Psychulony in Ihe Schools Yollrme 31. July /994

EMPLOYMENT-RELATED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

EDWARD M. LEVINSON, MARY A N N RAFOTH, AND PEG SANDERS

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

A total of 636 full-time school psychologist practitioners in Pennsylvania were surveyed and asked to complete a demographic data form and to estimate the actual percentage of time they spent in assessment, counseling, consultation, research, clerical tasks, and administrative tasks, and the amount of time they desired to spend in each of these roles. No statistically significant differences were found between male and female school psychologists in actual time spent in various roles or the time desired to be spent in various roles. Male school psychologists were found to work longer contract lengths and to make more money than their female counterparts. When monthly salaries were compared (adjusted for differences in contract length), statistically significant salary differences between male and female school psychologists were found.

Historically, men and women have been treated differently in employment, and gender differences still persist throughout the labor market. Women continue to earn less than similarly qualified men. Females tend to be employed in positions that receive less on-the-job training and use less capital. A lower market value for prior labor experiences also haunts women in the work force (Barron, Black, & Loewenstein, 1992). Barron et al. (1992) argued that the latter two factors can be used to explain the wage gap between the genders. Employers view women as more likely to leave their job; they therefore spend less time training them, which in turn leads to fewer opportunities among females. Males, who are percieved as less likely to leave their job, receive more training and, consequently, greater opportunity for promotion and higher wages.

Women are also less likely to receive positive evaluations for their leadership per- formance. They may not even be noticed as assuming leadership functions. Often, women are seen to be less dominant and oriented more toward the sociaVemotiona1 well-being of the group than to accomplishment of tasks (Conoley & Welch, 1988). Thus, Conoley and Welch (1988) argued, women are often seen negatively when vying for leadership roles. This negative bias toward women in leadership roles lessens a woman's chances of being hired or promoted into leadership positions.

Gender differences are clearly evident in the field of education. Although male/female ratios become more even at the junior high and senior high school levels, 83% of all elementary teachers are still female. At the secondary level, two thirds of all math, science, and vocational education teachers are male, whereas two thirds of all English, foreign language, and business education teachers are female (Schmuck, 1987).

Women are also grossly underrepresented in administrative positions in education. In 1982, almost all (96%) superintendents and assistant superintendents were men. Eighty- four percent of principals were men. Even at the elementary level, where women prin- cipals are somewhat more prevalent, they accounted for only 18% of principals (Schmuck, 1987). These patterns present clear evidence to children that schools are generally run by men. Schmuck (1987) argued that men are viewed as leaders and women as helpmates.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Edward M. Levinson, Department of Educational and School Psychology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, P A 15705-1087.

20 1

202 Levinson, Rafoth, and Sanders

Similar patterns can be found at the college and university level. McElrath (1992) found that women who interrupt their careers or change academic jobs have less chance of obtaining tenure, or have to work longer to obtain tenure. On the other hand, disruptions or job changes by men did not affect their chances for tenure or length of time for tenure. McElrath (1992) also found that some women reported changing jobs in order to further a husband’s career. Although both males and females in academia were rewarded through their wages for their length of service, book publications, and academic rank, men were rewarded for education while females were not. Females also received less pay than males for lecturing as associate professors and as full professors (McElrath, 1992).

Patterns like these should concern school psychologists, since psychologists need to have a heightened sensitivity to the impact of such stereotypic messages on children’s self-concept and development. Yet, these same patterns of gender segregation may be evident in psychology and school psychology (Russo, Olmedo, Stapp, & Fulcher, 1981). Although the majority of graduate students in psychology are female, the majority of trainers are male (Conoley & Welch, 1988). Although 65% of the students completing doctoral programs in school psychology are women, they are less likely than their male counterparts to pursue academic careers (Wilson & Reschly, 1991). Even though many more women are now obtaining doctorates in school psychology, the proportion of female faculty has not increased (Alpert, Genshaft, & Deverenco, 1988). Many authors have noted the tendency for women in academia to be limited in job searches by familial and geographic restrictions. Leviton and Whitely (1981) even suggested that women refrain from applications and interviews that might cause conflict with a spouse or family responsibilities.

