Learning Leadership Matters: Teachers’ experiences of innovatively and conventionally prepared principals Paper presented by: Terry Orr, Bank Street College.

Learning Leadership Matters:Teachers’ experiences of innovatively and conventionally prepared principals

Paper presented by:Terry Orr, Bank Street CollegeStelios Orphanos, Stanford UniversityAERA, Chicago, April 2007

Purpose

To investigate the relationship between innovative leadership preparation and perceptions of graduates’ leadership practices and impact on selected school improvement and teacher satisfaction, collaboration and engagement

Background

Centrality of leadership to school improvement and performance

Emerging policy emphasis on highly effective principals, through recent NCLB Commission recommendations

State policy emphasis on leadership preparation through licensure and program accreditation

Program reforms to meet national standards and local district conditions

Theoretical background

Transformational/instructional leadership as a mediating influence on school improvement (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999)

Leadership as a set of skills and qualities that can be developed through strategically designed content and active adult theory-based strategies (Dvir, et al, 2004; Jackson & Kelly, 2002; Orr, 2006)

Research background

Teacher engagement, collaboration and job satisfaction as significant mediating factors in improved student outcomes (Geijsel, et al, 2001; Pearson & Moomaw, 2005)

Leadership-teacher outcome relationship (Leithwood, et al, 2004; Waters, et al 2005)

Mediating effects of school improvement strategies (professional development, distributed leadership, parental involvement) (Geijsel, et al, 2001; Sweetland & Hoy, 2000; Sebring, et al, 2006)

Leadership preparation-leadership practices relationship (Leithwood, et al 1996; Orr & Barber, 2006)

Study support

Study was made possible by a grant from the Wallace Foundation for the Stanford University School Leader Study

Study was directed by Linda Darling-Hammond and Debra Meyerson, Stanford University; Michelle LaPointe is the study’s research director.

The results are based on the combined work of the research team to document eight innovative programs and construct case studies of sampled schools in each site.

Figure 1Revised conceptual model

Preparation leadership

profdev

dislead

parental support

teacher engagement

teacher satisfaction

Methodology

nonexperimental research design survey research methods two teacher samples confirmatory factor analysis and structural

equation modeling

Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: The more positive teachers’ rating of

principal leadership, the greater their perceived job satisfaction and teacher engagement and collaboration.

Hypothesis 2: Whether principals had innovative preparation experiences will have a moderating influence on the principal leadership-teacher outcome relationship.

Hypothesis 3a. The extent of professional development participation and of distributed leadership in the school will mediate the leadership-teacher outcome relationship

Hypothesis 3b: The extent of parental support will mediate the leadership-teacher outcome relationship

Samples

Stanford University study sample (2005): Five states (CA, CT, KY, MS, NY) Principals in one of four innovative leadership preparation

or one of four innovative in-service programs 16 elementary and middle schools 389 teachers (214 with exemplary prepared prinpls.)

SASS study sample (1999-2000): Restricted to urban schools and principals with five years or

less experience 16 elementary and middle schools 855 teachers

Survey instrument

Stanford University teacher survey, with SASS items

SASS teacher survey

Sample characteristics

Stanford (expl, other) SASS

% female 88, 81% 78%

% nonwhite 65, 66 75

Average age 42, 39 43

Average years teaching

12.4, 13.7 14.5

% Masters & 59%, 63% 48%

Innovative Preparation Programs

Preparation In-service

San Diego, CA Partnership program, with integrated coursework and fieldwork; emphasis on instructional leadership

Strong coaching, focusing on the strategies of the district’s reform initiatives

Hartford CT University-based; integrates coursework and field work; emphasizes data-based leadership

District-level leadership development based on the Institute for Learning principles

Jefferson Co, KY

NA Array of leadership development opportunities

Delta region, MS

University-based; instructional leadership focus; Paid sabbatical year; full time internship.

