principalhealth.org...3 irish principal and deputy principal health & wellbeing survey, 2014...

1

Irish Principal and Deputy Principal Health & Wellbeing Survey, 2014 Data

Irish Principals & Deputy Principals Occupational Health, Safety

& Wellbeing Survey

January 2015

Prepared by

Philip Riley, PhD

2


Produced and Published by: Faculty of Education and Arts Australian Catholic University Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia, 3605 Printed May 2014 © Copyright 2014 NOT FOR RESALE. All material in this document is protected by copyright. Use of these materials including copying or resale may infringe copyright unless written permission has been obtained from the copyright owners. Enquiries should be made to the publisher.

3


Acknowlegements Projects on this scale do not happen without a number of dedicated people’s support. I would like to firstly thank the Irish Primary Principals and deputy principals Network (IPPN) and the National Association of Principals and deputy principals and Deputy Principals and deputy principals (NAPD) who funded the research and facilitated access to the survey for the principals and deputy principals. Special thanks go to research assistant Aimee Maxwell who worked tirelessly to tight deadlines time and again. For Web development and report construction thanks go to Jason Cleeland. A big thank you also goes to the members of the project consultative committee, who each contributed many hours of thought, invaluable questions along with discussion and proof reading of the survey items and final report. It is a much better product for their efforts.

Consultative committee Sean Cottrell, IPPN Virginia O’Mahony, IPPN Shay Bannon, NAPD Brendan McCabe, IPPN Clive Byrne, NAPD Dr Eemer Eivers, Educational Research Centre

Contact Information www.principals and deputy principalhealth.org Chief Investigator: Associate Professor Philip Riley Technical and Research Support: Aimee Maxwell

4


Table of Contents Acknowlegements ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 Consultative committee .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Contact Information .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary & Recommendations ........................................................................ 14 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Project Aims ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Participant Care ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 Chief Investigator ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 The Survey ........................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Innovation ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Research Questions ......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Ireland’s School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot .................................................................. 15 Ireland’s Primary School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot ................................................ 16 Ireland’s Second Level School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot ..................................... 17 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Recommendation A: Improving the wellbeing of principals and deputy principals through Professional Support ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Recommendation B. Professional Learning ......................................................................................................... 19 Recommendation C. Review the work practices of Teaching Principals and deputy principals ... 20 Recommendation D: Address Bullying and Violence ........................................................................................ 20 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Project Aims ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Participant Care ............................................................................................................................................................... 22 Chief Investigator ............................................................................................................................................................. 22 The Survey ........................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Innovation ........................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing ......................................................................................................... 24 Research Questions ......................................................................................................................................................... 24

Results Overview ............................................................................................................. 25 Ireland’s School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot .................................................................. 25 Ireland’s Primary School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot ................................................ 26 Ireland’s Second Level School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot ..................................... 27

Detailed Results .............................................................................................................. 27 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................................................................... 28 Response Rates .................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Reliability ............................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Participants ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31 Gender ................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Age .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Role ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Time Fraction .................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Years in Roles and Positions ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Year Level Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................................... 36 Average hours worked per week ............................................................................................................................... 37 Time Usage whilst at work .......................................................................................................................................... 41 Income – Per annum ....................................................................................................................................................... 43 Work Pressures ................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Levels of Autonomy in Carrying Out the Role ...................................................................................................... 54

5


Level of Confidence in Carrying Out Role .............................................................................................................. 56 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Country of Birth ................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Second Level school attended ..................................................................................................................................... 61 Background: Family of Origin .................................................................................................................................... 62 Volunteering/Charity Work (outside school hours/role) .............................................................................. 67 Spiritual Practice (outside school hours/role) .................................................................................................... 68 Partner Status ................................................................................................................................................................... 68 Children ................................................................................................................................................................................ 73

Personal Health Status .................................................................................................................................................. 75 General Health and Fitness .......................................................................................................................................... 78 Personal Values ................................................................................................................................................................. 82 Psychological Rating ...................................................................................................................................................... 85 Sources of Support ........................................................................................................................................................... 88 Alcohol Intake .................................................................................................................................................................... 92

School Information .......................................................................................................... 96 Sector ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 96 Location ................................................................................................................................................................................ 96 Enrolment ............................................................................................................................................................................ 97 Non Teaching Staff .......................................................................................................................................................... 98 Administrative Support Staff ...................................................................................................................................... 99 Teaching Staff: Experience and Demographics .................................................................................................. 99 Staff Turnover .................................................................................................................................................................. 101 Principals and deputy principals Valued by the Community ...................................................................... 103 Student Profile ................................................................................................................................................................. 104 School Resources ............................................................................................................................................................ 107 School Culture .................................................................................................................................................................. 109 Staff ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 109 Students .............................................................................................................................................................................. 113 Parents ................................................................................................................................................................................ 116

COPSOQ-‐II Subscale Scores ............................................................................................ 118

AQoL-‐8D ........................................................................................................................ 135

Cluster Analysis ............................................................................................................. 137 Combined Primary and Second Level Cluster Analysis ................................................................................ 137 COPSOQ-‐II Subscales by Cluster Group ................................................................................................................. 145

Principals and deputy principals Type Analysis .............................................................. 149

Primary Versus Second Level School Differences ........................................................... 155

Primary Versus Second Level Individual Differences ...................................................... 159

References .................................................................................................................... 165

Tables Table 1: Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the Australian Quality of Life–8 Dimension Scale (AQoL–

8D: Richardson, et al., 2009) reported for two samples of principals and deputy principals. ...... 29 Table 2: Cronbach Alpha coefficients for Emotional Labour Scale – Revised (Lee & Brotheridge,

2011) .............................................................................................................................................. 29

6


Table 3: Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the Copenhagen Psycho-Social Coping Scale Second Edition (COPSOQ-II) (Jan Hyld Pejtersen, et al., 2010) reported for two samples of principals and deputy principals. ................................................................................................................... 30

Table 4. Gender ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Table 5. Gender (Primary) .................................................................................................................... 31 Table 6. Gender (Second Level) ........................................................................................................... 31 Table 7. Principals and deputy principals' roles .................................................................................... 32 Table 8. Principals' roles (Primary) ....................................................................................................... 32 Table 9. Principals' roles (Second Level) .............................................................................................. 32 Table 10. Time fraction spent on leadership ......................................................................................... 35 Table 11. Time fraction spent on leadership (primary) ......................................................................... 35 Table 12. Time fraction spent on leadership (secondary) ..................................................................... 35 Table 13. Time spent in different roles during career ........................................................................... 35 Table 14. Time spent in different roles during career (primary) ........................................................... 36 Table 15. Time spent in different roles during career (second level) ................................................... 36 Table 16. School Type and Year Level Responsibilities ...................................................................... 36 Table 17. Percentage of principals and deputy principals in Primary and Second Level Schools

(aggregated) ................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 18. Average hours worked per week during school terms .......................................................... 37 Table 19. Average hours worked per week during official holiday periods ......................................... 37 Table 20. Average hours worked per week during school terms .......................................................... 38 Table 21. Average hours worked per week during official holiday periods ......................................... 38 Table 22. Average hours worked per week during school terms .......................................................... 39 Table 23. Average hours worked per week during official holiday periods ......................................... 39 Table 24. Time spent on internal administrative tasks .......................................................................... 41 Table 25. Annual income Second Level Principals and Deputies by quantum grouping ..................... 44 Table 26: One-Way ANOVA comparing income levels of principals and deputy principals by school

type (Post Hoc Test: Tukey HSD) ................................................................................................. 46 Table 27: Sources of Stress during the last 3 months - Averaged across all respondents. ................... 46 Table 28: Sources of Stress for Primary Principals and Deputies during the last 3 months. ................ 47 Table 29: Sources of Stress for Second Level Principals and Deputies during the last 3 months. ....... 48 Table 30. Sources of stress during the last 3 months: All principal types combined. ........................... 49 Table 31: Differences in reported stress reactions by male and female principals and deputy

principals. ...................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 32: Differences in stress reactions by principals and deputy principals in Primary, Second Level

(all) and Other schools .................................................................................................................. 53 Table 33: Percieved autonomy in carrying out leadership tasks ........................................................... 54 Table 34: Level of confidence in carrying out leadership tasks ............................................................ 57 Table 35: Combined principals and deputy principals' place of birth ................................................... 61 Table 36: Primary principals and deputy principals place of birth ....................................................... 61 Table 37: Second Level principals place of birth .................................................................................. 61 Table 38: Second Level School Attended (type) .................................................................................. 61 Table 39: Primary Principals and Deputies Second Level School Attended (type) .............................. 61 Table 40: Second Level Principals and Deputies Second Level School Attended (type) ..................... 62 Table 41. Family unit at age 14 ............................................................................................................. 62 Table 42. Family unit at age 14 (Primary P&D) ................................................................................... 62 Table 43. Family unit at age 14 (Second Level P&D) .......................................................................... 63 Table 44. Father’s highest education qualification ............................................................................... 63 Table 45. Father’s highest education qualification (Primary P&D) ...................................................... 63 Table 46. Father’s highest education qualification (Second Level P&D) ............................................. 64 Table 47. Mother’s highest education qualification .............................................................................. 64 Table 48. Mother’s highest education qualification (Primary P&D) .................................................... 64 Table 49. Mother’s highest education qualification (Second Level P&D) ........................................... 64

7


Table 50. Highest level of formal education completed ....................................................................... 65 Table 51. Highest level of formal education completed (Primary P&D) .............................................. 65 Table 52. Highest level of formal education completed (Second Level P&D) ..................................... 65 Table 53. Formal leadership qualifications ........................................................................................... 66 Table 54. Formal leadership qualifications (Primary P&D) ................................................................. 66 Table 55. Formal leadership qualifications (Second Level P&D) ........................................................ 66 Table 56. Participated in volunteer or charity work in the past 12 months ........................................... 67 Table 57. Participated in volunteer or charity work in the past 12 months (Primary P&D) ................. 67 Table 58. Participated in volunteer or charity work in the past 12 months (Second Level P&D) ........ 67 Table 59. Current active member of a sporting, hobby or community-based club or association ........ 67 Table 60. Current active member of a sporting, hobby or community-based club or association

(Primary P&D) .............................................................................................................................. 67 Table 61. Current active member of a sporting, hobby or community-based club or association

(Second Level P&D) ..................................................................................................................... 67 Table 62. Regular spiritual practice or attendance at religious services or prayers .............................. 68 Table 63. Regular spiritual practice or attendance at religious services or prayers (Primary P&D) .... 68 Table 64. Regular spiritual practice or attendance at religious services or prayers .............................. 68 Table 65. Partner status ......................................................................................................................... 68 Table 66. Partner status (Primary P&D) ............................................................................................... 69 Table 67. Partner status (Second Level P&D) ...................................................................................... 69 Table 68. Is your partner in paid employment? ..................................................................................... 69 Table 69. Is your partner in paid employment? (Primary P&D) ........................................................... 69 Table 70. Is your partner in paid employment? (Second Level P&D) .................................................. 69 Table 71. Partner’s occupation by ABS type ........................................................................................ 70 Table 72. Partner’s occupation by ABS type (Primary P&D) .............................................................. 71 Table 73. Partner’s occupation by ABS type (Second Level P&D) ..................................................... 72 Table 74. Partner’s occupational level by ABS type ............................................................................ 72 Table 75. Partner’s occupational level by ABS type (Primary P&D) ................................................... 73 Table 76. Partner’s occupational level by ABS type (Second Level P&D) .......................................... 73 Table 77. Do you have children currently living at home? ................................................................... 73 Table 78. Do you have children currently living at home? (Primary P&D) ......................................... 73 Table 79. Do you have children currently living at home? (Second Level P&D) ................................ 73 Table 80. Number of children living at home full time ........................................................................ 73 Table 81. Number of children living at home full time (Primary P&D) ............................................... 74 Table 82. Number of children living at home full time (Second Level P&D) ...................................... 74 Table 83. Members of immediate family with a long-term health condition ....................................... 74 Table 84. Members of immediate family with a long-term health condition (Primary P&D) .............. 74 Table 85. Members of immediate family with a long-term health condition (Second Level P&D) ..... 74 Table 86. Impact of the health condition on your child or partner’s ability to study or work .............. 74 Table 87. Impact of the health condition on your child or partner’s ability to study or work (Primary

P&D) ............................................................................................................................................. 74 Table 88. Impact of the health condition on your child or partner’s ability to study or work (Second

Level P&D) ................................................................................................................................... 75 Table 89. Medical conditions diagnosed by a doctor ............................................................................ 75 Table 90. Medical conditions diagnosed by a doctor (Primary P&D) .................................................. 75 Table 91. Medical conditions diagnosed by a doctor (Second Level P&D) ......................................... 76 Table 92. Prescription medications taken ............................................................................................. 76 Table 93. Prescription medications taken (Primary P&D) .................................................................... 77 Table 94. Prescription medications taken (Second Level P&D) ........................................................... 77 Table 95. Overall I maintain a satisfactory level of fitness ................................................................... 78 Table 96. Overall I maintain a satisfactory level of fitness (Primary P&D) ......................................... 78 Table 97. Overall I maintain a satisfactory level of fitness (Second Level P&D) ................................ 78 Table 98. Overall I maintain a healthy diet ........................................................................................... 79

8


Table 99. Overall I maintain a healthy diet (Primary P&D) ................................................................. 79 Table 100. Overall I maintain a healthy diet (Second Level P&D) ...................................................... 79 Table 101. Overall I maintain a health weight ...................................................................................... 80 Table 102. Overall I maintain a health weight (Primary P&D) ............................................................ 80 Table 103. Overall I maintain a health weight (Second Level P&D) ................................................... 80 Table 104. Frequency of scheduled medical checkups (annual) ........................................................... 81 Table 105. Frequency of scheduled medical checkups (annual) (Primary P&D) ................................. 81 Table 106. Frequency of scheduled medical checkups (annual) (Second Level P&D) ........................ 81 Table 107: Summary of responses to the Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al.) compared to

population norms ........................................................................................................................... 82 Table 108: Summary of responses to the Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al.) compared to

population norms (Primary P&D) ................................................................................................. 82 Table 109: Summary of responses to the Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al.) compared to

population norms (Second Level P&D) ........................................................................................ 82 Table 110: Summary statistics of Importance ratings ........................................................................... 84 Table 111: Summary statistics of Importance ratings (Primary P&D) ................................................. 84 Table 112: Summary statistics of Importance ratings (Second Level P&D) ........................................ 85 Table 113. I am frequently depressed about my job ............................................................................. 85 Table 114. I am frequently depressed about my job (Primary P&D) .................................................... 85 Table 115. I am frequently depressed about my job (Second Level P&D) ........................................... 86 Table 116. I am frequently depressed about my job at certain times of the year .................................. 86 Table 117. I am frequently depressed about my job at certain times of the year (Primary P&D) ........ 86 Table 118. I am frequently depressed about my job at certain times of the year (Second Level P&D)86 Table 119. Do you ever feel like hurting yourself? ............................................................................... 87 Table 120. Do you ever feel like hurting yourself? (Primary P&D) ..................................................... 87 Table 121. Do you ever feel like hurting yourself? (Second Level P&D) ............................................ 87 Table 122. Sources of support. Note participants were able to list multiple sources ............................ 88 Table 123. Sources of support. Note participants were able to list multiple sources (Primary P&D) .. 88 Table 124. Sources of support. Note participants were able to list multiple sources (Second Level

P&D) ............................................................................................................................................. 89 Table 125: World Health Organisation Recommendations based on reported AUDIT scores ............ 92 Table 126: Mean AUDIT scores in High and Low risk categories disaggregated by Gender .............. 92 Table 127. AUDIT Group membership ................................................................................................ 92 Table 128. AUDIT Group membership (Primary P&D) ....................................................................... 92 Table 129. AUDIT Group membership (Second Level P&D) .............................................................. 93 Table 130: One-way ANOVA comparing Mean AUDIT scores for Male and Female Principals and

deputy principals ........................................................................................................................... 93 Table 131: Mean AUDIT scores in High and Low risk categories disaggregated by Gender (Primary

P&D) ............................................................................................................................................. 93 Table 132: Mean AUDIT scores in High and Low risk categories disaggregated by Gender (Second

Level P&D) ................................................................................................................................... 93 Table 133. Degree of worry about the way I use alcohol to manage my stress .................................... 94 Table 134. Degree of worry about the way I use prescribed medication to manage my stress ............ 94 Table 135. Degree of worry about the way I use alcohol to manage my stress (Primary P&D) .......... 94 Table 136. Degree of worry about the way I use alcohol to manage my stress (Second Level P&D) . 95 Table 137. Degree of worry about the way I use prescribed medication to manage my stress (Primary

P&D) ............................................................................................................................................. 95 Table 138. Degree of worry about the way I use prescribed medication to manage my stress (Second

Level P&D) ................................................................................................................................... 95 Table 139. School sector of current school ........................................................................................... 96 Table 140. Geographic location of current school ................................................................................ 97 Table 141. Geographic location of current school (Primary P&D) ...................................................... 97 Table 142. Geographic location of current school (Second Level P&D) ............................................. 97

9


Table 143: Range of school enrolments, with Mean score and standard deviations reported .............. 97 Table 144: Range of school enrolments, with Mean score and standard deviations reported (Primary

P&D) ............................................................................................................................................. 97 Table 145: Range of school enrolments, with Mean score and standard deviations reported (Second

Level P&D) ................................................................................................................................... 97 Table 146. Number of campuses at current school ............................................................................... 98 Table 147. Percentage of your school’s non-teaching staff providing pedagogical support ................ 98 Table 148. Percentage of your school’s non-teaching staff providing pedagogical support (Primary

P&D) ............................................................................................................................................. 98 Table 149. Percentage of your school’s non-teaching staff providing pedagogical support (Second

Level P&D) ................................................................................................................................... 98 Table 150. Percentage of non-teaching staff in administrative or management roles .......................... 99 Table 151. Percentage of non-teaching staff in administrative or management roles (Primary P&D) . 99 Table 152. Percentage of non-teaching staff in administrative or management roles (Second Level

P&D) ............................................................................................................................................. 99 Table 153. Percentage of teachers by level of experience in years ....................................................... 99 Table 154. Percentage of teachers by level of experience in years (Primary P&D) ........................... 100 Table 155. Percentage of teachers by level of experience in years (Second Level P&D) .................. 100 Table 156. Teachers who hold a Masters degree or higher ................................................................. 100 Table 157. Teachers who hold a Masters degree or higher (Primary P&D) ....................................... 100 Table 158. Teachers who hold a Masters degree or higher (Second Level P&D) .............................. 100 Table 159. Teachers’ first language is a language other than English ................................................ 101 Table 160. Percentage of teachers’ first language is a language other than English (Primary P&D) . 101 Table 161. Teachers’ first language is a language other than English (Second Level P&D) ............. 101 Table 162. Percentage of teaching staff who leave the school in an average year ............................. 101 Table 163. Percentage of teaching staff who leave the school in an average year (Primary P&D) .... 101 Table 164. Percentage of teaching staff who leave the school in an average year (Second Level P&D)

..................................................................................................................................................... 101 Table 165. Teachers currently employed on short-term contracts (up to one year) ............................ 102 Table 166. Teachers currently employed on short-term contracts (up to one year) (Primary P&D) .. 102 Table 167. Teachers currently employed on short-term contracts (up to one year) (Second Level P&D)

..................................................................................................................................................... 102 Table 168. Difficulty in fill teaching staff vacancies for this school year .......................................... 102 Table 169. Difficulty in fill teaching staff vacancies for this school year (Primary P&D) ................ 102 Table 170. Difficulty in fill teaching staff vacancies for this school year (Second Level P&D) ....... 103 Table 171. School staff and community values your leadership ......................................................... 103 Table 172. School staff and community values your leadership (Primary P&D) ............................... 103 Table 173. School staff and community values your leadership (Second Level P&D) ...................... 103 Table 174. School council/board and values your leadership ............................................................. 103 Table 175. School council/board and values your leadership (Primary P&D) ................................... 103 Table 176. School council/board and values your leadership (Second Level P&D) .......................... 104 Table 177. Percentage of students who qualify for Low Incidence Resource teaching hours or SNA

support ......................................................................................................................................... 104 Table 178. Percentage of students who qualify for Low Incidence Resource teaching hours or SNA

support (Primary P&D) ............................................................................................................... 104 Table 179. Percentage of students who qualify for Low Incidence Resource teaching hours or SNA

support (Second Level P&D ....................................................................................................... 104 Table 180. Percentage of students who have a disability but do not qualify for Low Incidence

Resource teaching hours or SNA support ................................................................................... 104 Table 181. Percentage of students who have a disability but do not qualify for Low Incidence

Resource teaching hours or SNA support (Primary P&D) ......................................................... 104 Table 182. Percentage of students who have a disability but do not qualify for Low Incidence

Resource teaching hours or SNA support (Second Level P&D) ................................................ 105

10


Table 183. Percentage of student turnover each year (apart from graduates) ..................................... 105 Table 184. Percentage of student turnover each year (apart from graduates) (Primary P&D) ........... 105 Table 185. Percentage of student turnover each year (apart from graduates) (Second Level P&D ... 105 Table 186. Reasons for student exit (apart from graduating) .............................................................. 105 Table 187. Reasons for student exit (apart from graduating) (Primary P&D) .................................... 106 Table 188. Reasons for student exit (apart from graduating) Second Level P&D) ............................ 106 Table 189. Resourcing inadequacies reported as percentage .............................................................. 107 Table 190. Staff attributes ................................................................................................................... 109 Table 191. Staff attributes (Primary P&D) ......................................................................................... 110 Table 192. Staff attributes (Second Level ........................................................................................... 111 Table 193. ANOVA reporting statistically significant differences in Staff Attributes by Level ....... 111 Table 194. Student attributes ............................................................................................................... 113 Table 195. Student attributes (Primary P&D) ..................................................................................... 114 Table 196. Student attributes (Second Level) ..................................................................................... 115 Table 197. ANOVA reporting statistically significant differences in Student Attributes by Level ... 115 Table 198. Parental support for, and involvement in, school activities .............................................. 116 Table 199. Parental support for, and involvement in, school activities (Primary P&D) .................... 117 Table 200. Parental support for, and involvement in, school activities (Second Level P&D) ........... 117 Table 201. ANOVA reporting statistically significant differences in Parent Attributes by Level ..... 117 Table 202. Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire-II subscale scores ............................................ 119 Table 203. Prevalence rates for Offensive Behaviour subscales of the COPSOQ-II ......................... 128 Table 204. Principals and deputy principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour during the last 12

months. ........................................................................................................................................ 131 Table 205. Principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour during the last 12 months (Primary P&D)

..................................................................................................................................................... 131 Table 206. Principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour during the last 12 months (Second Level

P&D) ........................................................................................................................................... 132 Table 207. Principals and deputy principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour disaggregated by

Gender ......................................................................................................................................... 133 Table 208. Principals and deputy principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour disaggregated by

School Type ................................................................................................................................. 133 Table 209. Assessment of Quality of Life - 8D (AQoL 8-D) subscale scores .................................... 135 Table 210. Cluster centres - Mean scores for each cluster on the dimensions examined ................... 138 Table 211. Cluster Membership disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type ................ 139 Table 212. AQoL-8D Subscale scores by Principals and deputy principals Type ............................. 150 Table 213: Primary vs Second Level differences in demographics and resourcing ........................... 155

Figures Figure 1: Year of Birth .......................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 2: Percentage of Principals and Deputy Principals in each of the Role Types x School Types.33 Figure 3. Principals and deputy principals by Role Type in primary schools disaggregated by Gender

....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 4. Principals and deputy principals by Role Type in second level schools disaggregated by