Wilson and Reschly (1991) surveyed school psychology faculty and found signi- ficant differences in salaries between female and male academicians. However, these differences (female faculty report lower incomes) were largely determined by years of university experience, with women having less tenure at the university level. Women spent more years as practitioners prior to joining a university faculty. Wilson and Reschly (1991) found no gender differences in teaching or advising roles. Regardless, although women predominate in the field of school psychology (it has been called “pink collar” psychology by Alpert and Conoley, 1988), they make up a small proportion of trainers, and are less likely to be tenured, to enhance their salary with consulting, or to hold advanced academic ranks (Wilson & Reschly, 1991).

Gender differences are apparent at the practitioner level as well. In nondoctoral practitioners, females outnumber males. This situation is reversed for doctoral-level prac- titioners (Conoley & Welch, 1987). In 1979, Gottfredson and Swatko found that female school psychologists were more likely to be unemployed than their male counterparts. A number of the women were looking for flexible hours and others were unwilling to relocate, which made employment more difficult for these women (Gottfredson & Swatko, 1979).

Differences also exist in the way in which male and female school psychology trainees interact in the schools. Females tend to work mainly with same-sex consultees and focus on individual problem solving. They tend to use client-centered consultation with a non- directive style. Time spent on a case is relatively short. Males, in contrast, tend to be more involved with the administrative staff, and are more active and directive during consultation, using risk-taking or systemic models. Males spend longer time with a case and do more extra classroom and parent liaison activities (Conoley & Welch, 1988).

Gender Di@erences in Employment 203

The authors suggested that male trainees exhibit more behaviors associated with traditional leadership behaviors, which may lead to better evaluations for future leader- ship potential.

Relatedly, Ross (1992) found “significant gender differences” in school psychologists who supervise other practitioners. This was due, in part, to requirements for doctoral degrees in supervision - something women were less likely to possess. However, when years of experience and training were not a factor, more women indicated that they would choose not to supervise others. Such supervisory positions may require extended contracts, longer or less flexible working days, and less contact with children. Women may be drawn away from such roles because of family obligations or may want to con- tinue in roles that maximize direct “helping” behaviors to the clients they serve. In- terestingly, in the Ross study, fewer women also indicated they would opt to be supervised if the choice were available. Of course, given current data, their supervisor would likely be male. Thus, it seems that women may not seek out leadership roles in the field and may appear to devalue supervisory relationships.

Although it is clear that differences exist in how males and females function and in how they are treated in educational settings, only a limited amount of research has addressed differences in role functioning between male and female school psychologist practitioners. The purpose of this study was to identify how male and female school psychologists differ on employment-related characteristics. Specifically, the study sought to determine whether male and female school psychologists differed in the amount of time they desired to spend and actually spent in various roles, and whether they differed in contract length, salary, number of schools served, degree status, psychologist-to- student ratio, and experience.

METHOD Subjects

Subjects were those full-time public school psychologists employed in the Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania who designated their primary role to be that of practitioner. A total of 38% of the 362 subjects were female, 62% were male, 97% were White, and 65% were between 26 and 43 years of age. A total of 54% of the subjects indicated that they were employed by school districts, and 46% indicated that they were employed by intermediate units.

Instrumentation Data collection was completed through use of a demographic data form. Data

analyzed in the current study were generated as part of a more extensive job satisfaction study conducted by the first author in 1986. Information that participants were asked to provide included their primary role designation, age, sex, race, current degree status, number of schools served, number of co-workers, psychologist-to-student ratio, annual salary, contract length, and number of years of experience as a school psychologist. A new variable, monthly salary, was computed by dividing annual salary by contract length. Inquiry was also made as to the percentage of actual and desired time spent in various role functions. Role function areas surveyed included assessment, consultation, counseling, research, clerical activities, and administrative activities.

204 Levinson, Rafoth, and Sanders

Procedure The names and addresses of 636 Pennsylvania school psychologists were obtained

from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. This represented the entire population of school psychologists known to be employed in the state at the time the study was conducted. Each psychologist was mailed a survey packet consisting of (a) a cover letter describing the study and its purpose, (b) the data form, (c) a stamped return envelope, and (d) a packet of coffee (used as an incentive to encourage response). The initial survey distribution was followed 1 week later by the mailing of a postcard reminder to all par- ticipants. A subsequent follow-up mailing to nonrespondents was completed 5 weeks after the initial distribution. Of the 636 packets mailed out, 426 were returned, yielding a response rate of 67%. Of the 426 returns, 362 were identified as full-time practitioners in the Pennsylvania schools and were included in all analyses.

