Figure 20, respondents also indicated that the following intrinsic
motivations were reasons they are pursuing graduate study: because the field of higher
education administration is changing and they need to be professionally prepared to do
well in the changed environment: Strongly agreed (51.5%), agreed (12.1%). Further, in
Figure 21, respondents indicated another intrinsic motivation for pursuing graduate study
96
was because they are interested in knowing more about trends and developments in
higher education: Strongly agreed (36.4%), agreed (45.5%).
In sum, responses to nine of the questions indicated an intrinsic motivation, or reason,
for pursuing graduate study in the field of higher education leadership and responses to
eight of the questions (17 total = the first 17 questions, excluding Questions 18 through
18k) indicated an extrinsic motivation, or reason for pursuing graduate study in the field
of higher education leadership. Specifically, questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 and 15 had
responses indicating an intrinsic motivation while questions 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17
had responses indicating an extrinsic motivation. Based on these findings, it appears that
the researcher’s hypothesis that extrinsic motivators would be primarily responsible for a
college graduates choice to pursue an advanced degree in higher education leadership
rather than intrinsic motivators was incorrect; however, the number of responses
indicating intrinsic and extrinsic responses was very close.

What are some of the other challenges that respondents encounter in pursuing a
graduate degree in higher education at this time?
Of the 11 questions asking about challenges faced while pursuing a graduate degree,
only two challenges were identified as significant; specifically, over half of the
respondents (54.5%) indicated that their job responsibilities are extremely time
consuming and take time away from their academic work (see Figure 22). In addition,
respondents indicated that they strongly agreed and agreed (42.4%) that some of the
97
challenges were due to their family responsibilities getting in the way of working on their
degree (see Figure 24).
Other challenges presented by the researcher were not identified as challenges by the
respondents, including whether the cost of obtaining a master’s degree was a problem or
not, whether a lack of support was missing at the academic program, department, or
university/college levels, and whether colleagues and family provided support for their
higher education pursuits. Each of these were not identified as challenges.
Recommendations
This is a preliminary study to understand the motivations of college graduates
who choose to pursue an advanced degree in the field of higher education leadership.
The surveys yielded notable results about the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of
college graduates and the various reasons that motivate them as well as brought to light
some of the challenges associated with pursuing an advanced degree in higher education
leadership. Although the field of higher education is becoming increasingly
professionalized, leading the researcher to hypothesize that extrinsic motivations would
play a more significant role in one’s choice to pursue advanced study in higher education
leadership, it is, in fact, intrinsic motivations that appear to play the most significant role
in the choice to pursue a graduate degree in higher education leadership. In addition,
rather than the cost of obtaining an advanced degree causing a challenge, the data found
that is job and family responsibilities that got in the way of pursuing an advanced degree
in this field; however, respondents did not indicate other major challenges were present.
98
Because the results of this study are not generalizable beyond the immediate population
sampled, further research about the motivations and characteristics of graduate students
in the field of higher education is recommended.
99
APPENDIX A
Email For Student Consent Form
Hi Everyone,
I hope your thesis is coming along well and I can't wait until we all walk together next
May! I've been working with my new advisor and we have developed a survey which is
designed for current EDLP students to assist in the data collection portion of my thesis.
The purpose of my thesis is to learn more about the reasons/motivations that caused you
to pursue an advanced degree in the field of Higher Ed Leadership. If you can please
take 5-7 minutes and provide some answers, I would really appreciate it. The survey isn't
fancy and it isn't online through Survey Monkey. Rather, it is a basic Word doc that you
can highlight your answers in and send back to me at this email.
Please let me know if you have any questions. A Consent to Participate is attached and
so is the questionnaire. No incentive is offered except you will get a warm, fuzzy feeling
for helping a fellow student out :-)
I really appreciate your time and support! Good luck on your data collection journey as
well. See some of you in the library basement tomorrow :-)
Angela
100
APPENDIX B
Academic Motivation Scale ©
(The original Academic Motivation Scale was modified for this study)
Why did you choose to pursue an advanced degree in the field of Higher Education
Leadership?
