Principal Effects on Academic Progress Over Time and the Potential Effects of School Context and Principal Leadership Practices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v6i1.3465Keywords:
ITS, Interrupted time series analysis, Principal Leadership Practices, Principal EffectsAbstract
We used interrupted time series to examine the causal effect of principals on school performance over time and whether the trajectory of performance is affected by school context and leadership practices. Results were based on a unique dataset that links responses from the National Schools and Staffing Survey with 10 years of California Academic Performance Index (API) data. These data and methods address a need identified in the literature to examine the effects of principals with more rigorous research designs. Results indicated that improved academic performance does not occur immediately but accrues over time. We estimated both the first-year impact of a principal and the subsequent impact over time. The effect size increased from 0.04 in the first year to 0.21 by year three. Exploratory analyses showed that school context and leadership practices account for a substantial portion of the variation in progress among schools: 25% and 40%, for context and practices, respectively. Although the Schools and Staffing Survey afforded an opportunity to examine teacher and principal responses to academic performance over time, continued study is warranted to systematically and more concretely identify specific leadership practices that impact academic progress over time.
Downloads
References
Abu-Hussain, J. (2014). Leadership styles and value systems of school principals. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(12), 1267-1276. doi:10.12691/education-2-12-22.
Austin, W., Chen, B., Goldhaber, D., Hanushek, E., Holden, K., Koedel, C., Ladd, H., Luo, J., Parsons, E., Phelan, G., Rivkin, S., Sass, T., & Turaeva, M. (2019). Path to the principalship and value added: A cross-state comparison of elementary and middle school principals, CALDER Working Paper No. 213-0119. https://caldercenter.org/publications/path-principalship-and-value-added-cross-state-comparison-elementary-and-middle-school.
Goldschmidt, P. & Congdon, A. (2018). Exploratory Analysis of Teacher Artifacts as Evidence of Educator Effectiveness Implementation Fidelity, Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 3(1), 6-18.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blank, R. K. (1986). Principal leadership in urban high schools: Analysis of variation in leadership characteristics. (ED269889). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED269889
Bloom, H. S. (2003). Using “short” interrupted time-series analysis to measure the impacts of whole-school reforms: With applications to a study of accelerated schools. Evaluation Review, 27, 3–49.
Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (2001). Preparing a new breed of school principals: It’s time for action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Branch, G., Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals (NBER Working Paper No. 17803). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w17803.
Burch, P. and Spillane, J. P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 519-535.
Coelli, M. & D. Green (2012). Leadership effects: School principals and student outcomes, Economics of Education Review, 31(1), 92-109.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Day, C., Q. Gu, & P. Sammons. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference, Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616863
Dhuey, E. & Smith, J. (2018). How school principals influence student learning. Empirical Economics, 54, 851-882.
Dutta, V. & Sahney, S. (2016). School leadership and its impact on student achievement: The mediating role of school climate and teacher job satisfaction, International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 941-958.
Duke, D.L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. Random House.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of trans- formational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.
Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2015). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 3-28.
Grissom, J. and Loeb, S. (2011) Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills, American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091-1123.
Grissom, J., Loeb, S. and Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals, Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433-444.
Hallberg, K., Williams, R., Swanlund, A., & Eno, J. (2018). Short comparative interrupted time series using aggregate school-level data in education research, Educational Researcher, 47(5): 295-306.
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.DOI:10.1086/461445
Harris, Douglas N., Rutledge, S., Ingle, W.K., & Thompson, C. (2006). When supply meets demand: Principal preferences and teacher hiring. [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Horng, E.L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal time-use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116, 491-523.https://doi.org/10.1086/653625
Jacob, B.A., & Lefgren, L. (2005). Principals as agents: Subjective performance measurement in education. Working Paper #11463. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w11463
Jacob, R., Somers, M.A., Zhu, P., & Bloom, H. (2016). The validity of the comparative interrupted time series design for evaluating the effect of school-level interventions. Evaluation Review, 40(3), 167-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X16663414
Knuth, R.K., & Banks, P.A. (2006). The essential leadership model. NASSP Bulletin, 90(1), 4-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636505283855
Liebowitz D.D., & Porter L. (2019).The effect of principal behaviors on student, teacher, and school outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5):785-827. DOI:10.3102/0034654319866133
Kratochwill, T., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R., Levin, J., Odom, S., Rindskopf, D., & Shadish, W. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
Mangin, M. (2007). Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319-357.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 370-397.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 36, 60-72.
Mulford B. & Silins H. (2003). Leadership for organizational learning and improved student outcomes – what do we know? Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 175-195.
Nir, E. & Hameiri, L. (2014). School principals’ leadership style and school outcomes: The mediating effect of powerbase utilization. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(2), 210-227. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0007
Owings, W A., Kaplan, L.S., Nunnery, J., Marzano, R., Myran, S., & Blackburn, D. (2006). Teacher quality and troops to teachers: A national study with implications for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 102-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506289023
Raudenbush, S. & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. 2nd ed. Sage Publications.
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C. & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
Shadish, R., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Stein, M. & Nelson, B. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.
Tickle, B.R., Chang, M., & Kim, S. (2011). Administrative support and its mediating effect on U.S. public school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 342-349. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.002
Tourkin, S., Warner, T., Parmer, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., Zukerberg, A., Cox, S., Soderborg, A. & Gruber, K. (2007). Documentation for the 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2007-337). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Waters, T., & Kingston, S. (2005, September/October). The standards we need: A comparative analysis of performance standards shows us what is essential for principals to know and be able to do to improve achievement. Leadership, 35(1), 14.
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. (ED481972). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481972
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Journal of School Administration Research and Development
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All published articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Unported License.
.png)