Gender ........................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 5: Percentage of principals and deputy principals’ time in hours spent at work during term time

and holiday periods ....................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 6: Percentage of Primary principals’ time in hours spent at work during term time and holiday

periods ........................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 7: Percentage of second level principals’ time in hours spent at work during term and holiday

periods ........................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 8. Annual Income for Primary Principals and Deputies combined. .......................................... 45

11


Figure 9. Annual Income for Second Level Principals and Deputies combined. ................................. 45 Figure 10: Sources of stress during the last 3 months School Sector ................................................... 50 Figure 11: Comparison scores for sources of stress during the last 3 months for primary principals and

deputy principals in 2009 (N=445) and 2014 (N=779) ................................................................. 51 Figure 12: Comparison scores for sources of stress during the last 3 months disagregated by Gender 52 Figure 13: Primary Principals and Deputies perceived levels of Autonomy in carrying out their role.55 Figure 14. Second Level Principals and Deputies perceived levels of Autonomy in carrying out their

role. ................................................................................................................................................ 56 Figure 15: Principals and deputy principal's perceived levels of Autonomy and Confidence in carrying

out their role. ................................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 16: Principal’s perceived level of Confidence in carrying out the role. .................................... 59 Figure 17. Second Level Principals and Deputies level of Confidence in carrying out their role. ....... 60 Figure 18: Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al, 2013) comparison scores ................................ 83 Figure 19. Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al, 2013) comparison scores (Primary P&D) ...... 83 Figure 20. Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al, 2013) comparison scores (Second Level P&D)

....................................................................................................................................................... 84 Figure 21: Sources of support for Primary Principals disaggregated by Principal Type. ..................... 89 Figure 22: Sources of Support for Primary Deputy Principals disaggregated by Type ........................ 90 Figure 23. Sources of Support for Second Level Principals disaggregated by Type ............................ 90 Figure 24. Sources of Support for Second Level Deputy Principals disaggregated by Type ............... 91 Figure 25. AUDIT scores disaggregated by Gender. ............................................................................ 96 Figure 26. Global resourcing inadequacy ordered from highest to lowest by reported school need on a

7- point scale ............................................................................................................................... 108 Figure 27. Teacher attributes disaggregated by Level ........................................................................ 112 Figure 28. Student Attributes disaggreagated by Level ...................................................................... 116 Figure 29: COPSOQ-II subscale Demands at Work comparing Irish principals and deputy principals

with the General Population ........................................................................................................ 120 Figure 30: COPSOQ-II subscale Demands at Work comparing Irish principals with the General

Population (Primary P&D) .......................................................................................................... 120 Figure 31: COPSOQ-II subscale Demands at Work comparing Irish principals with the General

Population (Second Level P&D) ................................................................................................. 121 Figure 32: COPSOQ-II subscale Work Organisation and Job Contents comparing Irish principals and

deputy principals with the General Population ........................................................................... 121 Figure 33: COPSOQ-II subscale Work Organisation and Job Contents comparing Irish principals with

the General Population (Primary P&D) ...................................................................................... 122 Figure 34: COPSOQ-II subscale Work Organisation and Job Contents comparing Irish principals with

the General Population (Second Level P&D) ............................................................................. 122 Figure 35: COPSOQ-II subscale Interpersonal Relations & Leadership comparing Irish principals and

deputy principals with the General Population ........................................................................... 123 Figure 36: COPSOQ-II subscale Interpersonal Relations & Leadership comparing Irish principals

with the General Population (Primary P&D) .............................................................................. 124 Figure 37: COPSOQ-II subscale Interpersonal Relations & Leadership comparing Irish principals

with the General Population (Second Level P&D) ..................................................................... 125 Figure 38: COPSOQ-II subscale Work-Individual Interface comparing Irish principals and deputy

principals with the General Population ....................................................................................... 125 Figure 40: COPSOQ-II subscale Values in the Workplace comparing Irish principals and deputy

principals with the General Population ....................................................................................... 126 Figure 41: COPSOQ-II subscale Values in the Workplace comparing Irish principals with the General

Population (Primary P&D) .......................................................................................................... 126 Figure 42: COPSOQ-II subscale Values in the Workplace comparing Irish principals with the General

Population (Second Level P&D) ................................................................................................. 127 Figure 43: COPSOQ-II subscale Health & Wellbeing comparing Irish principals and deputy principals

with the General Population ........................................................................................................ 127

12


Figure 44: COPSOQ-II subscale Health & Wellbeing comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Primary P&D) .......................................................................................................... 128

Figure 45: COPSOQ-II subscale Health & Wellbeing comparing Irish principals with the General Population .................................................................................................................................... 128

Figure 46: Health & Wellbeing COPSOQ-II subscale Offensive Behaviour comparing Irish principals and deputy principals with the General Population .................................................................... 129

Figure 47: Health & Wellbeing COPSOQ-II subscale Offensive Behaviour comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Primary P&D) .............................................................................. 130

Figure 48: Health & Wellbeing COPSOQ-II subscale Offensive Behaviour comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Second Level P&D) ..................................................................... 130

Figure 49: Percentage of Principals and deputy principals experiences of Offensive Behaviours disaggregated by perpetrator group ............................................................................................. 133

Figure 50: Principals and deputy principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour disaggregated by School Type. ................................................................................................................................ 134

Figure 51: Principals and deputy principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour disaggregated by Role. ............................................................................................................................................ 134

Figure 52: Comparison scores on AQoL-8D for Irish Principals and deputy principals versus general population. ................................................................................................................................... 136

Figure 53: Cluster Group Membership disaggregated by School Type .............................................. 138 Figure 54: Cluster Group Membership disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type. .... 140 Figure 55: Cluster Group Membership disaggregated by Gender ...................................................... 140 Figure 56: AQoL8D Subscale scores by cluster membership ............................................................. 141 Figure 57: Sources of Stress during the last 3 months disaggregated by Cluster Group .................... 142 Figure 58: Level of Confidence in Ability disaggregated by Cluster Group ...................................... 143 Figure 59: Sources of Support disaggregated by Cluster Group ......................................................... 144 Figure 60: Demands at Work disaggregated by cluster group ............................................................ 145 Figure 61: Work Organisation & Job Contents disaggregated by Cluster Group ............................... 145 Figure 62: Interpersonal Relations & Leadership disaggregated by Cluster Group ........................... 146 Figure 63: Principals and deputy principals Mean Scores on Work-Individual Interface disaggregated

by Cluster Group ......................................................................................................................... 147 Figure 64: Principals and deputy principals Mean Scores on Values at the Workplace disaggregated

by Cluster Group ......................................................................................................................... 147 Figure 65: Health & Wellbeing disaggregated by Cluster Group ....................................................... 148 Figure 66: AUDIT high risk group disaggregated by Cluster Group membership ............................. 148 Figure 67: The Emotional Labour Scale – Revised responses disaggregated by Cluster Group ........ 149 Figure 68: AQoL-8D Psychosocial subscale scores disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals

Type. ............................................................................................................................................ 149 Figure 69: Sources of Stress during the last 3 months disaggregated by Principals and deputy

principals Type ............................................................................................................................ 151 Figure 70: Sources of Support disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type ................... 152 Figure 71: Level of perceived Automomy in carrying out various roles disaggregated by Principals

and deputy principals Type ......................................................................................................... 153 Figure 72: Level of perceived Confidence in carrying out various tasks disaggregated by Principals

and deputy principals Type ......................................................................................................... 154 Figure 73: Reasons why students leave the school, other than graduating disaggregated by School

Type (5-point scale) .................................................................................................................... 156 Figure 74: Resourcing Shortages disaggregated by School Type (7-point scale) ............................... 156 Figure 75: Existing negative conditions in schools disaggregated by School Type (7-point scale) ... 157 Figure 76: Existing positive conditions in schools disaggregated by School Type (7-point scale) .... 158 Figure 77: Time fraction spent in leadership disaggregated by School Level .................................... 159 Figure 78: AQoL-8D and PWI scores disaggregated by School Type ............................................... 159 Figure 79a-f: COPSOQ-II subscales disaggregated by School Type ................................................. 162 Figure 80: Emotional Labour Scale - Revised scores disaggregated by School Type ........................ 163

13


Figure 81a-b: Principals and deputy principals’ levels of Autonomy and Confidence in carrying out the role disaggregated by School Type (10-point scale) ............................................................. 164

14


Executive Summary & Recommendations

Background In the UK, where schools have been increasingly accountable for results via the publication of league tables, Phillips and Sen (2011) reported that, “work related stress was higher in education than across all other industries… with work-related mental ill-health… almost double the rate for all industry” (p. 177-8). A significant stressor has been the increased emphasis by governments on accountability for uniform curriculum delivery along with the devolution of administrative tasks from central to local control. The work practices (role demands) imposed by these changes further increase work volume and public accountability and decrease principals and deputy principals’ decision latitude through externally imposed reporting deadlines. Extensive research on similar professional populations, middle ranking public servants in the UK, reported in more than 100 Whitehall I and II studies found adverse health outcomes including decreased life expectancy results from high role demand and concurrent low decision latitude. More disturbing is that under these conditions younger people appear to be at greater risk of coronary heart disease than their older colleagues (Kuper & Marmot, 2003).

Project Aims The initial aim of this research project is to conduct a longitudinal study monitoring school principals and deputy principals’ health and wellbeing annually. Principals and deputy principals’ health and wellbeing in differing school types, levels and size will be monitored along with lifestyle choices such as exercise and diet and the professional and personal social support networks available to individuals.

Participant Care Each survey participant received a comprehensive, individual report from his/her own survey responses. Survey results returned to participants included contact details of local support agencies and providers tailored to the individual’s needs resulting from their survey responses.

Chief Investigator Associate Professor Philip Riley, from Australian Catholic University, a registered psychologist with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency oversaw the project. He is a former school principals and deputy principal, and is also the Chief Investigator for The Australian Principals and deputy principals Health and Wellbeing Survey. The Irish survey was conducted using the same protocols as the Australian survey, which has run annually in Australia since 2011.

The Survey The survey captured three types of information drawn from existing robust and widely used instruments. First, comprehensive school demographic items drawn from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Williams, et al., 2007), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Thomson, et al., 2011), and International Confederation of Principals and deputy principals surveys were used to capture differences in occupational heatlh and safety (OH&S0 associated with the diversity of school settings

15


and types. Second, personal demographic and historical information was captured. Third, principals and deputy principals’ quality of life and psychosocial coping were investigated, by employing two widely used measures, the AQoL-8D (Richardson, et al., 2009; Richardson, Iezzi & Maxwell, 2014) and COPSOQ-II (Jan Hyld Pejtersen, et al., 2010). The combination of items from these instruments allows opportunities for comprehensive analysis of variation in both OH&S and wellbeing as a function of school type, sector differences and the personal attributes of the principals and deputy principals themselves.

Innovation The principals and deputy principals who completed the survey received interactive feedback through a dedicated secure website, affording them instant health and wellbeing checkups tailored to their specific work context. In future iterations of the survey it is hoped that we can incorporate feedback to individuals using like-group comparisons. The instant benefit to individuals is likely to increase both participation rates and the veracity of the information they submit. The aggregated data will be made available to government, employer bodies, unions and other interested parties through these annual reports.

Research Questions The specific research questions guiding the initial survey were:

1. Can recognizable occupational health, safety and wellbeing subgroups of principals and deputy principals be identified through the survey? These groups may be inferred from a number of criteria including: Sector; Location (Urban, Suburban, Large Town, Rural, Remote); Type (Primary, Secondary, Special, Early Childhood,); Background (Family of Origin, School Education); Person Factors (Gender, Family of Origin and Procreation, Social Support, Educational Level); Role Factors (Hours worked, number and type of teachers, students and parents, resources, professional support); Occupational Constraints.

2. Do(es) any group(s) thrive in the role?

3. Do(es) any group(s) only just survive in the role?

4. Do(es) any group(s) show signs of adverse health, safety, and wellbeing outcomes.

5. Do(es) any factors affect these group(s), and in what ways?

6. Are changes to educational policy or policy implementation suggested by the results?

Ireland’s School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot • Responses from 404 Administrative and 284 Teaching principals and 38

Administrative and 105 Teaching Deputy principals are reported, comprising: 64.8% primary; 40% cities or large towns and 49.3% small town/villages or rural locations; 62.3% female; average age 48.05 years.

• Most had been in their current role for 8.51 years and leadership roles for 11.91 years, following 12.83 more years in teaching.

• Approximately 42.9% work upwards of 46 hours a week during term with just over 15% working upwards of 56 hours per week. During school holidays, 55.3% work upwards of 25 hours per week.

• Annual salaries range from <€40,000 - >€120,00 per annum. • 84% rate personal achievement as very important or higher.

16


• 97.3% rate personal relationships with family and friends as very important or higher. • 83.2% are in a partner relationship, and 82% report that their greatest source of

support comes from their partner. Almost half of their partners also work in the education sector.

• 66.2% have children living at home. • 17.1% of the principals and deputy principals have a family member with a long-term

health condition, with serious impact on the family in 17.1% of the sample. • They appear to come from stable backgrounds and have been upwardly mobile and

value education for themselves as well as others: 76.6% were living with a mother and father at age 14. The families of origin appear to be largely working class with about 15% of their parents qualified with a university degree, whereas 35.4% of the principals and deputy principals have a masters degree or above, mostly in formal leadership courses.

• 36.9% volunteer their time for community support outside of their role, and 40.9% are active members of a formal community or sporting association.

• 55% of the sample conducts regular spiritual practice. • There are large differences in their self-reported maintenance of healthy levels of

exercise, diet and weight control. • Only 82% of respondents rate their own happiness as very important or higher. • They are generally positive about their job with only 2.6% becoming frequently

depressed about it. • 49% are taking prescription medication for a diagnosed condition. • Most maintain a healthy alcohol intake, and do not use it to manage stress. • Principals and deputy principals experience nearly twice the prevalence of threats of

violence actual physical violence at work than other population groups measured on the COPSOQ-II. The prevalence is higher for female principals and deputy principals.

• Cluster analysis revealed that despite having many predictive attributes for high scores on both wellbeing (PWI) and quality of life (AQoL-8D) measures, collectively principals and deputy principals score less than the general population on both. Their mental health ranges from very good to very poor. The differences are outlined in more detail in the full report.

Ireland’s Primary School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot • Responses from 624 principals are reported. • 72.9% female • Administrative principals comprised 49% and Teaching Principals 39.35% of the

survey. 7.45% were deputies. 49.2% were in the role full time • Average age 47.42 years • Most had been in their current role for 9.25 years and leadership roles for 11.71

years, following 13 more years in teaching. • Approximately 54.4% work upwards of 41 hours a week during term with just over

18% working upwards of 56 hours per week. During school holidays, 22.6% work upwards of 25 hours per week.

• Annual salaries range from <€40,000 - >€120,00 per annum. • 84% rate personal achievement as very important or higher. • 97.3% rate personal relationships with family and friends as very important or higher. • 81.4% are in a partner relationship, and 82% report that their greatest source of

support comes from their partner. Almost one quarter of their partners also work in the education sector.

• 64.7% have children living at home.

17


• 19.4% of the principals have a family member with a long-term health condition, with serious impact on the family in 5.3% of the sample.

• They appear to come from stable backgrounds and have been upwardly mobile and value education for themselves as well as others: 84.9% were living with a mother and father at age 14. The families of origin appear to be largely working class with about 15% of their parents qualified with a university degree, whereas 33.3% of the principals have a masters degree or above, mostly in formal leadership courses.


• 62.7% of the sample conducts regular spiritual practice. • There are large differences in their self-reported maintenance of healthy levels of


depressed about it. • 44% are taking prescription medication for a diagnosed condition. • Most maintain a healthy alcohol intake, and do not use it to manage stress. • Principals experience nearly twice the incidence of threats of violence actual physical

violence at work than other population groups measured on the COPSOQ-II. The incidence is higher for female principals.

• Cluster analysis revealed that despite having many predictive attributes for high scores on both wellbeing (PWI) and quality of life (AQoL-8D) measures, collectively principals score less than the general population on both. Their mental health ranges from very good to very poor. The differences are outlined in more detail in the full report.

Ireland’s Second Level School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot • Responses from 216 principals are reported. • 53.7% Female; 46.3% Male • Average age 49.48 years • Average time in their current role for 6.17 years and leadership roles for 12.03 years,

following 12.71 more years in teaching. • Approximately 61.7% work upwards of 51 hours a week during term with just under


• Annual salaries range from <€40,000 - >€120,00 per annum. • 87.9% are in a partner relationship. • 71.3% have children living at home. • 16.2% of the principals have a family member with a long-term health condition, with

moderate to serious impact on the family in 12.5% of the sample. • They appear to come from stable backgrounds and have been upwardly mobile and

value education for themselves as well as others. Only half of the participants’ fathers and two-thirds of their mothers were educated beyond primary school. 76.6% were living with both mother and father at age 14.



exercise, diet and weight control.

18


• They are generally positive about their job with only 2.6% becoming frequently depressed about it.

• 39% are taking prescription medication for a diagnosed condition. • Most maintain a healthy alcohol intake, and do not use it to manage stress. • Principals experience nearly twice the incidence of threats of violence actual physical

violence at work than other population groups measured on the COPSOQ-II. They experience more than 3 times the prevalence of bulling at work than the general population.


Recommendations The recommendations are designed to help policy makers, (including: government; employer groups; professional associations; unions; school boards and governors) improve both working conditions for the paid work force and learning conditions for students, as the two are inseparable (Leithwood, 2006). The recommendations are grouped under thematic headings that emerged from the data analysis. While there are particular challenges to the occupational health, safety and wellbeing of principals and deputy principals which result from contextual and geographical determinates, the recommendations below, relate to more general occupational conditions found across the country and school sectors. Recommendations A-C are relatively straightforward and consistent with evidence from other countries showing that professional support for principals provides many benefits that flow through to improved student learning outcomes. Recommendation D addresses the most complex and challenging findings from the first wave of data collection: maintenance of dignity at work. The results suggest that the need to look for the causes, and reduce the levels, of adult-to-adult bullying, threats and actual violence in schools is required. Given that this report reflects only a single point in time, all interpretations need to be tentative. If the subsequent findings show a similar pattern, repeated consistently over time, as the annual updates of this research are conducted, stakeholders can be more confident of the findings and the need to implement Recommendation D in a timely manner. With regard to Recommendation D, the results of this first year of the survey may reflect Irish society more broadly, rather than school culture specifically. Evidence of offensive behaviour in other social workplaces, such as hospitals, suggests that this might be the case. However, if governments and employer groups are committed to improving the quality of school education for all stakeholders, this issue needs careful attention. Reducing levels of offensive behaviour will produce significant educational gains for students. Previous research has shown that the most effective ways to prevent or diminish bullying and violence are through whole school approaches (Antonio & Salzfass, 2007; Dake et al., 2003; de Wet, 2010; Espelage et al., 2013; Twemlow, Fonagy, & Sacco, 2001). The research presented in this report suggests the problem is system-wide and therefore a system-wide approach is needed.

19


Recommendation A: Improving the wellbeing of principals and deputy principals through Professional Support Principals and deputy principals mostly learn how to deal with the demanding emotional aspects of the role on the job, rather than through systematic preparation. In other professions, such as psychology and social work, where highly charged emotional interactions occur, high levels of professional support and debriefing are standard procedure. This is not so in education. As a result, the average principals’ and deputy principals’ wellbeing survey scores are lower than the average citizen. However, there is a lot of variation and distinct differences between the principals and deputy principals who appear to be coping well with the complexity of the role and those who are not. Professional support is a strong predictor of coping with the stresses of the role (job demands), therefore policies need to be developed that address this issue directly. In the 21st Century, no principals and deputy principals should feel unsupported in the face of growing job complexity, increased scrutiny stress from public accountability and decreased control over the ways in which the accountability targets are met (Riley & Langan-Fox, 2013). The evidence from this survey and a similar study in Australia (available at: http://principalhealth.org.au/reports) clearly points to the benefits of professional support for all principals and deputy principals. Those who receive the least have the greatest challenges to maintain their mental health. The principals and deputy principals identified as coping least well with their daily tasks had the lowest levels of professional support from colleagues and superiors while those who coped the best reported the highest levels of professional support. This is an area of improvement that would be relatively easy for education systems to improve.

1. Provide opportunities for principals and deputy principals to engage in professional support networks on a regular basis.

a. Networks would need to be determined locally, contextually and formally, and provide opportunities for informal support alongside formal support, outlined in Recommendation B.

b. A provision of time for principals and deputy principals to build and maintain professional support networks would be needed.

c. This could be augmented by experienced principal mentors, perhaps retired principals, visiting schools to provide support in the form of professional conversations (“agenda-less” meetings) allowing school principals and deputy principals time to discuss the day-to-day functioning of their schools with a sympathetic, experienced colleague.

Recommendation B. Professional Learning Systematic attention needs to be paid to the professional learning of principals and deputy principals, as targeted professional support. There is a considerable need for skill development in the emotional aspects of the leadership role outlined in Recommendation A: dealing with the highs and lows associated with the emotional investment of parents in their children. In-service provision of education on the emotional aspects of teaching, learning, organizational function, emotional labour, dealing with difficulties and conflicts in the workplace, employee assistance programs, debriefing self and others would be a great benefit. Targeted professional learning is likely to make principals and deputy principals feel better supported than they currently report. Provision of ongoing professional learning is likely to assist all principals and deputy principals in two ways. First, by skill improvement and secondly through the benefits of increased perceptions of support outlined in

20


Recommendation A. The three areas that all principals and deputy principals’ report lacking in confidence about their managerial skills are: Managing myself and my time; Dealing with Stress and Pressure; and, Budgeting. Even principals and deputy principals who are dealing well with these issues will benefit from professional learning in these areas.

Recommendation C. Review the work practices of Teaching Principals and deputy principals Teaching principals and deputy principals report lower levels of physical and mental health, coping, confidence, autonomy, personal wellbeing and a raft of other negative factors, along with the highest levels of work-related stress. As the role of principals and deputy principals has changed significantly in the last 15 years, becoming increasingly complex, the teaching principal and deputy principal may be roles that are becoming impossible to carry out effectively. The current report presents strong evidence of the negative factors associated with the role. Further investigation is needed to determine which, if any, teaching principals and deputy principals are thriving in the role and what factors may be contributing to this, so that employment conditions can be altered for the other teaching principals and deputy principals. It should be noted that, consistent with the literature on stress in the professions (Langan-Fox and Cooper, 2011), job satisfaction, which all principals and deputy principals report at very high levels, is not a protective factor, and does not mediate or moderate the other negative factors involved in the role.

Recommendation D: Address Bullying and Violence There is need to form a working party to independently investigate:

1. adult-adult bullying (occurring at triple the rate of the general population); and 2. threats of, and actual violence in schools (occurring at double the rate of the general

population).

The working party should consist of all the stakeholders with an independent facilitator/chair. The group could establish its own terms of reference and also seek access to expert advice. Specifically, it should investigate:

1. differences in the occupational risk of the different types of principals and deputy principals, with particular emphasis on Female Teaching Principals and Deputy Principals in primary schools, and Administrative Principals and Deputy Principals in second level schools who are most at risk.

2. whether/how the risk also extends to teachers and students. 3. Governance structures, information flow between adults, and external influences on

school functioning. 4. The working party should have powers to interview teachers, parents and students.

The consequences of offensive behaviour in schools are likely to become costly for employers, through: time lost to ill health; absenteeism; OH&S claims against employers’ for not providing a safe working environment; reduced functioning while at work (presenteeism). Therefore the investment in such a working party may prove to be the least expensive option in relation to this issue. The difficulties between the adult stakeholders in schools that have been identified in the survey need to be acknowledged and dealt with on a more systematic basis.

