Principal Time-Use and Effectiveness

8/9/2019 Principal Time-Use and Effectiveness

1/32

Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice Stanford University

School Leadership Research Report No. 09-3

Eileen Lai Horng, Daniel Klasik, and Susanna Loeb

Stanford University

November 2009

Principal Time-Use andSchool Effectiveness


2/32

2009 Institute or Research on Education Policy & Practice. All rights reserved.

Citation: Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2009). Principal time-use and school eectiveness. (SchoolLeadership Research Report No. 09-3). Stanord, CA: Stanord University, Institute or Research onEducation Policy & Practice

Tis report can be downloaded romwww.schoolleadershipresearch.org.

Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice supports high quality, multi-disciplinaryempirical research that is inormed by collaboration with stakeholdersand practitioners and that, in turn,inorms the improvement o education policy and practice.

520 Galvez MallCERAS Building, 5th FloorStanord UniversityStanord, CA [email protected]

irepp.stanord.edu Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice


3/32

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................... ...................................................................................................... 1

Data and Methods ...................................................................................................................... 3

ime-Use Observational Data ...................................................................................... 3

eacher and Parent Surveys .......................................................................................... 5

Administrative Data ..................................................................................................... 6

Methods ....................................................................................................................... 6

Results ........................................................................................................................................ 9

What Principal Do ....................................................................................................... 9

Where Principals Spend Teir ime ............................................................................. 9

Dierences in Principal ime-Use Across Schools and Principals .................................. 10

Principal ime-Use and Measures o School Eectiveness ............................................ 12

Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 20

Reerences ................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix 1: Precent o Principal ime Spent on Individual asks .............................................. 26


4/32

Acknowledgements

We are grateul to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools or the data employed in this paper. We ap-preciate nancial support rom the Joyce Foundation, the Spencer Foundation and the Stanord Univer-sity K-12 Initiative. Te views expressed in the paper are solely those o the authors and may not reectthose o the unders. Any errors are attributable to the authors.

Abstract

School principals have complex jobs. o better understand the work lives o principals, this study usesobservational time-use data or all high school principals in Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Tispaper examines the relationship between the time principals spent on dierent types o activities and

school outcomes including student achievement, teacher and parent assessments o the school, andteacher satisaction. We nd that time spent on Organization Management activities is associated withpositive school outcomes, such as student test score gains and positive teacher and parent assessmentso the instructional climate; whereas Day-to-Day Instruction activities are marginally or not at allrelated to improvements in student perormance and oten have a negative relationship with teacher andparent assessments. Tis paper suggests that a single-minded ocus on principals as instructional leadersoperationalized through direct contact with teachers may be detrimental i it orsakes the important roleo principals as organizational leaders.


5/32

Princ ipal T ime-Use 1

Introduction

rincipals can play critical roles in the development o high-quality schools (see Darling-Ham-mond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr & Cohen, 2007; EdSource, 2008; Knapp, Copland, Ford,Markholt, McLaughlin, Milliken & albert, 2003; Wallace Foundation, 2007). While only

a small body o research links principals directly to student achievement (Branch, Hanushek& Rivkin, 2009; Hallinger & Heck, 1996), a much larger research base documents principals eectson school operations, through motivating teachers and students, identiying and articulating vision andgoals, developing high perormance expectations, ostering communication, allocating resources, and de-veloping organizational structures to support instruction and learning (Knapp, Copland, Plecki & Portin,2006; Lee, Bryk and Smith, 1993; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004). Principals also a-ect the instructional quality o schools through the recruitment, development, and retention o teachers(Harris, Rutledge, Ingle & Tompson, 2006).

P

While the importance o the principal or schooloperations is widely acknowledged, surprisingly

little is known about what principals do on a day-to-day basis and how this varies across schools. Pre-vious principal time-use research can be groupedinto two broad categories ethnographic studiesand sel-report studies each with their own bene-ts and limitations. Ethnographic studies allow ordepth and detail but generally include observationso only a ew principals and are consequently un-able to generalize to a larger population o schoolsor to empirically link principal time-use to schooloutcomes (Martin and Willower, 1981; Morris,

Crowson, Porter-Gehrie & Hurwitz, 1984; Wol-cott, 1973). Sel-report research, usually conductedwith surveys, allows or large samples but otensacrices depth, and perhaps accuracy. Tese stud-ies are likely to be susceptible to sel-reporting andmemory biases (Andrews, Soder & Jacoby, 1986;Andrews & Soder, 1987; Brewer, 1993; Eberts &Stone, 1988; Erickson & Reller, 1979; Martinko& Gardner, 1990).

Recent advances in sel-report data collection

methods, such as end-o-the-day logs and experi-ence sampling methods (ESM), have reduced someo these potential biases (Goldring, Hu, May &Camburn, 2008; Scott, Ahadi & Krug, 1990). Forexample, Spillane, Camburn and Pareja (2007)employ ESM by paging principals up to 15 times aday on portable handheld devices or six consecu-tive days. Each time they were paged, principals

lled out a short survey asking questions aboutwhat they were doing, who they were with, and

where they were. Te real-time nature o this meth-od eliminates the possibility that principals orgetor misremember their daily activities. Te method,however, still suers rom the potential biases inher-ent in sel-reporting. An additional drawback toESM is that the surveys take time to complete andare thus necessarily limited in their scope so as notto overly disrupt the principals work day.

Te study reported in this paper draws on thestrengths o these two types o research. Similar to

ethnographic studies, trained researchers observedprincipals and recorded their time use to eliminatebias associated with sel-reports and to allow ormore detailed description o time-use than usuallypossible in surveys. Similar to sel-report data, thedata or this study cover the activities and locationso a large number o principals, and so do not havethe small sample limitations o ethnographic stud-ies. Specically, a team o researchers shadowed 65principals in Miami-Dade County Public Schools(M-DCPS), each over the course o a ull school

day, and collected detailed inormation on time-useat ve-minute intervals. Tey collected time-usedata rom all 41 high school principals in the dis-trict and a sample o 12 elementary and 12 middleschool principals or comparison. Te scale o thedata collection is large enough to allow or explicitmodeling o the links between principal actions andschool outcomes.


6/32

School Leadersh ip Research2

With these data we seek to answer our broad questions:

1. What do principals do?2. Where do principals spend their time?3. How do principals' roles vary by school characteristics?4. How are variations in principal actions reected in measurable school outcomes?

Te school outcomes that we examine include student test perormance as well as measures o a schoolseducational environment. In what ollows, we describe our data and methods and then present the re-sults. Te nal section discusses the implications o the ndings, limitations o the study, and directionsor uture research.

Figure 1: Principal Job Tasks by Category

Administration

Managing student services (e.g., records, reporting)

Managing student discipline

Supervising students (e.g. lunch duty)

Managing schedules (for the school, not personal schedule)

Fullling (non SpEd) ompliance requirements/paperwork

Preparing, implementing, administering standardized tests

Managing students attendance-related activities

Fullling SpEd requirements (e.g., meetings with parents)

Organization Management

Managing budgets, resources

Managing non-instructional staff

Maintaining campus facilities

Developing and monitoring a safe school environment

Dealing with concerns from staff

Hiring personnel

Interacting or networking with other principals

Managing personal, school-related schedule

Day-to-Day Instruction

Preparing, conducting classrm. observations/walk-throughs

Formally evaluating teachers, providing instruc. feedback

Informally coaching teachers

Teaching students (e.g., tutoring, after-school)

Implementing required professional development

Using data to inform instruction

Instructional Program

Utilizing school meetings

Planning, directing after-school/summer instruction

Planning, facilitating professional development for teachers

Planning, facilitating PD for prospective principals

Developing an educational program across the school

Releasing or counseling out teachers

Evaluating curriculum

Using assessment results for program evaluation

Internal Relations

Interacting socially with staff about school-related topics

Interacting socially with staff about non-school topics

Developing relationships with students

Counseling students and/or parents

Attending school activities (e.g., sports events, plays)

Communicating with parents

Counseling staff (about conicts with other staff members)

Informally talking to teachers about students, not related toinstruction

External Relations

Working with local community members or organizations

Utilizing district ofce meetings or other communicationsinitiated by the district ofce

Communicating with district ofce to obtain resources forschool (initiated by principal)

Fundraising


7/32


D

Data and Methods

ata or this study come primarily rom observational time-use data that we collected romMiami-Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS). o this data we link inormation romdistrict school climate surveys o teachers and parents, surveys that we administered to all

teachers in the district, and district administrative data on schools, sta, and students. Weuse these data to create measures o:

Principals time spent on each of 43 tasks and six aggregate task categories Principals time in each of ve locations School-level student achievement and student achievement gains in multiple years Teachers assessments of the school Teachers satisfaction in general and at their current school Parents assessments of the school Characteristics of teachers principals and schools to serve as controls in the models

In what ollows, we describe each o our data sources.