RESULTS To determine how male and female school psychologists might differ on

employment-related characteristics, a series of t tests were performed. Specifically, male and female school psychologists were compared on the following: age, employer (district or intermediate unit), number of schools served, psychologist-to-student ratio, monthly salary, contract length, and experience (all were either interval or dichotomous nominal variables and were treated as interval for analysis purposes). In order to adjust for the increased error rate associated with performing multiple comparisons, an alpha level of .007 was used to establish statistical significance in each individual analysis completed. This new significance level was established by dividing the original alpha level (.05) by the number of analyses conducted (7), as suggested by Rosenthal & Rosnow (1991, p. 329). These analyses suggested that male school psychologists worked longer contract lengths (t = - 2.90, df = 354, p < .005) and had higher monthly salaries (t = - 2.74, df = 353, p < .0062) than did female school psychologists. In comparing monthly rather than annual salaries, differences in contract length (and the associated salary differential) between male and female school psychologists were controlled. No statistically signi- ficant differences were found between male and female school psychologists on the other variables assessed, though differences approached significance in age ( t = 1.77, df = 355, p < .08, women older) and experience (t = - 2.13, df = 356, p < .04, men more experienced). Males and females were also compared on degree status (an ordinal variable; master's, specialist, doctorate) using a Mann-Whitney U test. Results indicated no significant differences.

To determine whether monthly salary differences would persist if all other variables were controlled, an analysis of covariance was used to compare male and female monthly salaries using age, experience, employer, number of schools served, psychologist- to-student ratio, and contract length as covariates. Salary differences between males and females were still statistically significant, F(1,319) = 18.81 (p < .01, covariates df = 6).

To determine the relative importance of gender as a predictor of salary, a stepwise multiple regression analysis was completed using experience, gender, employer, number of schools served, psychologist-to-student ratio, and age as predictors. Gender entered the equation on Step 4, following experience, employer, and age, and before number of schools served. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. To determine the extent to which gender adds to the prediction of salary, two forced entry multiple regression analyses were conducted, one excluding gender as a predictor, and one in-

Gender Diferences in Employment 205

Table 1 Summary of Slepwise Multiple Regression Analysis

Analysis o J Variance d !

Regression 5 Residual 321

F = 42.11. p < .01.

ss MS 47079055.60 941581 I . 12 7 1769542.50 223581.13

Variables B SE B Beta T

Experience 33.50 6.38 .29 5.25.' Employer - 429.58 55.16 - .35 - 7.79.. Age 100.68 22.96 .24 4.381' Gender 163.30 54.93 .13 2.97.' Number of schools - 33.85 13.42 - . I 1 - 2.52. (constant) 26 I 9.73 148.70 17.62**

Note. Multiple R = .63. R2 = .#. Adjusted R2 = .39. Standard Error = 472.84. *p < .os. **p < .01.

Table 2 Actual and Desired Time Spent in Different Roles by Male and Female School Psychologists

'J7o of Respondents Indicating

Role 'J7o of Time Actual Time Spent Desired Time Spent Female Male Female Male

Assessment 0-20 9 9 17 17 21-40 33 35 56 50 41-60 32 30 24 29 61-80 24 23 3 3

1 8 1-95 2 3 Consultation 0-20 57 68 21 32

21-40 39 28 57 53 41-60 4 4 I5 15 6 1-80 - -

-

- I Counseling 0-20 93 96 80 61

21-40 6 3 17 27 41-60 1 1 3 5

1 61-80 - - - Research 0-20 100 99 98 98

21-40 - 1 2 2 Clerical 0-20 87 86 98 99

21-40 13 13 2 1 41-60 - - - 1

Administration 0-20 89 90 93 96 21-40 7 7 5 4 41-60 3 3 2 - 61-80 1 - - -

206 Levinson, Rafoth, and Sanders

cluding gender as a predictor (both analyses included experience, employer, age, and number of schools served as predictors). The analysis excluding gender as a predictor resulted in R = .61 (adjusted R2 = .36). The analysis including gender as a predictor resulted in R = .63 (adjusted RZ = .39). Therefore, gender accounts for an additional 3% of the variance in monthly salary beyond that accounted for by the other variables studied.

