scholarships for school leaders: impacts of the north ... · scholarships for school leaders:...

Scholarships for School Leaders: Impacts of the North Carolina

Principal Fellows Program

Kevin C. Bastian, Research Associate and Director of the Teacher Quality Research Initiative,

Education Policy Initiative at Carolina and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Sarah C. Fuller, Research Assistant Professor

Education Policy Initiative at Carolina and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the University of North Carolina General Administration for its on-going

financial support through the Teacher Quality Research Initiative and the Deans and department

heads from the colleges, schools, and departments of education at the 15 UNC system

institutions engaged in teacher and school leader education for their valuable feedback and

collaboration.

Manuscript presented at the 41st annual Association for Education Finance and Policy

conference in Denver, Colorado

Scholarships for School Leaders: Impacts of the North Carolina

Principal Fellows Program

Abstract

In the present study we assess the North Carolina Principal Fellows program, a statewide

scholarship loan initiative designed to attract academically-competitive individuals into

university-based school leadership preparation and to enhance the effectiveness of the school

leadership workforce. Descriptively, we find that Principal Fellows score significantly higher on

their principal licensure exams and are much more likely to hold school administrator positions.

While estimating principal effectiveness is methodologically challenging, evidence suggests that

Principal Fellows have positive impacts on working conditions, teacher retention, and student

absences. Impacts on student achievement are mixed and inconclusive. Continued research is

needed to identify effective recruitment and training practices so that states and districts can

strengthen their principal pipelines and staff schools with higher quality leaders.

Introduction

Nascent research shows that principals have significant effects on educational outcomes

of interest. Through both direct and indirect means principals impact the achievement gains,

attendance, and graduation rates of students (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2012; Clark,

Martorell, & Rockoff, 2009; Coelli & Green, 2012; Grissom, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2015); the

quality and retention of a school’s teachers (Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff,

2011; Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Grissom, Loeb, & Master, 2013; Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 2010;

Ladd, 2011); and the working and learning environments of schools (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005).

After teachers, principals are the most important school-based resource influencing student

outcomes (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2013).

Given the importance of principals to students and schools, there are several approaches

that states and districts may take to improve principal quality. Akin to teacher policy, one

approach is for states and districts to develop principal evaluation rubrics which hold principals

accountable for school achievement and key domains of principal action and provide principals

with formative feedback to drive improvements in school leadership practice. For example,

districts such as Chicago and states such as North Carolina have codified principal evaluation

systems with standards focused on key elements of principal practice—e.g., instructional

leadership, school vision and culture—and student achievement growth (Chicago Public Schools,

2013; NCDPI, 2013).

Another approach seeks to alter the composition of the school leader workforce through

policies that recruit highly-competitive individuals into the principal pipeline and training

practices that prepare principal candidates to be effective school leaders. Here, most research

and policy attention has been directed towards high-profile alternative routes into the

principalship—e.g., New Leaders for New Schools or New York City’s Aspiring Principal

Program—and their impacts on academic outcomes (Clark, Martorell, & Rockoff, 2009;

Corcoran, Schwartz, & Weinstein, 2012; Martorell, Heaton, Gates, & Hamilton, 2010). While

such programs may serve as sources of innovation for traditional school leader preparation

programs, these alternative routes typically prepare only a small number of graduates for work in

high-need schools.

In the present study, we consider another innovation to alter the composition of the

school leader workforce—a merit-based state scholarship loan program to attract academically-

competitive individuals into university-based school leader preparation programs. Many states

have scholarship loan programs to recruit competitive candidates into their teacher workforce

(Hirsch, Koppich, & Knapp, 2001) and research shows that such programs produce graduates

who are more effective and likely to remain in teaching (Henry, Bastian, & Smith, 2012). To our

knowledge, North Carolina is the only state with a comparable merit-based scholarship loan

program for school leadership. Rigorously evaluating the extent to which the outlay of state

funds towards scholarship loans results in academically-competitive applicants and a stable

supply of effective and persistent school leaders is a key policy concern for North Carolina and

for other states exploring ways to improve the quality of their school leader workforce.

To consider the impact of school leader scholarship loans, we examine the North

Carolina Principal Fellows program. In existence since 1993, the Principal Fellows program

provides merit-based scholarship loans to academically-competitive individuals to attend a

participating university, earn a Master’s of School Administration (MSA) degree (one year of

full-time coursework, a one year school internship, and additional enrichment opportunities), and

serve as a school administrator in a North Carolina public school (NCPS). Since its inception,

over 1,200 Principal Fellows have completed the program (NC Principal Fellows, 2015). Given

that the program aims to attract an academically-competitive and stable supply of school leaders

and that principals influence a range of school and student outcomes, we assess Principal

Fellows across multiple measures—two constructs of school working conditions, teacher

retention, student achievement, student absences, and principal retention. Our research questions

are as follows:

(1) What are the characteristics of Principal Fellows and the schools that they lead?

