Linking Instructional Leadership, Teaching Quality, and Student Achievement

1. Linking Instructional Leadership, Teaching Quality, and Student Achievement: Reflections From a Half-Full Glass Presentation to the Institute of Education Sciences Annual Research Conference Washington, DC June 12, 2008

2. What This Study Was and Wasn’t • It examined a theory of action in which instructional leadership plays a major role. • It was an effort to establish empirical linkages between steps in the theory of action. • It was not an evaluation of an intervention based on the theory of action.

3. The Theory of Action • Developed by the Institute for Learning (IFL) at the University of Pittsburgh • Used to inform the professional development that the IFL delivers to districts and schools

4. Steps in the Theory of Action

5. The Bottom Line: Half-Full • We developed reliable quantitative indicators of principals’ leadership actions as recipients and providers of professional development. • Some statistically significant correlations exist between each pair of adjacent steps in the theory.

6. The Bottom Line: Half-Empty • Data are correlational only. • We couldn’t undertake a second round of data collection, so data are concurrent, further undercutting the ability to make causal inferences. • Some correlations between steps aren’t statistically significant. • Because of sample size issues, we couldn’t statistically model the full theory.

7. “Testing” the Theory of Action • Selecting districts and schools in which to mount the study • Gathering survey, observational, and achievement data around these steps • Creating measures of the steps • Looking at the statistical linkages that connect these measures

8. Focus on Three Principles of Learning • Accountable Talk (AT) • Academic Rigor (AR) • Clear Expectations (CE)

9. Study Districts and Schools • Three districts: Austin Region 10 in New York City Saint Paul • 49 elementary schools approx. 85 percent of students FRPL higher proportion nonwhite than in other district schools

10. What We Did • Administered surveys to principals and 3rd and 4th grade teachers in the spring of 2006 • Conducted observations in 151 reading classes and 151 math classes during the 2005-2006 school year using a version of the IQA • Collected data from Web sites on 3rd grade student achievement in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 • Interviewed and job-shadowed principals, conducted focus groups with teachers in a small number of case study schools in each district • Interviewed district and IFL personnel

11. Linking Principals’ PD to Teachers’ PD

12. Constructs Related to Professional Development • Constructs related to receiving professional development (principals and teachers) Frequency Value • Constructs related to providing professional development (principals) Role in PD for teachers Time spent with teachers on instructional improvement

13. Professional Development at Three Levels • Instruction-related • Related to the Principles of Learning collectively • Related to each Principle of Learning (AT, AR, CE)

14. The Analytic Approach • We regressed each variable at Step N on the variables at Step N-1 and Step N-2 • As control variables in the regressions, we included the district and, for each school, the principal’s experience and the average experience of teachers who responded to the survey.

15. Linking Principals’ PD to Teachers’ PD • Principals who received more instruction-related PD played a more active role in PD for their teachers. • Principals who received more instruction-related PD and valued it more spent more time with their teachers on instructional improvement. • Teachers reported receiving more PD at schools whose principals reported being more actively involved in PD for their teachers. The teachers didn’t, however, value the PD more.

16. Linking Teachers’ PD to Instructional Quality

17. Linking Teachers’ PD to Instructional Quality • In schools where teachers reported receiving more instruction-related PD, the reading lessons that were observed were of higher quality. • More frequent teacher PD on Accountable Talk and Clear Expectations was associated with higher scores on these outcomes in the reading lessons that were observed. • At schools where principals played a more active role with respect to teacher PD on Academic Rigor and Clear Expectations, higher scores on these outcomes were observed.

18. Linking Instructional Quality toStudent Achievement

19. Linking Instructional Quality toStudent Achievement • At schools where the reading and math lessons that were observed were of higher quality as measured on the IQA, higher proportions of students met the standard on reading and math assessments. • Higher implementation of Accountable Talk was associated with higher student achievement in both subjects. • Higher implementation of Academic Rigor was associated with higher student achievement in reading. • All of these associations also controlled for prior student achievement.

20. What Can We Conclude? • The evidence supporting the IFL theory is promising and suggestive. • But it’s not definitive. We can’t say that one phenomenon caused another, only that they are associated. Data are concurrent No counterfactual • There are alternative explanations for many of our findings.

21. Other Findings of Note • Principals and teachers especially valued PD sessions in which they could learn from their peers. • Instructional quality was generally low. • Teachers are inaccurate reporters of their own teaching.

22. The Best Next Step for Research • A rigorous random assignment test of IFL’s work

23. For futher information Please contact Janet Quint at (212) 340-8816 or janet.quint@mdrc.org The report may be found at www.mdrc.org