Feasibility of Increasing Access: How does instructional leadership influence opportunity to learn in U.S. and Belgium?

• In Event: Excellence in Education Research: Early-Career Scholars and Their Work

Abstract

PURPOSE:
Since the 1960s, the evolution of opportunity to learn as an important dimension of schooling has alerted both researchers and policymakers to the inequities inherent in the U.S. educational system (Schmidt & Maier, 2009). These opportunity gaps precede the start of schooling for many economically disadvantaged students (Rothstein, 2004; Weiss, 2014). Students from low-income families often have access to fewer early childhood learning opportunities, such as high-quality child care or preschool, compared to their more affluent peers, and are less likely to have access to resources that promote inquiry and vocabulary acquisition, such as books and technology (Kirp, 2011; Rothstein, 2004: Weiss, 2014). As students start school, these gaps in achievement that stem from family resources continue to widen (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Herbers, et al., 2012). Access to education is differentiated through various characteristics of schools and their personnel—for example, enactment of school curriculum, institutional tracking practices, resource distribution, quality of school facilities, and teacher experience and support (Darling-Hammond, 1996; McKnight et al., 1987; Oakes, 1985; O’Day & Smith, 1993). From a policy perspective, increasing the standards of performance for teaching and learning does not address problems of inadequate resources, instructional capacity, and the affordance of quality professional learning that contribute to the inequitable distribution of learning opportunities within the school or classroom (Darling-Hammond, 1996; O’Day & Smith, 1993; Springer et al., 2009).
One important factor that has been largely ignored by researchers and policymakers is the role that school leadership plays in implementing reforms to address differential opportunity to learn. In fact, leadership is conspicuously absent from early opportunity to learn studies and this trend continues today despite its relevance to other key schooling inputs and processes (Elmore, 2000; Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Although it can be argued that the actions of school leaders do not directly impact student learning, the ability of school leadership to organize the teaching and learning process through their instructional leadership and capacity building practices might, we argue, substantially affect patterns of opportunity to learn across students within a school (Elmore, 2000; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Marks & Louis, 1999; Ogawa & Bossert, 1995). Because teachers need adequate support, resources, and professional learning opportunities to effectively provide an equitable learning environment for all students, as schools across the nation strive to implement more rigorous curricular standards (e.g., the Common Core State Standards), and teachers are subsequently evaluated based on outcomes tied to these standards (e.g., high-stakes teacher evaluation systems), additional resources and support will likely be necessary for schools to be able to offer both teachers and students the opportunity to be successful. Principals are in a unique position to support these efforts through instructional leadership shared with teachers (Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Marks & Printy, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008) and their ability to balance the expectations of new policy initiatives with the need to foster a learning environment in the school which maximizes the opportunity to learn for all students.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:
Despite the individual and out-of-school factors that impact student achievement (Rothstein, 2004; Weiss, 2014), reform and accountability agendas hold schools uniformly responsible for student success. Accountability measures that focus only on the efforts of principals and teachers overlook the nuances of the learning context that disproportionately impact individual students (Fenstermacher & Richardson, 2005; Weiss, 2014). Achievement gaps can be accounted for by disparities due to school (resources, size, enrollment, location), teacher (gender, experience, education), and student (gender, age, and home language) characteristics, as well as student family academic resources (Weiss, 2014; Rothstein, 2004). Opportunity to learn, which encompasses time with content, content coverage, and instruction strategies, can be used as a lever for decreasing the effects of social factors and economic disadvantage on math achievement (O’Day & Smith, 1993; Schmidt & Maier, 2009 ). Further, we propose that school leaders can help mediate these characteristics that negatively impact student achievement through instructional leadership that builds teacher capacity to support more equal distribution of opportunity to learn (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Leithwood et al., 2010; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990; McEvoy & Welker, 2000). It is unclear whether the school leadership impacts delivery of content, or opportunity to learn (OTL), directly or indirectly. School leadership involves an array of responsibilities, to include administrative tasks; building and developing relationships with community stakeholders; and coordinating instruction through goal setting, support for instruction, and development of a professional learning community (Blase & Blase, 1999; Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Van Houtte & Van Maele, 2012; Van Houtte, 2004). There are multiple possible avenues through which school leaders might use their leadership capacity to impact the work of teachers because of the relationship between school climate, professional community, and delivery of content (OTL) (O’Day & Smith, 1993; Oakes, 1990; Van Houtte, 2006). Thus, we ask: In 2011, in US and Belgium, how does instructional leadership influence opportunity to learn through school climate and teacher professional community?

METHODS:
The study is a secondary analysis of the 2011 Trends in International and Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS2011). This administration of TIMSS presents a unique opportunity to study the connections between social structures, resources, school leadership and opportunity to learn in both U.S. and Belgium. TIMSS2011, the most recent administration, provides extensive leadership measures in the area of instruction as well as the work environment of teachers through school climate and their professional interactions, which are heavily influenced by leadership and situate how teachers deliver content to students. A comparative analysis of U.S. and Belgium schools will demonstrate the extent to which social factors and/or school processes influence OTL across national demographic and policy contexts, given that Belgium has more equal distribution of wealth and high test scores but similar challenges with the academic tracking of economically disadvantaged students. The investigation of TIMSS2011 is limited to the grade 4 population. The sample includes n=12,569 students across n=767 U.S. classrooms, and n=4,849 students across n=268 Belgium classrooms. This study applies structural equation modeling (SEM) to TIMSS2011.

RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE:
We will present preliminary results; however, the findings will be significant to policy and practice. In response to increased pressure to improve teaching and learning under high-stakes accountability systems, administrators must give appropriate prominence to their new-found role as instructional leaders within the school (Bryk, Sebring, Kerbow, Rollow, & Easton, 1998; Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001). With the advent of policy initiatives such as high-stakes teacher evaluation and the implementation of the Common Core State Standards across the majority of U.S. states, there remains some question as to how leaders can best organize the school for effective instructional improvement (Cohen, Peurach, Glazer, Gates, & Goldin, 2014; Hess & Shane, 2013). If actions of administration to promote instructional leadership among faculty and build capacity of teachers does, in fact, mediate student opportunity to learn, this would provide impetus for re-examining current school improvement policy. The school leader then becomes a key policy actor as well as perspective from which to gauge the extent that policy implementation can mediate gaps.

Author

• Angela Urick, The University of Oklahoma