Testing the Through Line: Linking District Support to Principal Effectiveness

• In Event: Filling a Critical Leadership Gap: Developing Principal Instructional Leadership Through Principal Supervision

Abstract

Objective
This paper presents an analysis of the extent to which the supervision and support that principals receive from their central office supervisors influences principals’ effectiveness ratings on key district performance metrics. It also examines how principal supervisor practices are associated with changes in principal performance over time.

Theoretical Framework
This paper is rooted in the concept of recoupling formerly loosely coupled organizational structures (Hallett, 2010). Recent efforts by districts to revise the principal supervisor role can be viewed as an attempt to recouple the central office to schools by orienting it toward supporting the work of schools and school leaders. Principal supervisors are now increasingly responsible for developing principals as instructional leaders and professional learners (Corcoran, Casserly, Price-Baugh, Walston, Hall, and Simon, 2013). However, change in supervisory practices and principal improvement may be slow or uneven if districts struggle to overcome entrenched bureaucratic behaviors that reinforce loose coupling with schools (Diamond, 2012; Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010).

Sample and Data Sources
Bi-annual surveys were administered to the population of principals (481 total) and principal supervisors (49 total) in a mid-sized (70,000 students) public school district over the 2017 and 2018 school years. Response rates were 85% or higher for all years. Surveys solicited respondents’ perceptions regarding principal supervisors’ specific practices and focuses in their work with principals as well as perceptions of supervisor effectiveness. Principal effectiveness and performance were separately measured by: (1) bi-annual principal evaluation scores in two instructional leadership domains; and (2) annual teacher survey ratings of principal instructional leadership effectiveness.

Analysis
Principal supervisor practices were measured in three main categories: content focus during visits with principals, frequency of instructional-leadership oriented coaching practices, and principal ratings of supervisor practice effectiveness. Following DeVellis (2016), individual items were combined into reliable scales. Principal performance metrics were then alternately regressed on the three practice measures in covariate-adjusted regression that accounted for school, principal, and supervisor characteristics.

Findings
Large variation in practices with principals exists within and between supervisors. For example, principal reports of time spent focusing on instructional leadership with their supervisors ranged from 40 to 78% depending on supervisor. Only a small amount of the variation could be explained by principal characteristics such as years of experience, school type, and school achievement. Regression results indicate that principal’s perception of their supervisor’s effectiveness in supportive and relationship-building behaviors was positively associated with principal performance improvement.

Significance
Redesigning the central office’s approach to principal supervision has become an important topic for school districts wishing to improve the quality of school leadership. To date there has been limited evidence linking increased principal support from supervisors to principal outcomes. This paper contributes to the knowledge base by examining the link between the behaviors of central office supervisors and principal performance.

Author

• Laura K. Rogers, University of Utah