Rough Draft Literature Review
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
In May of 2019, Georgia’s Governor Brian Kemp signed Senate Bill 48, which not only
mandated dyslexia screenings in Georgia public schools but also mandated the revamping of
educator training programs (Georgia Dyslexia Act, 2019). The recent passing of Georgia Senate
Bill 48 has renewed an emphasis on professional development in the area of reading statewide.
Though Georgia colleges and universities have been offering reading endorsements since 2014,
are university-based professional development programs such as endorsements effective in
impacting educator knowledge and behaviors and ultimately impacting school performance?
Such was the rationale for this review of the literature.
Considering school leaders, especially principals, play a critical role in modeling and
providing professional development opportunities for their teachers, modeling instructional
leadership, and impacting overall school performance, the purpose of this review was to examine
the evidence in these areas. Articles were retrieved through UC MegaSearch searching the
subject terms for the following search terms: principal, school performance, and professional
development. Articles were limited to scholarly (peer-reviewed journals) and studies in America.
This review of literature examined the relationships between principal characteristics and school
performance, the relationships between principal behaviors and instructional practice, and the
impact of professional development on school performance, including the role the state and
higher education contributions to professional development such as in endorsement programs.
The author intended this review of the literature to develop the research question:
How do principals who earn reading endorsements impact school performance?
2
School Principals and School Performance
Through an analysis of 32 empirical studies published between 1996 and 2005,
Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) identified school leadership as a critical element in improving
school performance, often measured in terms of student achievement through student test scores.
According to Hallinger and Heck (1996), school success assessed through student achievement
measures, though context-dependent, resulted from strong school leadership “Research on school
effectiveness concluded that strong administrative leadership was among those factors within the
school that make a difference in student learning” (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, p. 5). Waters,
Marzano, and McNulty (2003) reported strong relationships between school leadership and
student achievement. Quinn (2002) noted that principals with strong instructional leadership
abilities positively affected student achievement.
Waters et al. (2003) examined the effects of leadership practices on student achievement
in 70 studies since 1970. Based on the research, 21 leadership responsibilities significantly
correlated with student achievement. However, the researchers warned that leaders could have a
positive impact on achievement and have a marginal or negative impact on achievement. Two
primary variables determined the positive or negative impact on achievement: the principal’s
ability to identify and then focus on improving practices that have a positive impact on student
achievement and whether leaders understand the process of change and adjust their practices
accordingly (Waters et al., 2003).
Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) specified transformational leadership qualities affecting
student achievement. Results indicated significant indirect effects of transformational leadership
on both student achievement and engagement (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). However, Fuller and
3
Hollingsworth (2014) cautioned making assumptions underlying the efforts to evaluate principal
effectiveness in terms of student test scores. They concluded there were no strategies to estimate
principal effectiveness that accurately capture the independent effect of principals on student test
scores. Nevertheless, the association between effective school leadership and school success
assessed through student achievement measures is apparent in the literature.
School Principals as Instructional Leaders
One of the many responsibilities of a school principal is to monitor the quality of
instruction delivered by teachers (Clark, Martorell, & Rockoff 2009). Leithwood and Jantzi
(2005) also linked principal leadership to the instructional organization of a school. In an
evaluation of eight elementary, eight middle, and eight high school principals, Quinn (2002)
identified the relationship between principal leadership behaviors and teacher instructional
practice descriptors by surveying teachers on the principals’ instructional leadership abilities. Of
the 19 items on the survey, ten items were devoted to the principal’s capacity to impact
instruction. According to Quinn (2002), as the instructional leaders of schools, principals
encountered the growing complexity of current visions of teaching and learning. A principal’s
responsibility included informing teachers about new educational strategies to increase the
effectiveness of instruction.
However, Heck et al. (1990) acknowledged that principals’ behaviors aimed at improving
school performance did not have the same impact on students as instruction by the classroom
teacher (as cited in Quinn, 2002). Unfortunately, according to Acker-Hocevar and Cruz-Janzen
(2008), teachers did not perceive principals as their instructional leaders, nor did they perceive
principals have kept current with instructional innovations, especially emergent theories.
4
Regardless, Quinn (2002) described higher levels of active teaching and student engagement
occurred in schools where the principal served as an instructional resource to its teachers. The
potential principals possess in improving instruction, and thus increasing student achievement is
also evident in the literature.
