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

Identification University Preparation Program Disconnect LEA Employment LEA Preparation Program (Optional) Principalship

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

• Limited Access (Geography,

Diversity, Finance)

• Candidate Quality
• Emphasis on Leadership

Theory

• Reading Lists May Not Align

with Principal’s Needs

LEA-Based Preparation

• Limited Access (APs within an

LEA)

• Conflict – Job v Career
• Emphasis on Operational

Management and fitting into current Status Quo

• Leadership Opportunities are

Limited to/by Principal

Program Partnerships

• Federal

Partnerships

• State Level

Partnerships

• Community

Partnerships

Program Recommendations from the Literature

Wallace Foundation

• Essential Elements of Good

Leadership

• Features of Effective

Programs

• Multiple Pathways to

Leadership Development

• Policy Reform and Finances

Common Themes

• Focused on

Teaching/Learning

• Standards-Based Curriculum
• Rigorous Recruitment and

Admission Standards

• Cohort Model
• 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 Collection Via Online Survey
• Responses gathered from Whole

Group

• Responses Divided into two

Subgroups:

• University Prep
• University Prep and LEA Prep
• Responses Transferred to a

Spreadsheet for Analysis

Data Analysis

• Variables:
• Dependent – Perception of

Preparedness

• Independent – Participation in LEA-

Based Prep Program

• Descriptive Statistics
• Mean, Mode
• Variability, Range
• Inferential Statistics
• T-Test – Group Comparison

• Ch. 4: Results

What are the Findings of the Study?

Overview of Results

Methodology

• Online Survey
• Questions
• Demographics of

Respondents

• Participation in a Prep

Program

• Preparedness of

Respondents

• Perception of Addressing

Standards Data Collection

• Demographic Data Collection
• Responses of all Participants
• Responses Divided by

Participation in a Prep Program

• Standards Data Collection
• Responses as a Whole
• Responses Divided by

Participation in a Prep Program

Survey Responses

LEA Participants Number Sampled Number of Respondents Response Rate

Completed Survey 53 32 60% Partially Completed Survey 53 2 4%

Total 53 34 64%

Demographic Findings - All Respondents

Licensure Year Type of School Prep Program

NC 81% Prior to 2000 Elementary School 66% University Preparation 59% Another State 19% 2000-2005 3% Middle School 19% University and LEA Prep 41% 2006-2010 31% High School 9% 2011-2015 38% Another Configuration 6% 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 Elementary School 77% 58% Another State 38% 5% 2000-2005 7% Middle School 8% 26% 2006-2010 46% 21% High School 16% 2011-2015 30% 42% Non- Traditional 15% 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

Executive Leadership Standard

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

Interpretation of Findings: Descriptive Analysis Perceptions of Preparedness – Whole Group

Executive Standard Mean Managerial Leadership 3.68 Cultural Leadership 3.62 Strategic Leadership 3.59 Instructional Leadership 3.56 Academic Achievement Leadership 3.41 Human Resource Leadership 3.38 Micro-Political Leadership 3.26 External Development Leadership 3.21

Research Question 1:

• To what extent do principals perceive

their principal preparation program, or programs, prepared then to be school leaders as measured by the North Carolina Standards for School Leaders?

• Extent – responses vary between

“Somewhat Prepared” and “Prepared”

• Most prepared – Managerial, Cultural,

Strategic, Instructional

• Least prepared – External

Development, Micro-Political, Human Resource, Academic Achievement

Interpretation of Findings: Descriptive Analysis Perceptions of Preparedness – Group Comparison

Executive Standard Non-PPP PPP

Managerial Strategic Cultural Cultural Instructional Managerial Strategic Instructional Human Resources Academic Achievement Academic Achievement Human Resource External Development Micro-Political Micro-Political External Development

Research Question 1:

• To what extent do principals

perceive their principal preparation program, or programs, prepared then to be school leaders as measured by the North Carolina Standards for School Leaders?

• Descriptive Analysis demonstrates

similarities in the top four and bottom four standards with each group

• Relative placement of standards

within the top and bottom tiers varies by participation

Interpretation of Findings: Descriptive Analysis Perceptions of Preparedness – Group Comparison

Non-PPP v PPP Findings

• Non-PPP Perceptions of Preparedness
• More prepared than PPP to address

Human Resources, Instructional, and External Development challenges

• PPP Perceptions of Preparedness
• More prepared for Strategic, Academic

Achievement, and Micro-Political Challenges

• Little difference in perceptions of Cultural

and Managerial preparedness

2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

Non-PPP v PPP

Interpretation of Findings: Inferential Analysis Perceptions of Preparedness – Group Comparison

Indicator Finding t-Test P-value of .88 Mean Responses Non-PPP – 3.50 PPP - 3.51 Relative Position Similar Top Half Similar Bottom Half

Research Question 2:

• Does a significant difference exist

between the perceptions of preparedness of principals with university-only preparation as compared to principals that participated in a supplemental, LEA- based preparation program?

• t-Test result suggests no significant

differences in perceptions of preparedness between Non-PPP and PPP

• Very little difference between mean

scores of Each Group

• Similar relative positioning of

standards across groups

Connection to Prior Research

• Albert Bondura - Self-Efficacy
• Connecting perceptions and beliefs

with practice

• Survey captures perceptions
• Perceptions of Self-Efficacy may have

translated to more or less effective handling of issues related to the specific standards

• Wallace Foundation
• NC Standards are based on this work
• Standards are based on actual work

done by practicing administrators

• Most effective programs are standards

based

Discussion – Moving Forward

Recommendations

Improve the overall perception of preparedness across all principal preparation programs. No single standard elicited an average response of “Prepared”. Specifically, improve candidate preparation in the areas of External Development and Micro-Political

• Leadership. This standard was consistently the

lowest scoring across all groups. Close the gap between university preparation programs and LEA-based preparation programs with on-going collaborative efforts between licensing institutions and local school systems.

Suggestions for Further Study

Use existing survey data to investigate whether significant differences in preparedness perceptions exist between:

• Respondents licensed in NC v other state
• Respondents hired in different year spans
• Respondents staring in different level or types
• f schools

Replicate existing study using responses from survey related to frequency of standard use instead

• f responses tied to perceptions of preparedness.

Or, conduct a comparative investigation into the correlation between respondent perceptions of standards and the frequency in which standards are used may be indicated.

Conclusions

• Principals are important.
• The path to the principalship in NC is the result of a

poorly defined collaboration between universities and LEAs.

• Similarities exist in the executive standards that

respondents were most and least prepared to address

• Participation in an LEA-based preparation program did

not result in significant differences in perceptions of preparedness.

• Perceptions of preparedness may have led to more

effective handling of issues related to specific standards

Questions - Feedback