(2) Do Principal Fellows impact school and teacher outcomes?

(3) Do Principal Fellows impact student academic outcomes?

(4) Do Principal Fellows persist in school principal positions?

Overall, we find that Principal Fellows have higher principal licensure exam scores and

are much more likely to enter school administrator positions—assistant principals and

principals—than other in-state public university MSA graduates. Additionally, nearly 90 percent

of Principal Fellows fulfill the school administrator service requirements specified by their

scholarship loan. Principal Fellows are an academically-competitive and reliable source of

school leaders. From an equity perspective, however, Principal Fellows lead schools with fewer

racial/ethnic minority and high-poverty students. Regarding Principal Fellow impacts on school,

teacher, and student outcomes, we acknowledge that estimating principal performance is

methodologically challenging since principal effects are often indirect, take time to develop, and

are difficult to separate from the effect of the school. Despite these challenges several results

emerge across model specifications: (1) positive effects of Principal Fellows versus an all other

principal category on two school working conditions constructs and teacher retention; (2)

positive effects of Principal Fellows versus other in-state public MSA graduates on student

absences; and (3) mixed and inconclusive impacts of Principal Fellows on student achievement.

In the sections that follow, we first provide more background on the Principal Fellows

program and the impact of principals and principal preparation on outcomes of interest. Next,

we describe our research sample and our empirical methods to estimate principal effects.

Finally, we address each of our research questions, providing additional details on sample,

measures, and methods, before concluding with implications for policy and practice.

The North Carolina Principal Fellows Program

In the early 1990s, North Carolina initiated two broad reforms to principal preparation at

in-state public universities. First, the state abolished all existing school leadership programs and

created the Masters of School Administration (MSA) degree. These MSA programs were to be

more selective in admissions, better resourced, staffed by highly-qualified faculty, acquainted

with the challenges of contemporary school environments, connected to K-12 schools through

internship programs, and aligned with national school leadership standards (Handa, Thompson,

Marcus, & Smith, 2010). Originally, in-state public institutions competed for the right to offer

MSA degrees; now, 13 of the 15 in-state public institutions have MSA programs.1

Second, as part of this restructuring of school leadership preparation, the North Carolina

General Assembly created the Principal Fellows program in 1993. The goal of the Principal

Fellows program is to prepare outstanding candidates for full-time school administrator

positions—assistant principals and principals—in the state’s public schools. Towards this end,

the Principal Fellows program provides merit-based scholarship loans to academically-

competitive individuals with teaching or other relevant experiences who want to enter school

1 There is a 16

th in-state public university, the North Carolina School of the Arts, that does not offer any teacher or

school leader preparation.

administration in North Carolina. To be awarded a scholarship loan, candidates must have a

strong academic record (at least a 3.2 GPA in the last 60 hours of study); be admitted into a

participating MSA program; demonstrate effective leadership, communication, and management

skills; and complete an interview with the Principal Fellows commission. Each March and April

the Principal Fellows commission meets and selects candidates for the award (NC Principal

Fellows, 2015).

Principal Fellows use the scholarship loans to attend one of 11 participating in-state

public universities and earn a MSA degree.2 The Principal Fellows program offers one year of

full-time academic coursework and a one year full-time school internship in a North Carolina

public school (NCPS). During their full-time coursework, Principal Fellows receive a $30,000

scholarship loan; during their school internship, Principal Fellows receive $4,100 for tuition and

fees, a scholarship loan equivalent to 60 percent of a first-year assistant principal’s salary, and an

internship stipend equivalent to 40 percent of a first-year assistant principal’s salary. Taken

together, this is approximately $75,000 in financial awards for each Principal Fellow (NC

Principal Fellows, 2015). After completion of the MSA, Principal Fellows promise to seek and

obtain employment as an assistant principal or principal in a NCPS for four years (within a six-

year period) or repay their scholarship loan at an interest rate of 10 percent.