Principal Professional Development and Impact on School Performance
One of the many responsibilities of the local school district is to ensure the training of
principals as instructional leaders so principals can model ongoing learning by actively
participating in professional development both for themselves and with teachers. According to
the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), principals have been the
overlooked constituency in creating supports and reforms aligned to the standards. “One of the
most pressing needs is to provide powerful resources and professional development to school
building leaders” (ASCD, 2012, p. 34).
Clark et al. (2009) expressed mixed evidence on the relationship between formal
principal training and professional development programs and school performance in a study of
New York City principals. The study assessed two programs of principal development: the Cahn
Fellow program and the Aspiring Principals Program (APP). The Cahn Fellow program was
“designed to support the growth of exemplary school leaders by recognizing outstanding NYC
principals and providing them with opportunities for professional, intellectual and personal
growth” (Clark et al., 2009, p. 13). The researchers examined this program because it clarified
whether professional development programs for successful principals could help them further
improve school performance. With the Cahn Fellow program, school performance did improve.
The APP prepared educators for principal positions throughout a 14-month intensive training
5
program. Compared to principals who fulfilled certification requirements on their initiative,
school performance did not improve for principals in the APP. Clark et al. (2009) noted that
improvement for the APP principals might occur in the long run.
Though Clark et al. (2009) established little evidence of the relationship between school
performance and principal education (undergraduate or graduate institution), Darling-Hammond
and McLaughlin (2011) questioned the standards of administrator certifications on whether they
required principals to know how students learn and how teachers teach rather than stressing
noninstructional matters. The study suggested opportunities for collaborative inquiry of
principals and other school leadership personnel with teachers for planning, sharing, evaluating,
and learning. The study also encouraged shared professional development to communicate
understandings of both school goals and new instructional approaches. Shared professional
development was central to the implementation of successful initiatives (Darling-Hammond &
McLaughlin, 2011). Acker-Hocevar and Cruz-Janzen (2008) also suggested a move away from
preparing teachers and principals independent of each other with separate sets of skills to prevent
disconnection between teachers and principals.
In contrast to the positive effects of the professional development of principals in
supporting teachers, Herman et al. (2019) expressed different findings. “The Institute of
Education Sciences conducted a random assignment study of a professional development
program for elementary school principals to support state and local efforts to improve school
leadership” (Hermann et al., 2019, p. 1). The program focused on helping principals conduct
structured observations of teachers’ classroom instruction and provide targeted feedback but
6
resulted in decreased frequency of instructional support and feedback teachers received from
principals and did not affect the usefulness of feedback based on teacher reports.
The State’s Role in Principal Professional Development
Loeb, Miller, and Strunk (2009) reviewed state policy approaches to professional
development and discovered states played diverse roles:
States can play a very limited role, allowing districts to choose their own professional
development policies and providing limited support or information to aid districts in
professional development decisions. Alternatively, states may allow districts to choose
their own approaches but can serve as a clearinghouse for effective teacher education and
professional development strategies. At the other end of the spectrum, state governments
can be highly regulatory, dictating specific aspects of districts’ professional development
and education programs. (p. 213)
Davis, Rogers, and Harrigan (2020) examined whether state certification policies match
research-based criteria for principal professional development polices. Only one state met all
indicators, and most states did not have comprehensive, research-based principal professional
development policies. Although principal professional development improved school
performance at various levels, professional development for teachers received more time,
resources, and attention at both district and state levels (Davis et al., 2020).
Higher Education’s Role in Principal Professional Development
One innovative idea of establishing direct partnerships between schools and universities
offered encouragement. Jetton, Cancienne, and Greever (2008) produced a descriptive account of
a professional learning community established among university professors, a high school
7
principal, a high school literacy coordinator, and teachers. The shared vision was that every
teacher focused on reading and writing to increase student performance on the state criterion-
referenced test. The principal was highly committed to making literacy one of the main goals of
all the teachers. Together the principal, literacy coordinators, and the university partner created a
literacy vision for the school and restructured the curriculum to reflect these literacy goals.
(Jetton et al., 2008). On the other hand, Grisson and Harrington (2010) found “a significant
positive association between principal participation in formal mentoring and coaching and
principal effectiveness but [found] that principals who invest in university course work as
professional development are rated less effective” (p. 585)
Often colleges and universities provided professional development coursework in the
form of endorsements, which can be added to educators’ certificates. For example, Georgia
educators earned endorsements in specific areas to recognize additional expertise and to
strengthen and enhance competency levels. To be eligible for a professional endorsement, one of
the criteria included the completion of a state-approved program in the endorsement field. State-
approved programs, based on established state standards, are usually provided by colleges and
universities (Georgia Professional Standards Commission, n.d.). Grisson and Harrington (2010)
determined a need for further research on what university-based professional development
teaches and how it impacts principals’ knowledge and behaviors.
