Effects of the Executive Development Program and Aligned Coaching for School Principals in Three U.S. States. Investing in Innovation Study Final Report. Research Report. RR-A259-1
Master, Benjamin K.; Schwartz, Heather L.; Unlu, Fatih; Schweig, Jonathan; Mariano, Louis T.; Wang, Elaine Lin (2020). RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED606136
-
examining63,337Students, grades6-8
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2022
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for National Institute for School Leadership’s Executive Development Program )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading Achievement |
National Institute for School Leadership’s Executive Development Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 3;
|
0.01 |
0.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State math assessment |
National Institute for School Leadership’s Executive Development Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 3;
|
0.03 |
0.04 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance |
National Institute for School Leadership’s Executive Development Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 3;
|
170.08 |
170.06 |
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.
-
16% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
- 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
South, West
-
Race Black 19% Other or unknown 49% White 32% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 40% Not Hispanic or Latino 60% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 72% No FRPL 28%
Study Details
Setting
The implementation of the National Institute for School Leadership’s (NISL’s) Executive Development Program (EDP) and paired coaching spanned three states, 332 middle schools, and 118 school districts.
Study sample
The middle school principals were characterized as novice principals (defined as less than five years of experience) and with no prior experience with the EDP. Students in the sample were primarily nonwhite (68%), with 40% of the sample identified as Hispanic, 19% Black, 32% White, and 9% other race. Most of the study students came from low-income backgrounds and were therefore eligible for free or reduced-price lunch or categorized as having lower socioeconomic status (72%). Sixteen percent of students were classified as English learners (ELs).
Intervention Group
The National Institute for School Leadership’s (NISL’s) Executive Development Program (EDP) is a widely used principal professional development program. The EDP provides principals with supports to build their skills, knowledge, and resources to set the direction for teachers, improve their instruction, and create an effective school environment rooted in professional learning. The EDP also includes diagnostic tools principals can use for their school planning. In this intervention, principals participate in an in-person program that is typically delivered in 24 full-day sessions, two per month, over 12 months. Additionally, NISL-certified coaches offer at least 60 hours of one-on-one coaching to principals, both in-person and remotely.
Comparison Group
Principals in the control group were placed on a waitlist for the three-year period of the study, after which they received the 12-month EDP. During the study period, principals and students in the comparison group were likely exposed to support services as they had been in the past.
Support for implementation
No implementation support was described separate from the intervention components, which included professional development and coaching, diagnostic tools, and a year-long in-person development program.
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).