AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ATYPICAL PRINCIPALO PREPARATION PROGRAMS ON SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITYH AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS by Sheri L. Miller-Williams, PhD
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ATYPICAL PRINCIPALO PREPARATION PROGRAMS ON SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITYH AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS by Sheri L. Miller-Williams, PhD
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU-The Texas A&M University System
Ähnlich wie AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ATYPICAL PRINCIPALO PREPARATION PROGRAMS ON SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITYH AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS by Sheri L. Miller-Williams, PhD
Ähnlich wie AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ATYPICAL PRINCIPALO PREPARATION PROGRAMS ON SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITYH AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS by Sheri L. Miller-Williams, PhD (20)
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ATYPICAL PRINCIPALO PREPARATION PROGRAMS ON SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITYH AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS by Sheri L. Miller-Williams, PhD
1. The Impact of Atypical Principal Preparation Programs on School Accountability and Student Achievement in High-Poverty Schools A Dissertation Defense by Sheri L. Miller-Williams September 22, 2011 William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Chair
59. School Leadership Demographic Survey AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ATYPICAL PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS ON SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS THE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY (APPENDIX 1) Section I: School Demographics School Name __________________________________ Enrollment __________________________________ Grade Level K-5 5-6 7-8 9-12 Years of Principal Experience 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 or more Economically Disadvantaged % __________________________________ Section II: Principal Demographics Ethnicity M F Gender W AA H O Years of Admin Experience 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+ Note: Administrative experience in any supervisory position not defined as the principalship. Section III: Principal Preparation Note: Please select the type of principal development program you participated in defined by the descriptions below. __________ Traditional Principal Preparation (Completion of Master’s Degree and principal certification attained prior to assuming principalship. __________ Atypical Principal Preparation (Completion of Master’s Degree, principal certification and an extended training program which includes field residency or clinical internship with a mentor principal or coaching from a master principal.
60.
61.
62.
63. Table 1:Frequency Distribution by Type of Principal Preparation 100.0 100 Total (N) 50.0 50 Traditional 50.0 50 Atypical Percent Number Principals Preparation
64. Table 2: Frequency Distribution by Gender and Type of Preparation 100 100 50.0 50 50.0 50 Total 64.0 64 31.0 31 33.0 33 Female 36.0 36 19.0 19 17.0 17 Male % N % N % N Gender Total Traditional (50) Atypical (50) Type of Preparation
65. Table 3: Frequency Distribution by Ethnicity and Type of Preparation 100 100 50.0 50 50.0 50 Total 13.0 13 7.0 7 6.0 6 Hispanic American 26.0 26 11.0 11 15.0 15 African American 61.0 61 32.0 32 29.0 29 White American % N % N % N Ethnicity Total Traditional (50) Atypical (50) Type of Preparation
66. Table 4: Frequency Distribution by Years of Experience on Campus 100 100 50.0 50 50.0 50 Total 16.0 16 6.0 6 10.0 10 10 + years 26.0 26 16.0 16 10.0 10 7 to 9 42.0 42 21.0 21 21.0 21 4 to 6 16.0 16 7.0 7 9.0 9 1 to 3 % N % N % N Total Traditional (50) Atypical (50) Yrs of Experience On Campus Type of Preparation
67. Table 5: Frequency Distribution by Years of Experience as an Administrator 100 100 50.0 50 50.0 50 Total 5.0 5 1.0 1 4.0 4 21 + years 10.0 10 3.0 3 7.0 7 16 to 20 33.0 33 16.0 16 17.0 17 11 to 15 46.0 46 26.0 26 20.0 20 6 to 10 6.0 6 4.0 4 2.0 2 1 to 5 % N % N % N Total Traditional (50) Atypical (50) Years of Experience as an Administrator
68. Table 6: Frequency Distribution by Grade Levels and Type of Preparation 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100 Total (N) 12 12.0 13 13.0 24 24.0 9-12 15 15.0 14 14.0 29 29.0 7-8 2 2.0 7 7.0 9 9.0 5-6 21 21.0 16 16.0 37 37.0 K-5 Type of Preparation Atypical (50) Traditional (50) Total N % N % N % Grade Level
69. Table 7: Frequency Distribution by School District 100.0% 100 Total (N) 20.0% 20 Cy-Fair ISD 20.0% 20 HISD 20.0% 20 Humble 20.0% 20 Alief 20.0% 20 Aldine Percent Number School District
70.
71. Table 8: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the School Accountability Ratings of High- Poverty Schools with Atypical and Traditional Principals (08-09) *Significant at the .05 level 2.51 .014* t p 98 df .44 Mean Difference 0 .13 .11 SE 0 .93 0 .82 SD 2.54 2.98 Mean Traditional (n=50) Atypical (n=50) Statistics
72. Table 9: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the School Accountability Ratings of High- Poverty Schools with Atypical and Traditional Principals (09-10) .0621 .536 t p 98 df .08 Mean Difference 0 .01 0 .01 SE 0 .67 0 .62 SD 3.14 3.22 Mean Traditional (n=50) Atypical (n=50) Statistics
73.
74. Table 10: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the TAKS Total Achievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical and Traditional Principals (08-09) .813 .418 t p 98 df .02 Mean Difference 00 .02 00 .02 SE 00 .11 00 .12 SD 72.4 74.3 Mean Traditional (n=50) Atypical (n=50) Statistics
75. Table 13: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the TAKS Total Achievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical and Traditional Principals (09-10) ***Significant at the .001 level 3.34 . 001*** t p 98 df .06 Mean Difference .01 00 .01 SE 00 .11 00 .09 SD 75.2 81.8 Mean Traditional (n=50) Atypical (n=50) Statistics
76. Table 11: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Reading TAKS Achievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical and Traditional Principals (08-09) ***Significant at the .001 level 3.41 0 .001*** t p 0 .98 df 0 .06 Mean Difference 00 .02 00 .001 SE 00 .11 00 .001 SD 83.0 89.0 Mean Traditional (n=50) Atypical (n=50) Statistics
77. Table 14: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Reading TAKS Achievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical and Traditional Principals (09-10) **Significant at the .01 level 2.76 0 .007** t p 98 df 0 .05 Mean Difference 00 .01 00 .001 SE 00 .10 00 .01 SD 86.6 91.2 Mean Traditional (n=50) Atypical (n=50) Statistics
78. Table 12: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Math TAKS Achievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical and Traditional Principals (08-09) 1.91 0 .060 t p 98 df 0 .04 Mean Difference 00 .01 00 .01 SE 00 .11 00 .10 SD 79.2 83.1 Mean Traditional (n=50) Atypical (n=50) Statistics
79. Table 15: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Math TAKS Achievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical and Traditional Principals (09-10) *Significant at the .05 level .049* p 1.998 t 98 df .04 Mean Difference 00 .001 00 .001 SE 00 .11 00 .01 SD 84.8 88.5 Mean Traditional (n=50) Atypical (n=50) Statistics
80.
81. Summary of Statistical Findings .049* X TAKS Math (09-10) X TAKS Math (08-09) .007** X TAKS Reading(09-10) .001*** X TAKS Reading (08-09) .001*** X TAKS All (09-10) X TAKS All (08-09) X Accountability Rating (09-10) .014* X Accountability Rating (08-09) Level of Significance Not Statistically Significant Statistically Significant Variable Measured