Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Williams - Doctoral Proposal Defense PPT.!

7/28/2019 Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Williams - Doctoral Proposal Defense PPT.!

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-william-allan-kritsonis-phd-dissertation-chair-for-sheri-l-miller-williams 1/48

The Impact of Atypical Principal

Preparation Programson School Accountability Ratings and StudentAchievement Results in High-Poverty Schools

Dissertation Proposal

March 31, 2011

Sheri L. Miller-Williams, Doctoral Student

William Allan Kritsonis, PhDDissertation Chair



Committee Members

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Chair

Donald R. Collins, PhD

Carl Gardiner, Ed.D

Clement E. Glenn, PhD

Solomon Osho, PhD



The U.S. Education Dilemma

―Although the U.S. has some of the best public schools in

the world, it also has too many far weaker than those found

in other advanced countries. Most of these are segregated

schools which cannot get and hold highly qualified teachers

and administrators, do not offer good preparation for

college, and often fail to graduate even half of their

students‖.

Orf ield and Lee (2007)



K-12 Reality: A National Perspective

Introduction to the Problem



The Average Minority School

• According to Orfield and Lee (2007), on average, segregatedminority schools are inferior in terms of the quality of their teachers, the character of the curriculum, the level of competition, average test scores, and graduation rates.

– Many of these segregated black and Latino schools have now beensanctioned for not meeting the requirements of No Child LeftBehind and segregated high poverty schools account for most of the ―dropout factories‖ at the center of the nation’s dropout crisis.(pp. 4-5)

• This does not mean that desegregation solves all problems or that it always works, or that segregated schools do not performwell in rare circumstances (Orfield & Lee, 2007).



Dropout Factories

According to Orfield (2009):

– Schools in the U.S. are more segregated today than they have been in morethan four decades.

– Millions of non-white students are locked into ―dropout factory‖ high schools,where huge percentages do not graduate, and few are well prepared for collegeor a future in the U.S. economy. (p. 26)

– Orfield and Lee (2005) suggest that poverty has long been one of the central

problems facing segregated schools. Segregation tends to be multidimensional.Typically students face double segregation by race/ethnicity and by poverty.These schools differ in teacher quality, course offerings, level of competition,stability of enrollment, reputations, graduation rates and many other dimensions. (p.3)



The Impact on School Quality

According to Orfield and Lee (2007):

• Poverty has long been one of the central problems facing segregated

schools.

• Segregation tends to be multidimensional.

• Few highly segregated minority schools have middle class student

bodies.

• Typically students face double segregation by race/ethnicity and by

poverty.

• These schools differ in teacher quality, course offerings, level of

competition, stability of enrollment, reputations, graduation rates and

many other dimensions. (p.17)



Segregation and

Education Outcomes for Students

• As the U.S. enters its last years in which it will have a

majority of white students, it is betting its future on

segregation (Orfield & Lee, 2007).

• ―The data coming out of the No Child Left Behind tests

and the state accountability systems show clear

relationships between segregation and educational

outcomes, but this fact is rarely mentioned by policymakers‖ (p.7).



No Child Left Behind: Gauging Growth

In a recent study entitled, ―Gauging Growth: How to Judge No

Child Left Behind (2007), Fuller et al reveal that:

• Most states and the federal government have adopted policiesthat have the effect of punishing schools and school staffs for unequal results in re-segregated schools, which tend to haveconcentrations of impoverished low-achieving students along withinexperienced and sometimes unqualified teachers.

• The punishment and the narrowing of the curriculum thataccompanies excessive test pressure have not been effective andthere is evidence that it has made qualified teachers even moreeager to leave these schools. (pp. 268-277)



School Accountability and the

Landscape of Principal Leadership

• The onslaught of high stakes testing, accountability, and

public pressure to meet these high standards

necessitates the need for a different type of principal,

despite training programs that continue to prepareprincipals for schools of yesterday.