21


Introduction

Background In the UK, where schools have been increasingly accountable for results via the publication of league tables, Phillips and Sen (2011) reported that, “work related stress was higher in education than across all other industries… with work-related mental ill-health… almost double the rate for all industry” (p. 177-8). A significant stressor has been the increased emphasis by governments on accountability for uniform curriculum delivery along with the devolution of administrative tasks from central to local control. An extensive review of schools and school leadership in 25 countries the OECD reported,

School leaders’ roles have changed from practicing teachers with added responsibilities to full-time professional managers of human, financial and other resources accountable for their results. This has meant that more and more tasks have been added to the job description: instructional leadership, staff evaluation, budget management, performance assessment, accountability, and community relations, to name some of the most prominent ones. In this environment, the range of knowledge and skills that effective school leaders need today is daunting: curricular, pedagogical, student and adult learning in addition to managerial and financial skills, abilities in group dynamics, interpersonal relations and communications. (Matthews, et al., 2007).

The work practices (role demands) imposed by these changes further increase work volume and public accountability and decrease principals and deputy principals’ decision latitude through externally imposed reporting deadlines. Extensive research on similar professional populations, middle ranking public servants in the UK, reported in more than 100 Whitehall I and II studies found adverse health outcomes including decreased life expectancy results from high role demand and concurrent low decision latitude. Principals and deputy principals experiencing

concurrent low decision latitude and high [role] demands cannot moderate the stress caused by the high demands through time management or learning new skills, and so become subject to high stress at work and are at increased risk of disease. (Kuper & Marmot, 2003, p. 147)

More disturbing is that under these conditions younger people appear to be at greater risk of coronary heart disease than their older colleagues (Kuper & Marmot, 2003). This finding is a real cause for concern Ireland’s principals and deputy principals. This longitudinal research project has been designed to collect baseline data and monitor the health and wellbeing of Ireland’s school principals and deputy principals and deputy principals and deputy principals and to contribute to the development of work practices designed to minimize the adverse health impacts on the individuals.

Project Aims The initial aim of this research project is to conduct a longitudinal study monitoring school principals and deputy principals’ and deputy principals and deputy principals’ health and wellbeing annually. Principals and deputy principals’ health and wellbeing in differing school types, levels and size will be monitored along with lifestyle choices such as exercise and diet and the professional and personal social support networks available to individuals. The turnover of principals and deputy principals within schools will allow investigations of

22


moderator effects, such as years of experience prior to taking up the role. The longitudinal study will allow the mapping of health outcomes on each of these dimensions over time.

Participant Care Voluntary participation was sought by email invitation to every principals and deputy principals and deputy principals and deputy principals who belongs to either the Irish Primary Principals and deputy principals’ Network (IPPN) or the National Association of Principals and deputy principals and Deputy Principals and deputy principals (NAPD) allowing them to keep membership information secure from the researchers. Personal information of association members was not provided to the researchers. Principals and deputy principals and deputy principals and deputy principals who accepted the invitation to participate voluntarily provided contact details to the researchers to be used for subsequent invitations to participate in annual updates. This information was not provided to the associations, thus keeping the researchers, participants and professional organisations at arm’s length, to protect the privacy of the participants. Participants were also asked to provide contact details for an alternative contact person, to be used if the participants’ contact details change between annual surveys. The invitation included a recruitment flyer (available at: www.principals and deputy principalhealth.org/ie) outlining the study and a hyperlink to the survey website. The invitations and reminder emails were sent out regularly, approximately two weeks apart while the survey was open. The survey website opened for 12 weeks to collect the first wave of data, between mid January and early May. When a principals and deputy principals chose to take the survey they were directed firstly to the Explanatory Statement on the project website. By clicking on the “I agree” box at the end of the statement the survey commenced. All principals and deputy principals and deputy principals and deputy principals who completed the initial survey will be contacted annually and invited to complete an update survey. Each survey participant received a comprehensive, individual report from his/her own survey responses. Participants were advised in the Explanatory Statement to seek individual help such as counselling if they experienced distress following the survey. Survey results returned to participants included contact details of local support agencies and providers tailored to the individual’s needs resulting from their survey responses. The Chief Investigator was available to arrange individual assistance for participants if required. The survey also included a “red flag” item “Do you ever feel like hurting yourself”. Principals and deputy principals who answered “sometimes”, “often”, or “all the time” activated an automatic alert to the Chief Investigator who followed up these individuals with more personalised advice.

Chief Investigator Associate Professor Philip Riley, from Australian Catholic University, a registered psychologist with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency oversaw the project. He is a former school principals and deputy principal, and is also the Chief Investigator for The Australian Principals and deputy principals Health and Wellbeing Survey. The Irish survey was conducted using the same protocols as the Australian survey, which has run annually in Australia since 2011.

23


The Survey Workplace changes brought about either by changing community attitudes or government policy affects all schools and all school principals and deputy principals yet no systematic measurements of their effects have been conducted until now. This research project will collect data and monitor the health, safety and wellbeing of Ireland’s school principals and deputy principals annually. This report results from the first iteration of the survey, conducted in 2014. It is the first independent, national research project undertaken to take baseline measurements and compare the occupational risks of all school principals and deputy principals longitudinally. Over time it will be used to monitor the efficacy of stress reduction interventions, for individuals and policy changes imposed on principals and deputy principals. The survey captured three types of information drawn from existing robust and widely used instruments. First, comprehensive school demographic items drawn from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Williams, et al., 2007), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Thomson, et al., 2011), and International Confederation of Principals and deputy principals surveys were used to capture differences in OH&S associated with the diversity of school settings and types. Second, personal demographic and historical information was captured. Third, principals and deputy principals’ quality of life and psychosocial coping were investigated, by employing two widely used measures, the AQoL-8D (Richardson, et al., 2009; Richardson, Iezzi & Maxwell, 2014) and COPSOQ-II (Jan Hyld Pejtersen, et al., 2010). The combination of items from these instruments allows opportunities for comprehensive analysis of variation in both OH&S and wellbeing as a function of school type, sector differences and the personal attributes of the principals and deputy principals themselves. Finally, it is envisaged that aggregated survey information will be used to seed focus group discussions of school principals and deputy principals across the country. Focus groups will then develop primary interventions (policy changes) to reduce occupational stress at the source. Proven secondary interventions designed to help individuals better cope with stress, such as those developed for trainee doctors (Hassed, de Lisle, Sullivan, & Pier, 2009) will also be trialed with volunteer principals and deputy principals and evaluated through the annual survey. This conceptual framework, combining primary and secondary occupational health and injury prevention interventions with evidenced-based assessment has proven robust over hundreds of studies and is considered best practice for improving workplace safety (LaMontagne, et al., 2007).

Innovation This research project is innovative at both the individual and the organizational level. The principals and deputy principals who complete the survey received interactive feedback through a dedicated secure website. The project involves the design and implementation of new information access systems and feedback mechanisms (connected to sophisticated automatic analysis tools) for school leaders, affording them instant health and wellbeing checkups tailored to their specific work context, and eventually, instant intervention strategies for dealing with the complexity of their roles. In future iterations of the survey it is hoped that we can incorporate feedback to individuals using like-group comparisons. For example, an individual principals and deputy principals will be able to compare his or her results with a matched group of principals and deputy principals in similar circumstances on a range of categories. These include: small/medium/large schools; primary/secondary/ special; urban, suburban, regional, rural and remote locations; low/high Socio Economic Status; indices of happiness, stress, job satisfaction, exercise, social support, coping and

24


quality of life. The instant benefit to individuals is likely to increase both participation rates and the veracity of the information they submit. The aggregated data will be made available to government, employer bodies, Department of Education and Skills, Management bodies, unions and other interested parties through these annual reports.

Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing The occupational health and safety literature categorizes interventions to improve workplaces into three types: primary, secondary and tertiary (LaMontagne, et al., 2007). Primary interventions are organizational, systematic approaches targeted toward prevention of exposure to stressors in the workplace. Secondary interventions are designed to help individuals better cope with the stressors they encounter, such as relaxation and mindfulness training. Tertiary interventions are designed to lessen the impact of stress related problems post occurrence through treatment or management of symptoms and rehabilitation. The Irish Principals and deputy principals and Deputy Principals and deputy principals Health and Wellbeing Survey and evidence-based interventions to reduce stress related disease will provide significant social and economic benefit to Ireland. Psychosocial work conditions have a significant impact on health outcomes (Head, et al., 2007; Kuper & Marmot, 2003; Marmot, 2006), while physical and psychological wellbeing have a significant effect on job performance (Lyubomirsky, et al., 2005).

Research Questions The specific research questions guiding the initial survey were:

7. Can recognizable occupational health, safety and wellbeing subgroups of principals and deputy principals be identified through the survey? These groups may be inferred from a number of criteria including: Sector; Location (Urban, Suburban, Large Town, Rural, Remote); Type (Primary, Secondary, Special, Early Childhood); Background (Family of Origin, School Education); Person Factors (Gender, Family of Procreation, Social Support, Educational Level); Role Factors (Hours worked, number and type of teachers, students and parents, resources, professional support); Occupational Constraints.

8. Do(es) any group(s) thrive in the role?

9. Do(es) any group(s) only just survive in the role?

10. Do(es) any group(s) show signs of adverse health, safety, and wellbeing outcomes.

11. Do(es) any factors affect these group(s), and in what ways?

12. Are changes to educational policy or policy implementation suggested by the results?

25


Results Overview The group who responded to the survey put in very long hours at work, both during term time and during holiday periods. The number of hours worked appears to have no relation to salary: these people appear dedicated to the task of running schools as effectively as possible for its own intrinsic reward. The details of the personal costs of their work, their occupational health, safety and wellbeing are a complex mix of personal and environmental factors: from those who appear to thrive in the job to those who are perhaps just surviving. These are reported in the bulk of the report by section. The detailed analysis of the large and complex dataset is beginning. What appears below are “first cut” findings. More detailed reports will follow as data analysis is completed. For most of the results reported the data is presented firstly in broad outline and then by sector. Some issues that have emerged from the data cut across secotors but primary and second level school data is detailed even where differences are slight. Some differences based on gender and others on Principal Type are also presented sectorially as well as globally. Where the diversity of experience is best represented visually graphs have been used.

Ireland’s School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot • Responses from 404 Administrative and 284 Teaching principals and 38

Administrative and 105 Teaching Deputy principals are reported, comprising: 64.8% primary; 40% cities or large towns and 49.3% small town/villages or rural locations; 62.3% female; average age 48.05 years.

• Most had been in their current role for 8.51 years and leadership roles for 11.91 years, following 12.83 more years in teaching.

• Approximately 42.9% work upwards of 46 hours a week during term with just over 15% working upwards of 56 hours per week. During school holidays, 55.3% work upwards of 25 hours per week.


support comes from their partner. Almost half of their partners also work in the education sector.

• 66.2% have children living at home. • 17.1% of the principals and deputy principals have a family member with a long-term

health condition, with serious impact on the family in 17.1% of the sample. • They appear to come from stable backgrounds and have been upwardly mobile and

value education for themselves as well as others: 76.6% were living with a mother and father at age 14. The families of origin appear to be largely working class with about 15% of their parents qualified with a university degree, whereas 35.4% of the principals and deputy principals have a masters degree or above, mostly in formal leadership courses.


• 55% of the sample conducts regular spiritual practice. • There are large differences in their self-reported maintenance of healthy levels of

exercise, diet and weight control.

26


• Only 82% of respondents rate their own happiness as very important or higher. • They are generally positive about their job with only 2.6% becoming frequently

depressed about it. • 49% are taking prescription medication for a diagnosed condition. • Most maintain a healthy alcohol intake, and do not use it to manage stress. • Principals and deputy principals experience nearly twice the prevalence of threats of

violence actual physical violence at work than other population groups measured on the COPSOQ-II. The prevalence is higher for female principals and deputy principals.

• Cluster analysis revealed that despite having many predictive attributes for high scores on both wellbeing (PWI) and quality of life (AQoL-8D) measures, collectively principals and deputy principals score less than the general population on both. Their mental health ranges from very good to very poor. The differences are outlined in more detail in the full report.

Ireland’s Primary School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot • Responses from 624 principals are reported. • 72.9% female • Administrative principals comprised 49% and Teaching Principals 39.35% of the

survey. 7.45% were deputies. 49.2% were in the role full time • Average age 47.42 years • Most had been in their current role for 9.25 years and leadership roles for 11.71

years, following 13 more years in teaching. • Approximately 54.4% work upwards of 41 hours a week during term with just over



support comes from their partner. Almost one quarter of their partners also work in the education sector.

• 64.7% have children living at home. • 19.4% of the principals have a family member with a long-term health condition, with

serious impact on the family in 5.3% of the sample. • They appear to come from stable backgrounds and have been upwardly mobile and

value education for themselves as well as others: 84.9% were living with a mother and father at age 14. The families of origin appear to be largely working class with about 15% of their parents qualified with a university degree, whereas 33.3% of the principals have a masters degree or above, mostly in formal leadership courses.




depressed about it. • 44% are taking prescription medication for a diagnosed condition. • Most maintain a healthy alcohol intake, and do not use it to manage stress.

27


• Principals experience nearly twice the incidence of threats of violence actual physical violence at work than other population groups measured on the COPSOQ-II. The incidence is higher for female principals.


Ireland’s Second Level School Principals and Deputy Principals: A Snapshot • Responses from 216 principals are reported. • 53.7% Female; 46.3% Male • Average age 49.48 years • Average time in their current role for 6.17 years and leadership roles for 12.03 years,

following 12.71 more years in teaching. • Approximately 61.7% work upwards of 51 hours a week during term with just under


• Annual salaries range from <€40,000 - >€120,00 per annum. • 87.9% are in a partner relationship. • 71.3% have children living at home. • 16.2% of the principals have a family member with a long-term health condition, with

moderate to serious impact on the family in 12.5% of the sample. • They appear to come from stable backgrounds and have been upwardly mobile and

value education for themselves as well as others. Only half of the participants’ fathers and two-thirds of their mothers were educated beyond primary school. 76.6% were living with both mother and father at age 14.



exercise, diet and weight control. • They are generally positive about their job with only 2.6% becoming frequently

depressed about it. • 39% are taking prescription medication for a diagnosed condition. • Most maintain a healthy alcohol intake, and do not use it to manage stress. • Principals experience nearly twice the incidence of threats of violence actual physical

violence at work than other population groups measured on the COPSOQ-II. They experience more than 3 times the prevalence of bulling at work than the general population.


Detailed Results

28


Ethical Considerations Ireland has approximately 4,038 schools and therefore about 4,038 principals and deputy principals. It is more difficult to ascertain the number of deputy principals and deputy principals across the country. Gathering a comprehensive set of data for each individual, including contact information allowing for annual follow-up participation, confronted the researchers with many ethical issues that needed to be dealt with before the survey could commence. Our main concern was protection of identity: that no participant could ever be identified from any of his or her responses to the survey in any year it was taken. While this is a relatively simple procedure for the aggregated results, a significant output for the survey annually is the production of a detailed individual report for each participant. The aim of this report is to allow each individual to track his or her own occupational health, safety and wellbeing both over time and in comparison to other principals and deputy principals. As researchers we are interested in analyzing aggregated results, but wanted the survey to be as useful a tool as possible to the individual participants. A number of protocols were developed to provide arm’s length distance between the researchers and participants. Individual, detailed reports to each principals and deputy principals were constructed automatically, by applying algorithms to each individual’s responses to provide total scores on each subscale of the survey. This ensured that the individual reports were not be seen by any of the researchers. The individual reports were provided to each participant via a secure, password-protected website. The researchers used de-identified data sets to conduct specific analyses on the aggregated data. However, this created a difficulty in calculating accurate response rates for the survey.

Response Rates For the initial survey invitations and reminder emails were sent out by each of the principals and deputy principals organisations to their members, between January and May 2014. This kept the researchers at arms length from the principals and deputy principals. The researchers therefore do not know an essential element for determining the actual response rate to the survey: how many principals and deputy principals and deputy principals and deputy principals actually received an invitation to participate. This makes it impossible to determine the actual response rate as there is no divisor for the calculation. When the survey closed 1,201 principals and deputy principals had registered to take the survey, 974 had partially completed it and 756 had fully completed it. Some withdrew after registering and any data they had entered was automatically deleted. This represents somewhere between 18.72-29.74% response rate nationally if every principals and deputy principals and deputy had received an invitation. Primary Level: The data reported represents an 18.82% response rate nationally if every principal and deputy had received an invitation. Second Level: The data represents 17.29% response rate for principals and 11.07% of deputies nationally if every principal and deputy had received an invitation and every school has a deputy principal. The data reported is a good representative sample of principals and deputy principals from across the country.

29


Reliability The reliability of each of the scales used was checked for internal consistency of responses. The following tables report the Cronbach alpha coefficients for each subscale used in the current survey (N= 756) as compared to the Australian 2011 results (N=2049). Table 1: Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the Australian Quality of Life–8 Dimension Scale (AQoL–8D: Richardson, et al., 2009) reported for two samples of principals and deputy principals. Sub Scale Cronbach's Alpha

Ireland Australia

Happiness 0.82 0.80 Relationships 0.80 0.79 Self Worth 0.70 0.67 Independent Living 0.64 0.62 Coping 0.67 0.66 Mental Health 0.85 0.84 Senses 0.36 0.38 Pain 0.82 0.82

Table 2: Cronbach Alpha coefficients for Emotional Labour Scale – Revised (Lee & Brotheridge, 2011)

Scale Sub Scale Cronbach's Alpha Surface Acting Faking 0.82

Hiding 0.86

Deep Acting 0.80 The reliability (Cronbach’s α) for the AUDIT scale (Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001) was .74.

30


Table 3: Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the Copenhagen Psycho-Social Coping Scale Second Edition (COPSOQ-II) (Jan Hyld Pejtersen, et al., 2010) reported for two samples of principals and deputy principals.

Item Statistics Scale Sub Scale Cronbach's Alpha

Ireland Australia

Jan Hyld Pejtersen, et al., 2010

Demands at Work

Quantitative Demands 0.81 0.82 0.82

Work Pace 0.87 0.87 0.84

Cognitive Demands 0.77 0.76 0.74

Emotional Demands 0.80 0.79 0.87

Hiding Emotions 0.62 0.66 0.57

Work Organisation & Job Contents

Influence 0.72 0.74 0.73

Possibilities for Development 0.79 0.79 0.77

Variation 0.48 0.49 0.50

Meaning of work 0.74 0.85 0.74

Commitment to the Workplace 0.76 0.76 0.76

Interpersonal Relations & Leadership

Predictability 0.82 0.81 0.74

Recognition 0.86 0.86 0.83

Role Clarity 0.83 0.85 0.78

Role Conflicts 0.82 0.83 0.67

Quality of Leadership 0.91 0.91 0.89

Social Support from Supervisors 0.86 0.87 0.79

Social Support from Colleagues .81/.86* 0.72 0.70

Social Community at Work 0.86 0.80 0.85

Work -‐ Individual Interface

Job Insecurity # 0.70 0.77

Job Satisfaction 0.79 0.77 0.82

Work -‐ Family Conflict 0.86 0.86 0.80

Family -‐ Work Conflict 0.91 0.88 0.79

Values at the Workplace

Trust Regarding Management 0.73 0.74 0.80

Mutual Trust between Employees 0.82 0.84 0.77

Justice 0.78 0.84 0.83

Social Inclusiveness 0.77 0.80 0.63

Health & Wellbeing

Self-‐rated health # # #

Burnout 0.92 0.91 0.83

Stress 0.89 0.88 0.81

Sleeping Troubles 0.92 0.89 0.86

Depressive Symptoms 0.84 0.81 0.76

Somatic Stress 0.70 0.71 0.68

Cognitive Stress 0.88 0.87 0.83

Self Efficacy 0.82 0.78 0.80 * Not reported in the Australian or population samples.

31


Participants

Gender Table 4. Gender Gender Percent Female 62.30 Male 28.70 Missing 8.9

Table 5. Gender (Primary) Gender Percent Female 72.90 Male 27.10

Table 6. Gender (Second Level) Gender Percent Female 53.70 Male 46.30

Age Range 26 – 75 years Mean (M) = 48.05; Standard Deviation (SD) = 8.04 Primary Range 26 – 75 years Mean (M) = 47.42; Standard Deviation (SD) = 8.30 Second Level Range 29 – 64 years Mean (M) = 49.48; Standard Deviation (SD) = 7.32

Figure 1: Year of Birth

32


Role It can be seen from Tables 8 & 9 and Figures 3 & 4, that women are disproportionately in Teaching Principal and Teaching Deputy Principal positions in primary schools, while the gender balance in Second Level schools is more even. Table 7. Principals and deputy principals' roles Leadership Position Percent Administrative Principals and deputy principal 41.50 Teaching Principals and deputy principal 29.20 Administrative Deputy Principals and deputy principal 3.90 Teaching Deputy Principals and deputy principal 10.80 Table 8. Principals' roles (Primary) Leadership Position Percent Female Male Administrative Principal 38.2 59.8 Teaching Principal 44.4 34.3 Administrative Deputy Principal 0.9 0.6 Teaching Deputy Principal 11.6 1.8 Table 9. Principals' roles (Second Level) Leadership Position Percent Female Male Administrative Principal 45.7 51 Teaching Principal 9.5 10 Administrative Deputy Principal 15.5 14 Teaching Deputy Principal 24.1 20

33


Figure 2: Percentage of Principals and Deputy Principals in each of the Role Types x School Types.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Administrative Principal

Teaching Principal

Administrative Deputy Principal

Teaching Deputy Principal


Teaching Principal







Teaching Principal




Teaching Principal




Teaching Principal




Teaching Principal


Primary

Voluntary non fee

paying secondary

school

Voluntary fee

paying

secondary

school

Community/

Comprehensive

school

Community College Vocational school Special school

School Type x Role Type

34


Figure 3. Principals and deputy principals by Role Type in primary schools disaggregated by Gender

Figure 4. Principals and deputy principals by Role Type in second level schools disaggregated by Gender

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Teaching Principal Administrative Deputy Principal


percent

Gender Balance x Role Type (Primary)

Female

Male

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Teaching Principal Administrative Deputy Principal


Percent

Gender Balance x Role Type (Second Level)

Female

Male

35


Time Fraction Table 10. Time fraction spent on leadership Time fraction spent on leadership Percent Full time 47.50 0.8 6.60 0.6 5.00 0.4 8.50 0.2 8.80 Missing 23.50

Table 11. Time fraction spent on leadership (primary) Time fraction spent on leadership Percent Full time 49.2 0.8 3.70 0.6 5.30 0.4 11.90 0.2 12.30 Missing 17.60

Table 12. Time fraction spent on leadership (secondary) Time fraction spent on leadership Percent Full time 60.6 0.2 3.7 0.4 4.2 0.6 6.9 0.8 19 Missing 5.6

Years in Roles and Positions Table 13. Time spent in different roles during career Time in Role N Min Max M SD Years in leadership roles in total 830 >1 36 11.91 7.09 Years in current position 830 >1 37 8.51 7.50 Years as classroom teacher before 1st leadership role 830 >1 36 12.83 6.95

36


Table 14. Time spent in different roles during career (primary) Time in Role N Min Max M SD Years in leadership roles in total 830 >1 37 9.25 7.87 Years in current position 830 >1 37 11.71 7.17 Years as classroom teacher before 1st leadership role 830 >1 36 13.00 7.24

Table 15. Time spent in different roles during career (second level) Time in Role N Min Max M SD Years in leadership roles in total 205 <1 37 6.17 5.99 Years in current position 205 1 32 12.03 6.83 Years as classroom teacher before 1st leadership role 205 1 34 12.71 6.25

