Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Evaluation of a Multiyear Professional Development Program to Strengthen Leadership Capacities in Schools

Sun, April 7, 3:40 to 5:10pm, Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Floor: 800 Level, Room 802A

Abstract

Purpose and Perspectives
This study reports on the evaluation model we designed to monitor and evaluate the results and effects of a multi-year professional development program to build capacities for distributed leadership in a group of 80 public schools in Chile (See Professional Development for Distributed Leadership in this symposium proposal). To examine whether this program has effects on school-level leadership practices we developed a quasi-experimental longitudinal methodological design. The evaluation design is based on a model proposed by Leithwood and Levin (2005) and is characterized by integrated hierarchical logics.
Methods
Data sources are a battery of online questionnaires that measure four broad dimensions of practices that are the focal points of the program’s capacity building strategies: instructional leadership, school climate and coexistence, collaborative culture, and data informed decision-making. The instructional leadership scale is based on the validated version of the PIMRS (Hallinger & Wang, 2015) for Chile (Fromm, Hallinger, Volante, & Wang, 2016). The culture of collaboration scale is based on Gruenert and Valentine (1998) and trust in principals developed by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2003). The scale to measure school climate and school coexistence was developed in Chile by López (2016) and the authors developed the use of data scale. Each scale asks participants to indicate the frequency with which the principal and curriculum coordinator implement the set of practices through which each dimension is operationalized.
The “treatment group” consists of 80 primary and secondary schools participating in the program, and a control group is composed of 38 schools that do not participate. All schools are located in one of the three most populated regions in Chile. Baseline measurement was conducted in 2016, and a follow-up measurement was taken in 2017 (to be repeated in 2019 and 2020). In 2016 and 2017 the principal had participated in courses addressing instructional leadership, and the curriculum coordinator also participated in 2017.
Findings
The results of year 2 show statistically significant increases in the frequency of leadership practices of the treatment group in 3 of the 4 dimensions measured: Pedagogical Leadership, School Coexistence and Collaborative Culture. When comparing the treatment group and the control group, t-tests show a statistically significant difference in favor of the treatment group. Another finding shows the role of the intermediate level (municipal department of education) in promoting these changes (see school and district level leaders, in this proposal).
These results provide evidence that participating in the program appears to be effective in improving the frequency with which school principals and curriculum coordinators implement practices that have been associated to leading school improvement. These results are promising, however, they need to be interpreted cautiously given that to date we only have two annual measurements.
Significance
This work is relevant to the field of research on professional development as it shows a validated, reliable and viable system to evaluate the effects of a multi-year program. This approach to capacity building can inform policies that seek to improve school leadership.

Authors