The Long and Winding Road The Relationship Between Leadership Practice and Student Performance

1. The Long and Winding Road The Relationship Between Leadership Practice and Student Performance Jonathan Supovitz Philip Sirinides University of Pennsylvania Consortium for Policy Research in Education June, 2008 IES Annual Conference This research is supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, grant # R305C050041.  The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Education.

2. Study Overview The literature on how school leadership improves student outcomes stretches back at least 40 years. Initially, studies of school leadership focused on the role and influence of school principals. More recently, researchers have started to explore the role and influence of other school actors as well. In this study we seek to examine the relative influence of different school actors on instructional practice and student outcomes.

3. Literature Review on School Leadership and Student Outcomes Several comprehensive literature reviews of the effects of principal leadership on student outcomes. • Hallinger & Heck (1997) examined 43 studies conducted between 1980 and 1995. Found little evidence of direct effects, with most evidence pointing to indirect effects. Concluded that principals have a measurable but indirect effect on school effectiveness and student achievement. • Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson and Wahlstrom (2004) conducted a wide-ranging analysis of educational leadership and concluded that leadership “is second only to teaching among school-related factors in its impact on student learning”.

4. Literature identifies several important principal leadership characteristics ● Instructional mission for school (Goldring & Pasternak, 1994; Hallinger, Bickman & Davis, 1996). ● Encouraging trust and collaboration (Fink & Resnick, 1991; Blase & Blase, 1989) ● Hands-on support of instruction (Hallinger & Murphy, 1987; Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001)

5. Growing Literature on Range of Leadership Activity in Schools • Individuals at all levels of schools influence reform efforts (York-Barr & Duke, 2004) • Distributed leadership perspective (Gronn, 2000; Spillane 2006) • Interest in and attention to teacher leadership (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2008)

6. Attributes of teacher influence on peers identified in the literature ● Instructional conversation amongst peers (Silva, Gimbert & Nolan, 2000; LeBlanc & Shelton, 1997) ● Active interaction amongst faculty around teaching and learning (Wasley, 1991; Smylie & Denny, 1990) ● Strong instructional advice networks (Frank et al. 2004; Supovitz, 2008)

7. Mission & Goals Community & Trust Principal Leadership Focus on Instruction Student Learning Δ Instruction Instructional Conversation Peer Influence Interaction around T&L Advice Networks Conceptual model

8. Research Questions • What is the relationship between teacher reported measures of leadership practice and peer influence with student achievement when including the indirect effects of teacher reported change in instructional practice? • What are the relative effects of teacher reports of principal leadership and teacher reports of peer influence on changes in instructional practice?

9. Data ● Survey data collected in 2007 via an IES funded evaluation of a principal leadership initiative. ● Survey of 1,839 school faculty members in 38 elementary/middle schools (response rate = 81%). ● Focused only on 1,079 responding teachers of English and mathematics (and general elementary). ● End of year state test results in English and mathematics for 14,027 students in 2006 and 2007. ● Matching process resulted in 7,793 students and 519 teachers (English)/502 teachers (mathematics). ● 76% overlap in teacher samples.

10. Measures & Reliabilities • Principal Leadership Scales • Faculty Trust – 6 items (ELA = .93, Math = .93) • Instructional Goals – 5 items (ELA=.91; Math = .90) • Instructional Expertise – 5 items (ELA = .91; Math = .91) • Peer Influence Scales • Instructional Conversation – 5 items (ELA = .86; Math = .84) • Interaction around Teaching and Learning – 4 items (ELA = .78; Math = .77) • Advice Networks – 2 items (ELA = .82, Math = .84) • Change In Teacher Practice Scale – 7 items (ELA = .94; Math = .95)

11. Two Phase Analysis ● Phase 1: Teachers linked to students Parallel HLM analyses in English & Math ● Phase 2: Structural equation models examining relationships between indicators of principal leadership, peer influence, and changes in teacher instructional practice.

12. Measure of Student Learning 2006 and 2007 end-of-year state assessment Different tests in different years ● Transition to new state assessment by year, grade ● Tests not vertically equated ● Re-standardized within year and grade Change in student rank ● Difference scores as the student outcome ● Measure of students relative change in ranking

13. Results: Relationship between change in practice and student learning (Random Effects Null Model) ELA Math Student 91% 88% Teacher 9% 10% School 0% 1%

14. Results: Relationship between change in practice and student learning (Fixed Effects Model) Δ Instruction Student Learning ELA Math Change in Instruction .06* .01 (.02) (.02) Note: Model includes covariates for minority status, gender, LEP, and Free-Reduced Lunch by group centering at levels 1 and 2.

15. Results: Model of Change in Instruction in ELA Mission & Goals .87* Community & Trust .62* Principal Leadership .98* .06* Focus on Instruction Δ Instruction Instructional Conversation Peer Influence Interaction around T&L Advice Networks

16. Results: Model of Change in Instruction in ELA Mission & Goals .87* Community & Trust .62* Principal Leadership .98* .06* Focus on Instruction Δ Instruction .41* Instructional Conversation .83* .28* Peer Influence .61* Interaction around T&L Model Fit CFI = .95 RMSEA = .05 .27* Advice Networks

17. Results: Model of Change in Instruction in Math Mission & Goals .82* Community & Trust .61* Principal Leadership .97* .07* Focus on Instruction Δ Instruction .39* Instructional Conversation .79* .28* Peer Influence .63* Interaction around T&L Model Fit CFI = .94 RMSEA = .05 .33 Advice Networks

18. Discussion • Educational leadership influences practice which changes performance. • Results are consistent in both English and math models. • Principal instructional expertise is the most salient perceived principal leadership characteristic related to changing teacher instructional practice. • Instructional collaboration amongst peers is the most influential teacher characteristic related to changing teacher instructional practice. • Peer influence is more influential than principal leadership on changing teacher practice in both English and mathematics.

19. Next steps • Combine both phases of the study into one multi-level model so we can examine both direct and indirect effects simultaneously. • Look at effects of principal leadership on peer influence related to changing instruction. • Add contextual effects of school characteristics into the models. • Analysis of in-sample and out-of-sample teachers to assess attrition bias.

20. The Long and Winding Road The Relationship Between Leadership Practice and Student Performance Jonathan Supovitz Philip Sirinides University of Pennsylvania Consortium for Policy Research in Education June, 2008 IES Annual Conference This research is supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, grant # R305C050041.  The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Education.