Using the scale below, indicate to what extent each of the following items presently
corresponds to one of the reasons why you have chosen to enter a Master’s program in Higher
Educational Leadership.
Strongly
Disagree
1
1)
3
Agree
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
Because this will help me make a better choice regarding my career orientation.
1
5)
Agree
Because eventually it will enable me to build a career in a field that I like.
1
4)
2
Neutral
Because I am passionate about the field of higher education and desire to make a
difference.
1
3)
Disagree
Because I was encouraged to pursue this degree by people who matter to me.
1
2)
Strongly
2
3
4
5
Because I enjoy working in higher education and I want to be well positioned for a
career in this field.
1
2
3
4
5
101
Strongly
Disagree
1
6)
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
In order to be qualified to pursue an even higher academic/professional degree at a
later time, such as an Ed.D or a Ph.D.
1
12)
4
Because I want to increase my professional knowledge and skills in my current
occupational field.
1
11)
3
Agree
Because I want to earn a better salary in the future.
1
10)
Agree
Because I want to obtain a more prestigious job in the future.
1
9)
2
Neutral
Because I do not believe I can secure a higher-paying job in this field later on with only a
bachelor’s degree.
1
8)
Disagree
Because I think that an advanced degree will help me better prepare for the career I
have chosen.
1
7)
Strongly
2
3
4
5
Because I believe that the field of higher education administration is a growing field with
great potential.
1
2
3
4
5
102
Strongly
Disagree
1
13)
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
Because I believe that higher education reform is necessary for the economic wellbeing
of our country.
1
18)
3
Agree
Because I want to contribute to research in the field of higher education.
1
17)
Agree
Because I am interested in knowing more about trends and developments in higher
education.
1
16)
2
Neutral
Because the field of higher education administration is changing and I need to be
professionally prepared to do well in the changed environment.
1
15)
Disagree
Because there are changes I want to help bring about in the ways higher education is
administered.
1
14)
Strongly
2
3
4
5
What are some of the challenges you encounter in pursuing a graduate degree in higher
education at this time?
a. My job responsibilities are extremely time consuming and take time away from
my academic work.
1
2
3
4
5
b. My colleagues don’t support my involvement in my degree program.
1
2
3
4
5
103
Strongly
Disagree
1
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
2
Agree
3
Agree
4
5
c. My family responsibilities get in the way of working on my degree.
1
2
3
4
5
d. My family does not support my involvement in my degree program.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Lack of support at the academic program level.
1
2
f.
1
3
4
5
3
4
5
4
5
Lack of support at the department level.
2
g. Lack of support at the college and university level.
1
2
3
h. I find it difficult to get back into academic research and writing.
1
2
i.
1
1
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
4
5
I don’t like doing academic research and writing.
2
j.
3
The cost of my degree is a problem.
2
k. I am not working in the field I am studying just now.
1
2
3
104
APPENDIX C
Consent To Participate
Dear Student:
You are being asked to participate in research which will be conducted by Researcher, a
student in Leadership and Educational Policy at North Central State University. The
purpose of the study is to learn about the motivations of current Master’s students to
pursue an advanced degree in the field of Higher Education Leadership.
You will be asked to answer 28 questions about your decision to pursue a graduate
degree in the field of Higher Education Leadership. The questionnaire may require up to
10 minutes of your time. If you agree to participate, you will either 1) receive a hard
copy of the survey to complete, or 2) receive an email with an electronic version of the
survey with this “Consent to Participate”.
Some of the items in the questionnaires may seem personal, but you don’t have to answer
any question if you don’t want to.
While there may or may not be personal insight to be gained from the process; it is hoped
that the results of the study will be beneficial for all future students who wish to pursue a
graduate degree in this field.
All information collected will remain confidential. To preserve the confidentiality of
participants, no identifying information will be collected, such as name, address, social
security number, etc. The survey will be erased and/or deleted when data collection and
analysis is complete. No compensation is offered for participating in this study.
