Developing School Leaders: Findings from a Randomized Control Trial Study of the Executive Development Program and Paired Coaching [National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) vs. Business-as-usual]
Master, Benjamin K.; Schwartz, Heather; Unlu, Fatih; Schweig, Jonathan; Mariano, Louis T.; Coe, Jessie; Wang, Elaine Lin; Phillips, Brian; Berglund, Tiffany (2022). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v44 n2 p257-282. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1339009
-
examining146,385Students, grades3-8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade 3-8 English Language Arts Achievement Test |
National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.02 |
-0.01 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Grade 3-8 English Language Arts Achievement Test |
National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
-0.06 |
-0.03 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade 3-8 Mathematics Achievement Test |
National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.03 |
-0.01 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Grade 3-8 Mathematics Achievement Test |
National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
-0.06 |
-0.03 |
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.
-
5% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural, Urban
-
Race Black 23% Other or unknown 14% White 63% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 8% Not Hispanic or Latino 92% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 67% Other or unknown 33%
Study Details
Setting
The study was implemented in three unnamed states in the United States. A total of 483 schools, across districts, participated in the study, and these included public schools in both urban and rural districts.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 308 schools to receive the offer of the intervention, and 308 schools to receive a delayed offer of the intervention (comparison group). A total of 146,385 students in grades 3 through 8 in 483 schools (69,402 students in 237 schools in the intervention condition and 76,983 in 246 schools in the comparison condition) were included in the study. Approximately 23% of the students were Black, 63% were White, and 14% were other/unknown race. Approximately 8% were Hispanic or Latino. About 5% of the students were English Language Learners, 8% were special education students, and 67% of students qualified for free/reduced price lunch.
Intervention Group
The National Center on Education and the Economy’s (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) seeks to improve principal performance through continuous engagement and hands-on practice. An NCEE-certified facilitator delivered the intervention to principals in 24 full-day sessions, which typically occurred on two workdays per month over 12 months. EDP sessions were held regionally within states with participating districts. The sessions focused on developing goals, strategies, and action steps required to reach those goals.
Comparison Group
Principals in the comparison condition did not receive any intervention services during the first two school years of the study, but received a delayed offer of EDP 28-31 months after the study period began. Upon receiving the delayed offer, participants received the same EDP intervention as described for participants who were assigned to the intervention group.
Support for implementation
The authors did not describe support for the implementation of the intervention providers.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).