Time-Use Observational Data

Te opportunity to observe principals in Miami-Dade, one o the countrys largest and mostdiverse school districts, allowed us to analyze alarge number o principals across varying school

environments but within the same districtcontext.1 As described above, we observed 65principals in M-DCPS, including the leaderso all 41 high schools as well as a sample o 12elementary schools and 12 middle schools.2

We coded principal actions as one o a list o 43tasks as shown in Figure 1. We populated our listo task codes based on the broad categories orprincipal duties described by Spillane, Camburn,and Pareja (2007). Tese our categories were:

Administrative (e.g., managing budgets, managingpersonnel); Instruction and Curriculum (e.g.,observing classroom instruction, planningcurricula); Proessional Growth (e.g., receivingcoaching, studying eective practices); andFostering Relationships (e.g., interacting socially).Given that we were directly observing principalsand not asking the principals to take time to ll

out surveys as Spillane et al. did, we were able toadd substantially more specicity to this task list.We expanded the task list through consultationwith principals and district leadership in multiplestates, and then rened our expanded list throughpilot shadowing o principals in local schools.

It would be impractical to include 43 separatetasks in our models. Because o this, we aggregatetasks into six task categories: Administration,Organization Management, Day-to-DayInstruction, Instructional Program, InternalRelations, and External Relations. Figure 1describes the individual tasks that comprise eachtask category. Te groupings o tasks into thesecategories are based on analyses conducted inanother study that is part o the same research

project. In that prior study, Identiying Reerence(orthcoming) uses actor analysis o principalssel-ratings o eectiveness on the same set o tasksto distinguish ve task categories. For this study,we made a urther distinction in one o thosecategories, Instructional Management, separatingDay-to-Day Instruction tasks rom InstructionalProgram tasks. We made this distinction because


8/32


the conceptual dierence between principalwork related to day-to-day instruction and thebroader management o a schools instructionalprogram is substantial enough to warrant separateconsideration. All observations analyzed in this

study occurred during one week in April 2008,which, within the districts calendar, was thesecond week ater spring break. Researchersshadowed principals or an entire school day,starting roughly 30 minutes beore the start oschool and ending when students were released atthe end o the day. In both a conerence call beorethe visit and a brieng immediately prior to theshadowing, principals were instructed to ignorethe researcher and not make any alterations totheir usual routine on account o the researchers

presence. Researchers recorded the principalstasks throughout the day at ve-minute intervals.At each observation, researchers coded the tasko the principal, the location o the principal,with whom the principal was interacting, and thenature o the activity (e.g., phone call, scheduledmeeting, etc.). In cases where multiple codes wererelevant, the more specic code was entered asthe primary task, with other relevant codes listedas secondary activities. We examine only primarytask codes in this study. Since we only use one task

code per observation or this study, the percent oobservations is likely to be a good proxy or thepercent o time a principal spends on a given task.In other words, our measure o principal time-use is the average percent o times the principalsare observed engaging in particular tasks. In caseswhere a researcher was unsure o which code to usein a particular situation, the instance was discussedwith the larger group o researchers during a dailydebrieng until a consensus was reached on whichcode to use. Most analyses in this paper use the

3,607 high school principal time-use observations.Elementary and middle school observationsprovide comparisons or the high school datawhere noted.

A note on the reliability o the time-use observations:Te ourteen researchers who conducted theprincipal observations were trained on how to

conduct the observations and how to dierentiateamong the principal tasks. Te training placedparticular emphasis on consistent decision-rules,such as how to code tasks or which multiple codesmight apply. As one example, an observation o a

principal leading a sta meeting about standardizedtesting might be coded as utilizing sta meetingsor preparing and implementing standardizedtests. Te decision-rule which applies to this caseis to prioritize the specic content over the moregeneral context in other words, the primary taskis preparing and implementing standardized testsand the secondary task is utilizing sta meetings.In addition to participating in these trainingsessions, the researchers conducted practiceobservations in pairs at local schools.

We used the practice observations in local schoolsto test inter-rater reliability. We randomly assignedresearchers to observe principals in pairs. Sevenpairs o researchers observed local principals orthree hours. Te researchers shared a timer butindependently completed their shadowing logs.We calculated a consistency rate or each pair oresearchers as the percentage o observations orwhich their task codes were the same.3 On average,the researchers had an 85 percent consistency rate.

Te individual pairs o researchers had consistencyrates ranging rom 69 to 94 percent. We closelyreviewed the incidents o inconsistent coding anddistinguished two types o inconsistencies: 1) dueto coding dierent principal actions and 2) due tocoding the same principal action dierently. Aninconsistency due to coding dierent principalactions is indicated by widely divergent task codes- or example, one researcher recording the taskas "managing school schedules" and another as"preparing or conducting classroom observations/

walk-throughs." Because principals oten rapidlytransition between tasks, the timer can go obetween distinct tasks. One researcher might beinclined to code what the principal was doing themoment beore the timer went o; while anothermight code what the principal does immediatelyater; and still another might code the task as "intransition." While the protocol required researchers


9/32


to code the principal's activity exactly when thetimer went o, our inter-rater reliability testsdemonstrate that there is still variation in how thisis interpreted. In the previous example, a review othe shadowing logs beore and ater this time point

shows that the principal was indeed in transitionbetween these two activities when the timerwent o. Among the 31 incidents o inconsistentcoding, we ound that 74 percent were due to theresearchers coding dierent principal actions. Weare less concerned about this type o inconsistencybecause it does not aect the reliability o ourresults as long as an individual researcher remainsconsistent. In other words, it is ne or a researcherto code the activity that the principal was engagedin immediately beore the timer when o (or

immediately ater) as long as he or she doesso every time the timer goes o at a point otransition. As a matter o act, because we are onlycapturing intermittent time points and aggregatingour observations, it does not even matter i theresearcher was consistent with this as long as he orshe was not biased or example, tending to codeinteractions with students over other behaviorsregardless o whether they occurred immediatelybeore or ater the timer went o.

O greater concern to the reliability o our resultsare the inconsistencies due to coding the sameprincipal action dierently. Tat is, the researchersobserving the same principal action (not at a pointo transition between activities) and interpretingwhat they see dierently. As much as we attemptedto make the task codes clear and objective andto intensively train observers, there is still roomor subjectively diering interpretations. Oneexample o this inconsistency is two researchersobserved a principal talk with a parent about

making sure her child gets to school on timeevery day. One researcher coded this activity as"communicating with parents," while anothercoded it as "counseling students and/or parents."For this particular study, these discrepancies arenot too troubling because we aggregate the tasksinto categories, and both o these codes all in

the Internal Relations category. Tere are other,more troubling, examples o inconsistenciesacross dierent task categories. For example,two researchers observed a principal talkingwith a student during recess when the principal

was on duty. One coded this as "supervisingstudents," while another coded this as "developingrelationships with students." Te ormer is part othe Administration category while the latter is parto the Internal Relations category, so this inter-rater inconsistency does aect the reliability oour results. O the eight incidents o inconsistentcoding due to coding the same principal behaviordierently, only three crossed over dierent taskcategories. Tis represents only one percent o allthe observations in our inter-rater reliability tests

Teacher and Parent Surveys

o better understand teachers and parentsperceptions o the schools educationalenvironment, we draw upon three surveys: adistrict-administered school climate survey orsta, a district-administered school climate surveyor parents, and our own survey o teachers in thedistrict. Te school climate surveys were designedby the district and have been administered

annually in January or February since 1998-99.Tey provide inormation about sta and parentperceptions o the school. In January and February2008, the district distributed the surveys to 26,100sta and 83,700 parents. Te response rates were74 percent or the sta and 43 percent or theparents.

