Leadership Training to Improve Curriculum, Instruction, and Achievement: Evidence from

Michigan Schools

Roger Goddard, Senior Fellow, McREL Dan Reattoir, Superintendent, Eastern Upper Peninsula ISD

MAISA June 19, 2013

Overview of This Best Practice Session

• Leadership as a Driver of Improvement

• A Federal Randomized Control Trial to Evaluate McREL’s Balanced Leadership Program

• Preliminary Findings from the Evaluation

• Balanced Leadership and Beyond in the EUPISD

• Results in the EUPISD

The general effect of school level leadership

Average correlation (r) between principal

leadership behavior & school achievement is .25.

This means …

A one standard deviation increase in principal leadership is associated with a

10 percentile point gain in school achievement.

School Leadership and Improvements in Curriculum and

Instruction

• How do you guarantee low variability and high quality among classrooms in instruction?

• Distinguishing between Beating the Odds and Changing the Odds

• Meta-analytic Findings on School Leadership• Waters, Marzano, & McNulty (2003) • Average Impact of Leadership factors ES .25

• Robinson, Lloyd, & Lowe (2008) • Instructional Leadership Statistically Linked to Achievement• Instructional Leadership 3x more strongly related to

achievement compared to transformational leadership

Differences in teacher ratings of principal leadership

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Principal A Principal B

2.1413.5934.1334.1313.592.14

Difference in mean student achievement

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Mean student achievement = 50th percentileMean student achievement = 60th percentile

School A School B

Effect Size = .25

A Randomized Control Trial to Assess the Efficacy of the Balanced Leadership

Program

• Collaborative large-scale experimental leadership research project in Northern Michigan• 17 ISDs, 74 Districts, and 126 Elementary Schools

• To assess the fidelity and causal impacts of McREL’s Balanced Leadership Program

• Random assignment with training for control schools after final outcome data.

• Two year, 10 two-day session BL program

Purposeful Community

Purposeful Community

Pu

rposefu

l C

om

mu

nit

y

Pu

rposefu

l C

om

mu

nity

McREL’s Balanced Leadership Framework™

School-level leadership

School-level leadership

Dis

tric

t-le

vel le

ad

ers

hip D

istric

t-level le

ad

ers

hip

MAGNITUDE FOCUS

Big problems of practice

21 school-level leadership responsibilities

1. Affirmation 12. Involvement with CIA

2. Change agent 13. Knowledge of CIA

3. Communication 14. Monitor/evaluate

4. Contingent reward 15. Optimize

5. Culture 16. Order

6. Discipline 17. Outreach

7. Flexibility 18. Relationships

8. Focus 19. Resources

9. Ideals and beliefs 20. Situational Awareness

10. Input 21. Visibility

11. Intellectual stimulation

Balanced Leadership Evaluation Overview

• Rigorous Design to Assess Causality• Stratified Random Assignment• Leveraging chance

• Impact on • Principals’ Leadership and School Climate• Principal and Teacher Turnover

Involvement in Curr., Instr., & Assess.Purposeful Community

Principal’s Support for ChangeVisibility

CultureDisciplineFlexibility

Principal LeadershipFocus on Student Learning

Knowledge of Curr., Instr., & Assess.Principal Network Reflection

Collective Efficacy Principal Trust in Teachers

Guaranteed and Viable CurriculumIdeal and BeliefsMonitor/Evaluate

Intellectual StimulationTeacher Collective Responsibility

Situational AwarenessFraming Social Persuasion

Leading ChangeOutreach

Parent and Community InvolvementSchool Norms for Differentiated Instruction

CollaborationChange Agent

Principal Efficacy

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

0.050.05

0.090.09

0.10.130.14

0.270.320.32

0.350.36

0.40.410.410.41

0.470.49

0.510.530.530.540.54

0.570.580.59

0.62

Hedges’s g Effect Size for Balanced Leadership Training Impact on Principals (n = 95)*

Note. * ES .25 substantively significant for experimental research (What Works Clearinghouse, 2008).

Source: Miller, R. J., Goddard, R. D., Kim, E.S., Goddard, Y., L. & Schroeder, P. (2011). Evaluation of principals’ professional development learning: Results from a randomized control trial. Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council for Educational Administration, Pittsburgh, PA.

Balanced Leadership Impact on Principal and Teacher Turnover

• Does the Balanced Leadership Program cause changes in principal and teacher turnover?

• After the two years of training, compared to control schools: • Principals in the treatment schools were

20% less likely to leave • Teachers in the treatment schools were

7% less likely to leave

EUPISD Timeline

2005/2006

• Provided a Framework• Curriculum

• Instruction

• Assessment

• Team of Administrators• Local District Principals

• Local District Superintendents

• ISD Staff

• Numerous Book Studies

2005- Regional CurriculumEfforts Begin

• C = Curriculum

• R = Review

• T = Teams

• CRTs formed in an attempt to provide a forum for all local districts to collaborate, at the teacher and content level, around curriculum “matters.”

• Started with Math & ELA. Teams for Science, Social Studies, World Languages, Visual & Performing Arts, Physical Education, and Health have since been formed.

2005 – Freedom to Learn Initiative

• Statewide One-to-One Laptop-to- Student Initiative

• Jump-started student level access to curriculum and assessments

• Began process of integrating technology into classroom practices at instructional level

2006 – Common RegionalAssessment Efforts

• Used FTL computers and have students begin taking on-line, common, regional assessments.

• Originally used Scantron Assessment Connection to build tests, delivered using Microsoft Class-Server, imported data into regional data system – Data Director

• Cumbersome but powerful

• Assessments are now taken directly through Data Director. Seamless process with immediate turnaround on reports for teachers

2007 – Balanced Assessment Training

• Creating and using well done assessments is hard!

• Partnered with Wexford-Missaukee ISD on E2T2 grant

• Trained a large cohort of teachers and ISD staff on Stiggins Balanced Assessment process

• These teams became involved in the process of refining and creating new common, regional assessments

• These strategies are still employed as common assessments, are tweaked and new assessments are created

2009 – Balanced Leadership Efforts

• Originally exposed to Balanced Leadership through Freedom to Learn ongoing professional development (for administrators)

• Book studies; UPCED, EUP principals, ISD staff

• Involvement in Dr. Goddard’s efficacy study

2010 – Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

• Another opportunity to boost technology use for students and families

• Provided netbooks for students 6-12

• Greatly expanded access to online teaching and learning tools

• Greatly expanded access to professional development for teachers and families

“Sparking Broadband Use in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan”

2011 – Classroom Observations and Power Walkthroughs

• Initiated by elementary principals as a way to more efficiently collect data on research based instructional strategies often embedded in school improvement plans.

• Introduced in 2011, in full use in 2012 and 2013.

• Good baseline data established / Great teacher – admin discussions initiated

2012 – Using Technology in the Classroom that Works

• This training really brought together the Power Walkthroughs, the BTOP grant, and overall best practices in the 21st Century Classroom

• Supported by embedded PD offerings throughout BTOP project and through ongoing classroom observations

Best Practices / SBAC Readiness

• Several systems in place.

• Student achievement improving.

• SBAC readiness enhanced.

EUPISD Student Achievement- Reading 2011-2012 vs. 2012-

2013

EUPISD Student Achievement- Math 2011-2012 vs. 2012-2013

Summary / Questions