Year Level Responsibilities Table 16. School Type and Year Level Responsibilities Year Levels Percent Primary (ages 4-‐12) 61.2 Second Level (ages 12-‐19) 19.1 Second Level (junior years only) 0.2 Second Level (senior years only) 0.2 Primary and Second Level 0.4 Post leaving Certificate (PLCs) 1 Special School 2.7 Secondary and PLC 0.4 Missing 14.8

The small number of respondents in some school types required us to collapse categories for analysis to preserve anonymity. Table 9 below shows how the aggregation was achieved. Table 17. Percentage of principals and deputy principals in Primary and Second Level Schools (aggregated) School Type Percent Primary 64.1 Second Level (all) 22.2 Other 3.2 Missing 10.6

37


Average hours worked per week Table 18. Average hours worked per week during school terms Hours worked p/week Percent 0 -‐ 10 hours 4.4 11 -‐ 24 hours 9.8 25 -‐ 30 hours 4.8 31 -‐ 35 hours 3.8 36 -‐ 40 hours 8.5 41 -‐ 45 hours 10.9 46 -‐ 50 hours 14.9 51 -‐ 55 hours 11.2 56 -‐ 60 hours 9.4 61 -‐ 65 hours 3.7 66 -‐ 70 hours 1.5 >70 hours 2.2 Missing 14.9

Average hours worked during terms is 46-50 hours per week Table 19. Average hours worked per week during official holiday periods Hours worked p/week Percent 0 -‐ 10 hours 29.8 11 -‐ 24 hours 28.7 25 -‐ 30 hours 11.4 31 -‐ 35 hours 4.3 36 -‐ 40 hours 4.2 41 -‐ 45 hours 1.8 46 -‐ 50 hours 1.2 51 -‐ 55 hours 0.2 56 -‐ 60 hours 0.4 61 -‐ 65 hours 0.2 66 -‐ 70 hours 0.4 >70 hours 2.4 Missing 14.9

Average hours worked during official holidays is 25-30 hours per week

38


Primary Table 20. Average hours worked per week during school terms Hours worked p/week Percent 0 -‐ 10 hours 6.7 11 -‐ 24 hours 14.7 25 -‐ 30 hours 7.4 31 -‐ 35 hours 5.4 36 -‐ 40 hours 11.2 41 -‐ 45 hours 12.2 46 -‐ 50 hours 16.7 51 -‐ 55 hours 7.5 56 -‐ 60 hours 6.9 61 -‐ 65 hours 3 66 -‐ 70 hours 1.4 >70 hours 1.9 Missing 4.8

Average hours worked during terms is 41-45 hours per week Table 21. Average hours worked per week during official holiday periods Hours worked p/week Percent 0 -‐ 10 hours 37.5 11 -‐ 24 hours 35.1 25 -‐ 30 hours 9.8 31 -‐ 35 hours 2.9 36 -‐ 40 hours 3 41 -‐ 45 hours 1.3 46 -‐ 50 hours 1.4 51 -‐ 55 hours 0.2 56 -‐ 60 hours 0.5 61 -‐ 65 hours 0.2 66 -‐ 70 hours 0.6 >70 hours 2.7 Missing 4.8


39


Second Level Table 22. Average hours worked per week during school terms Hours worked p/week Percent 0 -‐ 10 hours 0 11 -‐ 24 hours 1.4 25 -‐ 30 hours 0.5 31 -‐ 35 hours 0.5 36 -‐ 40 hours 3.2 41 -‐ 45 hours 10.6 46 -‐ 50 hours 17.1 51 -‐ 55 hours 25.5 56 -‐ 60 hours 21.8 61 -‐ 65 hours 7.4 66 -‐ 70 hours 2.8 >70 hours 4.2 Missing 5.1

Average hours worked during terms is 46-50 hours per week Table 23. Average hours worked per week during official holiday periods Hours worked p/week Percent 0 -‐ 10 hours 19.4 11 -‐ 24 hours 25.5 25 -‐ 30 hours 20.8 31 -‐ 35 hours 10.2 36 -‐ 40 hours 9.3 41 -‐ 45 hours 4.6 46 -‐ 50 hours 1.4 51 -‐ 55 hours 0.5 56 -‐ 60 hours 0.5 61 -‐ 65 hours 0.5 66 -‐ 70 hours 0 >70 hours 2.3 Missing 5.1


40


Figure 5: Percentage of principals and deputy principals’ time in hours spent at work during term time and holiday periods

Figure 6: Percentage of Primary principals’ time in hours spent at work during term time and holiday periods

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Percentage of principals

Hours Worked

Term

Holiday

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percentage of Principals

Average Weekly Hours at Work (primary)

Term

Holiday

41


Figure 7: Percentage of second level principals’ time in hours spent at work during term and holiday periods

Time Usage whilst at work Table 24. Time spent on internal administrative tasks (including human resources & personnel issues, regulations, reports, school budgets & timetabling) Combined 0% 0.3 1-‐20% 11.9 21-‐40% 20.6 41-‐60% 26 61-‐80% 20.4 81-‐100% 4.4 Missing 16.3

Primary 0% 0.5 1-‐20% 15.7 21-‐40% 23.9 41-‐60% 30.1 61-‐80% 19.6 81-‐100% 3.5 Missing 6.7

Second Level 0% 7.9 1-‐20% 19.9 21-‐40% 26.9 41-‐60% 31.5 61-‐80% 7.9 81-‐100% 7.9 Missing 6.0

Table 25. Curriculum and teaching-related tasks (including teaching, lesson preparation, classroom observations, mentoring teachers, supervising and evaluating teachers and other staff) Combined 0% 8 1-‐20% 56.2 21-‐40% 13.7 41-‐60% 3.7 61-‐80% 1.2 81-‐100% 0.9 Missing 16.3

Primary 0% 7.5 1-‐20% 61.2 21-‐40% 16.8 41-‐60% 4.8 61-‐80% 1.6 81-‐100% 1.3 Missing 6.7


0

5

10

15

20

25

30 Average Weekly Hours at Work (Second Level)

Term

Holidays

42


Table 26. Responding to requests/compliance requirements (from district, or national education authorities) Combined 0% 1.8 1-‐20% 39.6 21-‐40% 26.2 41-‐60% 10.8 61-‐80% 4.3 81-‐100% 0.9 Missing 16.3

Primary 0% 2.2 1-‐20% 42.6 21-‐40% 30.4 41-‐60% 12.2 61-‐80% 4.6 81-‐100% 1.1 Missing 6.7

Second Level 0% 1.9 1-‐20% 48.6 21-‐40% 25 41-‐60% 12.5 61-‐80% 5.1 81-‐100% 0.9 Missing 6.0

Table 27. Representing the school at meetings or in the community and networking Combined 0% 4 1-‐20% 63.7 21-‐40% 11.9 41-‐60% 2.7 61-‐80% 1.2 81-‐100% 0.2 Missing 16.3

Primary 0% 9.1 1-‐20% 68.4 21-‐40% 11.2 41-‐60% 2.7 61-‐80% 1.3 81-‐100% 0.5 Missing 6.7


Table 28. Public relations and fundraising Combined 0% 8.9 1-‐20% 60.6 21-‐40% 10.1 41-‐60% 2.7 61-‐80% 0.9 81-‐100% 0.5 Missing 16.3

Primary 0% 9.1 1-‐20% 68.4 21-‐40% 11.2 41-‐60% 2.7 61-‐80% 1.3 81-‐100% 0.5 Missing 6.7

Second Level 0% 13 1-‐20% 64.8 21-‐40% 11.6 41-‐60% 3.2 61-‐80% 0.5 81-‐100% 0.9 Missing 6.0

Table 29. Occupational Health and Safety compliance Combined 0% 12.1 1-‐20% 64.5 21-‐40% 5 41-‐60% 1.3 61-‐80% 0.4 81-‐100% 0.3 Missing 16.3

Primary 0% 14.1 1-‐20% 70.7 21-‐40% 6.1 41-‐60% 1.9 61-‐80% 0.5 81-‐100% 0.0 Missing 6.7

Second Level 0% 13 1-‐20% 76.4 21-‐40% 3.2 41-‐60% 0.5 61-‐80% 0 81-‐100% 0.9 Missing 6.0

43


Table 30. Other duties Combined 0% 61 1-‐20% 522 21-‐40% 142 41-‐60% 53 61-‐80% 26 81-‐100% 10 Missing 16.4

Primary 0% 7.2 1-‐20% 62.2 21-‐40% 15.2 41-‐60% 5.4 61-‐80% 2.4 81-‐100% 0.8 Missing 6.7


Table 31. Percentage of work regarded as management rather than leadership orientated Combined 10% 1.7 20% 1.5 30% 2.7 40% 4.5 50% 10.3 60% 14.1 70% 17.6 80% 21.8 90% 7.9 100% 1.2 Missing 16.7

Primary 10% 2.7 20% 1.9 30% 3.2 40% 5.3 50% 12.5 60% 17.6 70% 19.4 80% 21.6 90% 7.5 100% 1.3 Missing 6.7

Second Level 10% 1.4 20% 2.8 30% 4.6 40% 7.9 50% 11.6 60% 19.9 70% 31 80% 12 90% 1.4 100% 1.4 Missing 6.0

Income – Per annum Table 32. Annual income by quantum grouping Annual Income Percent Less than €40,000 0.5 €41,000 to €50,000 3.0 €51,000 to €60,000 5.7 €61,000 to €70,000 24.5 €71,000 to €80,000 23.7 €81,000 to €90,000 18.1 €91,000 to €100,000 7.0 €101,000 to €110,000 2.3 €111,000 to €120,000 0.2 Missing 15.0

44


Table 33. Annual income for Primary Principals and Deputies by quantum grouping Annual Income Percent Less than €40,000 0.8 €41,000 to €50,000 4.5 €51,000 to €60,000 8.5 €61,000 to €70,000 34.5 €71,000 to €80,000 27.4 €81,000 to €90,000 16.3 €91,000 to €100,000 3 €101,000 to €110,000 0.8 Missing 5.0

Table 25. Annual income Second Level Principals and Deputies by quantum grouping Annual Income Percent Less than €40,000 0.5 €41,000 to €50,000 3.0 €51,000 to €60,000 1.4 €61,000 to €70,000 7.9 €71,000 to €80,000 20.8 €81,000 to €90,000 31.9 €91,000 to €100,000 21.8 €101,000 to €110,000 10.2 €111,000 to €120,000 0.9 Missing 5.1

45


Figure 8. Annual Income for Primary Principals and Deputies combined.

Figure 9. Annual Income for Second Level Principals and Deputies combined.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Annual Income (primary)

Female

Male

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Percentage

Annual Income (Second Level)

Female

Male

46


Second Level principals and deputy principals are over-represented in higher paying positions and Primary principals and deputy principals are over-represented in lower and middle-income positions. Principals and deputy principals in the other category are, on average, paid more than primary principals and deputy principals and less than Second Level principals and deputy principals, but the difference was not significantly different from either group. Second Level principals and deputy principals average income is statistically significantly different from Primary principals and deputy principals F(2, 825) 130.245, p <.001. Table 26: One-Way ANOVA comparing income levels of principals and deputy principals by school type (Post Hoc Test: Tukey HSD)

School type Mean Diff Std. Error p 95% C.I. A B A-‐B Lower Upper Primary Second Level (all) -‐1.525* 0.094 <.001 -‐1.75 -‐1.3

Other -‐0.447 0.218 0.101 -‐0.96 0.07

Males are over-represented in higher paying positions and women are over-represented in lower and middle-income positions. Overall the average difference are statistically significantly different F(1, 826) 28.433, p = <.001.

Work Pressures Table 27: Sources of Stress during the last 3 months - Averaged across all respondents. Sources of Stress Mean S.D. Sheer quantity of work 8.21 2.22 Lack of time to focus on teaching & learning 8.05 2.17 Resourcing Needs 6.67 2.63 Expectations of the employer 5.95 3.10 Student Related Issues 5.77 2.59 Government initiatives 7.38 2.52 Poorly Performing Staff 4.27 2.97 Parent Related Issues 5.51 2.72 Mental Health Issues of Students 4.65 2.81 Teacher Shortages 4.04 2.99 Mental Health Issues of Staff 4.16 2.69 Lack of autonomy/authority 4.13 2.79 Financial Management Issues 5.32 2.99 Inability to get away from school/community 5.54 3.08 Critical Incidents 3.69 2.74 Declining Enrolments 3.43 3.14 Union/Industrial disputes 2.66 2.52 Complaints Management 4.01 2.82 Interpersonal Conflicts 4.49 3.07 Volume of obligatory internal meetings 5.18 2.83 Volume of obligatory external meetings 5.17 2.72 Statutory/Legal obligations 6.48 2.79

47


Table 28: Sources of Stress for Primary Principals and Deputies during the last 3 months. Stressor Mean SD Sheer quantity of work 8.17 2.16 Lack of time to focus on teaching & learning 7.98 2.26 Resourcing Needs 7.11 2.49 Expectations of the employer 6.06 3.06 Student Related Issues 5.35 2.55 Government initiatives 7.50 2.47 Poorly Performing Staff 3.48 2.62 Parent Related Issues 5.50 2.76 Mental Health Issues of Students 3.81 2.56 Teacher Shortages 3.56 2.83 Mental Health Issues of Staff 3.83 2.63 Lack of autonomy/authority 3.98 2.71 Financial Management Issues 5.45 2.99 Inability to get away from school/community 5.53 3.05 Critical Incidents 3.31 2.57 Declining Enrolments 3.25 3.05 Union/Industrial disputes 2.01 1.97 Complaints Management 3.71 2.81 Interpersonal Conflicts 4.20 3.06 Volume of obligatory internal meetings 4.88 2.84 Volume of obligatory external meetings 4.98 2.68 Statutory/Legal obligations 6.37 2.84

48


Table 29: Sources of Stress for Second Level Principals and Deputies during the last 3 months. Sources of Stress Mean S.D. Sheer quantity of work 7.96 2.34 Lack of time to focus on teaching & learning 7.90 2.02 Resourcing Needs 5.65 2.53 Expectations of the employer 5.34 2.93 Student Related Issues 6.37 2.39 Government initiatives 7.11 2.41 Poorly Performing Staff 6.13 2.72 Parent Related Issues 5.58 2.49 Mental Health Issues of Students 6.33 2.31 Teacher Shortages 5.09 2.74 Mental Health Issues of Staff 4.64 2.44 Lack of autonomy/authority 4.53 2.77 Financial Management Issues 5.12 2.81 Inability to get away from school/community 5.31 2.95 Critical Incidents 4.35 2.70 Declining Enrolments 3.55 3.14 Union/Industrial disputes 4.50 2.76 Complaints Management 4.74 2.72 Interpersonal Conflicts 5.08 2.77 Volume of obligatory internal meetings 5.70 2.66 Volume of obligatory external meetings 5.47 2.57 Statutory/Legal obligations 6.35 2.65

49


Table 30. Sources of stress during the last 3 months: All principal types combined. Source of stress

Sheer q

uantity

of w

ork

Lack of tim

e to fo

cus o

n teaching & learning

Resourcing needs

Expe

ctations of the

employer

Stud

ent related

issues

Governm

ent initia

tives

Poorly perform

ing staff

Parent re

lated iss

ues

Men

tal H

ealth

Issues of Stude

nts

Teache

r sho

rtages

Men

tal health

issues of staff

Lack of a

uton

omy/au

thority

Fina

ncial m

anagem

ent issue

s

Inab

ility to

get away from

scho

ol/com

mun

ity

Critical Inciden

ts

Declining en

rolm

ents

Union

/indu

stria

l disp

utes

Complaints m

anagem

ent

Interpersona

l con

flicts

Volume of obligatory internal m

eetin

gs

Volume of obligatory external m

eetin

gs

Statutory/Legal obligations

1 minor 1.1 1.1 3.2 9.2 4 1.7 18 4.4 13.1 21.8 15.5 17 9.0 9.8 22.4 38.1 42.8 19.9 15.1 11.3 7.5 4.3 2 1.6 1.8 4.6 7.3 6.9 3.5 13.4 9.3 11.6 14.3 13.9 14.4 10.9 10 15.9 10.5 13.2 13.7 16.1 11 9.2 5.3 3 1.7 1.8 5.3 6.3 8.6 3.3 10.6 9.9 9.4 8.3 11 11.3 8.7 7.2 9.4 4.5 5.9 9.9 9.0 12.6 9.7 5.9 4 2.3 1.8 4.5 4.6 6.5 3.5 7.3 8.8 7.1 7.1 8.0 5.6 6.3 5.6 7.4 3.3 3.8 6.8 5.4 8.8 9.8 6.2 5 4.1 3.9 8.2 8.6 11.2 7.1 6.2 10.2 10.4 5.2 7.9 8.8 9.1 8.7 6.0 5.1 3.4 8.3 7.7 12 9.9 7.4 6 3.6 4.4 7.4 6.1 9.5 5.7 3.8 6.9 5.7 5.1 7.2 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.0 3.0 2.5 4.3 5.2 7.9 6.9 7.3 7 8.1 8.8 10.4 8.0 11.8 9.7 5.5 9.0 7.0 5.1 6.0 5.3 8.1 7.1 5.4 3.2 2.4 5.1 4.3 9.6 8.4 9.1 8 13.7 15.8 14.9 8.5 8.5 13.6 6.1 8.9 7.8 4.5 5.7 6.0 8.5 9.8 4.1 3.5 3.1 6.0 5.3 11.6 8.9 12.7 9 10.2 14.2 9.3 7.8 7.2 10.7 4.6 5.6 4.6 3.4 2.3 3.4 5.3 7.6 3.2 3.1 1.8 3.2 4.6 7.3 5.5 7.9

10 major 35 27.6 13.6 14.9 7.2 22.6 6.0 8.2 4.6 6.6 4.0 4.2 10 10.9 3.5 7.2 2.5 4.3 8.5 7.8 5.6 15.3 Missing 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.7 18.6 18.7 18.6 18.7 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.7 18.6 18.7 18.6 18.6 18.7 18.6 18.6

50


Figure 10: Sources of stress during the last 3 months School Sector

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Primary

Second Level (all)

Other

51


Figure 11: Comparison scores for sources of stress during the last 3 months for primary principals and deputy principals in 2009 (N=445) and 2014 (N=779)1

1 Note: Volume of obligatory internal and external meetings and Statutory/Legal obligations were not included in the 2009 survey.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Primary 2014

Primary 2009

52


Figure 12: Comparison scores for sources of stress during the last 3 months disagregated by Gender

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Female

Male

53


Statistically significant differences were found between male and female principals and deputy principals on six of the stressors. In each case the stress reported was higher for females than males. Table 31: Differences in reported stress reactions by male and female principals and deputy principals. Stressor df F p Sheer quantity of work 1, 791 9.596 0.002 Lack of time to focus on teaching & learning 1, 791 8.933 0.003 Expectations of the employer 1, 790 6.324 0.012 Student Related Issues 1, 791 5.634 0.018 Declining Enrolments 1, 791 6.121 0.014 Statutory/Legal obligations 1, 791 5.074 0.025

Statistically significant differences were found between Primary, Second Level and Other principals and deputy principals on 12 of the stressors. Each one is listed in Table 23 lists the stressors and which group is most effected. Table 32: Differences in stress reactions by principals and deputy principals in Primary, Second Level (all) and Other schools Stressor df F p Resourcing Needs1 2,790 24.964 <.001 Expectations of the employer1 2,790 9.00 <.001 Student Related Issues3 2,790 10.708 <.001 Government initiatives1 2,790 4.262 0.014 Poorly Performing Staff2 2,790 64.184 <.001 Mental Health Issues of Students3 2,790 74.666 <.001 Teacher Shortages2 2,790 17.642 <.001 Mental Health Issues of Staff3 2,790 12.088 <.001 Critical Incidents3 2,790 15.589 <.001 Union/Industrial disputes2 2,790 90.924 <.001 Complaints Management2 2,790 8.822 <.001 Interpersonal Conflicts3 2,790 7.37 0.001

1 Primary principals and deputy principals report the highest stress response 2 Second Level principals and deputy principals report the highest stress response 3 Other principals and deputy principals report the highest stress response

54


Levels of Autonomy in Carrying Out the Role Table 33: Percieved autonomy in carrying out leadership tasks

Task

Providing strategic focus a

nd dire

ction to colleague

s

Lead

ing the de

velopm

ent o

f teaching an

d learning

Man

aging teaching staff

Man

aging othe

r staff

Man

aging scho

ol bud

gets

Building relatio

nships with

com

mun

ity agencies

Man

aging curriculum

develop

men

t

Working with

paren

ts

Prob

lem so

lving

Man

aging scho

ol re

sources

Staffin

g Allocatio

ns

Autonomy (%)

mean 6.57 6.53 6.76 6.91 5.84 6.92 6.65 7.36 7.34 6.96 5.38 1 none 1.4 2.4 3 3.7 6.6 1.8 1.4 0.8 0.5 1.8 17.9

2 2.7 2 2.6 2.1 4.7 2.1 3.2 0.9 0.4 2 7.2 3 3.4 3.6 3.2 3 6.1 4.2 4 1.7 1.1 3.5 5.7 4 4.9 5.7 4.1 3.8 5.9 4.3 4.7 2.8 3.2 3.7 3.3 5 13.1 11.7 9.3 8.4 10.6 9.7 11.1 7.8 9.8 8.4 5.7 6 10.9 10.8 9.1 6.9 8.6 8.5 10 9.8 9.1 10.7 4.6 7 14.2 14.2 13.7 11.7 12.3 10.4 11.6 12.8 14.2 11.4 5.4 8 13.1 14.3 14.3 18.3 13.4 16.5 16.8 19.1 18.2 16 8.6 9 8.5 8.5 11.8 12.8 6.9 11.7 9.4 12.6 13.8 13.2 10.3

10 complete 7.7 6.9 8.9 9.3 4.9 10.8 7.7 11.5 9.8 9.2 11.2 missing 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.1 20.0 20.0 20.0

55


Figure 13: Primary Principals and Deputies perceived levels of Autonomy in carrying out their role.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Autonomy (Primary)

Female

Male

56


Figure 14. Second Level Principals and Deputies perceived levels of Autonomy in carrying out their role.

