Contents

• About the Organizations
• Acknowledgments
• Starting Points
• Part One: What School Leaders Do to Improve Student Achievement
• 1.1 Collective Leadership Effects on Teachers and Students
• 1.2 Shared Leadership: Effects on Teachers and Students of Principals and Teachers Leading Together
• 1.3 Patterns of Distributed Leadership by Principals: Sources, Beliefs, Interactions, and Influences
• 1.4 Leadership Practices Considered Instructionally Helpful by High Performing Principals and Teachers
• 1.5 Instructional Leadership: Elementary vs. Secondary Principal and Teacher Interactions and Student Outcomes
• 1.6 Poverty, Size, Level and Location: The Influence of Context Variables on What Leaders Do and What They Accomplish
• 1.7 A Synthesis of Implications for Policy and Practice about School Leadership
• Part Two: Districts and Their Leaders: How They Foster School Improvement and Student Learning
• 2.1 How Districts Harness Family and Community Energies for School Improvement
• 2.2 Principals‘ Efficacy: A Key to District Effects on Schools and Students
• 2.3 How Districts Build Principals‘ Sense of Efficacy for School Improvement
• Key Findings
• Introduction
• New Evidence
• Implications for Policy and Practice
• 2.4 Ensuring Productive Leadership Succession
• 2.5 Data Use in Districts and Schools: Findings and Limitations
• 2.6 District Approaches to Improving Teaching and Learning
• 2.7 A Synthesis of Implications for Policy and Practice about District Leadership
• Part Three: State Leadership and Relationships with Districts
• 3.1 State Political Cultures and Policy Leadership
• 3.2 The Changing Leadership Role of State education agencies
• 3.3 District and School Responses to State Leadership
• 3.4 State Leadership for School Improvement: A Synthesis of Implications for Policy and Practice
• Conclusion
• References
• Appendences

Click here to download the full report:
 Learning From Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning

Key Findings

Districts contribute most to school leaders‘ sense of efficacy by the following means:

1. Ensuring that teachers and administrators have access worthwhile programs of professional development, aimed at strengthening their capacities to achieve shared purposes
2. Assigning priority, unambiguously, to the improvement of student achievement and instruction
3. Making significant investments in the development of instructional leadership
4. Ensuring that personnel policies support the selection and maintenance of the best people for each school
5. Emphasizing teamwork and professional community

• The efforts districts make to build principals‘ sense of efficacy can have positive or negative consequences, depending on the manner in which the initiatives are implemented. Much depends upon the frequency, nature, and quality of experiences provided in the course of implementation.

Introduction

The concluding portion of Section 2.2 describes results from a quantitative examination of three district conditions (investments in the development of instructional leadership, setting targets for improvement, engaging in data-informed decision-making) as they may affect the sense leaders have of their efficacy for fostering school improvement and student achievement. This section extends that line of inquiry to all eight of these district conditions identified earlier, plus additional district factors that emerged from our qualitative inquiries.¹⁸⁴

New Evidence

Method

Sampling. We conducted site visits for the qualitative component of our larger study in 18 districts (two per state) and 36 schools. We obtained evidence for this substudy from the 31 principals for whom complete data were available at the time of analysis. We visited two schools (one elementary, one middle school or high school) in each district to interview teachers and administrators and to observe classroom practice. In addition, we conducted district-level interviews focused on the study of leadership and learning.

The 31 principals we interviewed for this sub-study included 19 females and 12 males from 13 elementary, seven secondary, nine intermediate, one combined elementary/middle school, and one junior/senior high school. Principals in this sample had been leading their schools for an average of 4.67 years (ranging from 1 to 22 years), and had been working in their present districts for an average of 7.83 years (ranging from 1 to 27 years). While prior evidence paints a mixed picture of the influence of demographic variables on leader efficacy, the overall effect of such variables seems to be weak or non-existent.¹⁸⁵ For example, virtually no evidence suggests that school level or size,¹⁸⁶ teachers‘ age or total years of experience in education, student SES or student ethnicity, influence leader efficacy.¹⁸⁷

Gender appears to be the most influential demographic variable. Although most studies report no influence of gender,¹⁸⁸ a few report women‘s professional efficacy levels to be higher than men‘s.¹⁸⁹ Here, we report interviewee demographic information for descriptive purposes only.