We also surveyed teachers in M-DCPS in May2008. Tis survey asked teachers about theteaching and learning environment o their school,

the role o their current principal, how appealingdierent aspects o the principalship are to them,how prepared they eel to take on school leadershipresponsibilities, their uture plans, and theirpreerences or dierent school characteristics. Weadministered surveys to all teachers in the district,and oered cash prizes through a rae or theteachers who completed the survey. Ultimately,


10/32


15,842 teachers responded, representing 83percent o all teachers in the district. For this paper,we examine the responses to questions on teachersatisaction, one assessing overall satisaction withteaching and the other assessing satisaction at the

current school.

Administrative Data

We merge the survey and principal observationdata with administrative data provided byM-DCPS. Tese data include school demographicvariables such as enrollment, principal tenure at aschool, and school perormance based on the statesaccountability system. We obtain inormationon each school's population o minority students

as well as the number o students eligible or theFree and Reduced Price Lunch program romthe National Center or Education StatisticssCommon Core o Data.

Methods

Tis paper asks our questions: What do principalsdo? Where do principals spend their time? Howdo principals' roles vary by school characteristics?How are variations in principal actions refected in

measurable school outcomes?Te rst three questionsare descriptive. o answer them, we describe theaverage percent o time principals spent on eachtask as well as on the six aggregated task categories.We then describe where principals completedthese tasks and compare the time-use data acrossprincipals and schools with dierent characteristics.For these analyses, we use percent o time spent ona task instead o the number o minutes becauseobservations represent an instantaneous samplingo a principals actions rather than an accounting

o the actual amount o time spent on a task.However, because all principals were observed orapproximately the same length o time, percent otime on task and amount o time spent on task aresimilar measures.

Te nal question - How are variations in principalactions refected in measurable school outcomes? -

is trickier to answer. Any observed relationshipbetween school perormance and principal actionsmay be causal, but the causality may work in eitherdirection or the relationship may be a spuriousone; that is, more and less eective schools might

dier in other ways that mask the true relationshipbetween principal time-use and outcomes. Forexample, it may be that when principals spend lesstime on Administration tasks, students have higherachievement or it may be that when students arehigh-achieving, principals do not need to spend asmuch time on Administration tasks. Alternatively,it may be that lower student achievement reectscharacteristics o the school context, such as theextent and type o student behavioral issues,which necessitate principals spending more time

on Administration tasks (e.g., student discipline).o begin to unpack this nal research question,including taking into account potential conoundingrelationships,we examine the relationships betweenprincipal time-use and school outcomes in amultivariate ramework.

We run a series o regressions to investigatethe relationships between principal time-use asreected by the percent time spent on each o thesix aggregated task categories and several school

outcomes while controlling or other characteristicso the school and principal. All regressionanalyses take roughly the same orm with schoolperormance as a unction o time-use and othercontrols. Because the proportion o time-useacross the categories sums to 100 percent, we omitAdministration tasks as the reerence category. Weuse our types o school-level outcome measures:student achievement, teacher assessments o theschool, teacher satisaction, and parent assessmentso the school.

We run approximately the same ve specicationsor each outcome variable. Te rst specicationcontains only the percent o time principalsspend on each o the task categories. Te secondspecication adds school-level controls includingschool size, percent minority enrollment, percento students qualiying or the Free and Reduced


11/32


Price Lunch program, and whether the school allswithin the districts school improvement zone asthese schools had special resources directed towardsthem. Te third specication adds a variable orthe principals experience (in months) at their

current school. Te ourth specication accountsor change in the outcome variable by adding acontrol or the level o the outcome variable in aprior school year. We use a three year lag in orderto capture change over more than one year. Whendata or prior years are not available, we use theschool accountability grade as a control instead.Finally, because we are wary o stressing a modelthat uses so many predictor variables relativeto the eective size o our sample, ater notingthat most o our control variables are statistically

insignicant, we run a concise specicationor each dependent variable with only percent otime spent on task category and controls or pastschool outcomes. In general, these reduced modelsconrm the trends seen in the ully speciedmodels.

Student Achievement:We model studentachievement based on Floridas accountabilitysystem.4 Our rst set o models looks at principalstime-use in relation to the schools 2007-08

accountability grade on an academic A-F scale.We use ordered probit regressions or these modelsbecause school grades create an ordinal variablein which the distance between each level is notnecessarily the same or example, it might bemore difcult or a school to move rom an F toa D than rom a B to an A. Te last two modelspecications (a ull model and a concise one),include controls or the school grade three yearsprior.

As an alternative to a schools accountability grade,we use the 2007-08 raw score o the schoolsaccountability points earned i.e., the sum othe component scores that comprise the schoolgrade. Tese data have the benet o providinga continuous outcome variable on which we areable to run ordinary least squares (OLS) regressionmodels that are easier to interpret than ordered

probit models. We similarly model school-levelstudent perormancegainsby adding a controlor perormance three years prior on this samemeasure.

Teacher Assessments of the School:In additionto aecting student perormance, a principals

actions may aect school perormance in waysbetter measured by teachers' assessments o theschool than by accountability grades. o estimatethe relationship between principal time-use andthe school educational environment, we link theprincipal observation data to teachers responses onthe district school climate survey.

Te district climate survey asks teachers the extent

to which they agree with the ollowing threestatements:At my school I eel sae and secure; Ibelieve children at my school are receiving a goodeducation; and, the overall climate or atmosphere atmy school is positive and helps students learn. Werun OLS regressions on the percent o teachers ina school who agree or strongly agree with each othese statements about the schools educationalenvironment. We run these outcome variablesagainst the usual sequence o controls: the rstspecication includes only the percentage o

time principals spent on the task categories withno controls, the second includes school controlvariables, the third adds principal experience, andthe ourth includes a control or the percent o stawho agreed with the same statement three yearsprior. Te nal specication represents a concisemodel with only task category time-use and thepercentage o sta who previously agreed with thestatement.

Teacher Satisfaction: Another indicator o

a positive educational environment is teachersatisaction. We run logistic regressions modelingwhether a teacher is satised with teaching ingeneral and with teaching at their current school.Because this data is at the teacher level, we clusterthe standard errors at the school level to accountor the hierarchical nature o the data. We runve models similar to those described above.


12/32


However, since we do not have prior survey dataor our teacher survey, we control or schoolaccountability grade instead o prior surveyresponses in order to distinguish the relationshipbetween principal time-use and teachers

satisaction rom the relationship betweenprincipal time-use and school grade. For brevity,we only present and discuss the results o the lasttwo specications the ull and concise models in this paper.

Parent Assessments of the School:Principaleectiveness may also be reected in parentsassessments o the school. We link our time-usedata to district surveys o school climate thatasked parents the extent to which they agree with

the ollowing three statements: my childs school issae and secure; my child is getting a good education

at this school; and, the overall climate or atmosphereat my childs school is positive and helps my childlearn. Our outcome represents the percent oparents that agreed or strongly agreed with thisstatement or the 2007-08 school year. We run

these parent assessment variables against theusual sequence o controls: the rst specicationincludes only the percentage o time principalsspent on given task categories with no controls,the second includes school control variables, thethird adds principal experience, and the ourthadds controls or the same measure three yearsprior. Finally, we run a concise model withonly task category time-use and parents priorassessment o the school. Again, or brevity wepresent and discuss only the last two specications

in this paper.