Level of Confidence in Carrying Out Role Consistent with the Demand-Control literature (Philips & Sen, 2011; Wildy, Clarke, Styles & Becioglu, 2010), principals’ and deputy principals level of confidence in carrying out their duties is directly correlated to the level of perceived autonomy. Greater autonomy is associated with higher levels of confidence to perform the tasks satisfactorily. The only factor that does not fit this pattern is curriculum development, where relatively high perceived autonomy does increase confidence. While there is very little perceived difference in confidence among second level principals and deputies, this is not the case for primary principals and deputies where males report higher levels of confidence. This may be due to the higher numbers of males in Administrative rather than Teaching Principal roles.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Autonomy (Second Level)

Female

Male

57


Table 34: Level of confidence in carrying out leadership tasks Ta

sk

Provide strategic focus a

nd dire

ction to colleague

s

Lead

the de

velopm

ent o

f teaching an

d learning

Man

age teaching staff

Man

age no

n-‐teaching staff

Man

age scho

ol bud

gets

Build re

latio

nships with

com

mun

ity agencies

Dealing with

stress and

pressure

Working with

paren

ts

Prob

lem so

lving

Man

aging myself a

nd m

y tim

e

Confidence (%) mean 6.96 7.0 7.31 7.33 6.63 7.58 5.85 7.63 7.58 5.28 1 none 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 2.1 0.4 4.2 0.4 0.1 4.1

2 1.3 1.2 1 1 2.8 1 3.7 0.5 0.2 8.5 3 2.9 2.9 1 2.1 3.9 0.9 7.1 1.6 1.5 10 4 3.8 3 3 3.5 4.1 2.8 5.3 2 1.6 7.7 5 8.5 9.1 7.1 6.3 11.2 6.3 11.7 4.5 6.8 11.8 6 10.5 11.7 8.7 7.5 8 6.4 11.6 8 7.7 10.2 7 18.4 15.8 16.9 16.3 14.4 14.3 14.3 13.4 13.7 10.3 8 17.6 18.2 20.7 20.8 17.2 20.1 13.2 22.4 23.6 9.2 9 8.8 9.9 12.7 13 10.2 17.9 6.8 17.8 16.4 5.2

10 complete 7.3 7.3 7.7 8.6 5.7 9.5 1.6 8.8 7.9 2.6 missing 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.5 20.4 20.4

58


Figure 15: Principals and deputy principal's perceived levels of Autonomy and Confidence in carrying out their role.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Autonomy

Con9idence

59


Figure 16: Principal’s perceived level of Confidence in carrying out the role.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Con7idence (Primary)

Female

Male

60


Figure 17. Second Level Principals and Deputies level of Confidence in carrying out their role.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Con7idence (Second Level)

Female

Male

61


Background

Country of Birth Table 35: Combined principals and deputy principals' place of birth Country of Birth Percent Ireland 86.8 United Kingdom 3.1 Other 1.2 Missing 8.9

Table 36: Primary principals and deputy principals place of birth Country of Birth Percent Ireland 96.6 United Kingdom 2.2 Other 1.2

Table 37: Second Level principals place of birth Country of Birth Percent Ireland 91.7 United Kingdom 6.0 Other 2.4

Second Level school attended Table 38: Second Level School Attended (type) Second Level School Percent Voluntary non fee paying secondary school 60.8 Voluntary fee paying secondary school 12.2 Community/Comprehensive School 8.0 Community College 2.5 Vocational School (ETBI) 3.5 Missing 13.0

Table 39: Primary Principals and Deputies Second Level School Attended (type) Second Level School Percent Voluntary non fee paying secondary school 68.3 Voluntary fee paying secondary school 13.6 Community/Comprehensive School 9.9 Community College 2.2 Vocational School (ETBI) 1.6 Missing 4.3

62


Table 40: Second Level Principals and Deputies Second Level School Attended (type) Second Level School Percent Voluntary non fee paying secondary school 67.1 Voluntary fee paying secondary school 11.6 Community/Comprehensive School 6 Community College 4.2 Vocational School (ETBI) 9.7 Missing 1.4

Background: Family of Origin Table 41. Family unit at age 14 Who were you living with around the time you were 14 years old? Living with Percent Own mother and father together 76.6 Father and stepmother 0.1 Mother and stepfather 0.3 Father only 0.4 Mother only 3.9 Boarding school/studying 8.7 Other family (not parents) 0.2 Missing 9.8

Table 42. Family unit at age 14 (Primary P&D) Who were you living with around the time you were 14 years old? Living with Percent Own mother and father together 84.9 Father and stepmother 0.2 Mother and stepfather 0.2 Father only 0.5 Mother only 3.5 Boarding school/studying 10.6 Other family (not parents) 0.2

63


Table 43. Family unit at age 14 (Second Level P&D) Who were you living with around the time you were 14 years old? Living with Percent Own mother and father together 86.1 Father and stepmother 0.9 Mother and stepfather 0.5 Father only 5.6 Mother only 6.5 Boarding school/studying 0.5 Other family (not parents) 86.1

Table 44. Father’s highest education qualification Father’s highest level of formal education Percent Primary school only 36.2 Compulsory schooling only (up to 16 years of age) 15.1 Completed post primary school to Leaving Certificate 11.7 Completed vocational training (e.g. trade /apprenticeship) 6.6 Certificate level course (e.g. Institute of Technology Certificate) 2.5 Undergraduate Diploma (e.g. Institute of Technology Diploma) 3.0 Bachelor Degree (e.g. B.A., B.Ed) 7.9 Post Graduate Diploma (e.g. Dip. Ed) 3.5 Masters Degree (e.g. M Ed, MBA) 2.7 Doctorate (e.g. PhD, Ed.D) 0.6 Missing 10.3

Table 45. Father’s highest education qualification (Primary P&D) Father’s highest level of formal education Percent Primary school only 37.3 Compulsory schooling only (up to 16 years of age) 18.6 Completed post primary school to Leaving Certificate 13.9 Completed vocational training (e.g. trade /apprenticeship) 6.9 Certificate level course (e.g. Institute of Technology Certificate) 2.4 Undergraduate Diploma (e.g. Institute of Technology Diploma) 3.4 Bachelor Degree (e.g. B.A., B.Ed) 9.8 Post Graduate Diploma (e.g. Dip. Ed) 3.8 Masters Degree (e.g. M Ed, MBA) 2.7 Doctorate (e.g. PhD, Ed.D) 0.6 Missing 0.5

64


Table 46. Father’s highest education qualification (Second Level P&D) Father’s highest level of formal education Percent Primary school only 49.5 Compulsory schooling only (up to 16 years of age) 10.6 Completed post primary school to Leaving Certificate 10.6 Completed vocational training (e.g. trade /apprenticeship) 7.9 Certificate level course (e.g. Institute of Technology Certificate) 3.2 Undergraduate Diploma (e.g. Institute of Technology Diploma) 3.7 Bachelor Degree (e.g. B.A., B.Ed) 5.6 Post Graduate Diploma (e.g. Dip. Ed) 3.2 Masters Degree (e.g. M Ed, MBA) 4.2 Doctorate (e.g. PhD, Ed.D) 0.5 Missing 0.9

Table 47. Mother’s highest education qualification Mother’s highest level formal education Percent Primary school only 22.2 Compulsory schooling only (up to 16 years of age) 19.2 Completed post primary school to Leaving Certificate 21.4 Completed vocational training (e.g. trade /apprenticeship) 6.9 Certificate level course (e.g. Institute of Technology Certificate) 2.9 Undergraduate Diploma (e.g. Institute of Technology Diploma) 4.1 Bachelor Degree (e.g. B.A., B.Ed) 9.4 Post Graduate Diploma (e.g. Dip. Ed) 3.1 Masters Degree (e.g. M Ed, MBA) 0.6 Doctorate (e.g. PhD, Ed.D) 0.1 Missing 10.2

Table 48. Mother’s highest education qualification (Primary P&D) Mother’s highest level formal education Percent Primary school only 21 Compulsory schooling only (up to 16 years of age) 20.5 Completed post primary school to Leaving Certificate 24.4 Completed vocational training (e.g. trade /apprenticeship) 7.9 Certificate level course (e.g. Institute of Technology Certificate) 4 Undergraduate Diploma (e.g. Institute of Technology Diploma) 5.1 Bachelor Degree (e.g. B.A., B.Ed) 12.2 Post Graduate Diploma (e.g. Dip. Ed) 3.7 Masters Degree (e.g. M Ed, MBA) 0.8 Doctorate (e.g. PhD, Ed.D) 0.2 Missing 0.3

Table 49. Mother’s highest education qualification (Second Level P&D) Mother’s highest level formal education Percent

65


Primary school only 35.6 Compulsory schooling only (up to 16 years of age) 21.8 Completed post primary school to Leaving Certificate 21.3 Completed vocational training (e.g. trade /apprenticeship) 7.4 Certificate level course (e.g. Institute of Technology Certificate) 0.5 Undergraduate Diploma (e.g. Institute of Technology Diploma) 3.7 Bachelor Degree (e.g. B.A., B.Ed) 5.1 Post Graduate Diploma (e.g. Dip. Ed) 3.2 Masters Degree (e.g. M Ed, MBA) 0.5 Doctorate (e.g. PhD, Ed.D) 0 Missing 0.9

Table 50. Highest level of formal education completed Highest level of formal education Percent Undergraduate Diploma (e.g. NT qualification) 1.1 Bachelor Degree (e.g. B.A., B. Ed) 31.0 Post Graduate Diploma (e.g. Dip. Ed) 22.6 Masters Degree (e.g. M Ed, MBA) 34.3 Doctorate (e.g. PhD, Ed.D) 1.1 Missing 9.9

Table 51. Highest level of formal education completed (Primary P&D) Highest level of formal education Percent Undergraduate Diploma (e.g. NT qualification) 1.8 Bachelor Degree (e.g. B.A., B. Ed) 43.3 Post Graduate Diploma (e.g. Dip. Ed) 21.5 Masters Degree (e.g. M Ed, MBA) 32.5 Doctorate (e.g. PhD, Ed.D) 0.8 Missing 0.2

Table 52. Highest level of formal education completed (Second Level P&D) Highest level of formal education Percent Undergraduate Diploma (e.g. NT qualification) 13.4 Bachelor Degree (e.g. B.A., B. Ed) 35.2 Post Graduate Diploma (e.g. Dip. Ed) 49.1 Masters Degree (e.g. M Ed, MBA) 2.3 Doctorate (e.g. PhD, Ed.D) 13.4

66


Table 53. Formal leadership qualifications Formal leadership education Percent None 12.2 Master in School Leadership 8 Master in Organisational Leadership 0.3 Master in Business Administration 0.2 Tóraíocht 4.5 Forbairt 12.4 M.Sc. in Educational Management 4 M. Ed. in Educational Administration 2.6 Misneach 28.3 Diploma(s) 10.1 Missing 17.4

Table 54. Formal leadership qualifications (Primary P&D) Formal leadership education Percent None 14.3 Master in School Leadership 8 Master in Organisational Leadership 0.3 Master in Business Administration 0.2 Tóraíocht 3.2 Forbairt 17.1 M.Sc. in Educational Management 2.7 M. Ed. in Educational Administration 2.1 Misneach 36.2 Diploma(s) 8.8 Missing 7.1

Table 55. Formal leadership qualifications (Second Level P&D) Formal leadership education Percent None 11.1 Master in School Leadership 12 Master in Organisational Leadership 0.5 Master in Business Administration 11.1 Tóraíocht 5.1 Forbairt 8.8 M.Sc. in Educational Management 3.7 M. Ed. in Educational Administration 18.1 Misneach 18.1 Diploma(s) 11.1

67


Volunteering/Charity Work (outside school hours/role) Table 56. Participated in volunteer or charity work in the past 12 months Volunteer/Charity Work Percent No 42.5 Yes 36.9 Missing 20.6

Table 57. Participated in volunteer or charity work in the past 12 months (Primary P&D) Volunteer/Charity Work Percent No 47.1 Yes 41.3 Missing 11.5

Table 58. Participated in volunteer or charity work in the past 12 months (Second Level P&D) Volunteer/Charity Work Percent No 48.6 Yes 40.3 Missing 11.1

Table 59. Current active member of a sporting, hobby or community-based club or association Sport/Hobby Percent No 38.6 Yes 40.9 Missing 20.5

Table 60. Current active member of a sporting, hobby or community-based club or association (Primary P&D) Sport/Hobby Percent No 47.5 Yes 52.5 Missing 11.5

Table 61. Current active member of a sporting, hobby or community-based club or association (Second Level P&D) Sport/Hobby Percent No 44.4 Yes 44.4 Missing 11.1

68


Spiritual Practice (outside school hours/role) Table 62. Regular spiritual practice or attendance at religious services or prayers (apart from attendance that is part of your professional duties) Spiritual Practice Percent Yes 55.0 No 24.4 Missing 20.5

Table 63. Regular spiritual practice or attendance at religious services or prayers (Primary P&D) (apart from attendance that is part of your professional duties) Spiritual Practice Percent Yes 62.7 No 25.8 Missing 11.5

Table 64. Regular spiritual practice or attendance at religious services or prayers (apart from attendance that is part of your professional duties) Spiritual Practice Percent Yes 59.3 No 29.6 Missing 11.1

Partner Status Table 65. Partner status Marital Status Percent Single 10.7 Married 71 Cohabiting/long-‐term rel'ship 4.5 Divorced 1.1 Widowed 0.9 Separated 1.7 Civil Partnership 0.7 Missing 9.2

69


Table 66. Partner status (Primary P&D) Marital Status Percent Single 12.8 Married 76.6 Cohabiting/long-‐term rel'ship 5.1 Divorced 1.6 Widowed 1.1 Separated 1.9 Civil Partnership 0.8

Table 67. Partner status (Second Level P&D) Marital Status Percent Single 8.8 Married 83.3 Cohabiting/long-‐term rel'ship 4.6 Divorced 0.5 Widowed 1.9 Separated 0.9 Civil Partnership 8.8

Table 68. Is your partner in paid employment? Yes 60.3% No 16.0% Missing 23.7%

Table 69. Is your partner in paid employment? (Primary P&D) Yes 67.5% No 15.1% Missing 17.5%

Table 70. Is your partner in paid employment? (Second Level P&D) Yes 63.9% No 25.0% Missing 11.1%

70


Table 71. Partner’s occupation by ABS type Partner's occupation Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 5.5 Mining 0.1 Manufacturing 2.1 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1.3 Construction 4.4 Wholesale Trade 0.5 Retail Trade 2.5 Accommodation and Food Services 0.6 Transport, Postal and Warehousing 1.2 Information, Media and Telecommunications 2.3 Financial and Insurance Services 3.7 Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services 0.3 Public Administration and Safety 2.2 Education and Training 23.7 Health Care and Social Assistance 4.4 Arts and Recreation Services 0.6 Other Services 7.7 Homemaker 2.6 No occupation 0.7 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 4.6 Administrative and Support Services 2.6 Retired 2.7

71


Table 72. Partner’s occupation by ABS type (Primary P&D) Partner's occupation Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 7.1 Mining 0.2 Manufacturing 2.7 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1.9 Construction 6.1 Wholesale Trade 0.5 Retail Trade 3.2 Accommodation and Food Services 0.6 Transport, Postal and Warehousing 1.6 Information, Media and Telecommunications 2.2 Financial and Insurance Services 4.2 Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services 0.3 Public Administration and Safety 2.4 Education and Training 22.8 Health Care and Social Assistance 4.6 Arts and Recreation Services 0.6 Other Services 8.5 Homemaker 2.2 No occupation 0.8 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 5.3 Administrative and Support Services 2.4 Retired 2.2

72


Table 73. Partner’s occupation by ABS type (Second Level P&D) Partner's occupation Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 4.2 Mining 1.4 Manufacturing 0.5 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1.4 Construction 0.9 Wholesale Trade 1.4 Retail Trade 0.9 Accommodation and Food Services 0.5 Transport, Postal and Warehousing 3.2 Information, Media and Telecommunications 4.6 Financial and Insurance Services 0.5 Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services 1.9 Public Administration and Safety 35.2 Education and Training 5.6 Health Care and Social Assistance 0.5 Arts and Recreation Services 7.4 Other Services 4.6 Homemaker 0.9 No occupation 4.6 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 3.7 Administrative and Support Services 5.1 Retired 4.2 Missing 11.1

Table 74. Partner’s occupational level by ABS type Partner's occupational level Percent Managers 21.6 Professionals 30.4 Technicians and Trades Workers 4.7 Community and Personal Service Workers 2.1 Clerical and Administrative Workers 4.2 Sales Workers 2.6 Machinery Operators and Drivers 2.0 Labourers 2.9 Missing 29.7

73


Table 75. Partner’s occupational level by ABS type (Primary P&D) Partner's occupational level Percent Managers 24.4 Professionals 31.4 Technicians and Trades Workers 5.9 Community and Personal Service Workers 2.2 Clerical and Administrative Workers 4 Sales Workers 3 Machinery Operators and Drivers 2.2 Labourers 4 Missing 22.8

Table 76. Partner’s occupational level by ABS type (Second Level P&D) Partner's occupational level Percent Managers 20.4 Professionals 41.2 Technicians and Trades Workers 3.2 Community and Personal Service Workers 1.9 Clerical and Administrative Workers 6.5 Sales Workers 2.3 Machinery Operators and Drivers 1.9 Labourers 0.9 Missing 21.8

Children Table 77. Do you have children currently living at home? Children living at home Percent Yes 66.2 No 30.4

Table 78. Do you have children currently living at home? (Primary P&D) Children living at home Percent Yes 64.7 No 35.3

Table 79. Do you have children currently living at home? (Second Level P&D) Children living at home Percent Yes 71.3 No 28.7

Table 80. Number of children living at home full time

74


Children Min Max Mean S.D. Children living with you full time 0 11 2.11 1.05 Children living with you part-‐time 0 5 0.42 0.85 Table 81. Number of children living at home full time (Primary P&D)

Children Min Max Mean S.D. Children living with you full time 0 11 2.13 1.09 Children living with you part-‐time 0 5 0.44 0.83

Table 82. Number of children living at home full time (Second Level P&D)

Children Min Max Mean S.D. Children living with you full time 0 11 2.11 0.95 Children living with you part-‐time 0 5 0.38 0.93 Table 83. Members of immediate family with a long-term health condition Yes 17.1% No 62.3% Missing 20.5%

Table 84. Members of immediate family with a long-term health condition (Primary P&D) Yes 19.4% No 69.1% Missing 11.5%

Table 85. Members of immediate family with a long-term health condition (Second Level P&D) Yes 16.2% No 72.7% Missing 11.1%

Table 86. Impact of the health condition on your child or partner’s ability to study or work Impact Percent Little or no impact 4.7 Moderate impact 7.7 Serious impact 4.7 Total 17.1

Table 87. Impact of the health condition on your child or partner’s ability to study or work (Primary P&D) Impact Percent Little or no impact 5.9 Moderate impact 8.2 Serious impact 5.3 Total 19.4

75


Table 88. Impact of the health condition on your child or partner’s ability to study or work (Second Level P&D) Impact Percent Little or no impact 3.7 Moderate impact 8.3 Serious impact 4.2 Total 16.2

Personal Health Status Table 89. Medical conditions diagnosed by a doctor Diagnosed Medical Conditions Percent Cardio-‐vascular disease 2.1 Psychological problems 1.7 Gastro-‐intestinal disorder 6.8 Respiratory problem 4.9 Chronic pain 2.8 Cancer 1.1 Thyroid disease 4.1 None 48.8 Other 14.4

Table 90. Medical conditions diagnosed by a doctor (Primary P&D) Diagnosed Medical Conditions Percent Cardio-‐vascular disease 2.4 Psychological problems 2.4 Gastro-‐intestinal disorder 7.2 Respiratory problem 5.6 Chronic pain 2.9 Cancer 1.0 Thyroid disease 4.5 None 53.7 Other 18.6

76


Table 91. Medical conditions diagnosed by a doctor (Second Level P&D) Diagnosed Medical Conditions Percent Cardio-‐vascular disease 1.9 Psychological problems 0.9 Gastro-‐intestinal disorder 6.9 Respiratory problem 5.1 Chronic pain 3.2 Cancer 1.9 Thyroid disease 4.2 None 58.3 Other 12.5

Table 92. Prescription medications taken Prescription Medication Percent Cholesterol Control 6.7 Sleep Problems 3.2 Menopause 2.1 Diabetes (Type I) 0.2 Diabetes (Type II) 0.6 Skin Condition 2.5 Osteoporosis 1.4 Arthritis 1.6 Poor Appetite 0 Depression 2.3 Weight Loss 0 Weight Gain 0.7 Heart Condition 0.4 Anxiety 2.8 Blood Pressure Control 7.0 Mental Condition 0.1 None 50.3 Other 9.9

77


Table 93. Prescription medications taken (Primary P&D) Prescription Medication Percent Cholesterol Control 6.9 Sleep Problems 3.2 Menopause 1.9 Diabetes (Type I) 0.2 Diabetes (Type II) 0.8 Skin Condition 2.4 Osteoporosis 1.8 Arthritis 1.9 Poor Appetite 0 Depression 2.9 Weight Loss 0 Weight Gain 0.8 Heart Condition 0.5 Anxiety 3.7 Blood Pressure Control 8.8 Mental Condition 0.2 None 55.3 Other 13.4

Table 94. Prescription medications taken (Second Level P&D) Prescription Medication Percent Cholesterol Control 7.9 Sleep Problems 3.7 Menopause 2.3 Diabetes (Type I) 0.5 Diabetes (Type II) 0.5 Skin Condition 3.7 Osteoporosis 0.9 Arthritis 1.9 Poor Appetite 0 Depression 1.9 Weight Loss 0 Weight Gain 0.9 Heart Condition 0.5 Anxiety 1.9 Blood Pressure Control 4.6 Mental Condition 0 None 61.1 Other 7.9

78


General Health and Fitness Table 95. Overall I maintain a satisfactory level of fitness Percent Strongly disagree 6.2 2 7.6 3 9.3 4 6 5 8.7 6 7.5 7 7.8 8 10.7 9 6.8 Strongly Agree 8.5

Table 96. Overall I maintain a satisfactory level of fitness (Primary P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 6.1 2 7.7 3 10.1 4 6.9 5 10.9 6 8.3 7 8.8 8 12.2 9 7.7 Strongly Agree 9.3

Table 97. Overall I maintain a satisfactory level of fitness (Second Level P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 7.9 2 10.2 3 10.6 4 6 5 6.9 6 8.8 7 8.8 8 11.1 9 6.9 Strongly Agree 11.1

79


Table 98. Overall I maintain a healthy diet Percent Strongly disagree 2.5 2 3.2 3 8.1 4 4.8 5 10.1 6 7.8 7 13.2 8 13.8 9 9.4 Strongly Agree 6.2

Table 99. Overall I maintain a healthy diet (Primary P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 2.1 2 3.5 3 8.8 4 4.8 5 11.2 6 9.1 7 15.4 8 15.4 9 10.9 Strongly Agree 6.7

Table 100. Overall I maintain a healthy diet (Second Level P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 3.7 2 3.7 3 10.6 4 6.9 5 10.2 6 7.4 7 14.8 8 14.4 9 8.8 Strongly Agree 7.9

80


Table 101. Overall I maintain a health weight Percent Strongly disagree 5.5 2 5.2 3 9.4 4 6.3 5 6.8 6 7.7 7 7.6 8 12.4 9 9.8 Strongly Agree 8.3

Table 102. Overall I maintain a health weight (Primary P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 6.1 2 5.6 3 9.6 4 5.9 5 8 6 8.2 7 8.3 8 15.5 9 11.9 Strongly Agree 8.8

Table 103. Overall I maintain a health weight (Second Level P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 5.1 2 6.5 3 11.1 4 10.6 5 6.5 6 10.6 7 8.3 8 10.2 9 8.8 Strongly Agree 10.6

81


Table 104. Frequency of scheduled medical checkups (annual) Percent Never 21.50% Once 47.50% Twice 17.20% Three times 4.60% Four times 5.80% Five times 0.70% Six times 1.40% Seven times 1.00% Eight times 0.20% More than 8 times 0.90%

Table 105. Frequency of scheduled medical checkups (annual) (Primary P&D) Percent Never 39.1 Once 36.9 Twice 8.2 Three times 1.6 Four times 1.4 Five times 0.2 Six times 0.3 Seven times 0.2 Eight times 0 More than 8 times 0

Table 106. Frequency of scheduled medical checkups (annual) (Second Level P&D) Percent Never 36.6 Once 39.8 Twice 7.4 Three times 1.9 Four times 2.3 Five times 0 Six times 0 Seven times 0 Eight times 0 More than 8 times 0.5

82


Personal Values Table 107: Summary of responses to the Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al.) compared to population norms Ireland Population Personal Wellbeing Index Min Max Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Satisfied with life 0 10 68.90 18.00 76.00 12.32 Satisfied with standard of living 0 10 66.00 19.80 78.45 16.27 Satisfied with health 0 10 65.60 20.10 73.65 19.32 Satisfied with achievement in life 0 10 70.40 17.60 73.08 18.93 Satisfied with personal relationships 0 10 72.30 20.80 79.88 20.87 Satisfied with how safe you feel 0 10 77.60 18.70 80.64 16.54 Satisfied with feeling part of your community 0 10 68.10 19.70 72.60 18.98 Satisfied with future security 0 10 66.80 19.60 72.24 19.45 Satisfied with spirituality or religion 0 10 70.40 20.90 79.70 18.27