Instrument. In interviewing principals we were guided by a 21-question, semistructured protocol focused on principals‘ views of state and district initiatives, principals‘ leadership practices, the distribution of leadership in the principals‘ schools, the professional development needs of teachers and principals, and relationships between the principals‘ schools and their communities.

We recorded the interview sessions, which lasted an average of 60 minutes, and transcribed them. Because the importance of school-leader efficacy became apparent to us only after we analyzed our survey data, the interview protocol did not include questions designed to elicit leader-efficacy information. As a result, the distinction between personal and collective efficacy is less clear from these results than we would wish in an ideal world.

Analysis. We examined interview transcripts for evidence of district conditions that would influence principals‘ efficacy. Data analysis proceeded in two phases. In phase one, we coded relevant sections of the transcripts for each principal and culled excerpts under three headings linked to our conceptual framework:

1. Indicators/feelings identified by principals of their ability to get the job done. These are statements providing evidence of the interviewees‘ sense of efficacy to perform their jobs effectively. The statements were often embedded in other statements about influential district or school-level conditions, as illustrated in the sample quote below.
2. Factors in the district that influence principals’ ability to get the job done. These are factors giving rise to Indicators/feelings. We separated factors according to their reported positive or negative influence on the principal‘s ability to get the job done.
3. District conditions. We coded each district factor according to nine district conditions (see Table 2.2.2). Some factors were related to more than one condition. For example, "the district holds regular meetings for administration groups to keep everyone up to date so people can act as supports and resources for one another" would be coded under Use of data as well as Emphasis on teamwork.

Seven of the district conditions listed in Table 2.2.2 were based on Anderson‘s review of the literature on the school district role in educational change (Anderson, 2006). Two (District personnel policies; District policy governing school choice) were added as they emerged inductively from our analysis of the interview data. We recorded them and subsequently treated them like the original seven conditions. Initially, one analyst did all the coding. Then, to check on reliability, we asked two other researchers working on the larger project to code a sample of transcription data. For background, we provided them with an introduction to this study, information about the district conditions, a numbered list of the conditions with a brief explanation of each, and a chart of 25 uncoded quotations from the principal transcripts. Their task was to match each quotation to an appropriate district condition. Decisions by the two coders were the same as decisions by the original coder 88% (22 out of 25 quotations) and 84% (21 out of 25 quotations) of the time.

In the second phase of this analysis we used a process of analytic induction¹⁹⁰ to generate propositions that reflected our interpretation of findings grounded in the interview excerpts and related to the appropriate conceptual framework codes. For example, when a principal said:

I am like a cheerleader for them [teachers] and they have to be there for the kids. But I recognize that they were not trained. They haven‘t had the training. Their curriculum was not there. They didn‘t have the materials to do what they wanted to do, we coded the statement under Indicators/Feelings, and we interpreted and summarized it in propositional form as, "A new principal feels enthusiastic about the work in the school, but recognizes the teachers have been lacking training, curriculum, and materials for teaching."

This statement was also coded as a district factor, which we interpreted as, "The district is not providing adequate financial support for professional development or for instructional materials." While the interpretive process in the conversion of qualitative data to statements of findings is always subject to concerns about validity, we believe that clear descriptions of the analytical procedures employed provide the reader with a legitimate basis for assessing the trustworthiness of the findings.

District Conditions Associated with Principals’ Efficacy for School Improvement

Questions motivating this sub-study focus on the extent to which conditions associated in previous research with school district effectiveness were reported as influences on principals‘ sense of efficacy, and whether additional district conditions also had such influence.