Figure 2: Principal Time-Use by Task Category

27.46%

(10.19)

20.95%

(7.42)

5.88%

(8.29)

6.73%

(7.60)

14.64%

(7.60)

4.69%

(7.09)

18.68%

(7.67)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Administration Organization

Management

Day-to-Day

Instruction

Instructional

Program

Internal Relations External Relations Other Tasks


13/32


ResultsWhat Principals Do

Our analyses begin with a description o how

principals spend their time during the school day.Figure 2 describes the distribution o principalstime across the six task categories, as the averagepercent o the school day principals devoted tothe given category. On average, principals spentthe most time on Administration activities to keepthe school running smoothly, such as managingstudent discipline and ullling compliancerequirements, accounting or about thirty percento the school day. Tey spent just over a tho the day on Organization Management tasks,

such as managing budgets and sta and hiringpersonnel. On average, they spent 15 percent otheir time on the Internal Relations tasks, suchas developing relationships with students andinteracting socially with sta; and ve percent onthe External Relations tasks, such as undraising.Principals appear to devote the least totalamount o time to instruction-related activitiesincluding Day-to-Day Instruction tasks (sixpercent) and more general Instructional Programresponsibilities (seven percent). Day-to-Day

Instruction includes activities such as conductingclassroom visits and inormally coaching teachers;while Instructional Program includes activitiessuch as evaluating the curriculum and planningproessional development. Close to a th o allobservations did not t well into any o these sixbroad task categories. Tese observations includedthe principal taking personal time (e.g., eatinglunch, using the restroom), interacting with theresearcher, or in transition between activities.

Appendix 1 gives the breakdown o principaltime-use by individual task within each othese aggregated task categories. Within theAdministration category, principals spent themost time managing student services (e.g.,making announcements or organizing bustransportation or eld trips). Within theOrganization Management category, principals

on average spent the most time managing budgetsand resources. Te vast majority o Day-to-DayInstruction time was spent preparing or or

conducting classroom observations. Within theInstructional Program category, the principals topthree activities were attending school meetings,planning supplementary education programs (e.g.,ater-school and summer school), and planning oracilitating teacher proessional development. Inthe category o Internal Relations, principals onaverage spent the most time interacting with staabout school-related and non-school related topics.Finally, working with local community members,businesses, and organizations occupied the vast

majority o principal time spent on ExternalRelations.5

Where Principals Spend Their Time

While principals spent approximately 20 percent otheir time in transition between the tasks denedin Figure 1, this does not necessarily imply thatthey are always on the go. As seen in able 1,principals spent most o their time in the schoolofce 54 percent o the day in their own ofces

and another nine percent elsewhere in the mainschool ofce. About 40 percent o principals timewas spent away rom the school ofce in locationsaround campus including hallways, playgrounds,and classrooms. On average, the principalsspent only about eight percent o the schoolday in classrooms. Tey spent even less time,approximately our percent, o campus entirely.

Principals perorm dierent tasks in dierentplaces. able 1 shows that the majority o

Administration, Organization Management,Instructional Program, and Other tasks occurredin the principals ofce. Not surprisingly, principalsperormed Day-to-Day Instruction tasks largely inclassrooms, while they split Internal Relations taskslargely between their ofce and the more generalschool grounds. External Relations tasks tended tooccur in the principals ofce or o campus.


14/32


We can also use able 1 to describe what principalstend to do when they are at various locations.As might be expected, the predominant tasksthat occurred within the school ofce involvedAdministration and Organization Management

tasks. Surprisingly, only about hal the time thatprincipals were in classrooms was dedicated toDay-to-Day Instruction tasks, such as observingor coaching teachers. Te other hal wasdivided roughly evenly among Administration,Organization Management, Instructional Program,and Internal Relations tasks. No other locationdemonstrates such diversity o tasks, suggestingthat principals are most likely to multi-taskwhile visiting classrooms. During the quarter otheir day when principals were not in the school

ofce or classrooms, they tended to engage inAdministration tasks such as dealing with studentdiscipline issues and Internal Relations tasks,primarily building relationships with students. In

the rare cases (on average, our percent o the time)that principals let campus, their time was mostrequently spent on External Relations tasks suchas, working with community members and theschool district to obtain resources or the school

and attending o-campus meetings.

6

Differences in Principal Time-UseAcross Schools and Principals

Principals may behave dierently in dierentschool contexts. Moreover, schools with certaincharacteristics may be able to attract principalswho engage in certain activities more thanothers, particularly i those activities are relatedto how eective the principal is perceived to be.

Consequently, we may see systematic dierencesin principal actions between schools. Similarly,principals may change their prole o actionsas they gain more experience or their choice

Table 1: Principal Time-Use by Location

Row Percent Principals

Ofce

Main

Ofce

Classroom School

Grounds

Off

Campus

Total

Column Percent

Administration53.5 11.8 2.8 30.7 1.3 100.0

28.7 36.2 10.1 36.1 8.4 28.8

Organization Management65.0 8.1 3.9 21.7 1.4 100.0

25.7 18.2 10.5 18.8 6.5 21.3

Day-to-Day Instruction14.3 2.9 71.9 11.0 0.0 100.0

1.6 1.8 54.5 2.7 0.0 6.0

Instructional Program74.5 6.5 12.2 6.9 0.0 100.0

9.8 4.9 10.8 2.0 0.0 7.1

Internal Relations43.0 12.3 6.0 34.9 3.8 100.0

12.2 19.8 11.6 21.6 12.9 15.2

External Relations53.2 5.8 0.0 6.9 34.1 100.0

4.9 3.0 0.0 1.4 38.1 5.0

Other55.0 9.1 1.2 25.7 9.1 100.0

17.1 16.1 2.5 17.5 34.2 16.7

Total53.7 9.4 7.9 24.5 4.4 100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


15/32


Table 2: Comparing Principal Time-Use across Selected Characteristics of Principals and Schools

Admin.Organ.

Mgmt.

Day-to-Day

Instruction

Instructional

Program

Internal

Relations

External

Relations

School

Typle

Elementary 25.31 20.86 9.26 6.97 17.23 4.61

(3.50) (3.76) (2.83) (2.40) (3.39) (1.87)

Middle 22.48 23.76 8.38 8.63 11.01** 4.39

(3.68) (3.73) (2.42) (2.92) (1.63) (1.79)

High 27.43 20.95 5.88 6.73 14.64 7.70

(1.63) (1.19) (1.33) (1.22) (1.22) (1.13)

% Black

Students

Lowest Quartile 22.54* 23.24 4.39 5.84 15.21 3.99

(3.73) (2.62) (1.99) (1.74) (1.66) (2.16)

Highest Quartile 34.53 21.52 3.65 4.81 14.49 2.83

(3.60) (2.79) (1.43) (2.08) (2.92) (1.11)

School

Poverty

Lowest Quartile 24.89* 21.37 6.32 7.00 14.32 5.41

(1.52) (1.60) (1.42) (1.46) (1.78) (1.67)

Highest Quartile 30.60 20.44 5.34 6.41 15.04 3.82

(2.95) (1.77) (2.38) (2.03) (2.29) (1.46)

Principal

Gender

Female 26.03 22.58 5.99 8.63 15.33 5.86

(2.32) (1.84) (2.66) (2.50) (1.94) (2.31)

Male 27.79 20.68 5.82 5.10 14.95 4.59)

(1.99) (1.68) (1.40) (1.07) (1.78) (1.24)

Principal

Experience

4+ years 21.91*** 19.99 6.15 6.16 17.51 5.99

(4.32) (3.16) (2.43) (3.16) (1.69) (3.28)

2-3 years 27.67 20.58 7.10 7.49 12.92 4.66

(4.08) (3.02) (3.09) (3.53) (2.48) (1.72)

0-1 years 33.76 22.80 3.36 6.05 14.30 3.20

(3.52) (2.40) (1.76) (1.76) (1.69) (1.09)

Parentheses indicate robust standard errors. Asterisks indicate signicant differences from last category within groupings.

* p


16/32


the dierences are not signicant at the ve or tenpercent levels. Te one exception is that principalsin schools with a high percentage o blackstudents and principals in high poverty schoolsspent marginally signicantly more o their day

on Administration tasks than their counterpartsin low minority and low poverty schools. Tesedierences might reect dierences in school needsas the Administration category captures many othe student discipline-related tasks that a principalperorms.

Finally, able 2 shows time-use by principal genderand experience. O the high school principals thatwe observed, roughly 45 percent were emale. Wesee no notable dierences in actions perormed

based on principal gender. Dierences based onthe number o years a principal had worked attheir current school are small as well. Te onenotable exception to this is that the amount o

time that principals spent on Administration tasksis substantially lower among principals with at leasttwo years o experience at their current school.New principals spent about 34 percent o theirtime on Administration tasks. However, principals

who had been leading their schools or at least ouryears spent only 22 percent o their day on thesetasks. No other task category shows signicantchanges with principal experience at their currentschool. Overall, we nd relatively little systematicvariation in principal time-use by measuredcharacteristics o schools or principals.