Table 108: Summary of responses to the Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al.) compared to population norms (Primary P&D) Principals Population Personal Wellbeing Index Min Max Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Satisfied with life 0 10 68.3 18.55 76.00 12.32 Satisfied with standard of living 0 10 65.2 20.51 78.45 16.27 Satisfied with health 0 10 64.5 20.04 73.65 19.32 Satisfied with achievement in life 0 10 69.6 17.98 73.08 18.93 Satisfied with personal relationships 0 10 71.8 21.13 79.88 20.87 Satisfied with how safe you feel 0 10 76.8 19.27 80.64 16.54 Satisfied with feeling part of your community 0 10 67.3 20.14 72.60 18.98 Satisfied with future security 0 10 65.2 20.18 72.24 19.45 Satisfied with spirituality or religion 0 10 70.3 20.47 79.70 18.27

Table 109: Summary of responses to the Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al.) compared to population norms (Second Level P&D) Principals Population Personal Wellbeing Index Min Max Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Satisfied with life 1 10 70.2 15.74 76.00 12.32 Satisfied with standard of living 1 10 67.9 18.07 78.45 16.27 Satisfied with health 0 10 68.5 20.32 73.65 19.32 Satisfied with achievement in life 0 10 73.4 15.56 73.08 18.93 Satisfied with personal relationships 0 10 74.4 18.52 79.88 20.87 Satisfied with how safe you feel 2 10 80.1 16.47 80.64 16.54 Satisfied with feeling part of your community 0 10 70.3 17.73 72.60 18.98 Satisfied with future security 1 10 71.5 17.31 72.24 19.45 Satisfied with spirituality or religion 0 10 71.7 21.52 79.70 18.27

83


Figure 18: Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al, 2013) comparison scores

Figure 19. Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al, 2013) comparison scores (Primary P&D)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Sastisfaction Level

Personal Wellbeing Index

Irish Principals

Population

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Personal Wellbeing Index (Primary)

Principals

Population

84


Figure 20. Personal Wellbeing Index (Cummins et al, 2013) comparison scores (Second Level P&D) Table 110: Summary statistics of Importance ratings Importance Rating Min Max Mean S.D. What you achieve in life 1 5 4.16 0.71 Close relationships 3 5 4.75 0.48 How safe you feel 1 5 4.31 0.77 Doing things outside your home 1 5 3.62 0.92 Your own happiness 1 5 4.31 0.75 Public perception of your school 1 5 4.31 0.69

Table 111: Summary statistics of Importance ratings (Primary P&D) Importance Rating Min Max Mean S.D. What you achieve in life 1 5 4.11 0.73 Close relationships 3 5 4.75 0.46 How safe you feel 1 5 4.33 0.75 Doing things outside your home 1 5 3.63 0.92 Your own happiness 1 5 4.29 0.74 Public perception of your school 1 5 4.27 0.72

60

65

70

75

80

85

Personal Wellbeing Index (Second Level)

Principals

Population

85


Table 112: Summary statistics of Importance ratings (Second Level P&D) Importance Rating Min Max Mean S.D. What you achieve in life 2 5 4.28 0.69 Close relationships 3 5 4.71 0.53 How safe you feel 2 5 4.23 0.79 Doing things outside your home 1 5 3.54 0.92 Your own happiness 2 5 4.32 0.76 Public perception of your school 2 5 4.48 0.61

Psychological Rating Table 113. I am frequently depressed about my job Percent Strongly disagree 20.0 2 15.5 3 10.7 4 5.9 5 6.3 6 3.7 7 4.6 8 6.2 9 1.8 Strongly Agree 4.4 Missing 20.9

Table 114. I am frequently depressed about my job (Primary P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 21 2 17 3 11.5 4 6.9 5 7.7 6 4.2 7 4.5 8 7.2 9 1.9 Strongly Agree 6.1 Missing 12.0

86


Table 115. I am frequently depressed about my job (Second Level P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 25.5 2 19.4 3 11.6 4 5.1 5 5.1 6 4.2 7 7.9 8 5.6 9 1.9 Strongly Agree 2.3 Missing 11.6

Table 116. I am frequently depressed about my job at certain times of the year Percent Strongly disagree 14.6 2 12.4 3 9.7 4 5.6 5 6.0 6 4.5 7 5.6 8 9.0 9 4.4 Strongly Agree 7.2 Missing 20.9

Table 117. I am frequently depressed about my job at certain times of the year (Primary P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 15.7 2 13.5 3 10.1 4 6.7 5 6.4 6 5.1 7 6.1 8 10.7 9 4.5 Strongly Agree 9.1 Missing 12.0

Table 118. I am frequently depressed about my job at certain times of the year (Second Level P&D)

87


Percent Strongly disagree 18.1 2 15.3 3 12.5 4 5.1 5 7.9 6 4.6 7 6.5 8 8.3 9 5.1 Strongly Agree 5.1 Missing 11.6

Table 119. Do you ever feel like hurting yourself? Response Percent Never 70.4 Rarely 5 Sometimes 1.8 Often 0.2 All the time 0.1 Missing 22.4

Table 120. Do you ever feel like hurting yourself? (Primary P&D) Response Percent Never 77.6 Rarely 5.8 Sometimes 2.2 Often 0.3 All the time 0.2 Missing 13.9

Table 121. Do you ever feel like hurting yourself? (Second Level P&D) Response Percent Never 80.6 Rarely 5.1 Sometimes 1.9 Often 0 All the time 0 Missing 12.5

88


Sources of Support Table 122. Sources of support. Note participants were able to list multiple sources Sources of support in the last 12 months Percent Principals and deputy principal/Deputy Principals and deputy principal 53.6 Partner 62.1 Friend 46.7 Family member 37.4 Colleague in workplace 42.5 Mentor 4.8 School Leader/colleague (professional relationship 26.2 School Leader/colleague (also a friend) 26.3 Chairperson Board of Management/Govenors 39.8 Department/Employer 5.3 Professional Association 24.2 Management body 14.4 Trade Union 7.9 Medical practitioner 8.7 Psychologist/Counsellor 5.5 No support 0.7

Table 123. Sources of support. Note participants were able to list multiple sources (Primary P&D) Sources of support in the last 12 months Percent Partner 68% Friend 52% Family member 44% Principal/Deputy Principal 55% Workplace Colleague 47% Mentor 5% School leader/colleague 29% School leader/colleague also a friend 31% Chair, Board of Management/Governors 49% Department/Employer 5% Professional Association 29% Management Body 13% Trade Union 12% Medical Practitioner 11% Psychologist/Counsellor 6% None 1%

89


Table 124. Sources of support. Note participants were able to list multiple sources (Second Level P&D) Sources of support in the last 12 months Percent Principal/Deputy Principal 71.3 Partner 72.2 Friend 51.9 Family member 36.6 Colleague in workplace 47.2 Mentor 7.4 School Leader/colleague (professional relationship) 29.2 School Leader/colleague (also a friend) 21.8 Chairperson Board of Management/Govenors 29.6 Department/Employer 7.4 Professional Association 21.8 Management body 25.5 Trade Union 0.9 Medical practitioner 4.6 Psychologist/Counsellor 5.1 No support 0.9

Figure 21: Sources of support for Primary Principals disaggregated by Principal Type. Figure 21 shows that Primary Teaching Principals receive a great deal less professional support than their Administrative Principal colleagues. The difference in partner support may indicate the family strain Teaching Principals also experience in the role. Also of note is the perceived lack of institutional support. This shows up in the levels of reported support from the employer and lack of Mentor support. A slightly different picture emerges for Teaching

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Sources of Support -‐ Principals

Principal Admin

Principal Teaching

90


Deputies (Figure 22) who perceive greater support from their professional organization and union than their Administrative Deputy colleagues. The significant difference in level of support from friends for both groups needs to be further investigated. This may result from school size and location, where teaching principals may have reduced access to friends.

Figure 22: Sources of Support for Primary Deputy Principals disaggregated by Type

Figure 23. Sources of Support for Second Level Principals disaggregated by Type Figure 23 shows that Second Level Teaching Principals also receive a great deal less professional support than their Administrative Principal colleagues. Also of note is the

0

20

40

60

80

100

120 Sources of Support -‐ Deputies

Deputy Admin

Deputy Teaching

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Sources of Support -‐ Principals

Admin

Teaching

91


perceived lack of institutional support. This shows up in the levels of reported support from the employer and lack of Mentor support. A slightly different picture emerges for Teaching Deputies (Figure 24) who perceive greater support from their professional organizations, and colleagues than their Administrative Deputy colleagues. The significant difference in level of support from friends for principals and family members for deputies needs to be further investigated. This may result from school size and location, where teaching principals may have reduced access to friends.

Figure 24. Sources of Support for Second Level Deputy Principals disaggregated by Type

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Sources of Support -‐ Deputies

Admin

Teaching

92


Alcohol Intake Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): Scoring and Interpretation. The World Health Organisation (WHO, 2001) Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence developed the items related to alcohol used in the current survey. The recommended interpretation of an individual score appears in the table below. Table 125: World Health Organisation Recommendations based on reported AUDIT scores Risk Level Score Recommendation Zone I 0-‐7 No harm; stay educated about alcohol use and continue to abstain

or drink responsibly. Zone II 8-‐15 Alcohol use is in excess of low-‐risk guidelines. Please visit this link to

learn more about the risks of excessive alcohol consumption http://www.health.gov.au/internet/alcohol/publishing.nsf/Content/guide-‐adult -‐ and you might consider seeking professional advice.

Zone III 16-‐19 Scores in this zone indicate a high level of alcohol problems. Please see your GP for counseling to discuss the effects of alcohol, and receive advice about how to reduce hazardous drinking.

Zone IV 20-‐40 Scores in this zone are indicative of a very high level of alcohol problems and professional advice is strongly recommended. Please see your GP to discuss information about effects of alcohol and how to reduce hazardous drinking.

According to the World Health Organisation AUDIT scores >7 may indicate hazardous and harmful alcohol use, as well as possible alcohol dependence. Therefore analyses were conducted to examine differences between principals and deputy principals reporting scores above and below the cut-off. The two groups were labeled Low Risk and High Risk, as there is some conjecture about the safe lower limit of alcohol consumption. Table 126: Mean AUDIT scores in High and Low risk categories disaggregated by Gender AUDIT Group N Mean S.D. High Risk Group Female 45 10.29 2.56

Male 50 11.58 3.63

Low Risk Group Female 481 2.88 1.93 Male 193 3.73 1.83

Table 127. AUDIT Group membership Group Percent 1 69.2 2 8.9 3 0.5 4 0.3 Missing 21.0

Table 128. AUDIT Group membership (Primary P&D) Group Percent

93


1 76.3 2 10.7 3 0.5 4 0.5 Missing 12.0

Table 129. AUDIT Group membership (Second Level P&D) Group Percent 1 79.6 2 7.4 3 0.9 4 0 Missing 12.0

Table 130: One-way ANOVA comparing Mean AUDIT scores for Male and Female Principals and deputy principals AUDIT Group df F p High Risk Group 1,93 3.934 0.05 Low Risk Group 1672 27.709 <.001

Table 131: Mean AUDIT scores in High and Low risk categories disaggregated by Gender (Primary P&D) AUDIT Group N Min Max Mean SD High Risk Group Female 36 8 20 10.42 2.78

Male 37 8 24 11.68 3.76

Low Risk Group Female 361 0 7 2.83 1.94 Male 115 0 7 3.92 1.82

Table 132: Mean AUDIT scores in High and Low risk categories disaggregated by Gender (Second Level P&D)

AUDIT Group N Min Max Mean SD High Risk Group Female 6 8 11 9.67 1.51

Male 12 8 19 11.25 3.49

Low Risk Group Female 97 0 7 2.91 1.92 Male 75 0 7 3.44 1.85

The results show that the vast majority of principals are moderate consumers of alcohol. Male principals average AUDIT score is not statistically different from Female principals in each category.

94


Table 133. Degree of worry about the way I use alcohol to manage my stress Percent Strongly disagree 52.1 2 9.7 3 4.9 4 2.5 5 2.8 6 2.6 7 1.5 8 1.6 9 0.3 Strongly Agree 1.1 Missing 20.9

Table 134. Degree of worry about the way I use prescribed medication to manage my stress Percent Strongly disagree 69.4 2 4.6 3 1.5 4 0.6 5 0.4 6 0.6 7 0.5 8 0.6 Strongly Agree 0.7 Missing 20.9

Table 135. Degree of worry about the way I use alcohol to manage my stress (Primary P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 56.4 2 11.2 3 5.8 4 2.6 5 2.7 6 3.4 7 2.2 8 1.9 9 0.3 Strongly Agree 1.4 Missing 12.0

95


Table 136. Degree of worry about the way I use alcohol to manage my stress (Second Level P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 63.4 2 9.3 3 3.2 4 3.7 5 4.2 6 0.9 7 0.5 8 1.9 9 0.5 Strongly Agree 0.9 Missing 11.6

Table 137. Degree of worry about the way I use prescribed medication to manage my stress (Primary P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 76.3 2 5.8 3 1.8 4 0.8 5 0.6 6 0.5 7 0.8 8 0.6 Strongly Agree 0.8 Missing 12.0

Table 138. Degree of worry about the way I use prescribed medication to manage my stress (Second Level P&D) Percent Strongly disagree 81 2 2.8 3 1.4 4 0.5 5

6 1.4 7

8 0.5 9 Strongly Agree 0.9 Missing 11.6

96


Figure 25. AUDIT scores disaggregated by Gender.

School Information

Sector Table 139. School sector of current school Sector Percent Primary 64.8 Voluntary non fee paying secondary school 11.4 Voluntary fee paying secondary school 1.1 Community/Comprehensive school 3.1 Community College 1.0 Vocational school 5.3 Special school 1.8 Missing 11.4

Location Approximately one third (30.8%) of the principals worked in either Dublin or Cork with the rest distributed evenly across the counties. The bulk of the remote and rural schools covered in the survey are primary level.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Female Male

AUDIT Score ≤7

AUDIT Score ≥8

97


Table 140. Geographic location of current school Location Percent City 22.0 Large Town 18.0 Rural 23.0 Small town/Village 26.3 Island 0.2 Missing 10.6

Table 141. Geographic location of current school (Primary P&D) Location Percent City 20.2 Large Town 16.7 Rural 32.1 Small town/Village 30.8 Island 0.3

Table 142. Geographic location of current school (Second Level P&D) Location Percent City 32.4 Large Town 28.2 Rural 9.7 Small town/Village 29.6

Enrolment Table 143: Range of school enrolments, with Mean score and standard deviations reported Total school enrolment Min Max Mean S. D.

10 1474 297.98 250.05

Table 144: Range of school enrolments, with Mean score and standard deviations reported (Primary P&D) Total school enrolment Min Max Mean S. D.

13 947 220.06 171.430

Table 145: Range of school enrolments, with Mean score and standard deviations reported (Second Level P&D) Total school enrolment Min Max Mean S. D.

10 1474 544.14 266.23

98


Table 146. Number of campuses at current school 1 86.3% 2 1.8% 3 0.5% 4 0.2% 5 or more 0.1% Missing 10.6%

Non Teaching Staff Table 147. Percentage of your school’s non-teaching staff providing pedagogical support e.g., classroom aides 0% 10.70% 1-‐20% 44.30% 21-‐40% 9.30% 41-‐60% 11.20% 61-‐80% 7.20% 81-‐100% 6.60% Missing 10.8%

Table 148. Percentage of your school’s non-teaching staff providing pedagogical support (Primary P&D) e.g., classroom aides 0% 13.6 1-‐20% 43.1 21-‐40% 12.5 41-‐60% 13.8 61-‐80% 8.8 81-‐100% 7.9 Missing 0.3

Table 149. Percentage of your school’s non-teaching staff providing pedagogical support (Second Level P&D) e.g., classroom aides 0% 7.9 1-‐20% 72.7 21-‐40% 6 41-‐60% 6.9 61-‐80% 4.2 81-‐100% 2.3

99


Administrative Support Staff Table 150. Percentage of non-teaching staff in administrative or management roles 0% 9.90% 1-‐20% 64.40% 21-‐40% 8.90% 41-‐60% 4.70% 61-‐80% 0.30% 81-‐100% 1.00% Missing 10.8

Table 151. Percentage of non-teaching staff in administrative or management roles (Primary P&D) 0% 13.8 1-‐20% 68.8 21-‐40% 9.8 41-‐60% 5.6 61-‐80% 0.3 81-‐100% 1.4 Missing 0.3

Table 152. Percentage of non-teaching staff in administrative or management roles (Second Level P&D) 0% 2.8 1-‐20% 79.6 21-‐40% 12 41-‐60% 4.6 61-‐80% 0.5 81-‐100% 0.5

Teaching Staff: Experience and Demographics Table 153. Percentage of teachers by level of experience in years Experience in Years <3 3-‐5 6-‐10 11-‐15 16-‐20 >20 % teachers 0 34.6 19.10 13.8 19.7 33.4 11.9 1-‐20 46.7 59.70 34.3 37.4 34.6 36.8 21-‐40 5.4 17.20 26.2 22.3 13.9 23 41-‐60 0.7 3.20 11.4 7 4.6 10.4 61-‐80 0.5 0.40 1.7 1.2 0.9 3.9 81-‐100 0 0.40 0.5 0.3 0.5 2.1 missing 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.0

100


Table 154. Percentage of teachers by level of experience in years (Primary P&D) Experience in Years <3 3-‐5 6-‐10 11-‐15 16-‐20 >20 % teachers 0 45.7 33.2 17.6 28.7 48.2 17 1-‐20 43.3 44.7 35.7 41.7 32.9 35.9 21-‐40 8 16.2 29.2 19.1 11.5 26.1 41-‐60 1.1 3.8 12.5 7.2 4.5 12.8 61-‐80 0.3 0.3 2.4 1.1 0.6 4 81-‐100 0 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.5 2.6 missing 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6

Table 155. Percentage of teachers by level of experience in years (Second Level P&D) Experience in Years <3 3-‐5 6-‐10 11-‐15 16-‐20 >20 % teachers 0 14.4 7.4 7.4 4.6 7.4 2.3 1-‐20 81 73.6 45.8 43.5 53.7 55.1 21-‐40 1.4 15.7 31.5 39.4 25.9 24.5 41-‐60 0 0.9 12.5 8.8 7.9 9.3 61-‐80 1.4 0.5 0.9 1.9 2.3 5.6 81-‐100 0 0 0 0 0.9 1.4 missing 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Table 156. Teachers who hold a Masters degree or higher 0% 25.4% 1-‐20% 50.2% 21-‐40% 8.9% 41-‐60% 2.9% 61-‐80% 0.3% 81-‐100% 0.2%

Table 157. Teachers who hold a Masters degree or higher (Primary P&D) 0% 37.5 1-‐20% 49.8 21-‐40% 7.9 41-‐60% 2.6 61-‐80% 0.2 81-‐100% 0.3

Table 158. Teachers who hold a Masters degree or higher (Second Level P&D) 0% 2.3 1-‐20% 76.4 21-‐40% 15.3 41-‐60% 3.2 61-‐80% 0.9 81-‐100% 2.3

101


Table 159. Teachers’ first language is a language other than English 0% 10.9% 1-‐20% 1.3% 21-‐40% 1% 41-‐60% 0.5% 61-‐80% 1.1% 81-‐100% 10.9%

Table 160. Percentage of teachers’ first language is a language other than English (Primary P&D) 0% 87.8 1-‐20% 5.3 21-‐40% 1.8 41-‐60% 1.6 61-‐80% 0.6 81-‐100% 1.1

Table 161. Teachers’ first language is a language other than English (Second Level P&D) 0% 63.9 1-‐20% 32.4 21-‐40% 0.5 41-‐60% 0 61-‐80% 0.5 81-‐100% 0.9

Staff Turnover Table 162. Percentage of teaching staff who leave the school in an average year Less than 5% 70.2% 5-‐20% 15.1% 21-‐35% 1.1% 36-‐50% 0.9% > 50% 0.4%

Table 163. Percentage of teaching staff who leave the school in an average year (Primary P&D) Less than 5% 78.7 5-‐20% 16.3 21-‐35% 1.4 36-‐50% 1.1 > 50% 0.6

Table 164. Percentage of teaching staff who leave the school in an average year (Second Level P&D) Less than 5% 77.8 5-‐20% 19

102


21-‐35% 0.5 36-‐50% 0.5 > 50% 0

Table 165. Teachers currently employed on short-term contracts (up to one year) 0% 23.1% 1-‐20% 56.7% 21-‐40% 6.3% 41-‐60% 1.7% 61-‐80% 0.1% 81-‐100% 23.1%

Table 166. Teachers currently employed on short-term contracts (up to one year) (Primary P&D) 0% 33.2 1-‐20% 55 21-‐40% 7.4 41-‐60% 2.7 61-‐80% 0 81-‐100% 0

Table 167. Teachers currently employed on short-term contracts (up to one year) (Second Level P&D) 0% 3.7 1-‐20% 88.9 21-‐40% 5.1 41-‐60% 0 61-‐80% 0.5 81-‐100% 0

Table 168. Difficulty in fill teaching staff vacancies for this school year Easy 42.2% Somewhat difficult 24.5% Very difficult 5.1% No vacancies 15.9%

Table 169. Difficulty in fill teaching staff vacancies for this school year (Primary P&D) Easy 52.9 Somewhat difficult 21.5 Very difficult 3.2 No vacancies 20.7

103


Table 170. Difficulty in fill teaching staff vacancies for this school year (Second Level P&D) Easy 31 Somewhat difficult 46.3 Very difficult 12 No vacancies 8.3

Principals and deputy principals Valued by the Community Table 171. School staff and community values your leadership

Never 0.7% Rarely 11.1% Most of the time 59.0% Always 8.6%

Table 172. School staff and community values your leadership (Primary P&D)

Never 1 Rarely 12.8 Most of the time 63.5 Always 11.2

Table 173. School staff and community values your leadership (Second Level P&D)

Never 0.5 Rarely 10.6 Most of the time 73.1 Always 4.6

Table 174. School council/board and values your leadership

Never 1.5% Rarely 11.4% Most of the time 45.6% Always 20.8%

Table 175. School council/board and values your leadership (Primary P&D)

Never 1.9 Rarely 13.5 Most of the time 51.4 Always 21.6

104


Table 176. School council/board and values your leadership (Second Level P&D)

Never 1.4 Rarely 10.2 Most of the time 50 Always 27.3

Student Profile Table 177. Percentage of students who qualify for Low Incidence Resource teaching hours or SNA support < 10% 61.7% 11-‐24 % 20.1% 25-‐50% 2.9% > 50% 2.5%

Table 178. Percentage of students who qualify for Low Incidence Resource teaching hours or SNA support (Primary P&D) < 10% 74.7 11-‐24 % 20.7 25-‐50% 2.6 > 50% 0

Table 179. Percentage of students who qualify for Low Incidence Resource teaching hours or SNA support (Second Level P&D < 10% 60.2 11-‐24 % 31 25-‐50% 4.2 > 50% 0.9

Table 180. Percentage of students who have a disability but do not qualify for Low Incidence Resource teaching hours or SNA support < 10% 62.9% 11-‐24 % 20.2% 25-‐50% 3.1% > 50% 1.0%

Table 181. Percentage of students who have a disability but do not qualify for Low Incidence Resource teaching hours or SNA support (Primary P&D) < 10% 74 11-‐24 % 20 25-‐50% 3.5 > 50% 0.3

105


Table 182. Percentage of students who have a disability but do not qualify for Low Incidence Resource teaching hours or SNA support (Second Level P&D) < 10% 59.3 11-‐24 % 32.4 25-‐50% 2.8 > 50% 1.9

Table 183. Percentage of student turnover each year (apart from graduates) < 5% 70.6% 5% -‐ 20% 14.0% 21% -‐ 35% 1.0% 36% -‐ 49% 0.7% > 50% 0.8%

Table 184. Percentage of student turnover each year (apart from graduates) (Primary P&D) < 5% 80.3 5% -‐ 20% 15.2 21% -‐ 35% 1.1 36% -‐ 49% 0.6 > 50% 0.6

Table 185. Percentage of student turnover each year (apart from graduates) (Second Level P&D < 5% 78.2 5% -‐ 20% 15.7 21% -‐ 35% 0.5 36% -‐ 49% 0.5 > 50% 1.4

Table 186. Reasons for student exit (apart from graduating)

Reason for Exit Academic

achievement Behavioural problems

Special learning needs

Family relocating

Other

Low High % students 1-‐10 83.2 84.4 79.9 83.0 54.4 78.0 11-‐24 1.8 0.8 3.4 1.4 5.4 2.7 25-‐50 1.0 0.6 2.1 1.6 4.5 2.3 >50 0.9 1.0 1.6 0.8 22.6 3.9

106


Table 187. Reasons for student exit (apart from graduating) (Primary P&D)




Family relocating

Other

Low High % students

1-‐10 96.3 95.7 95.8 93.4 55 89.3 11-‐24 1.1 0.5 1.3 1.8 5.3 2.2 25-‐50 0.2 0.6 0.3 2.1 4.5 2.2 >50 0 0.8 0.3 0.3 33 3.7

Table 188. Reasons for student exit (apart from graduating) Second Level P&D)




Family relocating

Other

Low High % students

1-‐10 84.3 90.7 72.7 92.6 73.6 81.5 11-‐24 4.6 1.9 10.6 0.9 9.3 5.1 25-‐50 4.2 0.9 7.9 1.4 7.4 2.8 >50 2.8 2.3 4.6 0.9 5.6 6.5

107


School Resources Table 189. Resourcing inadequacies reported as percentage

Does you

r schoo

l have a shortage or ina

dequ

acy

in th

e following areas?