105
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact the Researcher by e-mail
at aa3993@saclink.csus.edu. Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary.
Thank you for considering this invitation to participate.
Sincerely,
Researcher
106
APPENDIX D
SPSS Variables
1
encouraged_ppl_matter
2
passionate_abt_fieldHE
3
build_career_field_like
4
better_choice_career_orient
5
enjoy_working_well_positioned
6
advanced_degree_help_prep
7
secure_hi_pay_job
8
prestige_job
9
earn_better_salary
10
increase_prof_knowledge
11
pursue_higher_degree
12
field_growing
13
changes_HE_admin
14
change_field_prof_prepd
15
trend_dev_HE
16
contrib_research_HE
17
HE_reform_country
Question 18
18
job_responsibility
19
colleagues_no_support_involve
20
family_responsibility
Because I was encouraged to pursue this degree by people
who matter to me.
Because I am passionate about the field of higher education
and desire to make a difference.
Because eventually it will enable me to build a career in a
field that I like.
Because this will help me make a better choice regarding my
career orientation.
Because I enjoy working in higher education and I want to be
well positioned for a career in this field.
Because I think that an advanced degree will help me better
prepare for the career I have chosen.
Because I do not believe I can secure a higher-paying job in
this field later on with only a bachelor’s degree.
Because I want to obtain a more prestigious job in the
future.
Because I want to earn a better salary in the future.
Because I want to increase my professional knowledge and
skills in my current occupational field.
In order to be qualified to pursue an even higher
academic/professional degree at a later time, such as an
Ed.D or a Ph.D.
Because I believe that the field of higher education
administration is a growing field with great potential.
Because there are changes I want to help bring about in the
ways higher education is administered.
Because the field of higher education administration is
changing and I need to be professionally prepared to do well
in the changed environment.
Because I am interested in knowing more about trends and
developments in higher education.
Because I want to contribute to research in the field of
higher education.
Because I believe that higher education reform is necessary
for the economic wellbeing of our country.
What are some of the challenges you encounter in pursuing
a graduate degree in higher education at this time?
My job responsibilities are extremely time consuming and
take time away from my academic work.
My colleagues don’t support my involvement in my degree
program.
My family responsibilities get in the way of working on my
degree.
107
21
family_no_support_involve
22
23
24
lack_support_acad_prog_lvl
lack_support_dept_lvl
lack_support_college_univ_lvl
25
difficult_acad_resrch_write
26
27
28
don’t_like_acad_rsrch_write
cost_degree_problem
not_working_field
My family does not support my involvement in my degree
program.
Lack of support at the academic program level.
Lack of support at the department level.
Lack of support at the college and university level.
I find it difficult to get back into academic research and
writing.
I don’t like doing academic research and writing.
The cost of my degree is a problem.
I am not working in the field I am studying just now.
108
REFERENCES
Baker, B., Orr, M., & Young, M. (2007). Academic drift, institutional production, and
professional distribution of graduate degrees in education leadership. Education
Administration Quarterly, 43, 279-318.
Baldassare, M., & Hanak, E. (2005). California 2025: Taking on the future. San
Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Bauman, P. (1996). Governing education in an antigovernment environment. Journal of
School Leadership, 6(6), 625-643.
Blanchard, R., Casados, F., & Sheski, H. (2009). All Things to All People: Challenges
and Innovations in a Rural Community College. Journal of Continuing Higher
Education, 57(1), 22-28.
Blumenstyk, G. (2012). Obama Calls for Control of College Costs and Renewed Support
for Higher Education - Government - The Chronicle of Higher Education. Home
- The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from
http://chronicle.com/article/Obama-Calls-for-Control-of/130496/
Blumenstyk, G. (2012). President Puts College Costs Front and Center - Administration The Chronicle of Higher Education. Home - The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved February 4, 2012, from http://chronicle.com/article/President-PutsCollege-Costs/130503/
109
Bowditch, J., Buono, A., & Stewart, M. (2008). A primer on organizational behavior.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Brady, H., Hout, M., & Stiles, J. (2005). Return on investment: educational choices and
demographic change in California’s future. University of California, Berkeley,
Survey Research Center.
