Exploring the Causal Impact of the McREL Balanced Leadership Program on Leadership, Principal Efficacy, Instructional Climate, Educator Turnover, and Student Achievement
Jacob, Robin; Goddard, Roger; Kim, Minjung; Miller, Robert; Goddard, Yvonne (2015). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v37 n3 p314-332. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1072764
-
examining124Schools, gradesK-12
McREL Balanced Leadership Intervention Report - School Leadership
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2020
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for McREL Balanced Leadership.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Principal turnover at the school after 3 years |
McREL Balanced Leadership vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample: Principals;
|
0.24 |
0.40 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Rural
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Michigan
-
Race Other or unknown 10% White 90%
Study Details
Setting
The study includes 124 rural schools spread across as many as 74 school districts in northern Michigan, including the Upper Peninsula. Only schools that were public (including charter or magnet) and served grades 3 to 5 inclusively (for example, K–5 or K–12) were eligible to participate in the study.
Study sample
One hundred twenty-four schools participated in the study for all 3 years. This included 124 principals, as many as 1,764 teachers, and more than 30,000 students. Outcomes using the analytic samples of teachers and students did not meet WWC group design standards to be included in this review. In study schools, which averaged 300 students each, approximately 47% of students were eligible for the free- or reduced-price meal program and 10% were minorities. Forty-three percent of principals were female, 77% had advanced degrees, and all were White. No descriptive information was provided for the sample of teachers.
Intervention Group
Balanced Leadership® is a professional development program for school principals and other current and aspiring school leaders in schools serving kindergarten through grade 12. School leaders participate in professional development sessions with trained facilitators over one or two years, practice what they learn between sessions, and can receive additional coaching and online support. McREL International, the company that developed the Balanced Leadership® program, based the framework and content of the professional development on research identifying key actions and behaviors of school leaders that are associated with improved student outcomes. Principals in the intervention group were offered 10 Balanced Leadership® program sessions, each of which took place over 2 days. These sessions were spread across 3 academic years, starting in January 2009 (the 2008–09 school year) and ending in October 2010 (the 2010–11 school year). The consortium training model was used, with principals attending training together at one of two locations closest to their districts.
Comparison Group
No alternative intervention was designed for the comparison schools. Principals in those schools received their school or district’s standard professional development offerings. Of the school principals in the comparison group, 12% reported attending a program with content similar to the intervention.
Support for implementation
The Balanced Leadership® professional development sessions were facilitated by full-time training consultants employed by the program developer. Training consultants were required to complete practice training sessions with more experienced facilitators before they were allowed to facilitate sessions in the field. No additional information on support for implementation is described in the study.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Miller, Robert James; Goddard, Roger D.; Kim, Minjung; Jacob, Robin; Goddard, Yvonne; Schroeder, Patricia. (2016). Can Professional Development Improve School Leadership? Results from a Randomized Control Trial Assessing the Impact of McREL's Balanced Leadership Program on Principals in Rural Michigan Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, v52 n4 p531-566.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2016
- Grant Competition
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).