Table 2.3.1 summarizes evidence about the number of respondents who identified each of the original district conditions, along with two more suggested by our data (number 4 and number 9) as having a bearing on their own sense of professional efficacy. The first column of Table 2.3.1 shows the relative rankings of the nine conditions and the efficacy-influencing enactments related to each condition (also ranked). The second and third columns show positive and negative effects on efficacy, and the fourth column shows the total number of respondents who made positive or negative comments. (Several respondents identified both positive and negative features of some conditions.)

Table 2.3.1
District Conditions Associated with Principal Efficacy

Our analysis prompted us to relocate one of the district sub-conditions and to add two new conditions. The sub-condition we have relocated is union-school relationships. Our previous review of evidence included this as part of Emphasis on teamwork and professional community; we now think it should be part of Relations with schools and stakeholders (condition #8, in Table 2.3.1). Principals in our sample spoke about the effects of strong unions, focused primarily on teachers‘ working conditions, as obstacles to creating collaborative cultures and engaging teachers in school- and district-wide decision making. Our evidence shows this relationship with unions to be largely negative—a drain on principals‘ sense of efficacy. Unlike the evidence from some studies reviewed by Anderson, none of the evidence we obtained from principals alluded to the positive contributions teacher unions can make to school improvement efforts, which could enhance the principal‘s sense of personal and collective efficacy.

Our evidence also suggested the need to add two district conditions not included in our original list of conditions associated with district effectiveness: District personnel policies and District policies governing school choice. These added conditions are discussed in more detail below.

Evidence summarized in Table 2.3.1 indicates that principals viewed the enactments of the respective conditions in their own districts with a largely positive bias. The conditions making the greatest positive contribution to the principals‘ sense of efficacy were, in order, a District-wide focus on student achievement and instruction, Job-embedded professional development for teachers, Investment in both school- and district-level instructional leadership, and District personnel policies. Principals mentioned District policies governing school choice only as negative influences on their sense of efficacy.

The conditions cited most frequently (by a third or more of the sample) as negative influences on efficacy were District-wide focus on student achievement and instruction, Job-embedded professional development, and District personnel policies. These three conditions account for a disproportionate number of both positive and negative influences on efficacy—very sharp, double-edged swords.

Our findings regarding the nine district conditions and the related efficacyproducing enactments are described in the following section. The numbers in parentheses following efficacy-producing enactments indicate how many principals made comments that reflected a positive influence on their efficacy (e.g., 9+), or a negative influence on their efficacy (e.g., 3-). Excerpts from principals‘ transcripts illustrate positive influences.

1. District-wide focus on student achievement and the quality of instruction. This condition elicited positive responses from 28 principals and negative responses from 16. Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal efficacy include districtprovided curriculum and performance standards, with flexibility for implementation; clear policies, with a procedure for ongoing review and revisions; assignment of subjectarea facilitators to schools; and support for differentiated instruction.

Enactments negatively associated with principal efficacy include district enforcement of common standards, with no credit given for large gains schools have made in cases in which standards have not yet been reached; adoption of initiatives based on conflicting assumptions or ideologies; adoption of a focus for student learning that narrows the curriculum and minimizes the value of important fields of study; and excessive prescriptions about how principals and teachers must pursue the district‘s curriculum standards and achievement goals.

In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactments of this condition include the following:

• Districts provide a clear sense of direction through the establishment of achievement standards and district-wide curriculum and/or programs. (23+, 8-)
  Excerpt: The fact that we have a more central focus and central direction, I think, has improved student instruction and improved student learning, and forced us to take a hard look at what we’re doing with students.
• Districts provide human and financial resources to assist schools in achieving district-established directions. (15+, 11-)
  Excerpt: I think in general it’s really a privilege to work in a district like this. There’s a great deal of support, you know, budgetarily, which helps us to move things in a direction that we feel is positive, that’s gonna help the students, so, we have a lot advantages.
• Districts communicate high expectations for the work teachers and principals do accomplish district directions and implement effective instruction. (14+, 2-)
  Excerpt: I would say the accountability at all campuses. The superintendents that we’ve had have put a lot of pressure on the principals, to make sure that the teachers feel more accountable for the students that they have.
• Districts allow schools sufficient flexibility in pursuing district directions. (11+, 1-)
  Excerpt: The impetus to tailor it to the school site has been very clearly indicated. But the initiatives have come out of the district office.
• Districts engage in ongoing or periodic review of directions and plans, and make revisions as appropriate. (5+)
  Excerpt: Our district curriculum now has been rewritten to mirror the state curriculum but also all of that ties into our state testing. So the state testing now is more in alignment with what is actually being taught.

