Investigating Principal Preparation A Comparison of University and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Investigating Principal Preparation A Comparison of University and Local Education Agency Programs

The Study Proposal  Ch. 1: Introduction  Path to Principalship, Problem Statement, Professional Significance  Ch. 2: Review of Literature  Importance of Principal Role, University-Based Prep v LEA-Based Prep, Principal Preparation Partnerships, Recommendations from Literature, Theoretical Framework  Ch. 3: Methods  Study Design, Research Questions, Context and Demographics, Methodology  Ch. 4: Results  Methodology and Data Collection, Results, Descriptive Analysis, Inferential Analysis  Ch. 5: Discussion  Interpretation of the Findings, Relationship of Findings to Previous Research, Recommendations, Suggestions for Further Study

Ch. 1: Introduction Why Conduct the Study?

The Path to the Principalship LEA University Preparation L EA Identification Preparation Disconnect Principalship Employment Program Program (Optional)

Problem Statement • Gap in Literature Comparing Principal Perceptions of Self-Efficacy • University-Based Principal Preparation Programs • LEA-Based Principal Preparation Programs.

Professional Significance • Principals are Critical to School and Student Success • Preparation Programs Struggle with Balance of Theory/Practice • Literature Supports Standards-Based Programs

Ch. 2: Review of Literature What Does the Literature Say?

University Preparation v LEA-Based Preparation University Preparation LEA-Based Preparation  Limited Access (APs within an  Limited Access (Geography, LEA) Diversity, Finance)  Conflict – Job v Career  Candidate Quality  Emphasis on Operational  Emphasis on Leadership Management and fitting into Theory current Status Quo  Leadership Opportunities are  Reading Lists May Not Align Limited to/by Principal with Principal’s Needs

Program Partnerships • Federal Partnerships • State Level Partnerships • Community Partnerships

Program Recommendations from the Literature Wallace Foundation Common Themes  Essential Elements of Good  Focused on Teaching/Learning Leadership  Standards-Based Curriculum  Features of Effective Programs  Rigorous Recruitment and Admission Standards  Multiple Pathways to Leadership Development  Cohort Model  Policy Reform and Finances  LEA Partnerships

Theoretical Framework – Perception into Action • Albert Bandura : Social Cognitive Theory (1977) • Self-Efficacy – ability to function in changing environment (Bandura, 1986) • Leadership Self-Efficacy – confidence in ability to successfully lead a group (McCormick, 2016)

Ch. 3: Methodology How Will the Study Be Conducted and Measured?

Design of Study • Non-Experimental Descriptive Study • On-line Survey • Identify Level of Preparedness by Standard for the whole group • Compare Results from Two Subgroups

Research Questions • To what extent do principals perceive that their principal preparation program, or programs , prepared them to be school leaders as measured by the North Carolina Standards for School Leaders? • Does a significant difference exist between the perceptions of preparedness of principals with university-only preparation as compared to principals that participated in supplemental, LEA- based preparation programs ?

Context and Demographics • High Performing, Diverse Suburban LEA • 53 Principals • Modified NCPEL Survey • Focus is on Perceptions of their First Year

Research Methodology Data Collection Data Analysis  Data Collection Via Online Survey  Variables :  Dependent – Perception of  Responses gathered from Whole Preparedness Group  Independent – Participation in LEA- Based Prep Program  Responses Divided into two  Descriptive Statistics Subgroups:  Mean, Mode  University Prep  Variability, Range  University Prep and LEA Prep  Inferential Statistics  Responses Transferred to a  T-Test – Group Comparison Spreadsheet for Analysis

Ch. 4: Results What are the Findings of the Study?

Overview of Results Methodology Data Collection  Online Survey  Demographic Data Collection  Responses of all Participants  Questions  Responses Divided by  Demographics of Participation in a Prep Respondents Program  Participation in a Prep  Standards Data Collection Program  Preparedness of  Responses as a Whole  Responses Divided by Respondents  Perception of Addressing Participation in a Prep Standards Program

Survey Responses Number Number of Response LEA Participants Sampled Respondents Rate Completed Survey 53 32 60% Partially Completed 53 2 4% Survey Total 53 34 64%

Demographic Findings - All Respondents Licensure Year Type of Prep School Program NC 81% Prior to 2000 0 Elementary 66% University 59% School Preparation Another State 19% 2000-2005 3% Middle 19% University and 41% School LEA Prep 2006-2010 31% High 9% School 2011-2015 38% Another 6% Configuration After 2015 28%