Conclusion
Though Leithwood and Jantzi (2005), Hallinger and Heck (1996), Waters et al. (2003),
and Quinn (2002) described positive relationships between principal characteristics and school
performance, Fuller and Hollingsworth (2014) cautioned about making assumptions in
8
determining the independent effect of the principal’s role in school performance. Quinn (2002)
identified the relationship between principal leadership behaviors and teacher instructional
practices. Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) also noted links between principals and a school’s
instructional organization. However, Heck, Terry, and Marcoulides (1990) acknowledged
principals’ behaviors aimed at improving school performance did not have the same impact on
students as did instruction by the classroom teacher (as cited in Quinn, 2002).
Clark et al. (2009) expressed mixed evidence in various principal professional
development programs; although, shared professional development between principals and
teachers was deemed necessary (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011; Acker-Hocevar &
Cruz-Janzen, 2008). Herman et al. (2019) noted principal professional development actually
decreased the frequency of instructional support. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (2011)
questioned the emphasis on teaching and learning in principal certification programs.
State professional development and certification policy proved inconsistent (Loeb et al.
2009; Davis et al., 2020), though Jetton et al. (2008) proposed an innovative, collaborative model
between universities and schools. ASCD (2021) presented a need for more professional
development for school leaders while Grisson and Harrington (2010) determined the need for
further research on what university-based professional development teaches and how it impacts
principals’ knowledge and behaviors. Given the potentially significant effect school leadership
has on school performance and the principals’ potential for impacting instructional practices,
further research on the professional development of principals is vital, especially in the area of
the effect of university-based professional development such as endorsement on school
performance.
9
10
References
Acker-Hocevar, M., & Cruz-Janzen, M. (2008). Teacher and principal preparation programs:
Reforms that sustain high performance and learning in high poverty and diverse schools.
International Journal of Learning, 14(10), 87.
ASCD. (2012). Fulfilling the promise of the Common Core State Standards: Moving from
adoption to implementation to sustainability. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from:
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/commoncore/CCSSSummitReport.pdf
Clark, D., Martorell, P., Rockoff, J., & Urban Institute. (2009). School principals and school
performance. CALDER Working Paper No. 38. In Urban Institute. Urban Institute.
Davis, K., Rogers, D., & Harrigan, M. (2020). A review of state policies on principal
professional development. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(24).
Fuller, E. J., & Hollingworth, L. (2014). A bridge too far? Challenges in evaluating principal
effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 466–499.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13506595
Georgia Dyslexia Act, S.B. 48. 155th Leg., Regular Sess. (2019).
file:///media/fuse/drivefs-
6e8e4b89fcc9f10b23c229985efa6d85/root/Dyslexia%20Research/SB%2048.pdf
Georgia Performance Standards Commission. (n.d.)
https://www.gapsc.com/Certification/CertFieldsAndEndorsements/certFieldsAndEndorse
ments.aspx
11
Grissom, J. A., & Harrington, J. R. (2010). Investing in administrator efficacy: An examination
of professional development as a tool for enhancing principal effectiveness. American
Journal of Education, 116(4), 583–612.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An assessment
of methodological progress, 1980-1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P.
Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and
administration (pp. 723-783). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Heck, Ronald H., Terry J. Larsen, and George A. Marcoulides. 1990. “Instructional Leadership
and School Achievement: Validation of a Causal Model. Educational Administration
Quarterly 26(2): 94–125.
Herrmann, M., Clark, M., James-Burdumy, S., Tuttle, C., Kautz, T., Knechtel, V., Dotter, D.,
Wulsin, C. S., Deke, J., & National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance (ED). (2019). The effects of a principal professional development program
focused on instructional leadership. NCEE 2020-0002. In National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance. National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance.
Jetton, T. L., Cancienne, M. B., & Greever, B. (2008). The evolving eoles of faculty learning
communities: A university/high school literacy partnership. Theory Into Practice, 47(4),
327–335.
12
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research
1996–2005. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244769
Loeb, S., Miller, L., & Strunk, K. (2009). The state role in teacher professional development and
education throughout teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 4(2), 212-228.
Quinn, D. M. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice and
student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 447–467.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210440294
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of
Research Tells Us About the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. Aurora, CO:
Mid-Continent Regional Educational Library.