2. Job-embedded teacher professional development. Professional development is an important element in the enactment of most of the conditions we are investigating. It elicited positive responses from 29 of the 31 principals in our sample. Ten principals, however, identified some aspect of district-sponsored professional development as having a negative influence on their efficacy.

Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal efficacy include districts providing data and guidelines to help principals and teachers to deliver better instructional programs; district support for attendance at professional development conferences; encouragement to use school staff meetings for professional development purposes; alignment of professional development programs with the district‘s curriculum; district provision for flexibility such that schools may design their own professional development programs; and provision of adequate funding for various approaches to professional development.

Enactments of this condition viewed less favorably by principals include requiring excessive professional development for teachers and principals; allowing inschool professional development to crowd out time for teacher collaboration; setting limits on the use of substitute teachers; setting restrictive limits on authorized absences from the school building for professional development; providing inadequate funding for professional development; and focusing on professional development for one initiative in such a way that other important initiatives are left unsupported.

In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactments of this condition include the following:

• Districts hold principals accountable for implementing and following up on what is learned during district-sponsored professional development. (19+, 2-)
  Excerpt: I think fundamentally my role is to help hold people accountable that the professional development initiatives and activities … are then reflected in practice so that it’s not just simply, “Here’s a good idea somebody thinks we should be talking about.”
• Districts approve many types of professional development but insist they be meaningful for teachers and aligned with district goals and priorities. (17+)
  Excerpt: I think we do have some direction from our central office and from our curriculum director about where we should go, but we also have flexibility about how we are going to do that.
• Districts mandate participation in professional development considered critical to the achievement of district priorities. (17+, 5-)
  Excerpt: With that the district said how we were to do it. It provided professional development for the teachers, for myself, so that we could go and be trained in it. And then as a result we are expected to follow that curriculum.
• Districts provide adequate funds to support significant professional development. (13+, 6-)
  Excerpt: [Districts] encourage [teachers] to attend professional development that’s offered by the district. Encourage and/or financially support them to attend outside professional development
• Districts encourage the use of school staff meetings for professional development. (11+, 1-)
  Excerpt: Because part of what we do is if the district office offers in-service kinds of things or professional development, either the department chairs go, or they send stronger teachers to go and bring it back to the department.
• Districts provide evidence to assist in the planning of professional development for teachers. (4+)
  Excerpt: Definitely a push towards using data . . . to create teacher leaders, recognizing that that’s where the staff development needs to happen.

3. Investment in both school- and district-level instructional leadership. This condition elicited positive responses from all but one of the 31 principals; it elicited negative responses from three. Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal efficacy include districts providing support for principals‘ professional development; districts providing individualized support for principals, depending upon the challenges they face in their schools; districts holding principals accountable for student achievement and teacher contributions to student achievement; districts giving principals responsibility for responding to student data; districts providing district staff to oversee subject-matter teaching in all elementary schools; districts providing a curriculum with supporting professional development for principals and teachers.

Enactments of this condition associated with negative consequences for principal efficacy include districts not supporting principals‘ professional development; districts not providing enough professional development; and districts requiring teachers and principals to participate in excessive amounts of professional development. As these examples illustrate, enhancing efficacy through professional development requires something of a balancing act. Principal efficacy is fostered in a positive way by the right amount of professional development and in a negative way by either too much or too little.