The Impact of Principal Leadership

• The school leader has become the central ingredient to school

improvement. Hess and Kelly (2007), revealed that school principals

are the front-line managers, the small business executives, the team

leaders charged with leading their faculty to new levels of

effectiveness.

• The critical mass of research literature supports the concept that

effective leadership is significant to the successful creation of a well

balanced and healthy organization (Bruffee, 1999; Bolman & Deal,

1997; Furman, 2003; Schein, 2000; Yukl, 2006).



Literature Review



Rationale for the Study

A recent four-year study by Arthur Levine, president of Teachers College Columbia

University, raised the stakes in this debate by harshly assessing the quality of

educational administration programs.

– Based on a survey of practicing principals and education school deans, chairs,faculty, and alumni, as well as case studies of 25 school leadership programs,Levine concluded that "the majority of educational administration programsrange from inadequate to appalling, even at some of the country's leadinguniversities.‖

– The study found that the typical course of studies required of principalcandidates was largely disconnected from the realities of school management.

The Chronic le of Higher Educat ion, Arthur L evine, 2005




– Nearly two-thirds of principals felt that typical graduate leadershipprograms "are out of touch" with today's school realities.

– By reputation, principal-preparation programs are not highly effective.

– 69 percent of principals and 80 percent of superintendents believedthat typical leadership programs "are out of touch with the realities of what it takes to run today's school district Over 85 percent of bothgroups believed that overhauling preparation programs would helpimprove leaders. Transforming Principal Preparation.

Schools Can’t Wait: Accelerating the Redesign of University Principal PreparationPrograms (SREB, 2006, p. 18),




• Texas principal turnover is on the rise.

• From 1995 –98, 47.3% of all principals left their schools or the field.

• Turnover was highest at the high school level, with 58.6% of principals leaving.

• From 2004 –07, principal turnover at all levels increased nearly 5% (to 52. 2%).

Again, high school principals were most likely to leave their jobs (60.7%).

Implications from the UCEA/The Revolving Door of the

Principalship. March 2008




• Highly skilled school leaders are not born — nor are they fully forgedin the instructional setting of the school classroom. Neither do theyemerge fully prepared to lead from traditional graduate programs inschool administration.

• Most likely, effective new principals who have been rigorouslyprepared and deliberately mentored in well-designed programs thatimmerse them in real-world leadership experiences where they arechallenged to excel will be the most successful

Southern Regional Educ at ional Board, 2007



The Emergence of Atypical Principal Preparation Programs

A few things stand out about the ways new providers are

educating school administrators through atypical types of principal

preparation programming:

• These programs tend to give more emphasis to on-the-jobpreparation than university-based programs do.

• They seem to favor mentoring over book learning.

• Their formal curricula seem to be more pragmatic, geared to the

specific knowledge and skills required by school principals andsuperintendents at different career stages.

• The programs appear to be as concerned with supporting practicingadministrators as they are with preparing them for the job.

Lev ine (2005)



Significance of the Study

• The researcher believes that through this study a strong

and positive impact will be made on the quality of

principals in the greater Houston area and larger body of

K-12 education.

• The study will bring forth recommendations around

principal development and how training and preparation

of school leaders can impact achievement outcomes for students, and thus impact urban educational reform as a

whole.



Theoretical Framework




• The theoretical foundation for this study is largely based on the need for a

new model of leadership development which will accommodate the ever

changing complexion of today’s most challenging schools. This study is

framed through the lens of research around educational leadership.

• As a result of an expansive literature review, five main components

surfaced as recurring themes among current trends in leadership. These

components consist of: a) increased accountability; b) need for effective

leadership; c) organizational effectiveness; d) leader as a change agent;

and e) development of school culture.

• This study will be primarily driven by Transformational Leadership Theory

to support the notion of school reform through the actions of the principal

as school leader. The two theorists most associated with its modern

incarnation in America are Bass and Burns.




