This analysis investigates a survey scale for principal leadership of middle school mathematics instruction. It assesses scale validity by comparing results from an item response theory analysis with a hypothesized two-level structure for the construct developed from prior research. Contrary to expectation, results show that patterns of math-specific leadership are similar to patterns of principal leadership more generally across subject areas. However, differences appear in the task of setting instructional vision. The task of setting vision for mathematics appears to be relatively more difficult, compared with other tasks, than the task of setting schoolwide vision. Additional items may be needed to optimally measure all levels of principal leadership for mathematics, and the higher level of the construct may require reconceptualization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing.Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
AndrichD. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573.
3.
BakerF. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. Retrieved from http://ericae.net/irt/baker
4.
BamburgJ. D., & AndrewsR. L. (1991). School goals, principals and achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(3), 175–191.
5.
BermanP., & McLaughlinM. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 8. Implementing and sustaining innovations.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6.
BrykA., CamburnE., & LouisK. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(suppl.), 751–781.
7.
BurchP., & SpillaneJ. P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 519–535.
8.
CobbP., & SmithT. (2008). The challenge of scale: Designing schools and districts as learning organizations for instructional improvement in mathematics. In KrainerK., & WoodT. (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Vol. 3. Participants in mathematics teacher education: Individuals, teams, communities, and networks (pp. 231–254). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
9.
CoburnC. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.
10.
CoburnC. E., & RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.
11.
CohenD. K., & BarnesC. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In CohenD. K., McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. E. (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. (pp. 207–239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (2005). Study of school leadership: School Staff Questionnaire.Philadelphia, PA: Author.
13.
Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR). (2006). Public use data set: 2003 survey of students and teachers user's manual.Chicago: Author.
14.
CoplandM. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375–395.
15.
DeVellisR. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
DoolittleG., & BrowneE. G. (2011). Who moved my curriculum? Leadership preparation programs and the core technology of schools. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 293–318.
17.
EmbretsonS. E., & ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
FinkE., & ResnickL. (2001, April). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 598–606.
19.
FuhrmanS. H. (2001). Introduction. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), From the Capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states, one hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part II (pp. 1–12). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
GamoranA., AndersonC. W., & AshmannS. (2003). Leadership for change. In GamoranA., AndersonC. W., QuirozP. A., SecadaW. G., WilliamsT., & AshmannS. (Eds.), Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change (pp. 105–126). New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
GoeL. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis.Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
22.
GoldringE., & CravensX. (2006, September). Teachers’ academic focus on learning in charter and non-charter schools. Paper prepared for the National Conference on Charter School Research, Nashville, TN.
23.
GoldringE., PorterA. C., MurphyJ., ElliottS. N., & CravensX. (2007). Assessing learning-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current practices.Nashville, TN: Learning Sciences Institute.
24.
HallingerP., & HeckR. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 157–191.
25.
HalversonR., GriggJ., PrichettR., & ThomasC. (2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 159–194.
26.
HellerM. F., & FirestoneW. A. (1995). Who's in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 65–86.
27.
HiebertJ., CarpenterT. P., FennemaE., FusonK., & HumanP. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.
28.
HiebertJ., & GrouwsD. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester, Jr., (Ed.). Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
29.
KaneM. T. (2001). Concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319–342.
30.
KatterfeldK. (2011). Principal leadership for instruction: Associations between principal vision, principal involvement in instruction, and teachers’ perceptions of expectations for standards-based instructional practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
31.
KatterfeldK. (2013). Setting instructional expectations: Patterns of principal leadership for middle school mathematics. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(4), 337–373.
32.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227.
33.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528.
34.
LeithwoodK., LouisK. S., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. L. (2004). How leadership influences student learning.Toronto, Canada: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
LouisK. S., DretzkeB., & WahlstromK. (2010). How does leadership affect achievement? Results from a national U.S. survey. School Leadership and School Improvement, 21(3), 315–336.
37.
MarksH. M., & PrintyS. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.
38.
MurphyJ. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study of instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 117–139.
39.
MurphyJ. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In LottoR. S., & ThurstonP. W. (Eds.), Advances in educational administration: Changing perspectives on the school (Vol. 1, part B, pp. 163–200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
40.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
41.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.Washington, DC: Author.
42.
NelsonB. S. (1999). Building new knowledge by thinking: How administrators can learn what they need to know about mathematics education reform.Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
43.
NelsonB. S., & SassiA. (2000). Shifting approaches to supervision: The case of mathematics supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(4), 553–584.
44.
NelsonB. S., & SassiA. (2005). The effective principal: Instructional leadership for high-quality learning.New York: Teachers College Press.
45.
NelsonB. S., & SassiA. (2006, November/December). What to look for in your math classrooms. Principal, pp. 46–49.
46.
PrintyS. M. (2002). Communities of practice: Participation patterns and professional impact for high school mathematics and science teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
47.
PurkeyS. C., & SmithM. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 426–452.
48.
RobinsonV. M. J., LloydC. A., & RoweK. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.
49.
RosenholtzS. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93(3), 352–388.
50.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286.
51.
SherinM. G. (2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 119–150.
52.
SpillaneJ., & BurchP. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public education. In MeyerH., & RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 87–102). Albany: State University of New York Press.
53.
SpillaneJ. P., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
54.
SpillaneJ. P., ReiserB. J., & ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Research in Education, 72(3), 387–431.
55.
SteinM. K., & D'AmicoL. (2000, April). How subjects matter in school leadership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
56.
SteinM. K., EngleR. A., SmithM. S., & HughesE. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.
57.
SteinM. K., & NelsonB. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423–448.
58.
SupovitzJ. A., & PoglincoS. M. (2001). Instructional leadership in a standards-based reform.Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
59.
SupovitzJ., SirinidesP., & MayH. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.