Gender differences in actual and desired time spent in assessment, counseling, con- sultation, clerical activities, administrative tasks, and research were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test of significance. In order to adjust for the increased error rate associated with making 12 ccmparisons (actual and desired time spent in each of the 6 roles), an alpha level of .004 was established for statistical significance in each in- dividual comparison. The results of these analyses yielded no statistically significant differences between male and female school psychologists. Table 2 presents the actual and desired time spent by male and female school psychologists in each role surveyed.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study are consistent with previous research into gender differences in school psychology in that male psychologists were more likely to have longer con- tracts (which are often associated with supervisory positions) and to have larger salaries. Women also tended to have less experience than same-age male counterparts, suggesting later entry into the field. This is consistent with career re-entry patterns typical of women. Unlike the Ross (1992) study, however, women in this survey did not differ from men in desired time spent in administrative tasks, clerical activities, and research activities.

The finding that male school psychologists earned higher salaries than female school psychologists is consistent with previous research in other professions. Results indicated that these differences were not a function of differences in age, experience, employer, psychologist-to-student ratio, or number of schools served. Although gender does not appear to be as important as experience, age, or employer in determining salary, it does appear to have a small and independent effect on salary.

Although there still remains good reason to be concerned about the portrayed leader- ship roles of men and women in school psychology, the current analysis suggests that women practitioners in this sample did not differ from male practitioners in their actual or desired roles. Additional research on a national sample is required to determine whether this trend exists and whether women can be expected to achieve parity with men in terms of salary and role function in the future.

Clearly, the results of the current study must be interpreted with caution. First, generalizability is limited given that the study only included school psychologists from one state. Moreover, the proportion of male and female school psychologists included in the sample is the opposite of that found nationally. Additional research is necessary to determine the extent to which the results of the current study are applicable to groups of school psychologists with differing characteristics and to school psychologists in other parts of the country.

In that the data analyzed in the current study is several years old, a follow-up study is necessary to determine whether the same trends found in the current study are still present today. However, it should be noted that despite the age of the data presented, the current study is one of only a few studies that actually compares male and female school psychologists on employment-related differences, and includes a relatively large

Gender Differences in Employment 207

sample from one entire state. In that little data of this type is available in school psychology, publication of the results, even at this late date, may prove useful.

Caution should also be exercised in that the study measured only school psychologists’ perceptions of the actual and desired time spent in different role func- tions (actual time spent was not measured). That a school psychologist’s perception of actual time spent in a role may differ from the amount of time actually spent is certainly a possibility.

REFERENCES ALPERT, J. L., CONOLEY, J. C. (1988). Mainstreaming psychology of women with school psychology.

Professional School Psychology, 3 , 1-2. ALPERT, J. L., GENSHAF~, J., & DEVERENCO, M. (1988). Women and school psychology: Professional training,

practice, and affiliation. Professionol School Psychology, 3 , 3-1 I . BARRON, J . M., BLACK, D. A., B LOEWENSTEIN, M. A. (1992). Gender differences in training, capital, and

wages. The Journal of Human Resources, 63, 344-363. CONOLEY, J. C., & WELCH, K. (1988). The empowerment of women in school psychology: Paradoxes of

success and failure. Professional School Psychology, 3, 13-19. GOITFREDSON, G . D., & SWATICO, M. S. (1979). Employment, unemployment and the job search in psychology.

American Psychologist, 34, 1047-1060. LEVITON, L. C., & WHrmLY, S. E. (1981). Job seeking patterns of female and male Ph.D. recipients.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5 , 690-701. MCELRATH, K. (1993). Gender, career, disruption, and academic rewards. Journal of Higher Education,

ROSENTHAL, R., B ROSNOW, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis.

Ross, R. P. (1992). Paper presented at national association of school psychologist’s conference. Gender

Russo, N. F., OLMEDO, E. L., STAPP, J., & FULCHER, R. (1981). Women and minorities in psychology.

SCHMUCK, P. A. (ED.). (1987). Women educators: Employeesof schools in western countries. Albany, NY:

WILSON, M. S., & RESCHLY, D. J. (1991). Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American

28, 269-28 I .

New York: McGraw-Hill.

differences in supervision: Are women forfeiting leadership roles?

American Psychologist 36, 1315-1363.

State University of New York Press.

Psychological Association. Women and school psychology faculty roles.