Increased Accountability

Organizational Effectiveness

Need for Effective Leadership

Leader as Change Agent

Development of School Culture

Improvement in Accountability

Ratings and Student Achievement

Results

Transformational Leadership

Leadership Descriptors

Causes change in individuals and social systems.

Creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the

end goal of developing followers into leaders.

Enhances the motivation, morale and performance of his

followers through a variety of mechanisms.

The leader transforms and motivates followers through his or

her idealized influence (referred to as charisma), intellectual

stimulation and individual consideration).

In addition, the leader encourages followers to come up with

new and unique ways to challenge the status quo and to alter the

environment to support being successful.



Purpose of the Study




The purpose of this quantitative causal-comparative study is to

investigate the differences between the impact of atypical and

traditional principal preparation on school accountability ratings

and student achievement results in the Greater Houston area

high-poverty schools.




The study will include an analysis of school accountability

ratings and student achievement results at a select group of

high-poverty schools to compare overall school and student

performance of a comparison group of traditionally trained

principals versus atypically trained principals.




• In this study, the researcher seeks to identify differences that existsbetween the type of principal preparation and to analyze quantitativedata.

• For the purposes of this research study, the researcher seeks tocompare the means (sets of scores) from two independent or differentgroups.

• The comparison groups will consist of those who have participated inatypical or traditional principal preparation programs.



Research Questions & Null Hypotheses



Research Questions

Research and information gained from a synthesis of related literature

helped to formulate research questions to guide this study. The

researcher attempts to find answers to the following research questions:

1. Are there differences in school accountability ratings in high-povertyschools in the Greater Houston area where principal training andpreparation programs differ (atypical vs. traditional)?

2. Are there differences in student achievement outcomes in high-

poverty schools in the Greater Houston area where principal trainingand preparation programs differ (atypical vs. traditional)?



Research Hypotheses

In order to answer the research questions, the researcher has developed the

following null hypotheses:

(H01): There will be no statistically significant difference in school accountabilityratings of high-poverty schools in the Greater Houston area having principals who

went through atypical principal preparation and those high-poverty schools with

principals receiving atypical principal preparation.

(H02): There will be no statistically significant difference in student achievementoutcomes of high-poverty schools in the Greater Houston area having

principals who went through atypical principal preparation and those high-poverty

schools with principals receiving traditional principal preparation.



Variables



Variables

• There is one independent variable with two levels:

– X1= atypical principal preparation, and

– X2= traditional principal preparation.

• For each research question, the researcher has one dependentvariable:

– School Accountability Ratings (Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable,and Unacceptable), and

– Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) studentachievement scores in mathematics and reading.



Subjects of the Study



Subjects of the Study

• The approximate number of schools matched to the principals in the

Greater Houston area in the quantitative data set is 100.

• The number of students housed in the schools matched to the principals inthe quantitative data set is approximately 70,000 (100 schools with

approximately 700 students enrolled= 70,000).



Target Population and Sample

• Five districts in the Greater Houston area will be targeted to participate in

the study. These districts include:• Houston ISD,

• Aldine ISD,

• Alief ISD,

• Cy-Fair ISD; and• Humble ISD.

• All elementary, middle and high schools within these five districts will be

included as part of the target population.

• The selected districts are all located in Harris County, have at least 30,000

students, and at least 30% of its students classified as economically

disadvantaged.



Sampling Procedures



Sampling Procedures

• For this study the researcher will employ a two-fold sampling strategy:criterion sampling and the snowballing sampling technique. Asample size of 100 principals/schools will be selected for the study.

• A criterion sampling approach will be utilized to select 100principals/school to participate in the study.

• The sample population will consist of 20 principals/schools selected fromeach of the five targeted districts.

• Within this sample, a combination of 10 atypically trained and 10traditionally trained principals will be included for each district representedin the study.

• The sample will include 50 atypically trained and 50 traditionally trainedprincipals and the schools they lead.



