How Do Principals Respond to Increased District Support? The Relationship Between Principal Supervision and Principal Improvement

• In Event: Principal Supervision: An Emerging Lever to Develop Instructional Leadership and Improve Principal Effectiveness

Abstract

Objective
This mixed methods paper analyzes the extent to which the support that principals receive from their central office supervisors influences principals’ effectiveness ratings on key district performance metrics. It also examines how principals perceive and respond to supervisor support.

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 school leadership and improvement. Principal supervisors are increasingly responsible for developing principals as instructional leaders and professional learners (Corcoran et al., 2013). However, changes in supervision and principal improvement may be hindered 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. Eighteen principals participated in follow-up interviews that explored their responses to increased support and their perceptions of supervisor 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 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. Interviews were analyzed using an open coding method to isolate emergent themes (Miles et al., 2014).

Findings
Large variation in practices with principals existed 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. Very little of the variation could be explained by principal characteristics such as years of experience, school type, and school achievement. Regression results indicated that principal’s perception of their supervisor’s effectiveness in supportive and relationship-building behaviors was positively associated with principal performance improvement. Interviews corroborated these findings but also revealed that some principals distanced themselves from increased support out of a desire to preserve professional autonomy.

Significance
Redesigning the central office’s approach to principal supervision has become a major focus in school districts wishing to improve the quality of school leadership, but limited research has established a relationship between district supervision and principal outcomes. This paper contributes to the knowledge base by providing empirical evidence of this relationship.

Author

• Laura K. Rogers, University of Utah