Brown, B. (1999). Vocational certificates and college degrees. Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization,
role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(4), 468-503.
Browne-Ferrigno, T., Barnett, B., & Muth, R. (2003). Cohort program effectiveness: A
call for a national research agenda. Shaping the future: Policy, partnerships, and
emerging perspectives (pp. 274-290). Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role
socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468-494.
Bruner, D., Greenlee, B., & Somers-Hill, M. (2007). The reality of leadership preparation
in a rapidly changing context: Best practice vs. reality. Journal of Research on
Leadership Education, 2(2), n/a.
110
Campbell, R., Fleming, T., & Bennion, J. (1987). A history of thought and practice in
educational administration. New York: Teachers College Press.
Carr, C., Chenoweth, T., & Ruhl, T. (2003). Best practice in educational leadership
preparation programs. Shaping the future: Policy, partnerships, and emerging
perspectives (pp. 204-223). Lanham: Scarecrow Education.
Chibulka, J. (1999). Ideological lenses for interpreting political and economic changes
affecting schooling. Handbook of research on educational administration (pp.
163-182). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, B., & Boyd, W. (1987). The evolution of training for school administrators.
Approaches to Administrative Training (pp. 3-27). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Dahrendorf, R. (1995). A precarious balance: Economic opportunity, civil society and
political liberty. The Responsive Community, 5(3), 13-19.
Daresh, J. (1984). The making of a principal: Mixed messages from the university. The
making of a principal (pp. 31-46). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Charms, R. D. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
CSUS Office of Institutional Research. (2011). The Fall 2011 Sac State Student Body.
Retrieved November 15, 2011, from
www.csus.edu/oir/Data%20Center/University%20Quick%20Facts/Fall%202011
Culbertson, J. (1964). The preparation of administrators. Behavioral science in
educational administration (pp. 303-330). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Deci, E. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of
111
Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 113-120.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1),
68-78.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity.
New Yord: Plenum Press.
Eaton, C. (2011, November 20). Job Training in Aerospace Takes Flight at Community
College in Washington - Community Colleges - The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Home - The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 4,
2012, from http://chronicle.com/article/Job-Training-in-Aerospace/129852/
Eastin, D., Hatamiya, L. , Grantland, J. , & Nussbaum, T. California Workforce
Development. (2010). California workforce development: a policy framework for
economic growth.
Education | The White House. (2011). The White House. Retrieved April 3, 2012, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education
Elshtain, J. (1995). Democracy on trial. New York: Basic Books.
Field, K. (2012). Obama Puts Focus on Colleges, Research, and Training - Government The Chronicle of Higher Education. Home - The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved February 4, 2012, from http://chronicle.com/article/Obama-PutsFocus-on-Colleges/130447/
112
Field, K. (2012). Senators Question Obama's Plan to Tie Federal Aid to Tuition Government - The Chronicle of Higher Education. Home - The Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from
http://chronicle.com/article/Senators-Question-Obamas-Plan/130658/
Friedman, T. (2012). Average Is Over - NYTimes.com. The New York Times - Breaking
News, World News & Multimedia. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/opinion/friedman-average-is-over.html
Goldhammer, K. (1983). Evolution in the profession. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 19(30), 249-272.
Gonzalez, J. (2012). Community-College Study Asks: What Helps Students Graduate? Students - The Chronicle of Higher Education. Home - The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from
http://chronicle.com/article/Community-College-Study-Asks-/130606/
Gregory, D., Johnston, R. , & Pratt, G. (2009). Quality of life. Dictionary of Human
Geography (5th ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Griffiths, D. (1988). Administrative theory. Handbook of Research on Educational
Administration. (pp. 27-51). New York: Longman.
Hart, A., & Weindling, D. (1996). Developing successful school leaders. International
Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 309-336).