Sampling Graphic

Five Greater Houston School Districts

20 Principals/Schools from Each District

10 Traditionally

Trained & 10

Atypically Trained

Sample Includes 50 Traditionally Trained Principals and 50 Atypically

Trained Principals

10 Traditionally

Trained & 10

Atypically Trained

10 Traditionally

Trained & 10

Atypically Trained

10 Traditionally

Trained & 10

Atypically Trained

10 Traditionally

Trained & 10

Atypically Trained



Criterion Sampling Technique

• Criterion sampling involves selecting cases that meet some predetermined criterion of importance.

• Using this technique, the researcher will identify criteria and select principals/schools that meeta pre-determined set of characteristics.

• Principals/schools included in the study must meet the following criterion to be selected as partof the study:

– (1) participants are active principals of K-12 schools,

– (2) participants must be employed in one of the five targeted districts,

– (3) participants have been in the role of principal at the selected school for two fullacademic years beginning in 2008-2009 and ending in 2009-2010,

– (4) participants must have at least 3-10 years of principal experience.

– (5) schools must participate in the Texas Education Agency state assessment system, and

– (6) schools must be identified as having 80% or higher free and reduced lunch,



Snowball Sampling Procedures

• Within the study, the researcher will utilize the snowballing technique tolocate people meeting specific criteria that the researcher would not havebeen able to identify.

• Snowball sampling is a method used to obtain research and knowledge,from extended associations or through previous acquaintances.

• The advantage of this technique is the ability for the researcher to use thosein the field with knowledge of others who meet the criteria identified for participation in the study. This technique will ensure that sampling group is

consistent.

• Within this sampling process, an individual or a group receives informationfrom different places through a mutual intermediary.

• Snowball sampling is a useful tool for building networks and increasing the

number of participants.



Research Design & Statistical

Analysis



Research Design

• Descriptive statistics will be used to compile demographic data on all participatingprincipals/schools included in the study. The statistical analysis portion of the study willrely solely on quantitative instruments.

• A quantitative causal-comparative design will be used to determine the cause for or the consequences of differences between participants in the study.

• The basic causal-comparative design involves selecting two or more groups that differ on a particular variable of interest and comparing them on another variable (Fraenkel& Wallen, 2009).

• The value of using this type of design is the ability for the researcher to identifypossible causes of observed variations in behavior patterns (Fraenkel & Wallen,

2009).

• Utilizing this methodology, the researcher will be able to investigate the effects of theindependent variable after it has been implemented or has already occurred.



Instrumentation

• A School Leadership Demographic Survey created by the researcher will beutilized to analyze the target population and narrow the sample based on identifiedcriteria.

• The survey will be comprised of nine sections:

– school name,

– grade level, – economically disadvantaged percentage,

– years of experience as a building principal,

– total years as principal of the current school,

– total years of administrative experience,

– ethnicity,

– gender; and

– type of principal training.

The purpose of this survey is to narrow the total population down to a

sample size based on the criteria identified for the study.



School Leadership Demographic Survey

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ATYPICAL PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS ON SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY AND

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS

THE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY (APPENDIX 1)

Section I: School Demographics

School Name __________________________________

Enrollment __________________________________

Grade Level K-5 5-6 6-8 9-12

Years of Principal Experience 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 or more

Economically Disadvantaged % __________________________________

Section II: Principal Demographics

Ethnicity M F

Gender W AA H O

Years of Admin Experience 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+

Note: Administrative experience in any supervisory position not defined as the principalship.

Section III: Principal Preparation

Note: Please select the type of principal development program you participated in defined by the descriptions below.

__________ Traditional Principal Preparation (Completion of Master’s Degree and principal certification attained prior to assuming

principalship.

__________ Atypical Principal Preparation (Completion of Master’s Degree, principal certification and an extended training programwhich includes field residency or clinical internship with a mentor principal or coaching from a master principal.