Instructiona

l materials (e.g., textbo

oks)

Budget fo

r sup

plies (e.g., p

aper, p

encils)

Scho

ol buildings and

groun

ds

Heating/cooling lighting an

d security system

s

Instructiona

l spa

ce

Special equ

ipmen

t for inclusion of stud

ents

with

disa

bilities

ICT supp

ort

Qua

lified teache

rs

Library staff

Special needs assistan

ts

Technician

s

Administratio

n staff

Caretaker/cleaning staff

% agreement Mean 2.31 3.31 4.13 2.11 2.29 3.67 4.59 1.56 5.01 3.68 5.54 3.95 3.55

1 not at all 41.9 25.8 18 23.7 26.5 17.8 8.6 64.9 9.8 17.7 5.4 17.6 21.8 2 16.1 12.7 9.4 16.2 12.1 12.7 9 8.9 2.0 11.7 2.8 10.8 12.7 3 8.0 11.2 10.3 9.0 10 12.2 11.1 3 1.8 10.7 2.1 9.0 9.1 4 6.1 9.7 8.1 9.5 7.7 10.2 10.7 2.8 2.7 11.5 3.2 10.5 10.5 5 6.4 8.0 9.3 9.3 6.6 8.7 11.2 1.2 1.6 8.9 5.9 10.7 12.4 6 3.5 7.8 7.9 7.7 7.4 10.1 11.4 1 2.7 8.8 7.3 10.0 8.7

7 a lot 3.0 10.5 23.1 10.4 15.6 11.5 24 2.3 24.5 11.5 30.5 16.1 10.5 N/A 1.5 .8 .3 .5 .6 3.3 .4 2.4 9.8 5.6 29.4 1.8 0.7

108


Figure 26. Global resourcing inadequacy ordered from highest to lowest by reported school need on a 7- point scale

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Resourcing Inadeaquacy

Primary

Second Level

Other

109


School Culture

Staff Table 190. Staff attributes

To wha

t extent d

oes the fo

llowing exist in you

r schoo

l?

Teache

rs’ low

expectatio

ns of stude

nts

Poor stud

ent-‐teache

r relations

Teache

rs not m

eetin

g individu

al stud

ents’ n

eeds

Teache

r absen

teeism

Staff resistan

ce to

cha

nge

Teache

rs’ job

satisfaction

Teache

rs’ u

nderstan

ding of the

scho

ol’s curricular goa

ls

Teache

rs’ d

egree of su

ccess in im

plem

entin

g the scho

ol’s curric

ulum

Teache

rs’ expectatio

ns fo

r stude

nt achievemen

t % agreement

mean 2.14 1.71 2.46 1.88 2.97 5.16 5.47 5.58 5.64 1 not at all 37.5 41.0 19.0 37.4 17.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

2 24.1 33.8 34.8 33.6 24.2 1.7 1.7 1.0 0.9 3 10.5 6.7 17.1 8.5 15.9 6.4 4.1 2.2 3.7 4 5.1 2.4 7.4 2.8 12.8 13.8 8.7 7.0 7.7 5 5.1 0.9 4.1 1.6 7 26.6 22.5 23.9 19.1 6 1.8 0.3 2.7 1.1 4.5 26.6 33.4 38.0 34.4

7 a lot 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 4.1 9.8 14.7 13.0 19.2 N/A 6.0 .8 .2 .3 0 .3 .1 .1 .2

110


Table 191. Staff attributes (Primary P&D) To

wha

t extent d

oes the fo


r schoo

l?

Teache

rs’ low

expectatio

ns of stude

nts

Poor stud

ent-‐teache

r relations

Teache

rs not m

eetin

g individu

al stud

ents’ n

eeds

Teache

r absen

teeism

Staff resistan

ce to

cha

nge

Teache

rs’ job

satisfaction

Teache

rs’ u

nderstan

ding of the

scho


ls

Teache

rs’ d

egree of su

ccess in im

plem

entin

g the scho

ol’s curric

ulum

Teache

rs’ expectatio

ns fo

r stude

nt achievemen

t

% agreement mean 1.88 1.57 2.23 1.66 2.67 5.23 5.47 5.59 5.73

1 not at all 49 53.5 26.8 52.1 24.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1 2 28.5 33.3 41 33.3 29.8 1.9 1.9 1.1 3 3 7.5 6.1 17.5 5.9 17.3 6.7 3 2.7 7.1 4 4.6 1.8 5.6 2.6 11.4 15.1 8.7 6.1 21.6 5 4 0.6 3.2 1 6.9 27.6 23.2 26.6 38.5 6 1.3 0.2 1.4 0.8 2.9 30.6 39.4 43.1 24

7 a lot 0.6 0 1 0.5 3.5 13.1 19.1 15.7 1.1 N/A 1.0 1.1 .2 .5 3.4 .3 4.5 4.5 4.5

111


Table 192. Staff attributes (Second Level To

wha

t extent d

oes the fo


r schoo

l?

Teache

rs’ low

expectatio

ns of stude

nts

Poor stud

ent-‐teache

r relations

Teache

rs not m

eetin

g individu

al stud

ents’ n

eeds

Teache

r absen

teeism

Staff resistan

ce to

cha

nge

Teache

rs’ job

satisfaction

Teache

rs’ u

nderstan

ding of the

scho


ls

Teache

rs’ d

egree of su

ccess in im

plem

entin

g the scho

ol’s curric

ulum

Teache

rs’ expectatio

ns fo

r stude

nt achievemen

t

% agreement mean 2.86 2.13 3.14 2.48 3.83 4.94 5.1 5.47 5.38

1 not at all 21.3 23.1 3.7 12 4.2 0.5 2.3 1.4 0.5 2 25.5 50.5 34.3 52.3 19.9 1.9 9.7 1.9 0.9 3 22.7 12 25.5 17.6 19.9 8.8 12.5 11.6 7.4 4 7.4 5.1 15.7 4.6 21.8 16.7 30.6 27.3 13 5 10.2 2.3 7.4 4.2 9.7 36.1 30.1 40.7 19.9 6 4.2 0.9 7.4 2.8 11.6 25 9.3 11.6 37.5

7 a lot 3.7 0.5 0.5 1.4 7.9 5.6 94.4 1.4 15.3 N/A 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1

Table 193. ANOVA reporting statistically significant differences in Staff Attributes by Level Staff Attributes df F p Teacher's low expectations of students 2,829 41.467 <.001 Poor student-‐teacher relations 2,827 31.971 <.001 Teachers not meeting individual student needs 2,833 40.639 <.001 Teacher absenteeism 2,832 46.512 <.001 Staff resistance to change 2,835 40.287 <.001 Teacher's job satisfaction 2,825 4.538 0.011 Teacher's understanding of school curricular goals 2,827 13.906 <.001 Teacher's degree of success implementing curriculum* 2,827 1.616 0.199 Teacher's expectations for student achievement 2,826 7.761 <.001 * Non-‐significant difference.

112


Figure 27. Teacher attributes disaggregated by Level Primary teachers’ attributes reveal a greater level of job satisfaction, less resistance to change and alignment with school goals. They also have greater expectations of students and appear more able to meet student needs. These correlation results suggest that either primary school principals have a less difficult leadership role due to staff who more closely aligned to school goals or they are better able to lead staff toward alignment with school goals than their second level colleagues. The only non-significant difference between the groups was the Teachers’ degree of success in implementing the curriculum.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Staff Attributes

Primary

Second Level

113


Students Table 194. Student attributes

To wha

t extent d

oes the fo


r schoo

l?

Stud

ents’ d

esire

to do well in scho

ol

Disrup

tion of classes by stud

ents

Stud

ent a

bsen

teeism

Stud

ents actively disrespe

cting staff

Stud

ent u

se of a

lcoh

ol or illegal drugs

Stud

ents intim

idating or bullying othe

r stude

nt

Stud

ents’ regard for schoo

l prope

rty

% agreement mean 5.62 2.51 2.80 1.91 1.44 2.39 5.50

1 not at all 0.3 14.7 10.6 36.7 62.5 11.8 0.8 2 1.3 42.2 36 34.8 12.7 45.4 1.8 3 2.1 14.2 18.5 6.9 3.4 17.9 4.4 4 7.4 6.4 9.2 2.7 2.2 6.5 9.1 5 22.2 4.1 5.4 2.8 0.9 2.9 18.6 6 34.0 2.6 3.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 30.1

7 a lot 17.5 1.8 2.1 0.8 0.4 0.4 19.3 N/A .6 .1 .3 .4 3.0 .3 1.1

114


Table 195. Student attributes (Primary P&D) To

wha

t extent d

oes the fo


r schoo

l?

Stud

ents’ d

esire

to do well in scho

ol

Disrup


ents

Stud

ent a

bsen

teeism

Stud


cting staff

Stud

ent u

se of a

lcoh

ol or illegal drugs

Stud

ents intim


r stude

nt

Stud


l prope

rty

% agreement 1 not at all 0.3 19.7 14.7 47.4 88.9 15.5 0.8

2 1.3 46.6 47.1 38 3 54.2 1.8 3 1.4 16.3 17.5 5.4 0.3 17.3 2.2 4 6.4 6.6 8.2 2.6 0.2 6.9 9 5 24.2 3.7 4.5 1.9 0.2 1.9 20 6 40.2 1.9 2.4 0.6 0 0.6 35.4

7 a lot 21.5 1.6 1.8 0.3 0 0 26.1 N/A 0.2 3.4 0.5 0.3 3.4 0.2 0.2

115


Table 196. Student attributes (Second Level) To

wha

t extent d

oes the fo


r schoo

l?

Stud

ents’ d

esire

to do well in scho

ol

Disrup


ents

Stud

ent a

bsen

teeism

Stud


cting staff

Stud

ent u

se of a

lcoh

ol or illegal drugs

Stud

ents intim


r stude

nt

Stud


l prope

rty

% agreement mean 5.38 2.72 3.52 2.43 2.49 2.83 4.97

1 not at all 0.3 7.4 10.6 21.8 17.6 3.7 0.8 2 1.3 51.9 36 44 45.8 43.5 1.8 3 2.1 15.3 18.5 13.9 13.4 28.2 4.4 4 7.4 8.8 9.2 4.6 8.8 8.8 9.1 5 22.2 5.6 5.4 5.6 4.2 6.9 18.6 6 34.0 4.2 3.9 2.8 3.2 2.3 30.1

7 a lot 17.5 1.9 2.1 2.3 1.4 1.4 19.3 N/A 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 1.1

Table 197. ANOVA reporting statistically significant differences in Student Attributes by Level Student Attributes df F p Student's desire to do well 2,822 10.96 <.001 Disruption of classes by students 2,834 19.866 <.001 Student absenteeism 2,832 42.541 <.001 Students actively disrespecting staff 2,831 30.965 <.001 Student use of alcohol or illegal drugs 2,806 261.446 <.001 Students intimidating or bullying other students 2,832 26.183 <.001 Student's regard for school property 2,817 25.185 <.001

116


Figure 28. Student Attributes disaggreagated by Level All differences listed in the figure above are statistically significantly different. Primary students are perceived by their principals and deputies to have significantly higher positive and lower negative attributes and than second level students.

Parents Table 198. Parental support for, and involvement in, school activities

How would you characterize each of the following within your school?

Parental support for student achievement

Parental involvement in school activities

% agreement mean 5.20 4.53

1 not at all 0.5 1.1 2 5.0 8.0 3 6.0 12.7 4 10.0 17.4 5 22.1 21.3 6 26.9 16.4

7 a lot 14.4 7.6 N/A .5 .8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 Student Attributes

Primary

Second Level

117


Table 199. Parental support for, and involvement in, school activities (Primary P&D)




% agreement 1 not at all 0.3 0.6

2 4.5 6.3 3 5.6 12 4 11.7 20.5 5 25.3 24.8 6 31.3 20.7

7 a lot 16.7 10.3 N/A .2 .3

Table 200. Parental support for, and involvement in, school activities (Second Level P&D)




% agreement mean 5.02 4.0

1 not at all 0.9 2.8 2 8.8 15.7 3 8.3 19.4 4 9.7 17.6 5 23.1 20.8 6 27.3 13

7 a lot 15.7 4.2 N/A 5.1 5.1

Table 201. ANOVA reporting statistically significant differences in Parent Attributes by Level Parent Attributes df F p Parental support for student achievement 2,823 5.107 0.006 Parental involvement 2,820 22.754 <.001 Primary principals and deputies report significantly higher levels of parental support and involvement in school activities. Secondary principals report more pressure from parents with regard to academic achievement.

118


Which statement below best characterises parental expectations towards your school? Statement combined Primary Second

Level There is constant pressure from many parents, who expect high academic achievement

9.9% 9.1% 19.0%

Some parents put pressure on the school to achieve higher academic standards

37.6% 41.1.6% 54.2%

Few or no parents put pressure on the school to achieve higher academic standards

37.8% 47.6% 21.8%

COPSOQ-‐II Subscale Scores The COPSOQ-II (Pejtersen, Kristensen, Borg, & Bjorner, 2010) was developed in response to the need for a validated and standardized instrument that would accurately measure a broad range of psychosocial factors across many occupations. It has seven scales, each containing between 4-8 subscales. In most cases high levels are healthy. The exceptions are Amount of Work, Work Pace, Emotional Demands, Hiding Emotions, Role Conflicts, Job Insecurity, Work-Family Conflict, Family-Work Conflict, Burnout, Stress, Sleeping Problems, Depressive Symptoms, Physical Symptoms of Stress, and Cognitive Stress. High levels of cognitive demands are considered healthy and stimulating.

119


Table 202. Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire-II subscale scores

Subscale Population Irish Sample

Mean SD Mean SD Demands at Work

Quantitative demands 40.2 20.5 63.50 19.07

Work pace 59.5 19.1 71.31 18.62

Cognitive demands 63.9 18.7 81.99 12.89

Emotional demands 40.7 24.3 67.78 16.54

Demands for hiding emotions 50.6 20.8 84.01 13.80 Work Organisation & Job Contents

Influence 49.8 21.2 54.61 17.94

Possibilities for development 65.9 17.6 78.95 15.30

Variation 60.4 21.4 64.64 16.14

Meaning of work 73.8 15.8 84.75 15.22

Commitment to the workplace 60.9 20.4 71.74 20.00 Interpersonal Relations & Leadership Predictability 57.7 20.9 66.01 21.25

Recognition (Reward) 66.2 19.9 75.00 20.25

Role clarity 73.5 16.4 75.03 19.01

Role conflicts 42 16.6 50.21 20.79

Quality of leadership 55.3 21.1 45.75 26.58

Social support from supervisor 61.6 22.4 52.90 26.77

Social support from colleagues 57.3 19.7 54.17/53.03* 21.26/21.31*

Social community at work 78.7 18.9 81.24 17.21 Work -‐ Individual Interface

Job satisfaction 65.3 18.2 68.72 18.80

Work–family conflict 33.5 24.3 72.43 24.02

Family–work conflict 7.6 15.3 9.97 19.43 Values at the Workplace

Trust regarding management 67 17.7 82.61 13.75

Mutual trust between employees 68.6 16.9 74.80 19.10

Justice 59.2 17.7 76.09 15.57

Social inclusiveness 67.5 16.3 76.20 22.18

Health & Wellbeing Self-‐rated health 66 20.9 61.96 21.76

Burnout 34.1 18.2 60.15 21.68

Stress 26.7 17.7 51.17 19.81

Sleeping troubles 21.3 19 46.92 26.81

Depressive symptoms 21 16.5 33.35 20.94

Somatic stress symptoms 17.8 16 24.91 17.82

Cognitive stress symptoms 17.8 15.7 33.29 20.47

Self-‐efficacy 67.5 16 65.39 15.39

* Inside the school / Outside the school. This difference was not reported in the Australian sample. # Not reported.

120


Figure 29: COPSOQ-II subscale Demands at Work comparing Irish principals and deputy principals with the General Population

Figure 30: COPSOQ-II subscale Demands at Work comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Primary P&D)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Quantitative demands

Work pace Cognitive demands

Emotional demands

Demands for hiding emotions

Demands At Work

Ireland

Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90



Emotional demands


Demands at work (Primary)

Principals

Population

121


Figure 31: COPSOQ-II subscale Demands at Work comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Second Level P&D)

Figure 32: COPSOQ-II subscale Work Organisation and Job Contents comparing Irish principals and deputy principals with the General Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90



Emotional demands


Demands at Work (Second Level)

Principals

Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

InJluence Possibilities for development

Variation Meaning of work

Commitment to the workplace

Work Organisation and Job Contents

Ireland

Population

122


Figure 33: COPSOQ-II subscale Work Organisation and Job Contents comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Primary P&D)

Figure 34: COPSOQ-II subscale Work Organisation and Job Contents comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Second Level P&D)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90




Work Organisation & Job Contents (Primary)

Principals

Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90




Work Organisation & Job Contents (Second Level)

Principals

Population

123


Figure 35: COPSOQ-II subscale Interpersonal Relations & Leadership comparing Irish principals and deputy principals with the General Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Ireland

Population

124


Figure 36: COPSOQ-II subscale Interpersonal Relations & Leadership comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Primary P&D)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 Interpersonal Relations & Leadership (Primary)

Principals

Population

125


Figure 37: COPSOQ-II subscale Interpersonal Relations & Leadership comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Second Level P&D)

Figure 38: COPSOQ-II subscale Work-Individual Interface comparing Irish principals and deputy principals with the General Population There is no significant difference between primary and second level on this domain.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 Interpersonal Relations & Leadership (Second Level)

Principals

Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Job satisfaction Work–family conJlict Family–work conJlict

Work -‐ Invididual Interface

Ireland

Population

126


Figure 39: COPSOQ-II subscale Values in the Workplace comparing Irish principals and deputy principals with the General Population

Figure 40: COPSOQ-II subscale Values in the Workplace comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Primary P&D)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Trust regarding management

Mutual trust between employees

Justice Social inclusiveness


Ireland

Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90




Values at the Workplace (Primary)

Ireland

Population

127


Figure 41: COPSOQ-II subscale Values in the Workplace comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Second Level P&D)

Figure 42: COPSOQ-II subscale Health & Wellbeing comparing Irish principals and deputy principals with the General Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90




Values at the Workplace (Second Level)

Principals

Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Health & Wellbeing

Ireland

Population

128


Figure 43: COPSOQ-II subscale Health & Wellbeing comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Primary P&D)

Figure 44: COPSOQ-II subscale Health & Wellbeing comparing Irish principals with the General Population Table 203. Prevalence rates for Offensive Behaviour subscales of the COPSOQ-II (Irish school principals and deputy principals compared to the general population)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Health & Wellbeing (Primary)

Ireland

Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Health & Wellbeing (Second Level)

Ireland

Population

129


Prevalence (%

)

Sexual Harassm

ent

Threats o

f Violence

Actual Physic

al Violence

Bullying by a Colleague

or S

uperior

Unp

leasan

t Teasin

g

Conflicts and

Qua

rrels

Gossip

and

Sland

er

Irish Principals and deputy principals 0.9 13.20 7.80 14.40 5.50 54.20 24.90 Population 2.90 7.80 3.90 8.30 8.30 51.20 38.90

Figure 45: Health & Wellbeing COPSOQ-II subscale Offensive Behaviour comparing Irish principals and deputy principals with the General Population

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Offensive Behaviour

Ireland

Population

130


Figure 46: Health & Wellbeing COPSOQ-II subscale Offensive Behaviour comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Primary P&D)

Figure 47: Health & Wellbeing COPSOQ-II subscale Offensive Behaviour comparing Irish principals with the General Population (Second Level P&D)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% Offensive Behaviour (Primary)

Principals

Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Offensive Behaviour (Second Level)

Principals

Population

131


Table 204. Principals and deputy principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour during the last 12 months. Offensive Behaviour Frequency Percent Threats of violence Not experienced 64.5

A few times 12.2

Monthly 0.3

Weekly 0.3

Daily 0.4

Physical violence Not experienced 69.9

A few times 7.1

Monthly 0.1

Weekly 0.5

Daily 0.1

Bullying Not experienced 53.7

A few times 19.5

Monthly 1.8

Weekly 1.5

Daily 1.1

Missing 22.3 Table 205. Principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour during the last 12 months (Primary P&D) Offensive Behaviour Frequency Percent Threats of violence Not experienced 73.7

A few times 11.7

Monthly 0.3

Weekly 0.2

Daily 0.3


A few times 6.1

Monthly 0.3

Weekly 0.2

Daily 0


A few times 20.7

Monthly 2.1

Weekly 2.1

Daily 1.4

Missing 13.8

132


Table 206. Principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour during the last 12 months (Second Level P&D) Offensive Behaviour Frequency Percent Threats of violence Not experienced 69.9

A few times 17.6

Monthly 0

Weekly 0

Daily 0


A few times 8.3

Monthly 0

Weekly 0

Daily 0


A few times 25.5

Monthly 2.1

Weekly 1.1

Daily 1.1

Conflicts & Not experienced 20.8 Quarrels A few times 57.9 Monthly 4.6 Weekly 1.4 Daily 2.8 Missing 12.5

133


Figure 48: Percentage of Principals and deputy principals experiences of Offensive Behaviours disaggregated by perpetrator group Table 207. Principals and deputy principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour disaggregated by Gender

Offensive Behaviour

Principals and deputy

principals Gender

Primary Principals and

deputy principals Gender

Second Level Principals and

deputy principals Gender

Female Male Female Male Female Male Bullying 30.1 18.2 31.1 16.0 37.4 22.0 Threats of Violence 15.7 12.2 14.0 8.3 16.4 19.0 Physical Violence 10.1 5.4 7.6 3.6 8.6 8.0

Table 208. Principals and deputy principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour disaggregated by School Type Offensive Behaviour

School Type Primary Second Level Other

Bullying 26.3 29.2 22.6 Threats of Violence 12.5 17.6 42 Physical Violence 6.6 8.3 54.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Percentage

Perpetrator

Principal's Experience of Offensive Behaviour

Threats of violence

Physical violence

Bullying

134


Figure 49: Principals and deputy principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour disaggregated by School Type. Percentages represent the fraction of each school type in the sample.

