William Kyle Ingle

University of Louisvile
Educational Leadership, Evaluation, & Organizational Development

1905 South 1st Street
Louisville, KY
40292
william.ingle@louisville.edu |  Visit Personal Website


Search Google Scholar
Search for Google Scholar Profile

Research interests include: human resource functions in education, politics of education, and cost analyses of educational programs.

Citation:
Ingle, W. K., Willis, P.C., & Herd, A. (2017). Defining “comparable”: An analysis of reduction in force provisions in Ohio school districts. Journal of School Leadership, 27 (1), 68-93.
Abstract: Guided by Honig and Hatch’s (2004) conceptualization of bridging and buffering, we undertook an analysis of reduction in force (RIF) provisions from 546 Ohio teacher collective bargaining agreements. We asked: Are the most disadvantaged school districts providing greater protections to tenured teachers when making RIF decisions? Logistic regression analysis revealed a negative relationship (p<.05) between the percentage of students within the district living in poverty and bridging to state efforts to reform the use of seniority alone in RIF decisions.
URL: https://journals.rowman.com/issues/1091779-jsl-vol-27-n1
Citation:
Willis, P.C., & Ingle, W. K. (2016). Profiles of merit pay provisions in Ohio school districts. Leadership & Policy in Schools. Published online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1232835
Abstract: A small number of districts in Ohio from a variety of locales have adopted merit pay provisions. Using Springer’s (2009) taxonomy of teacher compensation, we analyzed compensation provisions of these districts. We asked: What are the characteristics of these districts? What criteria are used to determine merit? Who is determining who receives merit pay? Our analysis reveals that there is wide variation in the design and specifics of these programs. Like Kolbe and Strunk (2012), who developed a typology of incentive programs, our examination of merit pay provisions in Ohio generated a typology of merit pay programs.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1232835
Citation:
Ingle, W.K., Willis, C.W., & Fritz, J. (2015). Collective bargaining agreement provisions in the wake of Ohio Teacher Evaluation System legislation. Education Policy, 29 (1), 18-50.
Abstract: Guided by Honig and Hatch’s conceptualization of bridging and buffering, we analyzed the first teacher collective bargaining agreements negotiated after the enactment of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System to understand how state law has shaped provisions for teacher evaluation, compensation, reductions in force (RIF), transfers, and contract renewal. We found surprising variation in provisions across districts. Most notable was how districts defined comparable evaluations in making RIF decisions. Bridging districts provided the greatest protections for the most accomplished teachers, regardless of seniority. In contrast, buffering districts have RIF provisions based on seniority.
URL: http://epx.sagepub.com/content/29/1/18.short

Substantive Focus:
Education Policy PRIMARY

Theoretical Focus:
Policy Process Theory
Agenda-Setting, Adoption, and Implementation SECONDARY
Policy Analysis and Evaluation PRIMARY

Keywords

POLITICS OF EDUCATION HUMAN RESOURCE FUNCTIONS