Instrumentation

• Other than contact with the principals/schools to issue and retrieve theconfidential survey used only to aid in the identification of the criterion-based sample population, there will be no other involvement of humansubjects.

• The dominant instrumentation for the study will be the Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) data from the 2008-2009and 2009-2010 school years gathered from the Academic ExcellenceIndicator System (AEIS) report published by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) each year.



Instrumentation

• The Texas Education Agency’s AEIS report and TAKS scores for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 will be used to measure the impact of principalleadership on school accountability ratings and student achievementresults for atypically trained principals versus traditionally trainedprincipals.

• To compare school accountability ratings, the AEIS report will beaccessed and will include two academic years of rankings classified as:Exemplary (E), Recognized (R), Acceptable (A) or Unacceptable (U) for each principal/school included in the study.

• Student achievement results will also be measured by the percentageof growth in mathematics and reading for two academic years (2008-2009 and 2009-2010) for each principal/school included in the study.



Statistical Analysis

The following steps will be used in the statistical analysis portion of the study:

• Step 1: Administer School Leadership Survey to establish a pool of 100principals/schools for the study. Assign a number to surveys as they are returned tothe researcher. Enter all demographic information into an Excel spreadsheet based onthe number assigned.

• Step 2: Identify and select participating principals/schools based on survey data, andemploy the criterion sampling approach to cross-reference survey data with the TexasEducation Agency’s AEIS data report to identify schools that meet the establishedcriteria. Highlight those schools meeting the criteria on the Excel spreadsheet to beidentified as meeting the criteria for the study.

• Step 3: Create final Excel database to include 100 schools from five targeted districts,ensuring that the sample includes 50 traditionally trained and 50 atypically trainedprincipals.

• Step 4: Access and retrieve 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 extant AEIS reports from theTexas Education Agency website. For each school year, access the reading,mathematics and school accountability rating for each school. Enter this informationinto the Excel spreadsheet.



Statistical Analysis

Step 5: Disaggregate the data by differences in reading, mathematics and school accountability ratings for

each school.

Step 6: The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 13.0) will be utilized to analyze the data.Frequencies and percentages will be calculated and represented graphically. The Independent Samples

T-Test will be used to measure differences in the comparison groups.

Step 7: The researcher will construct frequency polygons and then calculate the mean and standard

deviation of each group if the variable is quantitative.

Step 8: Generalizations regarding the study will be made to the cohort of public schools that principal

training has a direct impact on school accountability ratings and student achievement results.

2008-2009 2009-2010

Reading Reading

Mathematics Mathematics

School Accountability

Ratings

School Accountability

Ratings

Traditionally Trained Principals

Atypically Trained Principals



References

Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Fuller, B., et. al. (2007) ―Gauging Growth: How to Judge No Child Left Behind?” Educational Researcher . 36.5. pp. 268-278. Sage Publications. Web.

Hess, F.M., & Kelly, A.P. (2007), Learning to lead : What gets taught in principal preparation programs. Teachers College Record , 109(1), 244-74.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. The Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. 11, 12, 22, 24, 29,51, and 52.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals: Accelerating resegregation, and the need for new

integration strategies. (A report of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles).UCLA. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/s/

Orfield, G. (2009). Reviving the goal of an integrated society: A 21st century challenge. Public Agenda Website. Retrieved fromhttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=higher_education&list6

http://news.yahoo.com/s/

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=higher_education&list6

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=higher_education&list6

http://news.yahoo.com/s/



References

Southern Regional Educational Board. (2006). In schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of

university principal preparation program. Retrieved from http://www.sreb.org

University Council for Educational Administration. (2008). Implications from UCEA: The revolving door

of the principalship. Retrieved from

http://www.edb.utexas.edu/ucea/home/ucea/www/pdf/ImplicationsMar2008.pdf

http://www.sreb.org/



http://www.sreb.org/

Documents

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Williams - Doctoral Proposal Defense PPT.!