Figure 50: Principals and deputy principals' experience of Offensive Behaviour disaggregated by Role. Percentages represent the fraction of each school type in the sample.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Primary Second Level Other

Percentage

School Type

Principals' Experince of Offensive Behaviour by School Type

Bullying

Threats of Violence

Physical Violence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Threats of Violence

Physical violence

Bullying Unpleasant teasing

ConJlicts & quarrels

Gossip & slander

Offensive Behaviour Experienced by Role

Principals Admin

Principals Teaching

Deputies Admin

Deputies Teaching

135


AQoL-‐8D For more information on the construction of the instrument and population norms (currently under construction) please visit http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/aqolquestionnaires?id=58 Table 209. Assessment of Quality of Life - 8D (AQoL 8-D) subscale scores2

AQoL-‐8D Norms Irish Principals and deputy

principals

Min Max Mean SD

Min Max Mean SD

AQoL8D score 26.24 100 81.66 9.66

37.59 98.58 76.65 10.13

Subscale

Independent Living 33.33 100 93.3 10.56

38.89 100 92.11 9.39

Happiness 6.25 100 72.91 14.19

18.75 100 67.38 14.59

Mental Health 12.12 100 76.08 12.43

15.15 100 68.69 13.21

Coping 16.67 100 74.92 14.38

16.67 100 64.85 14.75

Relationships 18.52 100 84.85 11.69

25.93 100 80.44 13.32

Self Worth 0 100 81.71 15.21

0 100 75.76 14.84

Pain 10 100 84.5 18.43

10 100 85.2 18.1

Senses 46.15 100 87.79 10.1

46.15 100 84.11 9.84

Super Dimensions

Psycho-‐Social 36.59 100 89.41 9.92

46.34 100 87.89 8.49

Physical 19 100 78.48 11.21 24 98 72.04 12.08

2 Richardson, J, Iezzi, A, Khan, MA, Chen G. Population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi attribute instruments. Research Paper 72, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne.

136


Figure 51: Comparison scores on AQoL-8D for Irish Principals and deputy principals versus general population. As can be seen from Table 91 and Figure 22, Irish principals and deputy principals on the whole report lower levels of life quality than the general population.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 AQoL8D score

Independent Living

Happiness

Mental Health

Coping

Relationships

Self Worth

Pain

Senses

Psycho-‐Social

Physical

Subscale Super Dimensions

Population

Irish Principals

137


Cluster Analysis To address the research questions a cluster analysis was conducted. Cluster analysis or clustering is a statistical technique for grouping sets of principals and deputy principals based on scores from pre-determined factors. The grouping is a technique for sorting individuals based on their scores from multiple dimensions in such a way that members of each group (called a cluster) are more similar to each other than to those in other groups (clusters). It is an exploratory data mining technique. The rest of the report is taken up with three repeated cluster analyses. The first used all principals combined in the clustering. The second and third cluster analyses were conducted by splitting the data into primary and secondary principals and deputies before performing the cluster analysis. Once the clusters were determined data from the surveys were reanalysed for cluster differences, which are reported in full for each separate cluster analysis.

Combined Primary and Second Level Cluster Analysis Three clusters of principals and deputy principals were statistically and theoretically supported based on the participants’ scores for: AQoL-8D subscales (Happiness, Mental Health, Coping, Relationships and Self Worth); COPSOQ-II subscales (Interpersonal Relations and Leadership; Social Support from Colleagues inside and outside the school; Job Insecurity; Job Satisfaction; Work-Family Conflict; Family-Work Conflict; General Health; Burnout; Stress; Sleeping Problems; Depressive Symptoms; Somatic Stress Symptoms;) and the Emotional Labour Scale – Revised (Surface Acting-Hiding; Surface Acting-Faking; Deep Acting). There were significant main effects of cluster on each variable included in the clustering algorithm. Cluster 3 contained 213 principals and deputy principals (145 Primary; 57 Second Level; 11 Other) who gave the highest ratings for all positive factors and the lowest scores for all the negative factors (see Tables 88-9 and Figures). They appear to be reasonably well suited to their working conditions, finding the role less demanding than the other cluster members. Cluster 3 have the highest levels of confidence in their own ability and the greatest levels of autonomy to carry out their tasks. They manage their time well and enjoyed strong, supportive relationships at home and from colleagues in the workplace. Cluster 2 contained 270 principals and deputy principals (205 Primary; 54 Second Level; 11 Other) whose responses were opposite to Cluster 3, due to high scores on Work-Family Conflict, Stress, Burnout, Somatic and Depressive symptoms, Emotional Demands and Hiding Emotions, and low scores on Mental Health, Support from Colleagues, Job Rewards, and Commitment to the Workplace. They did not appear well suited to, or well supported in their work environments. Cluster 1 contained 272 principals and deputy principals (187 Primary; 78 Second Level; 7 Other) who were positioned closer to the Cluster 1 than 3 on most factors. This group reported significantly lower Social Support from Colleagues both inside and outside the school than Cluster 3 principals and deputy principals. Cluster 1 also reported high levels of Emotional Demands and having to Hide Emotions at work, less support from colleagues, and high levels of Family-Work Conflict. An interesting finding is that Cluster 3 had the greatest level of professional collegial support, suggesting that professional collegial support may be a very important element in a principals and deputy principal’s occupational health and safety. Cluster 2, who reported the least amount of professional support sought more support from allied health professionals than the other two cluster groups (see Figure 50). This aspect of the research will be closely monitored for longitudinal trends as principals and deputy principals complete the annual updates of their occupational health, safety and wellbeing.

138


Table 210. Cluster centres - Mean scores for each cluster on the dimensions examined

Dimension Cluster 1 2 3

Happiness 3.76 3.29 4.13 Mental Health 3.97 3.36 4.26 Coping 3.69 3.16 4.02 Relationships 4.16 3.77 4.45 Self Worth 4.12 3.63 4.41 Social support from colleagues inside school 47.92 50.31 67.1 Social support from colleagues outside school 50.21 51.54 58.37 Social support from supervisor 39.43 51.48 71.95 Job insecurity 67.67 58.32 83.27 Work-‐family conflict 79.73 79.35 90.49 Family-‐work conflict 7.72 14.5 7.2 Justice 69.09 77.69 83.63 General health rating 57.33 77.8 41.46 Burnout 48.14 68.68 32.98 Stress 38.4 69.03 29.93 Sleeping troubles 28.56 52.18 15.76 Depressive symptoms 19.94 39.24 12.97 Somatic stress symptoms 28.17 50.19 18.37 ELS Faking 2.79 3.09 2.39 ELS Hiding 3.31 3.48 2.9 ELS Deep acting 2.72 2.91 2.52

Figure 52: Cluster Group Membership disaggregated by School Type

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3

Frequency

Cluster Group

Cluster Group Membership

Primary

Second Level (all)

Other

139


Table 211. Cluster Membership disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type Principals and deputy principals Type

Cluster 1 2 3

Administrative 138 116 125 Teaching 72 126 50 Administrative Deputy 19 6 10 Teaching Deputy 43 22 28 Total 272 270 213

Table 89 and Figure 20 show that Cluster 3 is made up of 125 (58.69%) Administrative Principals and deputy principals and 10 (4.69%) Administrative Deputy Principals and deputy principals pretty equally distributed between primary and second level schools. The Administrative Principals and deputy principals and Deputy Principals and deputy principals comprise 46% of Cluster 3 membership but only 12.98% of the sample. Clearly this group is experiencing the role differently from the other two clusters. Cluster 3 has a much higher proportion of males (n = 81; 61.36%) while only (n = 239) 31.65% of the entire sample is male. Just as Cluster 3 is mainly made up of Administrative Principals and deputy principals and Deputies, Cluster 2 has a high proportion of Teaching Principals and deputy principals and Deputies. Teaching Principals and deputy principals and Deputies have higher numbers of women (67.9%) than the sample (62.3%). Figure 22 shows the differences in psychosocial subscale scores on the AQoL-8D disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type. This clearly shows the teaching principals and deputy principals reporting significantly lower scores on Mental Health, Coping, Relationships, and Self Worth. There is a need to address the role of the Teaching Principals and deputy principals and Deputy Principals and deputy principals as it seems likely that this role is predictive of many types of job strain, and may have become unsustainable with the changes to the role that have arisen during the last decade or so. There would appear to be systematic disadvantage for women as they are more likely to be appointed to Teaching Principals and deputy principals and Deputy Principals and deputy principals positions while males are more likely to be appointed to Administrative Principals and deputy principals positions. These findings need further investigation to determine whether systematic disadvantage for women principals and deputy principals and deputy principals and deputy principals exists within the Irish education system.

140


Figure 53: Cluster Group Membership disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type.

Figure 54: Cluster Group Membership disaggregated by Gender

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Administrative Teaching Administrative Deputy

Teaching Deputy

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3

Cluster

Female

Male

141


Figure 55: AQoL8D Subscale scores by cluster membership

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AQoL8D total score

Independent Living

Happiness

Mental Health

Coping

Relationships

Self Worth

Pain

Senses

Physical

Psycho-‐Social

Subscale Super Dimensions

AQoL-‐8D

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

142


Figure 56: Sources of Stress during the last 3 months disaggregated by Cluster Group

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Sources of Stress during the last 3 months

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

143


Figure 57: Level of Confidence in Ability disaggregated by Cluster Group

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Level of Con7idence in Ability

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

144


Figure 58: Sources of Support disaggregated by Cluster Group

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Sources of Support Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

145


COPSOQ-‐II Subscales by Cluster Group

Figure 59: Demands at Work disaggregated by cluster group

Figure 60: Work Organisation & Job Contents disaggregated by Cluster Group

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Emotional demands

Hiding emotions

Demands at Work

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

InCluence Possibilities for development




Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

146


Figure 61: Interpersonal Relations & Leadership disaggregated by Cluster Group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

147


Figure 62: Principals and deputy principals Mean Scores on Work-Individual Interface disaggregated by Cluster Group

Figure 63: Principals and deputy principals Mean Scores on Values at the Workplace disaggregated by Cluster Group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Job satisfaction Work-‐family conClict Family-‐work conClict

Work -‐ Individual Interface

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Trust in management


Justice Social responsibilty


Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

148


Figure 64: Health & Wellbeing disaggregated by Cluster Group

Figure 65: AUDIT high risk group disaggregated by Cluster Group membership

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Health & Wellbeing

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3

Cluster

Frequency

AUDIT High Risk Group

149


Figure 66: The Emotional Labour Scale – Revised responses disaggregated by Cluster Group

Principals and deputy principals Type Analysis

Figure 67: AQoL-8D Psychosocial subscale scores disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type.

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

ELS Faking ELS Hiding ELS Deep acting

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AQoL-‐8D Score

AQoL-‐8D Psychosocial Subcale Scores


Administrative Deputy

Teaching Principal

Teaching Deputy

150


Table 212. AQoL-8D Subscale scores by Principals and deputy principals Type

Administrative Principals and deputy

principal Teaching Principals and deputy

principal Administrative Deputy Principals and

deputy principal Teaching Deputy Principals and

deputy principal

N Min Max Mean SD

N Min Max Mean SD

N Min Max Mean SD

N Min Max Mean SD

Independent Living 380 44.68 98.58 77.52 9.60

248 37.59 97.16 73.84 11.23

35 64.54 91.49 80.75 7.45

93 54.61 97.16 79.06 8.12

Happiness 380 38.89 100 92.34 9.67

248 55.56 100 91.26 9.41

35 66.67 100 93.49 8.03

93 61.11 100 92.95 8.52 Mental Health 380 18.75 100 68.78 14.29

248 18.75 100 63.61 15.65

35 43.75 93.75 70.54 12.64

93 31.25 93.75 70.50 11.30

Coping 380 27.27 100 69.80 12.45

248 15.15 93.94 64.88 14.44

35 54.55 87.88 75.67 8.65

93 42.42 100 71.72 11.58 Relationships 380 25.00 100 66.07 14.61

248 16.67 91.67 61.09 15.76

35 41.67 91.67 69.29 11.03

93 33.33 100 68.19 11.46

Self Worth 380 25.93 100 81.50 12.65

248 25.93 100 77.40 15.01

35 59.26 100 83.60 10.49

93 48.15 100 83.03 10.58 Pain 380 16.67 100 77.30 14.08

248 0 100 71.94 16.58

35 58.33 100 81.43 10.52

93 41.67 100 77.51 12.15

Senses 380 10.00 100 84.82 18.27

248 20.00 100 84.23 18.53

35 40.00 100 91.14 15.30

93 30 100 87.10 16.85 Super Dimensions Physical 380 61.54 100 84.23 9.32

248 46.15 100 83.13 10.30

35 61.54 100 84.62 10.05

93 61.54 100 86.02 10.45

PsychoSocial 380 46.34 100 87.93 8.51

248 51.22 100 86.97 8.54

35 68.29 100 90.10 8.00

93 58.54 100 89.33 8.23 Total score 380 33.00 98 73.25 11.40 248 24.00 96.00 68.45 13.52 35 59.00 88.00 76.91 8.22 93 46 97 74.85 9.39

151


Figure 68: Sources of Stress during the last 3 months disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Sources of Stress

Principal Admin

Principal Teaching

Deputy Admin

Deputy Teacning

152


Figure 69: Sources of Support disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Sources of Support Principal Admin

Principal Teaching

Deputy Admin

Deputy Teaching

153


Figure 70: Level of perceived Automomy in carrying out various roles disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Autonomy

Principal Admin

Principal Teaching

Deputy Admin

Deputy Teaching

154


Figure 71: Level of perceived Confidence in carrying out various tasks disaggregated by Principals and deputy principals Type

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Con*idence

Principal Admin

Principal Teaching

Deputy Admin

Deputy Teaching

155


Primary Versus Second Level School Differences Table 95 displays differences in Student Migration, for reasons other than graduation, Resourcing inadequacies along with positive and negative conditions in primary and second level schools. Where the differences are statistically significant, the factor name has an asterisk and the sector with the highest score appears in bold. High scores for negative factors represent poorer conditions. High scores for positive factors represent better conditions. As can be seen in the table Second Level schools are just ahead in negative conditions (9 versus 7) and trail Primary in 8 of 9 positive conditions. Table 213: Primary vs Second Level differences in demographics and resourcing Factor Primary Second Level (all)

N Mean SD

N Mean SD

Student Migration (other than graduation) Low academic achievement* 609 1.01 0.13

207 1.22 0.66

High academic achievement 609 1.04 0.32

207 1.11 0.51 Behavioural problems* 610 1.03 0.23

207 1.42 0.84

Special learning needs 609 1.07 0.36

207 1.07 0.39 Family relocation* 610 2.16 1.39

207 1.43 0.87

Other 608 1.18 0.65

207 1.31 0.83

Resourcing Inadequacy Instructional materials 596 2.34 1.73 202 2.14 1.66 Budget for supplies* 600 3.41 2.14

204 3 2.01

Buildings and grounds 603 4.08 2.30

205 4.17 2.30 Heating, cooling, lighting, security systems* 601 3.37 2.14

205 3.14 2.01

Instructional space 600 3.33 2.30

206 3.79 2.20 Special equipment for inclusion of students with disabilities 576 3.7 2.11

203 3.58 2.07

ICT support* 603 4.72 2.05

205 4.19 2.07 Qualified teachers 590 1.44 1.25

201 1.83 1.42

Library staff* 263 4.97 2.51

166 5.11 2.50 Special needs assistants 558 3.93 2.14

199 3.07 1.90

Technicians* 363 5.48 2.05

174 5.72 1.99 Administration staff* 590 3.96 2.19

204 3.91 2.21

Caretaker/Cleaning staff* 603 3.55 2.12

202 3.53 2.11

Negative Conditions Teacher's low expectations of students* 597 1.88 1.24

205 2.86 1.64

Student absenteeism* 600 2.53 1.29

205 3.52 1.51 Poor student-‐teacher relations* 596 1.57 0.77

204 2.13 1.04

Disruption of classes by students 602 2.38 1.26

205 2.72 1.35 Teachers not meeting individual student needs* 602 2.23 1.20

204 3.14 1.33

Teacher absenteeism* 600 1.66 0.97

205 2.48 1.23 Students actively disrespecting staff* 601 1.72 0.97

205 2.43 1.42

Staff resistance to change* 603 2.67 1.58

205 3.83 1.66 Student use of alcohol or illegal drugs* 578 1.05 0.32

204 2.49 1.34

Students intimidating or bullying other students* 602 2.25 0.92

205 2.83 1.20

Positive Conditions Teacher's job satisfaction* 594 5.23 1.21

204 4.94 1.14

Teacher's understanding of school curricular goals* 596 5.59 1.14

204 5.1 1.21 Teacher's degree of success implementing curriculum* 596 5.62 1.02

204 5.47 1.02

Teacher's expectations for student achievement* 595 5.73 1.09

204 5.38 1.24 Parental support for student achievement* 595 5.28 1.34

203 5.02 1.56

Parental involvement* 594 4.74 1.42

202 4 1.53 Student's regard for school property* 595 5.69 1.22

203 4.97 1.39

Student's desire to do well* 595 5.72 1.05

204 5.38 1.20 Parental expectations towards your school* 596 1.59 0.65 205 1.97 0.66

156


Figure 72: Reasons why students leave the school, other than graduating disaggregated by School Type (5-point scale)

Figure 73: Resourcing Shortages disaggregated by School Type (7-point scale)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Student Migration

Primary

2nd Level

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 Resourcing Shortages

Primary

2nd Level

157


Figure 74: Existing negative conditions in schools disaggregated by School Type (7-point scale)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

School Conditions (negative)

Primary

2nd Level

158


Figure 75: Existing positive conditions in schools disaggregated by School Type (7-point scale)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 School Conditions (positive)

Primary

2nd Level

159


Primary Versus Second Level Individual Differences

Figure 76: Time fraction spent in leadership disaggregated by School Level

Figure 77: AQoL-8D and PWI scores disaggregated by School Type The following charts (48a-f) show the COPSOQ-II sub-scales disaggregated by School Type

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Full time


Time Fraction

Time Fraction in Leadership

Primary Second Level (all) Other

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 AQoL-‐8D & PWI Scores

Primary

Second Level (all)

Other

160


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90



Emotional demands

Hiding emotions

Demands at Work

Primary

Second Level (all)

Other

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

InPluence Possibilities for development




Primary

Second Level (all)

Other

161


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Job satisfaction Work-‐family conPlict Family-‐work conPlict

Work Indivdidual Interface

Primary

Second Level (all)

Other

162


Figure 78a-f: COPSOQ-II subscales disaggregated by School Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Trust in management Mutual trust between employees

Justice Social responsibilty


Primary

Second Level (all)

Other

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Health & Wellbeing

Primary

Second Level (all)

Other

163


Figure 79: Emotional Labour Scale - Revised scores disaggregated by School Type

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50


Emotional Labour

ELS Faking

ELS Hiding

ELS Deep acting

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Level of Autonomy

Primary

Second Level (all)

Other

164


Figure 80a-b: Principals and deputy principals’ levels of Autonomy and Confidence in carrying out the role disaggregated by School Type (10-point scale)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Level of Con*idence

Primary

Second Level (all)

Other

165


References Antonio, D. M. S., & Salzfass, E. A. (2007). How we treat one another in school. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 32-38. Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying

at school. Journal of School Health, 73(5), 173-180. de Wet, C. (2010). The reasons for and the impact of principals and deputy principal-on-teacher bullying on the victims' private

and professional lives. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.05.005]. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1450-1459. Department of Education & Training. (2004). The privilege and the price: A study of principals and deputy principals class

workload and its impact on health and wellbeing. Melbourne: Department of Education and Training. Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Brown, V. E., Jones, A., Lane, K. L., McMahon, S. D., et al. (2013). Understanding and

preventing violence directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national research, practice, and policy agenda. American Psychologist, advance on-line publication.

Hargreaves, A. (2013). The day of judgement. In M. Newberry, A. Gallant & P. Riley (Eds.), Emotion in schools: Understanding how the hidden curriculum influences teaching, learning and social relationships (Vol. 18, pp. xv-xx). Bingley: Emerald Group.

Hassed, C., de Lisle, S., Sullivan, G., & Pier, C. (2009). Enhancing the health of medical students: Outcomes of an integrated mindfulness and lifestyle program. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(3), 387-398.

Hawthorne, G., Korn, S., & Richardson, J. (2012). Population norms for the AQoL derived from the 2007 Australian national survey of mental health and wellbeing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(1), 7-16. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12004

Head, J., Kivimaki, M., Siegrist, J., Ferrie, J. E., Vahtera, J., Shipley, M. J., et al. (2007). Effort-reward imbalance and relational injustice at work predict sickness absence: The Whitehall II study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 63(4), 433-440.

Jan Hyld Pejtersen, Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(Suppl 3), 8-24.

Kuper, H., & Marmot, M. (2003). Job strain, job demands, decision latitude, and risk of coronary heart disease within the Whitehall II study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57(2), 147-153.

LaMontagne, A. D., Keegel, T., Louie, A. M., Ostry, A., & Lansbergis, P. A. (2007). A systematic review of the job-stress intervention evaluation literature, 1990–2005. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 13, 268–280.

Langan-Fox, J., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of stress in the occupations. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lee, R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2011). Words from the heart speak to the heart: A study of deep acting, faking, and hiding among child care workers. Career Development International, 16(4), 401-420. doi: 10.1108/13620431111158805

Leithwood, K. (2006). Teacher working conditions that matter: Evidence for change. Toronto: Elementaty Teachers Federation of Ontario.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855.

Mahendrarajah, S., Warr, P. G., & Australian National University. National Centre for Development Studies. (1989). Efficient water allocation and technological change : village dams in Sri Lanka. Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Pacific Studies, Dept. of Economics and National Centre for Development Studies.

Marmot, M. G. (2006). Status syndrome: A challenge to medicine. [Editorial]. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(11), 1304-1307.

Matthews, P., Moorman, H., & Nusche, D. (2007). School leadership development strategies: Building leadership capacity in Victoria, Australia: OECD.

Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(Suppl 3), 8-24.

Phillips, S., & Sen, D. (2011). Stress in head teachers. In J. Langan-Fox & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of stress in the occupations (pp. 177-201). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Richardson, J., Khan, M., Iezzi, A., Sinha, K., Mihalopoulos, C., Herrman, H., et al. (2009). The AQoL-8D (PsyQoL) MAU Instrument: Overview September 2009. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

Richardson, J., Iezzi., K. M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 7(1), 85-96.

Riley, P., & Langan-Fox, J. (2013). Bullying, stress and health in school principals and deputy principals and medical professionals: Experiences at the ‘front-line’. In R. Burke, C. L. Cooper & S. Fox (Eds.), Human frailties: Wrong turns on the road to success. London: Gower.

Thomson, S., Bortoli, L. D., Nicholas, M., Hillman, K., & Buckley, S. (2011). Challenges for Australian Education: Results from PISA 2009. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2001). An innovative psychodynamically influenced approach to reduce school violence. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(3), 377-379.

Williams, T., Ferraro, D., Roey, S., Brenwald, S., Kastberg, D., Jocelyn, L., et al. (2007). TIMSS 2007 U.S. technical report and user guide. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2013). A reflection on the place of emotion in teaching and teacher education. In M. Newberry, A. Gallant & P. Riley (Eds.), Emotion in schools: Understanding how the hidden curriculum influences teaching, learning and social relationships (Vol. 18, pp. 255-270). Bingley: Emerald Group.

principalhealth.org...3 irish principal and deputy principal health & wellbeing survey, 2014...

Documents