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
113
Hawley, W. (1995). The false premises and false promises of the movement to privatize
public education. Teachers College Record, 96(4), 735-742.
Hebel, S. (2009, July 14). Obama to Propose Graduation Goal and $12-Billion in
Programs for 2-Year Colleges - Archives - The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Home - The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from
http://chronicle.com/article/Obama-to-Propose-Graduation/117554/#top
Hegarty, N. (2010). An examination of motivation levels in graduate school students.
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, n/a, n/a.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Hess, F., & Kelly, A. (2005). An innovative look, a recalcitrant reality: The politics of
principal preparation reform. . Educational Policy, 19(1), 155-180.
Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A., & Brooks, J. (2009). Leadership for social justice:
Preparing 21st century school leaders for a new social order. University Council
for Educational Administration Journal of Research on Leadership Education,
4(1), n/a.
Jean-Marie, G., & Normore, A. H. (2010). Educational Leadership Preparation:
Innovation and Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Ed.D. and Graduate
Education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Johnson, H. (2009). Educating California: Choices for the Future. San Francisco: Public
Policy Institute of California.
114
Johnson, H. (2010). California: population. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of
California
Johnson, H. (2012). California Workforce: Planning for a Better Future (PPIC
Publication). Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). Retrieved February 4,
2012, from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=903
Johnson, H., & Sengupta, R. (2009). Closing the gap: meeting california's need for
college graduates. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.Retrieved
February 4, 2012, from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=835
Johnson, H., & Li, Q. (2010). Higher education in California: New goals for the master
plan. . San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Kasper, H. (2002). The Changing Role of the Community College. Occupatioinal
Outlook Quarterly, 46(4), 14-21.
Kahlenberg, R. (2012). Community Colleges and the State of the Union - Innovations The Chronicle of Higher Education. Home - The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved February 4, 2012, from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/community-colleges-and-the-state-of-theunion/31414
Kelderman, E. (2012, January 30). Education Department Turns Policy Attention to
College Completion - Government - The Chronicle of Higher Education. Home The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from
http://chronicle.com/article/Education-Department-Turns/130590/
115
Keller, J. (2010). California Community-College Leaders to Recommend One Million
New Graduates by 2020 - Community Colleges - The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Home - The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 4,
2012, from http://chronicle.com/article/California-Community-College/125357/
Kolko, J. (2011). California Economy. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of
California.
Lakomski, G. (1998). Training administrators in the wild: A naturalistic perspective.
UCEA Review, 34(3), 1, 5, 10-11.
Lashway, L. (2006). Developing school leaders. School leadership: Handbook for
excellence in student learning (pp. 104-128). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Leaders for America (p. n/a). (1987). National Commission on Excellence in Educational
Administration. Tempe: University Council for Educational Administration.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating School Leaders. Washington, D.C.: Education School
Projects.
Making College More Affordable | The White House. (2009). The White House.
Retrieved March 8, 2012, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
McCarthy, M. (1999). The evolution of educational leadership preparation programs.
Handbook of research on educational administration (2 ed., pp. 119-139). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
116
McCarthy, M., Kuh, G., Newell, L., & Iacona, C. (1988). Under scrutiny: the educational
administration professoriate. Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational
Administration.
Miklos, E. (1988). Administrator Selection, career patterns, succession, and socialization.
Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 53-76). New York:
Longman.
Milstein, M.M (1992). The Danforth Program for the Preparation of School Principals six
years later: What we have learned. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
University Council of Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN.
Moore, H. (1964). The ferment in school administration. Behavioral science in
educational administration (pp. 11-32). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Murphy, J. (2006). Some thoughts on rethinking the pre service education of school
leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 1, n/a.
Murphy, J. (1993). Preparing tomorrow's school leaders: alternative designs. University
Park, PA: University Council of Educational Administration.
Murphy, J., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Handbook of research on educational administration:
A project of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2004). Research on preparation programs in educational
administration. Columbia: University Council for Educational Administration.