In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactments of this condition include the following:

• Districts make teachers‘ work the main focus of attention for school leaders. (28+)
  Excerpt: We have to participate, we have to help rather than manage. Although a lot of the job is still managing because there is still the paperwork. … We also have to relate more to the teachers and the students. To actually know what they are doing in the classrooms.
• Districts hold principals responsible for student achievement. (23+)
  Excerpt: Frankly my communication is very simplistic. I tell people, I tell our staff constantly that my goal and I expect it to be theirs is that we help improve the student achievement and that we do so in a caring and nurturing environment.
• Districts provide a wide range of professional development opportunities to help build principals‘ capacity for instructional leadership. (20+, 3-)
  Excerpt: We have principal meetings two times a month and then … because I am a new principal this year, I get a third one. … About every year I go to either a state or national conference and attend courses there …and occasional workshops.

4. District personnel policies. This is one of the two conditions we added to the original list of seven. It elicited positive responses from 22 principals and negative responses from 10. Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal efficacy include encouraging promotion of principals from within the district and giving principals a significant role in selecting teachers.

Respondents mentioned the importance of "matching" teachers and principals to the mission or culture of the school, or allocating especially effective principals to especially challenging schools. Hiring district office staff into school leadership roles was typically viewed as adding strength to the collective capacity of schools in the district. Stable and consistent district leadership, which we included as a feature of district personnel policies, also contributed to principals‘ sense of efficacy. Principals‘ commitment to directions established by the district, and confidence in being able to pursue them successfully, were significantly eroded by frequent superintendent turnover. Principals‘ efficacy was especially challenged when principals were appointed to schools that had been experiencing frequent turnover of leaders in recent years. We are not suggesting that district personnel policies, or policies governing school choice, should be regarded as additional dimensions of district effectiveness, as per the district conditions identified in Anderson‘s review (Anderson, 2006); it is simply the case that that they emerged in our analysis of principal interview data as additional sources of district influence on principal efficacy.

In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactments of this condition include the following:

• Districts provide stability in district leader roles. (10+, 3-)
  Excerpt: There have been a lot of changes in the district in the last couple of years. Some probably stem from the fact that there was a large turnover in leadership in the last couple of years. But education is constantly evolving. It’s not a static thing
• Districts hire competent principals from within, and principals‘ capabilities are matched with school needs. (9+)
  Excerpt: When I first took this building in 1989, I didn’t want to come back because the morale was terrible here. But I took the challenge, I had been asked to come back and so I did. I have not been sorry. It has turned out to be everything I wanted it to be. Now I can kind of sit back and enjoy it.
• District hiring policies ensure that principals can select and retain outstanding teachers.(9+, 4)
  Excerpt: Well, the principals do almost all the hiring in the district. As a matter of fact, I will be hiring a new teacher. … So we control over what our staff looks like. … It is about hiring good people but it is not always a guarantee. It is about keeping good people.
• District leaders assume school leadership roles when needed. (4+)
  Excerpt: When I was weighing whether to leave Central Office or stay or leave to go to the building level, it was … [this school]. I was interviewing prospective candidates for the principal here. No one knew anything about small schools. What they were going to do with this building was distressing me, you know?
• Principal succession is planned and minimized. (4+, 2-)
  Excerpt: Cultivating our own leaders is very important … which I really appreciate and admire about the school district. So that when you step into that position [of principal] you kind of know the district’s way of doing things and you are able to just pick up and go.

5. Emphasis on teamwork and professional community. This condition elicited positive responses from 26 principals and negative responses from two. Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal efficacy include keeping schools informed about state and district initiatives; providing support and encouragement for principal and teacher collaborative relationships; following through on state requirements in ways that led to greater collaboration within schools; and ensuring that district leaders meet with principals frequently to work through decisions together. Efficacy was influenced in a negatively at one small school where involvement in the district meant the principal had to allocate 15 curricular liaison positions among 11 staff members without overwhelming anyone.

