Educator leadership requires continuous development, including extended professional learning opportunities for principals in the field. This is also true for district leaders who likely have even fewer robust opportunities to grow professionally. We conducted a comparative interrupted time series of publicly available student achievement data from New Mexico to analyze the impact of a university-based organization that partners with district leaders to provide intensive professional learning opportunities for district leaders and school principals. We found positive impacts on student achievement in math and for English learners in English language arts. Implications for educator preparation and in-service programs are considered.
AndersonS.LeithwoodK.StraussT. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 292–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700761003731492
2.
AndersonS. E. (2006). The school district’s role in educational change. International Journal of Educational Reform, 15(1), 13–37.
3.
BarnettA. G.van der PolsJ. C.DobsonA. J. (2005). Regression to the mean: What it is and how to deal with it. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(1), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh299
4.
BeesleyA. D.ClarkT. F. (2015). How rural and nonrural principals differ in high plains U.S. states. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(2), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2015.1022114
5.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
CobbP.JacksonK.HenrickE.SmithT. M. (2018). Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Harvard Education Press.
8.
CosnerS.DeVotoC.Andry Rah’manA. (2018). Drawing in the school context as a learning resource in school leader development: Application-oriented projects in active learning designs. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(3), 238–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775118763872
9.
DavisS. H.Darling-HammondL. (2012). Innovative principal preparation programs: What works and how we know. Planning and Changing, 43(1–2), 25–45.
DeVotoC.ReedyM. A. (2021). Are states under ESSA prioritizing education leadership to improve schools?Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 16, 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775119890637
13.
Drago-SeversonE.Maslin-OstrowskiP.HoffmanA. M. (2012). Resisting fragmentation: Calling for a holistic approach to professional practice and preparation for educational leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7(1), 44–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775112440628
14.
Drago-SeversonE.Maslin-OstrowskiP.HoffmanA. M.BarbaroJ. (2014). Managing adaptive challenges: Learning with principals in Bermuda and Florida. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 9(1), 6–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113498376
15.
DukeD.SalmonowiczM. (2010). Key decisions of a first-year ‘turnaround’ principal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209345450
FullanM. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Corwin.
19.
FullanM.QuinnJ. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin.
20.
FusarelliB. C.FusarelliL. D.DrakeT. A. (2019). NC state’s principal leadership academies: Context, challenges, and promising practices. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 14(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775118819678
21.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
22.
GrissomJ. A.EgaliteA. J.LindsayC. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis
23.
HallingerP.HeckR. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203
24.
HarrisD.LarsenM. (2016). The effects of the New Orleans post-Katrina school reforms on student academic outcomes. Tulane University, Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
25.
HermanR.GatesS. M.Chavez-HerreriasE. R.HarrisM. (2018). School leadership interventions under the every student succeeds act: A review of the evidence base, initial findings. RAND.
26.
HessF. M.KellyA. P. (2005). Learning to lead? What gets taught in principal preparation programs. Harvard University. https://tinyurl.com/879vsf8e
27.
HittD. H.TuckerP. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86, 531–569. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911
28.
HoA. D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under no child left behind. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08323842
29.
HonigM. I. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals’ development as instructional leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x12443258
30.
HonigM. I.CoplandM. A.RaineyL.LortonJ. A.NewtonM. (2010). Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement. https://tinyurl.com/2r5oovn2
31.
IshimaruA. M. (2020). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations with families and communities. Teachers College Press.
32.
JohnsonS. M.MariettaG.HigginsM. C.MappK. L.GrossmanA. (2015). Achieving coherence in district improvement: Managing the relationship between the central office and schools. Harvard Education Press.
33.
KhalifaM. A.GoodenM. A.DavisJ. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
34.
LeithwoodK. (2010). Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective in closing the achievement gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 245–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700761003731500
35.
LiCalsiC.CitkowiczM.FriedmanL. B.BrownM. (2015). Evaluation of Massachusetts district and school turnaround assistance: Impact of School Redesign Grants (SRG). American Institutes for Research. https://tinyurl.com/7lpzrs4k
36.
LochmillerC. R. (2014). Leadership coaching in an induction program for novice principals: A 3-year study. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 9(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113502020
37.
LouisK. S.LeithwoodK.WahlstromK. L.AndersonS. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. The Wallace Foundation. https://tinyurl.com/f1ndfgi6
38.
MannaP. (2015). Developing excellent school principals to advance teaching and learning: Considerations for state policy. The Wallace Foundation.
39.
MarksH. M.PrintyS. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 370–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x03253412
MeyersC. V. (2020b). District-led school turnaround: A case study of one district’s efforts to initiate multiple school turnarounds. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 19(4), 710–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1637902
42.
MintropH.MacLellanA. M.QuinteroM. F. (2001). School improvement plans in schools on probation: A comparative content analysis across three accountability systems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 197–218.
43.
MintropH.TrujilloT. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319–352.
44.
MurphyJ. (2009). Turning around failing schools: Policy insights from the corporate, government, and non-profit sector. Educational Policy, 23(6), 796–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808320677
45.
NewmannF. M.SmithB.AllensworthE.BrykA. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023004297
PeckC.ReitzugU. C. (2014). School turnaround fever: The paradoxes of a historical practice promoted as a new reform. Urban Education, 49, 8–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912472511
49.
PlayerD.KatzV. (2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. The Elementary School Journal, 116, 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1086/686467
50.
QuinnJ.FullanM. (2017). Coherence making: Whole system change strategy. In MaloneH. J.Rincón-GallardoS.KewK. (Eds.), Future directions of educational change: Social justice, professional capital, and systems change (pp. 223–237). Routledge.
51.
ReamesE. (2010). Shifting paradigms: Redesigning a principal preparation program’s curriculum. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(12), 436–459.
52.
SchmidtW. H.HouangR. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the common core state standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12464517
53.
SchuelerB. E. (2019). A third way: The politics of school district takeover and turnaround in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(1), 116–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x18785873
54.
SchuelerB. E.GoodmanJ. S.DemingD. J. (2017). Can states take over and turn around school districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716685824
55.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs of generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin Company.
56.
SpillaneJ. P.HalversonR.DiamondJ. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x030003023
57.
StrunkK. O.MarshJ. A.HashimA. K.Bush-MecenasS.WeinsteinT. (2016a). The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 251–282. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00188
58.
StrunkK. O.MarshJ. A.Bush-MecenasS. C.DuqueM. R. (2016b). The best laid plans: An examination of school plan quality and implementation in a school improvement initiative. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 259–309.
59.
SullanmaaJ.PyhältöK.PietarinenJ.SoiniT. (2019). Differences in state- and district-level stakeholders’ perceptions of curriculum coherence and school impact in national curriculum reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-08-2018-0153
60.
ThessinR. A. (2019). Establishing productive principal/principal supervisor partnerships for instructional leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-09-2018-0184
WongM.CookT. D.SteinerP. M. (2015). Adding design elements to improve time series designs: No child left behind as an example of causal pattern-matching. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(2), 245–279.
63.
WoulfinS. L.RigbyJ. G. (2017). Coaching for coherence: How instructional coaches lead change in the evaluation era. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 323–328. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x17725525
64.
YatskoS.LakeR.NelsonE. C.BowenM. (2012). Tinkering toward transformation: A look at federal school improvement grant implementation. Center on Reinventing Public Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532630.pdf
65.
ZavadskyH. (2012). School turnarounds: The essential role districts. Harvard Education Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