Principal Time-Use and Measures ofSchool Effectiveness

Ultimately, we would like to know how principaltime-use aects school outcomes i.e., whatmakes some principals more eective than others.A single measure o school success is likely to be

Figure 3: Principal Time-Use by School Grade

25.2

6%

17.91%

7.8

6%

6.8

3%

12.8

9%

8.76%

26.2

9%

25.7

9%

5.8

2%

4.8

3%

16.1

4%

1.3

3%

24.2

2%

20.31%

6.9

0% 8.0

7%

18.2

3%

3.65%

3

0.77%

20.5

6%

3.11%

8.4

3%

15.6

8%

5.3

3%

34.3

9%

18.7

0%

1.4

3%

7.13

%

13.15%

5.07%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Administration Organization

Management

Day-to-Day

Instruction

Instructional

Program

Internal Relations External Relations

A B C D F


17/32


limited. For example, gains in student test scoresmay reect the actions o the school leadership,but these changes may take time to maniest andalso may be difcult to measure i, or example,student mobility is high. As a result, it is worth

comparing principal actions to a range o schooloutcomes while controlling or other schoolcharacteristics. In our analysis, we use our types oschool eectiveness measures: student achievementon state standardized tests, teachers assessmentso the school, teacher satisaction, and parentsassessments o the school.

Principal Time-Use and StudentPerformance

We use two measures o student perormance:school-level accountability grades and school-levelraw scores o accountability points earned. Boththese measures are based on student perormanceon state standardized tests. Figure 3 providesa descriptive look at the relationship betweenprincipal time-use and these outcomes. We seethat the lowest-perorming schools, those assigneda D or F by the state accountability system, haveprincipals who spent more time on Administrationtasks. Te dierence between principals time-

use on Administration tasks at A and F schoolsis signicant at the one percent level. We see theopposite trend with respect to time spent on Day-to-Day Instruction tasks. Tat is, principals inschools with higher accountability grades spentmore time on Day-to-Day Instruction tasks thanthose in schools with lower grades. Tis dierenceis signicant at the p


18/32


School Accountability Grade (Ordered Probit) Total Accountability Points Earned (OLS)

(1) (2) (3) (4)a (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Org.

Mgmt. %1.069** 1.129*** 1.125*** 1.169*** 1.080** 4.540** 3.761*** 3.724*** 1.651** 0.869

(2.152) (2.874) (2.756) (2.865) (2.190) (1.778) (0.976) (1.003) (0.634) (0.773)

Day-Day

Instruc. %1.157*** 1.152** 1.120* 1.113 1.088* 9.747*** 4.353*** 4.158*** 0.936 0.292

(3.640) (2.490) (1.816) (1.473) (1.736) (2.267) (1.133) (1.239) (1.019) (1.119)

Instruc.Prog. %

1.030 1.004 0.998 1.041 1.049 1.430 0.796 0.759 0.313 0.200

(1.095) (0.0994) (0.0607) (0.804) (1.465) (1.527) (0.871) (0.890) (0.679) (0.652)

Internal

Relations %1.013 0.995 0.979 0.960 1.019 0.500 -0.0723 -0.184 -0.0236 0.368

(0.498) (0.134) (0.509) (-0.800) (0.644) (1.619) (0.859) (1.021) (0.759) (0.626)

ExternalRelations %

1.088** 1.023 0.991 1.056 1.072* 6.787*** 2.811** 2.546* 0.308 0.622

(2.567) (0.504) (0.163) (0.894) (1.899) (2.336) (1.263) (1.263) (0.802) (0.694)

OtherTasks %

1.091*** 1.076 1.058 1.114* 1.065 6.282*** 3.143*** 3.005*** 1.230* 0.931

(2.756) (1.597) (1.147) (1.854) (1.598) (1.578) (0.936) (0.935) (0.706) (0.811)

Zone

School Flag2.108 3.031 44.51** 1.519 4.443 16.68

(0.854) (1.181) (2.103) (20.60) (19.93) (19.48)% Black

0.936 0.904* 0.948*** 0.553 0.327 -0.768

(1.502) (1.840) (2.881) (1.106) (1.227) (1.154)

% Hispanic0.971 0.941 1.580 1.380 -0.227

(0.679) (1.152) (1.127) (1.233) (1.102)

% Asian2.874** 2.021 6.852*** 43.42*** 41.11*** 10.78

(2.494) (1.327) (3.258) (8.699) (9.628) (8.599)

% F/RPrice Lunch

0.956 0.945 0.981 -1.111 -1.198* -0.548

(1.372) (1.631) (0.500) (0.691) (0.682) (0.595)

Enrollment(in 100s)

0.957 0.956 0.925** -2.254*** -2.278*** -1.411*

(1.560) (1.573) (2.019) (0.642) (0.659) (0.692)

PrincipalExp (in mo.)

1.016 1.007 0.113 0.286

(1.091) (0.468) (0.328) (0.257)

Grade in

2005 - B21.15** 0.651

(2.199) (0.589)

Grade in

2005 - C5.486 0.192***

(1.346) (2.621)

Grade in2005 - D

0.194 0.041***

(0.890) (3.987)

Grade in

2005 - F0.000 0.000

(0.000) (0.000)

2005 PointsEarned

0.817*** 1.287***

(0.218) (0.0861)

Constant170.3** 253.0** 281.7** 196.1 -25.58

(72.59) (109.7) (124.1) (157.7) (35.80)

Observ.38 37 37 37 38 38 37 37 36 36

(Pseudo)R-squared

0.132 0.538 0.548 0.667 0.384 0.398 0.914 0.914 0.957 0.925

Robust standard errors in parentheses for OLS regressions and z-statistics for ordered probits. *** p


19/32


Management tasks (relative to Administrationtasks); or principals at high-perorming schoolscould simply have more time to dedicate to thesetasks. o investigate the possible direction o thecausality, we model student perormance gains

instead o levels, by including controls or priorstudent achievement (Specication 4). While westill cannot denitively demonstrate causality, thisallows us to explore whether principal time-use isassociated with changes in student achievementover time. In both the ordered probit and OLSregression ull-models, which include controlsor prior student perormance, only time spenton Organization Management tasks remainssignicant.

Because our sample size may not be adequate ormodels with so many control variables, we also runconcise models (Specication 5), which includecontrols or prior student perormance but removecontrols or school characteristics and principalexperience. In these concise models, time spent onDay-to-Day Instruction tasks is only marginallyassociated with improvement in school grades andnot signicantly related to changes in the totalnumber o accountability points a school earned.In other words, principal time spent on Day-to-

Day Instruction tasks is a signicant and positivepredictor o student perormance until we controlor past perormance. Tis suggests that while timespent on Day-to-Day Instruction tasks is associatedwith high-perorming schools, it is not necessarilyassociated with improvingschools. In contrast, timespent on Organization Management activities hasa signicant and positive relationship with bothtypes o student perormance outcomesschoolgrade and total number o accountability pointseven when controls or prior school perormance

are added, suggesting that principals time spent

on Organization Management tasks is positivelyassociated with both student perormance andgainsin student perormance.

Principal Time-Use and Teacher Assessments

of the School

Principals might aect student outcomes byinuencing the school teaching and learningenvironment. One way to measure the educationalenvironment is through teachers perceptions asreported on a survey. able 4 presents the resultso our OLS regression analyses o the ollowingthree items rom the district school climate survey:at my school I eel sae and secure; I believe childrenat my school are receiving a good education; and,

the overall climate or atmosphere at my school ispositive and helps students learn. Te outcome is thepercent o teachers in the school who agreed withthe statement. We present the results or the ulland concise model specications or each o theseitems.

Principal time spent on Organization Management(relative to Administration) tasks is signicantlyand positively associated with the teachersassessment o the school educational environment

in almost all models. o a lesser extent, theproportions o time spent on InstructionalProgram and Internal Relations tasks are alsosignicantly and positively associated with teachersagreement with the statements. In contrast, timespent on External Relations tasks demonstrate nosignicant relationship with teachers assessmentso the school climate. Day-to-Day Instructiontasks appear, i anything, to be negatively relatedto teachers perceptions; though this negativerelationship is only signicant in one o the

models.