117
Murphy, J. (2006). Preparing school leaders: defining a research and action agenda.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2006). Research on leadership preparation in the United
States: An analysis. School Leadership and Management, 26(2), 183-195.
Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: reframing the education of
school administrators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Muth, R., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2004). Why don't our graduates take administrative
positions, and what's the cost?. Educational leadership: Knowing the way, going
the way (pp. 294-306). Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. (1987). Leaders for
American’s schools. Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational
Administration.
Neumark, D. (2005). California's economic future and infrastructure challenges. San
Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Normore, A., & Blanco, R. (2006). Leadership for social justice and morality:
Collaborative partnerships, school-linked services and the plight of the poor.
Internatonal Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10, n/a.
Normore, A.H. & Cook, L.H. (2009). Reflecting on innovative practices and
partnerships: An interdisciplinary doctoral program in educational leadership
with the potential of closing the achievement gap. Paper presented at the annual
UCEA Convention, November 19-22, 2009.
118
Normore, A., & Dosher, S. P. (2007). Using media as the basis for a social issues
approach to promoting moral literacy in university teaching. Journal of
Educational Administration, 45(4), 427-450.
Normore, A., Rodriguez, L., & Wynne, J. (2007). Making all children winners:
Confronting issues of social justice to redeem America's soul. Journal of
Educational Administration, 45(6), 653-671.
Offenstein, J., & Shulock, N. (2009). Technical difficulties: meeting california's
workforce needs in science, technology, engineering, and math (stem) fields..
Sacramento: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the challenge of preparing young Americans for the
21st century. (2011). Massachusetts: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(2012). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_productmoment_correlation_coefficient#Interpretation_of_the_size_of_a_correlation
Poliner-Shapiro, J., & Hassinger, R. (2007). Using case studies of ethical dilemmas for
the development of moral literacy. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4),
451-470.
119
Pounder, D., & Young, P. (1996). Recruitment and selection of educational
administrators: Priorities for today's schools. International Handbook of
Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 279-308). Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Preiss, S., Grogan, M., Sherman, W., & Beatty, D. (2007). What the research and
literature say about the delivery of educational leadership programs in the United
States. Journal of Research on Educational Administration, 2(2), n/a.
Reed, D. (2008). California's Future Workforce: Will There Be Enough College
Graduates? (PPIC Publication). Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).
Retrieved February 4, 2012, from
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=809
Reyes, P., Wagstaff, L., & Fusarelli, L. (1999). Delta forces: The changing fabric of
American society and education. Handbook of research on educational
administration (pp. 183-201). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Schermerhorn, J., Hunt, J., & Osborn, R. (2008). Organizational behavior. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
School Leadership Preparation: A preface for action. (1998). Washington, D.C.:
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
120
Sergiovanni, T. (1989). Mystics, neats, and scruffies: Informing professional practice in
educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 27(2), 7-21.
Silver, P. (1982). Administrator preparation. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 5th
ed., 1, 49-59.
Sparks, E., & Waits, M. (2011). Degrees for what types of jobs? Raising expectation for
universities and colleges in a global economy. NGA Center for Best Practices,
n/a, i-46.
St. John, E., Rowley, L., & Hu, S. (2009). Diversity and Leadership: A Study of HighAchieving Students of Color. Journal of Negro Education, 78(1), 17-28.
Retrieved April 3, 2012, from the ERIC database.
Taylor, M. (n.d.). 2011 CalFacts. California Legislative Analyst's Office. Retrieved
March 4, 2012, from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfacts/calfacts_010511.aspx#zzee_link_29
_1294170707
Walker, G., Golde, C., Jones, L., Conklin-Bueschel, A., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The
formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Williams, C. (2007). Management. Mason: Southwestern College Publishing.
Young, M., Peterson, G., & Short, P. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A
call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 38(2), 137-175.
121
Young, M., Crow, G., Murphy, J., & Ogawa, R. (2009). Handbook of Research on the
Education of School Leaders. New York: Routledge.