NA

Bronx, NYC Partnership. Change-focused content; instructional leadership emphasis; Intensive advisory and internship

Layered leadership development; mentoring and seminars for new principals; tight link to regional reforms

Teacher perceptions of teacher cooperation and engagement

N Mean

Std.dev

Range

Teacher cooperation and engagement, Total 1234

Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about what the central mission of the school should be

1241 3.87 0.95 1-5

There is a great deal of cooperative effort among the staff members 1240 3.82 1.06 1-5

I make a conscious effort to coordinate the content of my courses with that of other teachers

1237 3.99 0.91 1-5

In this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done 1238 3.58 1.13 1-5

Teacher job satisfaction, Total 1241

I do not feel like it is waste of my time to teach (reversed coded) 1241 4.18 1.14 1-5

I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at this school 1241 4.07 1.03 1-5

Principal leadership measure

N Mean St.dev Rng

Principal leadership, total 1236 3.93 0.77 1-5

The principal lets staff members know what is expected of them

1242 4.17 0.97 1-5

The school administration’s behavior toward the staff is supportive and encouraging

1241 3.87 1.18 1-5

My principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up when I need it

1238 3.98 1.12 1-5

In this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done

1238 3.58 1.13 1-5

Mean rating of teacher influence in school policy in six areas Number Mean St.dev Range Reliability

Mean rating as distributed leadership 1225 2.50 0.89 1-5 0.773

b. Establishing curriculum 1239 3.00 1.24 1-5 0.66

c. Determining the content of in-service professional development programs

1239 2.82 1.22 1-5 0.77

d. Evaluating teachers 1233 1.75 1.01 1-5 0.71

e. Hiring new full-time teachers 1232 2.04 1.20 1-5 0.62

*% teachers who participated in five types of PD in the last 12 months Total

University courses 34.6%

Observational visits to other schools 40.5%

Individual or collaborative research 49.9%

Regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers 81.7%

Formal mentoring, peer observation, coaching 45.2%

Attend workshops, conferences 94.8%

Mean Participation ( range 1-6) 3.47 (1.40)

Evaluation of the Dataset

The scale items and other measures were evaluated for their measurement error: Most of the data are ordered categorical data, so polychoric

(PC) correlations are more appropriate. The assumption of Univariate normality was rejected for all

variables, and the assumption of multivariate normality is assumed to not hold either.

Our estimation method was Weighted Least Squares (WLS), to take the non-normality of the variables in consideration.

Our sample (n=1253) satisfies WLS requirement of a large sample size.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Tested the hypothesized measurement (factorial) model using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with LISREL 8.8.

Thirteen indicator variables were specified that loaded on four different latent figures that were left to be freely correlated

The data fitted the model well. The data did not fit the model well when

conventional leadership preparation was used instead of innovative leadership preparation.

CFA fit indices

The chi-square statistic (as an index of absolute fit) was significant enough to reject the model, but the large sample size and use of WLS inflates this statistic.

The goodness-of-fit index (GFI)-- analogous to the familiar R2 statistic -- was 0.993.

Using a cut-off rule of 0.05 for all other indexes (Hu & Bentler, 1999) shows a good fit: The RMSEA is 0.0317 with a 90% confidence interval of (0.0242, 0.0392), the Normed Fit Index (NFI) is 0.969, the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) is 0.977 and the Comparative Fit Index

(CFI) = 0.983 the Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) -- the average residual value

derived from fitting the variance-covariance matrix of the hypothesized model to the variance – covariance matrix of the sample data is 0.040 –also less than 0.05 (Bollen, 1989).

Of the 91 standardized residuals 16% are greater than 2.58 (15 out of 91) a satisfactory fit, although not perfect

Assessing the structural equation model (using WLS) All reported effects are statistically significant

at the 0.05 level of significance. Innovative preparation predicts leadership

practices. Leadership practices predict teacher

professional development, distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction and engagement, both directly and indirectly.

Teacher job satisfaction predicts engagement and collaboration.

Figure 2: revised model

Other findings

Perceived parental support has a moderating influence on leadership and teacher job satisfaction, suggesting that it serves as a context measure.

The moderating influence of leadership preparation on teacher professional development participation may reflect the unaccounted for influence of strategic district emphasis on both leader preparation and teacher professional development.

Distributed leadership has an indirect influence on teacher outcomes, through professional development participation.

Conclusions

Conceptual validation of the influence of leadership preparation on leadership and school outcomes Findings consistent with foundational research

Methodological direction: Refined measurement, with greater differentiation

on leadership preparation Accounting for district support in the model Other school improvement related outcomes

Contact information

Margaret Terry Orr

Bank Street College

[email protected]; 212-875-4546

Stelios Orphanos

Stanford University

[email protected]