20/32


School Climate Survey (% staff agreeing with statement)

At my school I feel safe and

secure.

I believe children at my

school are receiving a good

education.

The overall climate or

atmosphere at my school is

positive and helps studentslearn.

Full Concise Full Concise Full Concise

Organization

Management %

0.249 0.302* 0.327* 0.396** 0.706** 0.829***

(0.200) (0.176) (0.175) (0.179) (0.302) (0.259)

Day-to-Day

Instruction %

-0.228 -0.142 -0.118 -0.00868 -0.470** -0.321

(0.169) (0.159) (0.150) (0.160) (0.172) (0.204)

Instructional

Program %

0.181 0.129 0.283* 0.280** 0.567** 0.595***

(0.238) (0.186) (0.150) (0.116) (0.265) (0.216)

Internal

Relations %

0.0994 0.0518 0.225 0.212* 0.155 0.130

(0.217) (0.157) (0.153) (0.121) (0.285) (0.210)

ExternalRelations %

-0.410 -0.233 -0.131 -0.0375 -0.596 -0.357

(0.251) (0.190) (0.195) (0.183) (0.357) (0.323)

Other % -0.120 0.0219 -0.149 0.0163 -0.377 -0.118

(0.214) (0.183) (0.160) (0.147) (0.255) (0.246)

Zone School Flag 0.664 -3.986 -4.426

(5.395) (3.607) (6.613)

% Black -0.0920 -0.101 -0.155

(0.269) (0.218) (0.460)

% Hispanic -0.0211 -0.0455 -0.0878

(0.262) (0.208) (0.459)

% Asian -2.649 -1.198 -1.898

(2.244) (1.669) (3.130)

% Free or Reduced

Price Lunch

-0.302 -0.180 -0.345

(0.197) (0.112) (0.209)

Enrollment (in 100s) -0.231 -0.237** -0.329*

(0.135) (0.103) (0.171)

Principal Experience(in months)

0.0476 0.0395 0.0817

(0.067) (0.061) (0.116)

% Agreed in 20050.478*** 0.621*** 0.526*** 0.734*** 0.562** 0.816***

(0.161) (0.109) (0.106) (0.0664) (0.206) (0.114)

Constant 67.24** 24.70* 52.84** 9.005 59.55* -4.667

(24.35) (12.20) (21.29) (7.082) (31.62) (13.36)

Observations 39 39 39 39 39 39

Pseudo R-squared 0.715 0.657 0.853 0.797 0.786 0.710

Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p


21/32


Teacher Satisfaction

In General At Current School

Full Concise Full Concise

Organization Management % 1.006 1.008 0.999 1.005 (0.916) (0.941) (0.161) (0.617)

Day-to-Day Instruction % 1.024* 1.015 0.983 0.988

(1.826) (1.160) (0.810) (0.678)

Instructional Program % 1.014* 1.007 1.008 1.012

(1.791) (0.893) (0.809) (1.254)

Internal Relations % 1.005 1.002 1.025* 1.027*

(0.538) (0.239) (1.819) (1.781)

External Relations % 1.018* 1.018 0.967** 0.978*

(1.649) (1.554) (2.389) (1.724)

Other Tasks % 1.013 1.013 0.982 0.988

(1.513) (1.374) (1.473) (1.027)

Zone School Flag 1.112 1.186

(0.489) (0.573)

% Black 1.021** 0.988

(2.170) (1.078)

% Hispanic 1.021** 0.993

(2.041) (0.646)

% Asian 1.047 0.826*

(0.587) (1.958)

% Free or Reduced Price Lunch 0.978*** 0.986**

(3.439) (2.208)

Enrollment (in 100s) 0.971*** 0.986

(3.219) (1.598)

Principal Experience (in months) 0.999 1.001

(0.459) (0.161)

Grade in 2005 - B 1.377 0.980 0.760 0.649*

(1.013) (-0.114) (0.922) (1.877)

Grade in 2005 - C 1.805* 1.117 1.157 0.960

(1.678) (0.538) (0.511) (-0.199)

Grade in 2005 - D 1.551 1.117 0.596 0.470***

(1.135) (0.490) (1.228) (3.195)Grade in 2005 - F 1.414 0.993 0.358** 0.279***

(0.754) (0.0236) (2.206) (4.921)

Constant 3.479 4.741*** 88.26*** 8.516***

(1.381) (2.641) (3.490) (3.290)

Observations 4228 4272 4203 4247

(Pseudo) R-squared 0.010 0.002 0.041 0.035

Odds ratios with z-statistics in parentheses. *** p


22/32


Principal Time-Use and Teacher Satisfaction

We also examine teachers satisaction ingeneral and at their current school in relation toprincipals time-use. able 5 presents the results

in odds ratios o logistic regressions o teacherslikelihood o reporting being satised withteaching at their current school and teaching ingeneral. Principal time spent on Internal Relationsactivities is positively associated with teacherssatisaction with teaching at their current school,but not with their satisaction with teaching ingeneral. Conversely, in the ull models, principaltime spent on either o the instruction relatedtask categories Day-to-Day Instruction orInstructional Program is marginally positively

associated with teacher satisaction with teachingin general, but not with satisaction with teachingat their current school. Interestingly, principaltime spent on External Relations tasks appears tobe signicantly and negatively related to teacherssatisaction both in general and at their currentschools. However, considering that over 50 percento the External Relations observations were romonly three principals, these results may not begeneralizable.

Principal Time-Use and Parent Assessmentsof the School

Next we examine the relationship betweenprincipal actions and parents assessments o theschool. Specically, we model parents agreement

with the ollowing statements: my childs schoolis sae and secure; my child is getting a goodeducation at thisschool; and the overall climateor atmosphere at my childs school is positive andhelps my child learn. able 6 presents regression

results o the percent o parents who agreewith these three statements. Principal timespent on Day-to-Day Instruction activitiesis signicantly and negatively related toparents assessment o the school. ime spenton Internal Relations and External Relationsactivities are also sometimes signicantly andnegatively related to parents perceptions.Conversely, while principal time spent onOrganization Management tasks is not asconsistently positive as it was or achievement

and sta assessments, it is signicantly andpositively related to parents agreement withone o the school climate statements (Mychilds school is sae and secure). Tis ndingthat time spent on Organization Managementtasks is more consistently associated withperceptions o school saety than time spent onAdministration tasks is particularly surprisinggiven that many o the Administration tasksare traditionally associated with maintainingschool saely such as managing student

discipline and supervising students. It may behowever, that principals who devote more timeto Organization Management tasks have beenbetter able to delegate saety and disciplineduties to other school sta members such asassistant principals.


23/32


School Climate Survey (% parents agreeing with statement)

My childs school is safe and

secure.

My child is getting a good

education at this school.

The overall climate or

atmosphere at my childs

school is positive and helps my

child learn.

Full Concise Full Concise Full Concise

Organization

Management %

0.403* 0.567* -0.0719 0.137 0.156 0.320

(0.200) (0.287) (0.195) (0.188) (0.231) (0.266)

Day-to-Day

Instruction %

-0.380** -0.0473 -0.452** -0.337 -0.443*** -0.181

(0.140) (0.209) (0.170) (0.285) (0.118) (0.211)

Instructional

Program %

0.154 0.173 -0.163 -0.113 -0.0601 0.0315

(0.272) (0.308) (0.185) (0.270) (0.226) (0.251)

Internal

Relations %

-0.316 -0.111 -0.583*** -0.440** -0.473* -0.229

(0.239) (0.261) (0.181) (0.194) (0.268) (0.204)

ExternalRelations %

-0.774** 0.0113 -0.443 -0.196 -0.631** -0.148

(0.312) (0.307) (0.267) (0.236) (0.276) (0.244)

Other % -0.0862 0.285 -0.432* -0.159 -0.282 0.0673

(0.209) (0.231) (0.220) (0.321) (0.242) (0.306)

Zone School Flag 15.94** -4.681 3.150

(7.278) (5.436) (8.128)

% Black -0.390 0.274 -0.187

(0.346) (0.268) (0.382)

% Hispanic -0.161 0.432 0.0343(0.343) (0.254) (0.359)