Participating in-state public universities have a program coordinator who mentors

Principal Fellows and organizes a variety of additional enrichment activities designed to better

prepare Principal Fellows for school leadership positions. Examples of such enrichment

activities include visits to local schools, meetings with school district leaders, attending board of

2 The 11 participating in-state public universities are as follows: Appalachian State University, East Carolina

University, Fayetteville State University, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, North

Carolina Central University, North Carolina State University, UNC Chapel Hill, UNC Charlotte, UNC Greensboro,

UNC Wilmington, and Western Carolina University.

education and district-level professional meetings, and pre-internship rotations with school

principals. Each year, Principal Fellows attend five day-long enrichment seminars—10 seminars

over their two-year MSA period—designed to provide leadership experiences not available

through their university program and allow them to form professional and collegial relationships

with their peers. Seminar topics include: instructional leadership, teacher evaluation, working

with students in poverty, managing financial resources, and working effectively with students,

staff, parents, and the district. During their year-long school internship, Principal Fellows work

under the direction and supervision of the sitting principal and complete a variety of

administrative responsibilities.

The Impact of School Leadership and School Leader Preparation

Research examining the impacts of principals or principal characteristics on student and

school outcomes is conceptually and methodologically challenging for three primary reasons.

First, principals do not directly impact many outcomes of interest. For instance, the effects of

principals on student learning are indirect and happen through principals’ ability to hire and

retain teachers, establish a positive school climate, and oversee instruction (Branch, Hanushek, &

Rivkin, 2012; Grissom, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2015). Second, principals’ effects may not be

immediate, but rather, may develop over time as principals shape their teaching staff, promote a

shared vision and culture, and build relationships (Coelli & Green, 2012; Grissom, Kalogrides, &

Loeb, 2015; Miller, 2013). Finally, principals are not randomly assigned to schools. Methods to

separate the effects of principals from the confounding effects of schools may not produce

generalizable results, since such methods (principal and school fixed effects) require principal

transitions and often limit comparisons to a small network of principals working in the same

schools (Chiang, Lipscomb, & Gill, 2012; Grissom, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2015).

Despite these challenges, nascent research indicates that principals significantly influence

a range of student and school outcomes. Regarding student-level outcomes, Branch and

colleagues show that a one standard deviation increase in effectiveness for principals switching

schools is associated with a 0.10 standard deviation increase in student achievement (Branch,

Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2012). Using principal and school fixed effects, Grissom and colleagues

return estimates of 0.060 and 0.034 standard deviations in mathematics and reading, respectively

(Grissom, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2015). Additionally, principals one standard deviation higher in

the effectiveness distribution increase high school graduation rates by 2.6 percentage points

(Coelli & Green, 2012), while those in the top quartile of effectiveness are associated with

significantly higher student attendance rates (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2012). Beyond

student outcomes, evidence indicates that principals’ organizational management—hiring,

retaining, and assigning teachers—and elements of their instructional leadership—coaching and

evaluating teachers—are critical components of their success (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Grissom,

Loeb, & Master, 2013; Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 2010). Finally, principals significantly influence

the working conditions of their schools and the retention decisions of their teachers (Boyd,

Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2011; Ladd, 2011).

To date, only a few studies have investigated the relationships between principal

preparation and principal effectiveness. Work by Vanderhaar and colleagues shows that

principals prepared in university training programs perform comparably to those prepared in

school district programs (Vanderhaar, Munoz, & Rodosky, 2006). Two studies of the New York

City Aspiring Principals Program find that schools led by program graduates are initially lower

performing but narrow gaps over time (Clark, Martorell, & Rockoff, 2009; Corcoran, Schwartz,

& Weinstein, 2012). First-year principals trained by New Leaders for New Schools are

associated with slightly reduced student achievement; however, more experienced New Leaders

are associated with positive student achievement outcomes (Martorell, Heaton, Gates, &

Hamilton, 2010). Finally, work in North Carolina indicates that graduates of the newly

constituted MSA programs at in-state public universities performed similarly to principals with

other forms of training (Handa, Thompson, Marcus, & Smith, 2010). We add to this body of

research by examining whether a statewide scholarship loan program to recruit and train

academically-competitive applicants produces higher performing school leaders.

