1 / 28

Instructional Leadership Direct Effect on Student Outcomes

Instructional Leadership Direct Effect on Student Outcomes. Ali Korkmaz, Ph.D. Strategic Data Project Fellow Long Beach Unified School District Ahmet Uludag , Ph.D. Accord Institute for Education Research. Background. Principal effects on student outcomes Past Research Small Indirect

daktari
Download Presentation

Instructional Leadership Direct Effect on Student Outcomes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Instructional Leadership Direct Effecton Student Outcomes Ali Korkmaz, Ph.D. Strategic Data Project Fellow Long Beach Unified School District AhmetUludag, Ph.D. Accord Institute for Education Research

  2. Background • Principal effects on student outcomes • Past Research • Small • Indirect • Mediated through other school factors • Recent studies (Education Next 2013, Educational Administration Quarterly 2012, Econ Papers 2011, School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2010) • Direct and indirect • NCLB (accountability) effects on the role of principals

  3. Purpose of the studies • To understand “principal attention” impact on student growth • To understand the direct effects of principal-student discussions on student achievement and growth • To understand students reactions and actions based on these discussions

  4. First Study (1st Year) • Student Survey • Instructional practices • Study habits, motivation • Home environment • School learning environment Student Fall Reading & Math Test Student Spring Reading & Math Test

  5. First Study Design Elements • Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) MAP Test • Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR) Student Survey • Longitudinal growth for reading

  6. NWEA MAP Tests A computer adaptive test tool • to measure student levels, placement and differentiate instruction to meet student needs • to guide curriculum and instructional decisions • to measure student growth over time • of accountability to see how well we have done our jobs; to measure the effectiveness of curriculum and instruction

  7. Target Growth = 5 Spring Target RIT 215 Fall RIT 210 Spring Target RIT 202 Target Growth = 10 192 Fall RIT Target Growth for two 4th Grade Students

  8. Student Survey • Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR) Surveys • More than 10 years in the field • IRT based (Rasch) survey items and constructs • It is designed mainly for school level analysis • Student survey items include: • Academic Engagement, Study Habits, Classroom Behavior, Learning Climate (Expectation, Relationships) • Subject area specific questions • School and home environment questions

  9. Data (1st Study) • 846 students at 9 CA middle schools • 55% male • 50% free-reduced lunch • 11% African-American • 45% White • 44% Hispanic

  10. Data Analyses • Students are grouped into 6 groups based on Fall proficiency and Fall to Spring Growth (progress in the same year) Effect-size Effect-size

  11. Which of the following has the most impact on READING growth (for NON-PROFICIENT students)? • Principal attention • Teacher personal support • Teacher personal attention(ENGLISH) • Academic press(ENGLISH)

  12. Which of the following has the most impact on reading growth (for non-proficient students)? Effect-size differences for most improving vs. most declining • Principal attention (.50) • Teacher personal support (.37) • Teacher personal attention(ENGLISH) (.34) • Academic press(ENGLISH) (.34)

  13. Which of the following has the most impact on READING growth (for PROFICIENT students)? • Principal attention • Incidence of disciplinary action • Hours reading outside school • Parental support for student learning

  14. Which of the following has the most impact on reading growth (for proficient students)? Effect-size differences for most improving vs. most declining • Principal attention (.37) • Incidence of disciplinary action (-.41) • Hours reading outside school (.48) • Parental support for student learning (.27)

  15. Summary for Reading

  16. Design of the 2nd Study (2nd Year) • Students (6th-8thgrades) who had Basic from Fall and Winter MAP Math test results eligible for the study (53 students) • 27 randomly identified and invited to participate • 15 accepted (parent consent) • 26 are control group • Principal meets with students in the Spring • Reviews CSTs, MAP tests • Gets student reactions to his/her results • Students set goals for themselves • Researcher interviews participating students • Students reactions to principal discussion • What students did afterwards

  17. School Profile • Middle school in an urban area • Student body • 66% Free or reduced lunch • 71% Hispanic or Latino • 12% White • 6% African American

  18. Data and Analyses • North West Evaluation Association (NWEA) MAP tests results (student level) • Target and growth comparisons with Norm data • CST Math results (2012 and 2013) • Semi-structured interviews with students • Constant comparative method (Glaser, 1965)

  19. Methods • Mixed Methods – Explanatory Sequential Design(Creswell, 2003) • Qualitative methods used to help explain quantitative findings

  20. MATH MAP Growth & MAP Proficiency

  21. CST 2012 and 2013 Proficiency

  22. How Did Students Perceive? • Participating experiment group • Except 1 all were positive • Students felt empowered • “I start believing more in myself.” • “It encouraged me to do more.” • “Principal was counting on me to be successful.” • “It pushed me to do better what I want to achieve.” • “I felt I needed to better. I should do better. Maybe a little better.”

  23. How Did Students React? • Better awareness of what is available to them • “Motivated me to go to tutoring. I needed help in extra things.” • Using the available resources • “Teacher tutored me about my problems. It is not confusing.” • “I participated more in class. I asked for help. There was a lot of help.”

  24. How Did Students React? • More strategic studying • “My teacher gave me more exercise on my problem areas.” • Pure more studying • “I studied more for the test. I Disciplined myself. I really worked hard to do better in future.” • “I tried my best afterwards. My tests (referring to course finals) were better.”

  25. Implications So what … • More work on principals? • Maybe more focused • Maybe more programmatic • Throughout the year (Couple times a year) • Assistant principal/academic dean

  26. Limitations • 1st Study • Student survey • Teacher input on classroom practices (teacher survey) • No teacher observation • Student growth • High stakes, any rewards etc. involved • 2nd study • Small group • One time event vs. established program • Bias • Selection • Students could have reflected only on all positives

  27. Contact • Ali Korkmaz, Ph.D. akorkmaz@lbschools.net • AhmetUludag, Ph.D. auludag@accordeducation.org CERA – December 6th, 2013

More Related