% Asian -5.246** -1.286 -3.335

(2.282) (2.144) (2.485)

% Free or Reduced

Price Lunch

-0.379** -0.458*** -0.287*

(0.171) (0.158) (0.167)

Enrollment (in 100s) -0.487*** -0.405*** -0.344*

(0.156) (0.132) (0.198)

Principal Experience(in months)

0.280*** 0.177** 0.228**

(0.087) (0.078) (0.108)

% Agreed in 2005 0.739*** 0.742*** 0.544*** 0.853*** 0.757*** 0.901***

(0.128) (0.0963) (0.144) (0.140) (0.158) (0.0773)

Constant 67.22** 2.843 55.76* 22.09** 54.27* 4.611

(29.51) (12.55) (28.16) (9.814) (28.94) (10.91)

Observations 37 37 37 37 37 37

R-squared 0.900 0.775 0.793 0.561 0.863 0.768

Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p


24/32


Discussion

his study illustrates the complexity o the job o a school principal. Our observational time-usedata allow us to combine depth and breadth in examining the actions o principals. We measure43 dierent tasks that a principal engages in daily, recorded at ve-minute intervals over the

course o a ull school day. Te data cover all high schools in the Miami-Dade County PublicSchool District, the ourth largest district in the country.

TOn average, the activities on which principals spentthe most time were overseeing student services,managing budgets, and dealing with student dis-cipline issues. When we group principals actionsinto six aggregate categories Administration,Organization Management, Day-to-Day Instruc-tion, Instructional Program, Internal Relations,and External Relations we nd that, on average,

principals spent almost 30 percent o their daytaking care o Administrative responsibilities, suchas supervising students, managing schedules, andullling compliance requirements. Tey spentan additional 20 percent o their day engaging inOrganization Management activities, such as hir-ing and managing sta and managing budgets. Incontrast, principals, on average, spent only a littleover ten percent o their day on instruction-relatedtasks roughly equally split between tasks relatedto Day-to-Day Instruction, such as conducting

classroom observations, and those related to thebroader Instructional Program, such as implement-ing proessional development or teachers.

Te relatively little time principals devoted to in-struction is somewhat surprising given the researchand district emphases on the principals as the in-structional leader o the school. While time on taskmay not be the best measure o the importance aprincipal places on an activity, as some tasks mayrequire more time to complete just by their naturerather than their status, the act that the principalsspent only about ten percent o their time engagedin instruction-related activities points to the poten-tial importance o other tasks in the work o prin-cipals. Administration tasks, such a lling compli-ance requirements and managing school schedulesand student services, require a substantial amount

o time rom all principals, though some principalsmanage these tasks in less time than others.

Te heart o the analyses in this paper examine therelationship between the time principals spent ondierent types o activities and school outcomesincluding student achievement, sta assessment othe school learning environment, teacher satisac-

tion, and parent assessment o the school. Teresults show that time on Organization Manage-ment activities is associated with positive schooloutcomes. In particular schools in which principalsspent more time on Organization Managementrelative to Administration activities have seengreater gains in student test perormance over thepast three years. School sta are also more likelyto rate the climate as positive and improving (i.e.,controlling or a prior years measure); and parentsare more likely to perceive the school as sae and

secure.

In contrast, Day-to-Day Instruction activities aremarginally or not at all related to improvementsin student perormance and oten have a negativerelationship with teacher and parent assessments othe school. For example, the more time principalsspent on Day-to-Day Instruction activities, such asconducting classroom observations, the lesslikelyteachers and parents were to eel that the schoolclimate is positive and contributes to student learn-ing. It may be that teachers eel that visits by prin-cipals are intrusions into the classroom which tendto harm rather than promote a positive learningenvironment. Alternatively principals who spentmore time on Day-to-Day Instruction simply mayhave sacriced other activities that are importantor a well-unctioning school.


25/32


Te lack o positive eects or Day-to-Day In-struction does not necessarily imply that a ocuso instructional leadership is misguided. First, ourresults show merit to principals devoting timeto developing the schools broader instructional

program. ime spent on Instructional Programactivities is positively associated with the stas per-ceptions o the schools educational environmentand teachers satisaction with teaching in general.More importantly, Organization Managementactivities are central to instructional leadershipdened broadly. For example, hiring personnel, anOrganization Management task, may be the mostinuential role principals have in the instructionalpractices o their schools. Nonetheless, the paperdoes provide some evidence that a single-minded

ocus on principals as instructional leaders opera-tionalized through direct contact with teachers(e.g., classroom visits) may be detrimental i itorsakes the important role o principals as organi-zational leaders.

Te results in this paper are clearly not denitive.We are studying one district at one point in timein a non-experimental setting. As such, the best wecan do in modeling the association between princi-pals actions and school outcomes is to control or

the limited number school characteristics that thesample size will allow. While our controls or priormeasures o the outcome variable do enable us toaccount or some unobserved school characteristicsthat are constant over time, the approach is stillnot ideal or causal analysis.

In addition, while our data provide an unprec-edented ability to examine the daily activities oprincipals, they have a number o limitations. First,they are limited by the act that we gathered them

during one week o one school year in one schooldistrict. In uture work, we would like to measureprincipals actions at multiple times o the year, tosee how their roles change throughout the academ-ic cycle, as well as to better understand the varia-tion across principals and over time. Additionally,we would like to compare the results or M-DCPS

with similar data in other large urban districts. Wehave recently collected data in two other districtswhich will help us to understand the extent towhich the results presented here are generalizableto other district contexts. Second, our data collec-

tion was based on silent shadowing o principals tominimize disruption o a principals typical day i.e., researchers tried to minimize their interactionswith the principals until a debrieng at the end othe day. Debriengs with principals allowed theresearchers to gain some insights into the motiva-tions o principals; however, our understandingo principals intentions is limited. While we canreport what principals do, we have little sense owhy principals do what they do, and, thus, we arelikely missing possible explanations or the patterns

we nd. In addition, this lack o inormation maylead us to miscode tasks in some instances. Forexample, a researcher may have interpreted a prin-cipals inormal conversation with a teacher abouta student as developing their relationship whereasthe principal may have intended or it to be aninormal coaching opportunity. Finally, the rela-tionships we observe between principal time-useand school eectiveness are limited to the range otime-use that we observe or example, we cannotsay anything about the efcacy o principals who

spend 75 percent o their time engaging in Organi-zation Management activities, because no principalin our sample did. Any benets related to perorm-ing these tasks and detriments related to engagingin administrative tasks are likely to have limits.

In summary, this paper represents one o the rstlarge-scale observational studies o principalstime-use. We nd that principals spend mucho their day on Administration and Organiza-tion Management tasks, and substantially less on

Day-to-Day Instruction and Instructional Programtasks. Administration tasks appear to contributeless to the schools well being than other principalactivities; however, those classied as OrganizationManagement tasks appear very important, evenmore important than those associated directly withinstruction.


26/32


ABOU HE AUHORS

EILEEN LAI HORNG is the project director or the School Leadership Research Project at the Instituteor Research on Education Policy and Practice. Her research ocuses on the career paths o principals and

teachers, district policies that aect the distribution o human resources across schools, and the impact oeducator characteristics and mobility patterns on student outcomes.

DANIEL J. KLASIK is a doctoral student in the Administration and Policy Analysis program at StanordUniversity. His research interests are primarily ocused on issues related to higher education access.

SUSANNA LOEB is proessor o education at Stanord University, Director o the Institute or Researchon Education Policy and Practice, and Co-Director at Policy Analysis or Caliornia Education. She spe-cializes in the economics o education and the relationship between schools and ederal, state, and localpolicies.


27/32


ENDNOES

1. We intend to compare the actions o principals across dierent districts in uture studies. However, orthis initial study, we chose to ocus on one school district so that our models would not be complicated

by variation due to dierences in district practices and policies.

2. Te elementary and middle schools were chosen based on the percent o students eligible or the Freeand Reduced Price Lunch program, with the elementary and middle schools with the highest and lowestpercentages rom each o the districts six administrative regions entering the sample.

3. Not that i one o the researchers used a task code as the primary task while the other considered thesame task to be a secondary task, we considered this to still be consistent coding. However, in subsequenttrainings we discussed the decision-rules on how to determine whether a task should be consideredprimary or secondary using these examples.