Research Sample

To address our descriptive and empirical research questions, we use data provided by the

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) and the University of North Carolina

General Administration (UNCGA) to link students and teachers to schools, principals to their

type of preparation, and principals to the schools that they lead. The UNCGA provided a list of

graduates of in-state public university MSA programs, with separate identifiers for the subset of

these graduates who were Principal Fellows. For our analyses the study sample consists of the

most comprehensive set of available data—full-time principals in the 2005-06 through 2011-12

academic years. To define a full-time principal we specified the following rules: (1) an

individual had to begin work as a principal at a school in one of the fiscal year’s first three pay

periods (July, August, or September) and (2) an individual had to remain as a full-time principal

at that school for at least eight pay periods (months). We compare the outcomes for Principal

Fellows with those of other MSA graduates (non-Principal Fellows) prepared at in-state public

universities and with all other types of principal preparation. This all other category includes

those earning a MSA at an in-state private university, those earning principal preparation degrees

at in-state institutions prior to the establishment of MSA programs, and those earning principal

preparation degrees out-of-state. Together, these groups allow us to assess how Principal

Fellows fair versus other principals with similar training in in-state public university MSA

programs and versus those with more diverse forms of preparation.

Empirical Methods

In this study we use a modeling approach comparable to that of Grissom and colleagues

(2015) to estimate principal effects on two constructs of school working conditions—school

vision and culture and instructional leadership—teacher retention, student achievement, and

student absences. Specifically, we estimate the impact of principals with two types of models.

Model one is a principal-by-school fixed effects approach that generates an estimate of

school effectiveness for each principal-school combination in the sample. A benefit of this

approach is that effectiveness comparisons are made across all of the principals in the analysis.

Furthermore, we use the Stata felsdvregdm fixed effects procedure, which means that there is not

a left-out principal-by-school reference group and effectiveness estimates are centered across all

of the unique principal-school combinations in the analysis (Mihaly, McCaffrey, Lockwood, &

Sass, 2010). The key concern with this approach, however, is that the model attributes the entire

school effectiveness estimate to the principal, which may incorrectly debit or credit the principal

with results that are outside of her control (Grissom, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2015). For instance,

schools may vary in how well prepared their students are when they enter the school. The basic

estimation equation for this principal-by-school fixed effects model is as follows. Here, outcome

Y for each principal-school combination is a function of model covariates (which we discuss

more fully below), X, and year fixed effects, 𝜏𝑡, and the measure of principal effectiveness is the

principal-by-school fixed effect 𝛿𝑝𝑠.

𝑌 = 𝛽𝑋 + 𝜏𝑡 + 𝛿𝑝𝑠 + 휀𝑝𝑠 (1)

Model two is a principal and school fixed effects approach that generates a within school

estimate of principal effectiveness. This approach requires principal transitions—that two or

more principals lead the school during the study period—and then compares the effectiveness of

the school during the tenure of principal 1 to the effectiveness of the school during the tenure of

principal 2. The main benefit of this approach is that it attempts to separate the effect of the

principal from the effect of the school. The key concern with this model, however, is the

generalizability of the results, since schools without principal transitions do not contribute to

effectiveness estimates and comparisons are limited to a small number of principals. Given the

sorting of principals into schools (Loeb, Kalogrides, & Horng, 2010), these limited comparisons

may unfairly measure principal performance since a principal’s effectiveness estimate is relative

to the effectiveness of other principals who led the same school (Grissom, Kalogrides, & Loeb,

2015). Additionally, this approach can attribute effects to the wrong principal, since it may take

time for principal effects to develop (Coelli & Green, 2012). As with model one, we use the

Stata felsdvregdm procedure to estimate these principal and school fixed effects models.

Estimates from these models are centered within the network of principals who have led the

same school during the study period.3 The basic estimation equation for this principal and school

fixed effects model is as follows. Here, outcome Y for each principal is a function of model

covariates, X, year fixed effects, 𝜏𝑡, and a school fixed effect, 𝜑𝑠, and the measure of principal

effectiveness is a principal fixed effect, 𝛿𝑝.

𝑌 = 𝛽𝑋 + 𝜏𝑡 + 𝜑𝑠 + 𝛿𝑝 + 휀𝑝 (2)

3 One limitation of this principal and school fixed effects model with the felsdvregdm procedure is that the model

will not run when principals are observed in more than one school in the analysis data. Therefore, for principals

who led more than one school during our study period, we followed Grissom, Kalogrides, and Loeb (2015) by (1)

identifying the school in which the principal had served the longest and (2) keeping observations from only that

school for principal and school fixed effects analyses.

For each of our outcomes of interest model 1generates an estimate of effectiveness for

each principal-school combination (the principal-by-school fixed effect, 𝛿𝑝𝑠) and model 2

generates an estimate of effectiveness for principals within a network of schools (the principal

fixed effect, 𝛿𝑝). Post-estimation, we take these effectiveness estimates and use t-tests to

determine whether there are significant differences in (1) the mean effect of Principal Fellows

versus the mean effect of other in-state public MSA graduates and (2) the mean effect of

Principal Fellows versus the mean effect of all other principals. We prefer this t-test approach,

rather than second-stage regressions with Principal Fellows as the reference category, because

readers can see whether the mean effect for our principal preparation categories is above or

below zero.