Demographic Findings: By Participation in a Prep Program Licensure Year Type of School Non-PPP PPP Non-PPP PPP Non-PPP PPP NC 62% 95% Prior to 2000 0 0 Elementary 77% 58% School Another 38% 5% 2000-2005 7% 0 Middle 8% 26% State School 2006-2010 46% 21% High 0 16% School 2011-2015 30% 42% Non- 15% 0 Traditional After 2015 15% 37%

Preparedness Survey Survey Response Option Assigned Numeric Value Not Prepared 1 Minimally Prepared 2 Somewhat Prepared 3 Prepared 4 Very Well Prepared 5

Preparedness Findings – All Respondents Executive Leadership Standard Min. Max. Range Mode Mean Managerial Leadership 2 5 3 4 3.68 Cultural Leadership 2 5 3 3 3.62 Strategic Leadership 2 5 3 3 3.59 Instructional Leadership 2 5 3 3 3.56 Academic Leadership 2 5 3 4 3.41 Human Resource Leadership 2 5 3 3 3.38 Micro-Political Leadership 2 5 3 4 3.26 External Development Leadership 1 5 4 3 3.21 Average 3.46

Preparedness Findings: Non-Participants in Prep Program Executive Leadership Standard Min. Max. Range Mode Mean Instructional Leadership 3 5 2 3 3.69 Cultural Leadership 3 5 2 4 3.69 Managerial Leadership 2 5 3 4 3.69 Strategic Leadership 3 5 2 3 3.54 Human Resources Leadership 2 5 3 3 3.46 Academic Achievement Leadership 2 5 3 4 3.38 External Development Leadership 2 5 3 3 3.31 Micro-Political Leadership 2 5 3 4 3.23 Average 3.50

Preparedness Findings: Participants in Prep Program Executive Leadership Standard Min. Max. Range Mode Mean Strategic Leadership 3 5 2 4 3.74 Cultural Leadership 3 5 2 3 3.68 Managerial Leadership 2 5 3 4 3.68 Instructional Leadership 2 5 3 3 3.58 Academic Leadership 2 5 3 4 3.53 Human Resource Leadership 2 5 3 4 3.42 Micro-Political Leadership 2 5 3 4 3.32 External Development Leadership 1 5 4 3 3.16 Average 3.51

Differences in Responses to Standards Non-PPP PPP Executive Leadership Standard Participants Participants Difference Strategic Leadership 3.54 3.74 0.20 Academic Leadership 3.38 3.53 0.15 Micro-Political Leadership 3.23 3.32 0.09 Cultural Leadership 3.69 3.68 -0.01 Managerial Leadership 3.69 3.68 -0.01 Human Resource Leadership 3.49 3.42 -0.04 Instructional Leadership 3.69 3.58 -0.11 External Development Leadership 3.31 3.16 -0.15 Average 3.50 3.51 0.01

Inferential Analysis t Test for Significant Difference t Test Measures Non- PPP Participants PPP Participants Mean 3.50 3.51 Variance 0.03 0.04 Observations 8.00 8.00 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.00 Df 14.00 t Stat -0.16 P(T<=t) one-tail .44 t Critical one-tail 1.76 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.88 t Critical two-tail 2.14 Note: An alpha level of 0.05 was declared in order to establish a probability of 95% or greater that the results did not occur by chance

Ch. 5: Discussion And Summary What do the Findings of the Study Mean?

Interpretation of Findings: Demographics – Whole Group  Large majority of respondents (81%) obtained licensure in NC  Data align with LEA’s history of hiring internal candidates 93%  Experience levels of respondents fall relatively evenly across three experience groups  Percentages of school placements loosely align with percentages of school levels in LEA  Findings may not represent current placement  More respondents participated in a prep program  Local LEA program v program from another LEA or state

Interpretation of Findings: Demographics – Group Comparison Demographic Finding Discussion Licensure Non-PPP – 62% in NC Does NC or LEA offer more prep programs PPP – 95% in NC than other licensing states? Experience Non-PPP – 15% since Currently, is the LEA more likely to hire a 2015 first year principal that has prep program PPP – 37% since experience? 2015 Type of School Non-PPP – 77% in ES Are candidates from a prep program more PPP – 58% in ES, likely to get secondary school placements? 28% in MS, 16% in HS