In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactments of this condition include the following:

• Principals and teachers participate in district-wide decisions that have a direct impact on their work. (14+, 1-)
  Excerpt: The superintendent’s office, the curriculum department really was working with a group of teachers and supervisors, administrators to come up with a new form that would make it easier for you to observe forty teachers but really pinpoint some areas that we wanted to work on.
• Schools are kept informed about state and district initiatives. (13+)
  Excerpt: That is my work. … The district translates what the state expects from us. …We need to translate for our students, teachers, support staff, parents, what that means.
• Districts provide structures that allow for sharing of information and collaborative problem solving within and across schools. (13+)
  Excerpt: During the summer, the superintendent housed all the top administrators, the principals and assistant principals for a whole week, and they had to learn to work together, not just within their campus, but within the district.
• Districts support and encourage teacher and principal collaboration. (8+, 1-)
  Excerpt: One thing that our superintendent has presented us with is he wants us [principals and teachers] to be more collaborative.

6. District-wide use of data. This condition elicited positive responses from 18 principals and negative responses from five. Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal efficacy include district provision of data useful to schools in planning for professional development; involvement of schools in decision making related to the data; engagement of an external person to conduct a curriculum audit, thus encouraging improved alignment within the district; and detailed guidance and support by the district for schools trying to interpret and use their data.

Of the five respondents who claimed negative effects on efficacy for this condition, one said that his or her district required more information about student achievement than he or she could collect. Another was unnerved by having sole responsibility for explaining state requirements to students, parents and teachers. In these and other cases, resistance and negative feelings focused largely on state requirements over which the principals had no control.

In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactments of this condition include the following:

• Districts insist on data-based decision making in schools. (12+, 5-)
  Excerpt: But the good news about all of that [district direction] is that we make very data-driven decisions now. We do a lot of assessments. Those are both local assessments and state assessments. We use that information obviously to plan for our children.
• Districts use data to set goals for principal and teacher professional development. (6+)
  Excerpt: One of them is the data part and the district calls it data sources. Everybody has a data source. Then with the data source … each teacher created a goal for him or herself in professional development.
• Districts provide schools with much of the data they need to practice data-based decision making. (4+)
  Excerpt: [The district provides] an amazing amount of data. And the people to help us interpret that data.
• Districts assist schools in the interpretation and use of data for decision making. (4+)
  Excerpt: We have had . . . extensive training from our central office on understanding and utilizing test data.
• Districts create structures that foster the sharing of information across schools and between schools and the district. (3+)
  Excerpt: As an entire district we have our hand on every kid’s test data. I don’t care if it’s elementary or high school. We have weekly administrative meetings and you know those issues will come up and communication is really strong.

7. Targeted and phased focus for improvement. Enactments of this condition elicited positive responses from 20 school leaders and a negative response from one. Enactments positively associated with principal efficacy include district requirements for improved goal setting; the establishment of detailed school-improvement plans; requirements that community people participate in formulating school-improvement plans; clear articulation of expectations for student outcomes, derived from state policy; support for collaboration between high schools and middle schools; support for teachers engaged in using new instructional programs. Overall, principals associate positive feelings of efficacy with a significant level of prescription by the district about the nature of school improvement plans and the process for creating those plans.

In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactment of this condition includes the following:

• Requiring the development of improvement plans in all schools (either district- or school-developed). (9+)
  Excerpt: The school improvement plan is a requirement that we all have to do which lays out staff development and the plan for school improvement.
• Clear school-improvement goals aligned with state and district standards. (7+)
  Excerpt: But …[the school-improvement plan] is campus-based. … We have to align it with the district’s improvement plan.
• School improvement plans aligned with district improvement plans. (7+, 1-)
  Excerpt: The district and the school board have sent down a five-year goal for us. It’s to improve academic achievement for each and every child, especially in the area of literacy and math.
• In cases of school-developed improvement plans, district provision of a procedure for the development of the plan. (6+)
  Excerpt: We’re in a five-year cycle. We involve teachers, administrators, business people, parents, community people, and we set forth a plan of how we can improve our schools. The process begins with parent surveys.

