Principals are the second-largest school-based contributor to K–12 students’ academic progress. However, there is little research evaluating whether efforts to develop principals’ skills improve school effectiveness. We conducted randomized controlled trial studies of the impacts of a professional development program called the Executive Development Program (EDP) and of the incremental effects of coaching to help principals implement the EDP curriculum. We find that the EDP alone influenced principals’ practices, but not student achievement, within 3 years. Coaching had a small positive effect on students’ English Language Arts achievement, but no effect on math achievement or on principals’ practices. Coaching had the largest effects in disadvantaged schools. We hypothesize that coaching enhanced the quality of implementation of recommended practices.
AlwinD. F. (1973). The use of factor analysis in the construction of linear composites in social research. Sociological Methods & Research, 2(2), 191–212.
2.
AngristJ. D.ImbensG. W.RubinD. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444–472.
3.
AtheyS.ImbensG. (2015). Machine learning methods for estimating heterogeneous causal effects. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
4.
AtheyS.ImbensG. (2016). Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal facts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 7353–7360.
5.
AtheyS.WagerS. (2019). Estimating treatment effects with causal forests: An application. Observational Studies, 5, 36–51. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07409
6.
BarnettB. G.O’MahonyG. R. (2008). Mentoring and coaching programs for the professional development of school leaders. In LumbyJ.CrowG.PashiardisP. (Eds.), International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 232–262).
7.
BloomH. S. (1984). Accounting for no-shows in experimental evaluation designs. Evaluation Review, 8(2), 225–246.
8.
BollenK. A.LennoxR. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314.
9.
CronbachL. J. (1976, July). Research on classrooms and schools: Formulation of questions, design and analysis [Occasional paper]. The Stanford Evaluation Consortium, Stanford University, United States.
10.
DavisJ. M. V.HellerS. B. (2017). Using causal forests to predict treatment heterogeneity: An application to summer jobs. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 107(5), 546–550.
11.
DesimoneL. M.PakK. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 3–12.
12.
GatesS. M.BairdM. D.MasterB. K.Chavez-HerreriasE. R. (2019). Principal pipelines: A feasible, affordable, and effective way for districts to improve schools (Research Report RR-2666-WF). RAND Corporation.
13.
GoffP.GoldringE.GuthrieJ. E.BickmanL. (2014). Changing principals’ leadership through feedback and coaching. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 682–704.
14.
GoldringE.PorterA.MurphyJ.ElliottS. N.CravensX. (2009). Assessing learning-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 1–36.
15.
GrissomJ. A.HarringtonJ. R. (2010). Investing in administrator efficacy: An examination of professional development as a tool for enhancing principal effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 583–612.
16.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS.MasterB. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444.
17.
HallingerP.BickmanL.DavisK. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527–549.
18.
HermanR.GatesS. M.ArifkhanovaA.BarrettM.BegaA.Chavez-HerreriasE. R.HanE.HarrisM.MigachevaK.RossR.LeschitzJ. T.WrabelS. L. (2017). School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Evidence review (RR-1550-3-WF, 2017). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1550-3.html
19.
HerrmannM.ClarkM.James-BurdumyS.TuttleC.KautzT.KnechtelV.DotterD.Smither WulsinC.DekeJ. (2019). The effects of a principal professional development program focused on instructional leadership: Appendices (NCEE 2020-0002). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
20.
HobsonA. (2003). Mentoring and coaching for new leaders: Full report. National College for School Leadership.
21.
HuffJ.PrestonC.GoldringE. (2013). Implementation of a coaching program for school principals: Evaluating coaches’ strategies and the results. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 504–526.
22.
JacobR.GoddardR.KimM.MillerR.GoddardY. (2015). Exploring the causal impact of the McREL Balanced Leadership Program on leadership, principal efficacy, instructional climate, educator turnover, and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(3), 314–332.
23.
KingstonN.NashB. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.
24.
KlarH. W.HugginsK. S.AndreoliP. M.BuskeyF. C. (2019). Developing rural school leaders through leadership coaching: A transformative approach. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19, 539–559.
25.
KraftM. A.BlazarD.HoganD. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588.
26.
LackritzA. D.CsehM.WiseD. (2019). Leadership coaching: A multiple-case study of urban public charter school principals’ experiences. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 27(1), 5–25.
27.
LaddH. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235–261.
28.
LeithwoodL.Seashore LouisK.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. The Wallace Foundation.
29.
LiangK.-Y.ZegerS. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73(1), 13–22.
30.
LochmillerC. R. (2014). What would it cost to coach every new principal? An estimate using statewide personnel data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(55).
31.
MasterB. K.SchwartzH. L.UnluF.SchweigJ.MarianoL. T.WangE. L. (2020). Effects of the executive development program and aligned coaching for school principals in three US states (Investing in Innovation Study Final Report, Research Report RR-A259-1). RAND Corporation.
32.
National Center for Education Statistics, I. (2018). Fast facts.
33.
NettlesS. M.HerringtonC. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724–736.
34.
NunneryJ. A.RossS. M.ChappellS.PribeshS.Hoag-CarhartE. (2011). The impact of the NCEE executive development program on school performance in Massachusetts: Cohort 2 Result. Center for Educational Partnerships at Old Dominion University.
35.
NunneryJ. A.YenC.-J.RossS. M. (2011). Effects of the national institute for school leadership’s executive development program on school performance in Pennsylvania: 2006–2010 pilot cohort results. Center for Educational Partnerships at Old Dominion University.
36.
R Development Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
37.
SchochetP. Z. (2008). Guidelines for multiple testing in impact evaluations of educational interventions [Final report]. Mathematica Policy Research.
38.
SilverM.LochmillerC. R.CoplandM. A.TrippsA. M. (2009). Supporting new school leaders: Findings from a university-based leadership coaching program for new administrators. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(3), 215–232.
39.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217–247.
40.
WagerS.AtheyS. (2018). Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523), 1228–1242.
41.
WangE. L.SchwartzH. L.MeanM.StelitanoL.MasterB. K. (2019). Putting professional learning to work: What principals do with their executive development program learning (Research Report RR-3082-DOED). RAND Corporation.
42.
WarrenS. R.KelsenV. E. (2013). Leadership coaching: Building the capacity of urban principals in underperforming schools. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, & Research, 9, 18–31.
WhiteH. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–830.
45.
WiseD.CavazosB. (2017). Leadership coaching for principals: A national study. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 25(2), 223–245.
46.
WiseD.HammackM. (2011). Leadership coaching: Coaching competencies and best practices. Journal of School Leadership, 21(3), 449–477.
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.