4. Since 1999, Florida has had its own accountability program independent o the accountabilitystandards imposed by the ederal No Child Let Behind Act. As part o this program, schools are assignedgrades (on an academic A-F scale) based on student perormance on state standardized tests. Te grade isbased, among other actors, on the percent o students at a given school who meet a particular thresholdon exams including reading and math, measures o the percent o students who have demonstratedimprovement on these exams, and the percent o the students who ell in the lowest quartile, statewide,in the previous year who have demonstrated improvement.

5. Note that even though researchers observed nearly three-quarters o the high school principalsengaging in some External Relations tasks, over 50 percent o all External Relations observations are romjust three principals.

6. Note that this may be an underestimate o the time spent o campus on a typical day i the principalswere more likely to stay on campus as a result o the presence o the researchers.


28/32


References

Grissom, Jason and Susanna Loeb. 2009. Tringulating Principal Effectiveness: How Perspectives of Parents,Teachers, and Assistant Principals Identify the Central Importance of Managerial Skills. Research

Report.

Andrews, Richard L., Roger Soder, and Dan Jacoby. 1986. Principal Roles, Other in-School Variables,

and Academic Achievement by Ethnicity and SES. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 20.

Andrews, Richard L. and Roger Soder. 1987. Principal Leadership and Student Achievement. EducationalLeadership 44(6): 9-11.

Branch, Gregory F., Eric A. Hanushek, and Steven G. Rivkin. 2008. Principal Turnover and Effectiveness.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Economics Association, San Francisco,

January 3-5.

Brewer, Dominic. 1993. Principals and Student Outcomes: Evidence from U.S. High Schools. Economics ofEducation Review12: 281-292.

Darling-Hammond, Linda, Michelle LaPointe, Debra Meyerson, Margaret Terry Orr, and Carol Cohen. 2007.Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership Development

Programs. Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, Stanford University.

Eberts, Randall W., and Joe A. Stone. 1988. Student Achievement in Public Schools: Do Principals Make aDifference? Economics of Education Review7: 291-299.

EdSource. 2008 Guiding the Growth of Californias School Leaders. Leadership (January/February): 18-21.

Erickson, Donald A., Ed., and Theodore L. Reller, Ed. 1978. The Principal in Metropolitan Schools. Berkeley, CA:McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Goldring, Ellen, Jason Huff, Henry May, and Eric Camburn. 2008. School Context and Individual

Characteristics: What Inuences Principal Practice?Journal of Educational Administration46: 332-352.

Hallinger, Phillip, and Ronald Heck. 1996. Reassessing the Principals Role in School Effectiveness: A

Review of Empirical Research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly32: 5-44.

Harris, Douglas N., Stacey A. Rutledge, William K. Ingle, and Cynthia C. Thompson. 2006. Mix and Match:What Principals Look for When Hiring Teachers and Implications for Teacher Quality Policies.

Knapp, Michael S., Michael A. Copland, Brynnen Ford, Anneke Markholt, Milbrey W. McLaughlin, MichaelMilliken, and Joan E. Talbert. 2003. Leading for Learning Sourcebook: Concepts and Examples.Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

Knapp, Michael S., Michael A. Copland, Margaret L. Plecki, and Bradley S. Portin. 2006. Leading, Learning,and Leadership Support. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.


29/32


Lee, Valerie E., Anthony S. Bryk, and Julia B. Smith. 1993. The Organization of Effective SecondarySchools. Review of Research in Education19: 171-267.

Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom. 2004. How

Leadership Inuences Student Learning. Learning from Leadership Project.

Martin, William J., and Donald J. Willower. 1981. The Managerial Behavior of High School Principals.Educational Administration Quarterly17(1): 69-90.

Martinko, Mark J., and William L. Gardner. 1990. Structured Observation of Managerial Work: AReplication and Synthesis.Journal of Management Studies27: 329-357.

Morris, Van Cleve, Robert Crowson, Cynthia Porter-Gehrie, and Emanuel Hurwitz, Jr. 1984. Principals inAction: The Reality of Managing Schools, Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Scott, Christy, Stephen Ahadi, and Samuel E. Krug. 1990. An Experience Sampling Approach to the Studyof Principal Instructional Leadership II: A Comparison of Activities and Beliefs as Bases for

Understanding Effective School Leadership. The National Center for School Leadership.

Spillane, James P., Eric M. Camburn, and Amber Stitziel Pareja. 2007. Taking a Distributed Perspective to

the School Principals Workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools6: 103-125.

Wallace Foundation. 2007. Education Leadership: A Bridge to School Reform. Paper presented at theWallace Foundations National Conference, New York City, October 22-24.

Wolcott, Harry F. 1973. The Man in the Principals Ofce: An Ethnography. San Francisco, CA: Holt, Rinehart andWinston Inc.


30/32


Appendix 1: Percent of Principal Time Spent on Individual Tasks

Task OverallWithin

Category

Administration 27.46

Managing student services (e.g. records, reporting, activities) 6.99 25.73

Managing student discipline 5.05 16.44

Supervising students (e.g. lunch duty) 4.61 17.88

Managing schedules (for the school, not personal schedule) 4.33 17.25

Fullling compliance requirements and paperwork (not including special education) 4.31 15.01

Preparing, implementing and administering standardized tests 1.22 3.90

Managing students attendance-related activities 1.04 3.23

Fullling Special Education requirements (e.g. meetings with parents, compliance) 0.14 0.57

Organization Management 20.95

Managing budgets, resources 5.99 28.64

Managing non-instructional staff 3.54 16.33

Maintaining campus facilities 3.14 14.49

Developing and monitoring a safe school environment 2.69 12.70

Dealing with concerns from staff 2.59 13.87

Hiring personnel 1.81 8.13

Interacting or networking with other principals 0.81 3.45

Managing personal, school-related schedule) 0.58 2.40

Day-to-Day Instruction 5.88

Preparing or conducting classroom observations/walk-throughs 4.26 71.29

Formally evaluating teachers and providing instructional feedback 0.94 15.36

Informally coaching teachers to improve instruction or their teaching in general 0.61 10.16

Teaching students (e.g. tutoring, after-school) 0.07 0.22

Implementing required professional development 0.05 2.50

Using data to inform instruction 0.03 0.48


31/32


Instructional Program 6.73

Utilizing school meetings (e.g. School Site Council, committees, staff meetings) 2.62 25.31

Planning or directing supplementary or after-school or summer school instruction 1.03 18.76

Planning or facilitating professional development for teachers 0.94 18.50

Planning or facilitating professional development for prospective principals 0.65 6.39

Developing an educational program across the school 0.62 13.81

Releasing or counseling out teachers 0.43 7.69

Evaluating curriculum 0.39 2.85

Using assessment results for program evaluation and development 0.11 6.70

Internal Relations 14.64

Interacting socially with staff about school-related topics (e.g. "shop talk") 3.97 25.49

Interacting socially with staff about non-school related topics 3.19 21.56

Developing relationships with students 2.91 20.99

Counseling students and/or parents 1.79 13.29

Attending school activities (sports events, plays, celebrations) 1.13 5.75

Communicating with parents 0.72 5.32

Counseling staff (about conicts with other staff members) 0.61 4.14

Informally talking to teachers about students, not related to instruction 0.44 3.47

External Relations 4.70

Working with local community members or organizations 2.48 32.73

Utilizing district ofce meetings or other communications initiated by the district ofce 1.58 36.81

Communicating with district ofce to obtain resources for school (initiated by principal) 0.44 24.28

Fundraising 0.24 6.17

Other 18.75

In transition between activities 5.24 27.22

Email, fax, call, or paperwork when topic or recipient is uncertain 4.87 27.24

Interacting with the researcher 4.30 20.74

Personal time (e.g. bathroom, lunch, personal call) 4.14 21.99

Engaging in self-improvement/professional development 0.32 2.46


32/32

School Leadership Research

at the

Institute or Research onEducation Policy & Practice

520 Galvez MallCERAS Building, 5th Floor

Stanord UniversityStanord, CA 94305-3084

[email protected]

www.schoolleadershipresearch.org

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chris
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Principal Time-Use and Effectiveness

Documents