8. Relations with schools and stakeholders (district, board, union, school). This condition elicited positive responses from 16 principals and negative responses from 4. Enactments of this condition positively associated with principal efficacy emphasize district sharing of key decisions with administrative staff members. In particular principals emphasized the importance of listening to staff members, staying in touch with them, involving principals and teachers in the writing of school plans, budgeting for implementation of those plans, and field-testing new programs. A number of principals also pointed to the small size of their districts as an important contributor to positive district-school relations. In smaller districts, they noted, district leaders were more likely to be in touch with the challenges principals and teachers face.

Principal efficacy is undermined, principals said, when districts neglect to provide adequate information for schools and parents about expectations from the state level. Insufficient information leaves them in the difficult of position of having to explain requirements over which they have no control.

Almost all comments from principals focused on district-school relations. Not surprisingly, principals had little to say about board-district relations.

In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactments of this condition include the following:

• Encouragement for communication among principals, across schools, and provision of opportunities for this to occur. (10+, 1-)
  Excerpt: Monthly meetings really looking at our school-improvement plan and having the opportunity to visit with other schools and talk with them, to share ideas and find out what’s worked in one school that we might be able to look at as a possible intervention.
• Flexibility for schools in the implementation of district initiatives. (9+, 4-)
  Excerpt: I have a lot of autonomy as far as what kind of staff development I do for my own teachers on my campus … and I make a lot of decisions with my team.
• District staff keeping themselves well informed about school programs, priorities, initiatives, and programs. (6+, 1-)
  Excerpt: [The district listened] … to the concerns of the teams. … We felt that there was a need to kind of look at some parts of the instructional parts of things. … So they came out and helped make that happen.
• Significant opportunities for principals and teachers to be involved in decisions at the district level. (4+)
  Excerpt: That is certainly a team that works at the district level and then that framework of curriculum comes back to our level and then our individual teams and departments work on it has well.

9. District policy governing school choice. This is the second condition we added to Anderson‘s original list. It elicited eight responses from principals who identified instances in which a change in district policies had affected their efficacy negatively.

The evidence shows that school-choice policies can create significant challenges and have adverse effects on principal efficacy. Creating an open choice policy, one principal recounted, meant that his school, serving a relatively stable group of local students quite well by all accounts, suddenly found itself serving students from a radius of about 14 miles. Another principal described how his school had changed "overnight"—also from serving a fairly stable student population to a highly diverse group of students from the entire district, including members of more than 30 gangs.

In sum, according to our evidence, principal efficacy is enhanced when enactment of this condition includes the following:

• The district helps schools respond to rapid and dramatic changes in curriculum and student population. (8-)

Implications for Policy and Practice

Principal efficacy is a key link in the chain joining successful district leadership with student learning and district conditions have an important influence on such efficacy. Five implications emerge as a result:

1. District leaders should establish and maintain a district-wide focus on student achievement and instruction. Efficacy is enhanced when the district provides human and financial resources to assist schools in achieving those high expectations.
2. Districts encourage teamwork and professional community by including both principals and teachers in district-wide decisions that directly impact their work.
3. Districts should aim to provide stable district leadership as a contribution to principal efficacy.
4. District hiring policies should allow principals to select teachers they believe to be outstanding choices for their own school contexts.
5. Because principals have greater efficacy when districts have targeted and phased focuses for improvement, districts should require the development of improvement plans in all schools, with improvement goals expected to be clear and aligned with state and district standards, but with considerable discretion left to the school to determine the paths to goal achievement.

« Previous | Next »

References

184. Readers wishing to know more about our conception of efficacy, background research relevant to our study of efficacy, and how we identified its importance in district efforts to improve student achievement are referred back to Section 2.2.

185. Gareis & Tschannen-Moran ( 2005).

186. But see DeMoulin (1992).

187. E.g., Gareis & Tschannen-Moran (2005); Lucas (2003); and Roberts (1997).

188. E.g., Dimmock & Hattie (1996); Roberts (1997).

189. Imants & DeBrabander (1996); Waskiewicz (2002).

190. Glaser & Strauss (1967).

191. Two conditions added to the original eight are identified by *.

192. All statements related to conditions are stated in the positive.