Given that principals have a direct impact on school working conditions, we begin our

empirical analyses by assessing the relationships between the principal preparation categories

and two working conditions constructs—vision and culture and instructional leadership. Next,

we consider another outcome upon which principals have a more direct influence—teacher

retention. Finally, we examine two student outcomes upon which principals have indirect

effects—student achievement and student absences. By ordering outcomes this way we present

the most proximate principal effects first and then progress to outcomes that are more

conceptually challenging to estimate and interpret since principals impact them through indirect

mechanisms.

Across all outcome measures, we control for year fixed effects and a select set of school

characteristics—school size, total per-pupil expenditures, average teacher salary supplements,

percentage of racial and ethnic minority students, and percentage of students qualifying for

subsidized school meals. Since Principal Fellows average fewer years of principal experience

and tenure than all other principals and research shows that these characteristics can impact

principal performance (Clark, Martorell, & Rockoff, 2009; Coelli & Green, 2012), we also

control for a linear and quadratic form of principal experience and tenure at a school in all of our

outcome models.4 In the results sections below, we further detail covariates used in specific

analyses.

What are the characteristics of Principal Fellows and the schools that they lead?

To assess the individual characteristics of Principal Fellows, we use MSA completer data

provided by the UNCGA and certified salary files provided by the NCDPI to compare the values

for Principal Fellows graduates from 1996 through 2012 to the other in-state public university

MSA graduates over the same time period. Table 1 shows that there have been approximately

1,200 Principal Fellows graduates and 4,500 other in-state public MSA graduates over this 17

year period. Overall, a significantly higher percentage of Principal Fellows are female, while a

significantly lower percentage are racial or ethnic minorities. Principal Fellows score

significantly higher on their principal licensure exams and are on a slightly faster track than other

in-state public MSA graduates. On average, Principal Fellows teach for fewer years in NCPS,

complete their MSA at an earlier age, and become principals at an earlier age. Finally, a

significantly higher percentage of Principal Fellows assume school leadership positions in the

state’s public schools—96 percent of Principal Fellows, versus 61 percent of other in-state public

MSA graduates, have been or currently are an assistant principal; likewise, 46 percent of

Principal Fellows, versus 27 percent of other in-state public MSA graduates, have been or

currently are a principal. These characteristics indicate that Principal Fellows are an

academically-competitive and reliable source of school leaders.

4 Average principal experience is 3.62 years for Principal Fellows, 2.82 years for other in-state public MSA

graduates, and 7.54 years for all other principals. Average principal tenure is 2.24 years for Principal Fellows, 1.82

years for other in-state public MSA graduates, and 3.64 years for all other principals.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

To complement these individual characteristics, we use school-level descriptive and

expenditure data provided by the NCDPI to display school characteristics for first-time principals

and for all principals during our study period. This allows us to assess the types of schools that

Principal Fellows are initially hired to lead and the types of schools they lead overall. Given that

principals can impact several of the characteristics in Table 2, the values for first-time principals

are from the year before a principal assumes leadership—the school characteristics that first-time

principals inherit.

Overall, the left panel of Table 2 shows that Principal Fellows who are first-time

principals inherit schools with (1) fewer minority students than other in-state public MSA

graduates; (2) more students passing their End-of-Grade (EOG) and End-of-Course (EOC)

exams (performance composite); (3) lower per-pupil expenditures than all other principals; and

(4) a mix of teacher credentials—more early-career and NBC teachers and fewer advanced

degree teachers. Principal Fellows who are first-time principals are also much more likely to

lead an elementary school and less likely to lead a high school. Regarding all principals, the

right panel of Table 2 displays characteristics comparable to those for first-time principals.

Principal Fellows lead schools with (1) fewer subsidized school lunch and minority students; (2)

more students passing their EOG and EOC exams; (3) lower per-pupil expenditures;5 and (4)

more NBC teachers. Again, Principal Fellows are more likely to lead elementary schools and

less likely to lead high schools. Given this concentration of Principal Fellows in elementary

schools and the potential for our outcomes of interest to differ by school level, we estimate

separate models at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

5 These spending differences between groups may be attributable to the fact that (1) in North Carolina, high-poverty

and low-performing schools spend more, per-pupil and (2) Principal Fellows are less likely to work in high schools,

where per-pupil expenditures are the highest.


