Middle-Grades Leadership Development (MLD) Project: A U.S. Department of Education Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant Final Evaluation Report
Flowers, Nancy; Carpenter, Dawn M. H.; Begum, Shahana (2018). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED589571
-
examining5,737Students, grades6-8
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2021
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Middle-Grades Leadership Development (MLD) Project)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) or Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP) |
Middle-Grades Leadership Development (MLD) Project vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.02 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) or Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP) - Math |
Middle-Grades Leadership Development (MLD) Project vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.09 |
-0.02 |
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.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
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
Kentucky, Michigan
-
Race Black 5% Other or unknown 12% White 83% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7% Not Hispanic or Latino 93%
Study Details
Setting
The 12 schools that participated in the Middle-Grades Leadership Development (MLD) Project were located in primarily rural or small-town areas of Kentucky and Michigan, each serving an average of 424 students. To be included, schools had to be public middle-grades schools serving high-need student populations.
Study sample
The school principals who participated in the intervention were experienced educators with an average of 17.6 years of work in the field of education and an average of 13.2 years working in the middle grades. All principals had a school administrator/principal certification. The students in the study mostly identify as White (82.6%), with only a minority of students identifying as Black (5.4%) or Hispanic (6.8%). The students are evenly divided in terms of female (50.3%) and male (49.7%) students. Fifty-nine percent of students receive free or reduced-priced lunch and 10.1% are special education students.
Intervention Group
The Middle-Grades Leadership Development (MLD) Project was designed to develop principal leaders and leadership teams who create high-performing middle-grades schools. The MLD Project sought to improve principal effectiveness in order to improve the academic achievement of high-need, middle-grades students at 12 schools, through the development of principal and leadership team skills and behaviors to create high-performing, middle-grades schools and through improved climate and culture for learning. The MLD Project used an extensive set of school improvement supports, including a Schools to Watch (STW) leadership coach, principal mentor, STW mentor schools, focused professional development, and networking opportunities. Through these supports and activities, schools created a powerful vision for high performance using the STW criteria; engaged in an assessment and planning process to develop and implement a formal action plan; and used intervention supports and services to develop leadership capacity and sustainability in professional learning communities.
Comparison Group
Comparison schools were business as usual middle-grades schools that did not receive the MLD Project intervention. Their principals and school leadership received their typical levels of support, training, and mentoring. Their principals and school leadership likely conducted school activities as they had in the past.
Support for implementation
Principals in the MLD project received professional development through leadership coaches, principal mentors, and networking opportunities through professional learning communities.
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).