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): aligned coaching vs. EDP]
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
-
examining93,125Students, 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): aligned coaching)
- 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): aligned coaching vs. National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
-0.02 |
-0.11 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Grade 3-8 English Language Arts Achievement Test |
National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP): aligned coaching vs. National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) |
-18 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.00 |
-0.08 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Grade 3-8 English Language Arts Achievement Test |
National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP): aligned coaching vs. National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) |
-6 Months |
Full sample;
|
-0.03 |
-0.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
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): aligned coaching vs. National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
-0.02 |
-0.09 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Grade 3-8 Mathematics Achievement Test |
National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP): aligned coaching vs. National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) |
-6 Months |
Full sample;
|
-0.02 |
-0.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Grade 3-8 Mathematics Achievement Test |
National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP): aligned coaching vs. National Center on Education and the Economy's (NCEE) Executive Development Program (EDP) |
-18 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.01 |
-0.07 |
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.
-
6% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural, Urban
-
Race Black 26% Other or unknown 17% White 57% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10% Not Hispanic or Latino 90% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 66% Other or unknown 34%
Study Details
Setting
The study was implemented in three unnamed states in the United States. A total of 266 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 93,125 students in grades 3 through 8 in 266 schools (44,833 students in 136 schools in the intervention condition and 48,292 students in 130 schools in the comparison condition) were included in the study. Approximately 26% of the students were Black, 57% White, and 17% other/unknown race. Approximately 10% were Hispanic or Latino. About 6% of the students were English Language Learners, 8% were special education students, and 66% of students qualified for free/reduced price lunch.
Intervention Group
Over a period of up to 30 months, NCEE-trained coaches primarily offered in-person meetings that included at least 60 hours of one-on-one coaching at the principal’s school. At the meetings, coaches focused on principals’ action learning plan and using the plan to understand how principals applied the skills they learned from EDP.
Comparison Group
Principals in the comparison group were either taking part in EDP or completed EDP in the past, but they did not receive the offer of EDP-aligned coaching.
Support for implementation
A total of 48 coaches provided coaching to principals in the study. NCEE matched coaches to principals on personal and school characteristics to best support the principal. NCEE provided two forms of ongoing support to coaches during the coaching period: shoulder-to-shoulder coaching from NCEE-certified national coaches, and Distinguished Principal Institutes, which were a series of two-day professional and networking opportunities. NCEE also hosted monthly web-based meetings for the coaches in each state to confer about coaching.
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).