Do Principal Fellows impact school and teacher outcomes?

Vision and Culture and Instructional Leadership

Background: Research shows that principals may impact student outcomes and teacher

retention through the school vision and culture that they help establish and through their actions

as instructional leaders (Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2011; Grissom,

Loeb, & Master, 2013; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Therefore, to assess the extent to

which Principal Fellows fulfill these key roles, we used teachers’ responses to the North Carolina

Teacher Working Conditions (TWC) survey to create constructs for school vision and culture

and instructional leadership. North Carolina administers the TWC survey biennially—in the

2005-06, 2007-08, 2009-10, and 2011-12 school years during our study period—and items focus

on time management, facilities and resources, community support and involvement, student

conduct, teacher leadership, school leadership, professional development, and instructional

practices and supports.6

To create our outcome constructs, we examined each of the four TWC surveys during our

study period and identified sets of items that were included in each TWC administration and that

conceptually mapped onto the constructs of school vision and culture or instructional leadership.7

Within schools and years we averaged teachers’ responses to each of these items, creating a

single school-by-survey value for each survey item of interest, and then estimated Cronbach’s

alpha values to assess the internal consistency of these items as measures of vision and culture

and instructional leadership. Table 3 shows the TWC items we included in each outcome

6 Teacher response rates to the North Carolina TWC survey were approximately 69, 89, 93, and 91 percent,

respectively, in the four survey iterations included in our analyses. 7 To view the items from the most recent survey included in our analyses (2011-12 school-year) please see the

following: http://2012.ncteachingconditions.org/sites/default/files/attachments/NC12_survey_main.pdf

http://2012.ncteachingconditions.org/sites/default/files/attachments/NC12_survey_main.pdf

construct. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha values for each construct were above 0.90—indicative

of high levels of internal consistency. Additional confirmatory factor analysis indicated that

each survey item significantly loaded onto the latent constructs of vision and culture or

instructional leadership.


For each school-survey combination we summed the items for each construct and then

standardized each of these constructs within school level (elementary, middle, and high) and

survey-year. With the school-level constructs for vision and culture or instructional leadership as

outcome variables, we estimated separate models at each school level controlling for year fixed

effects, average teacher experience at the school, school covariates, and a linear and quadratic

form of principal experience and tenure. Again, we estimated these models with a principal-by

school fixed effect and a principal and school fixed effect.

Results: Focusing first on school vision and culture, the top left panel of Table 4 shows

that across school levels, the measure of vision and culture is significantly higher in schools led

by Principal Fellows versus schools led by all other principals. These differences are

approximately 20, 32, and 65 percent of a standard deviation in elementary, middle, and high

school, respectively. Comparing within networks of principals who have led the same schools,

the bottom left panel of Table 4 indicates that our measure of vision and culture remains

significantly higher in elementary and middle schools led by Principal Fellows versus all other

principals. Conversely, measures of vision and culture are significantly higher in middle and

high schools led by other in-state public MSA graduates.


Regarding our instructional leadership construct, the top right panel of Table 4 indicates

that across elementary and middle schools, the measure of instructional leadership is

significantly higher in schools led by Principal Fellows versus schools led by all other principals.

These differences are approximately 20 and 40 percent of a standard deviation, respectively.

Comparing within networks of principals who have led the same schools, these significant

differences in instructional leadership persist between Principal Fellows and all other principals.

Teacher Retention

Background: Research shows that principal quality significantly impacts teachers’

retention decisions (Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2011) and that teacher

attrition can have harmful effects on school performance (Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013).

Given this, we use data from the 2005-06 through 2011-12 school years to assess the extent to

which Principal Fellows are able to retain teachers in the schools that they lead.

In these analyses the outcome variable is a dichotomous indicator for an individual

teacher’s retention decision, where ‘1’ means returning to teach in the same school in the

following year and ‘0’ means leaving teaching at the school. We estimate separate linear

probability models for elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. In all of these

teacher retention models, we control for year fixed effects, a set of teacher characteristics—

gender, minority status, age, experience, graduate degree status and NBC status—school

characteristics, and a linear and quadratic form of principal experience and principal tenure at the

school. We estimate the impact of principals on teacher retention with a principal-by-school

fixed effect and a principal and school fixed effect.

Results: For the principal-by-school estimates, the top panel of Table 5 indicates that

across school levels, teacher retention is higher in schools led by Principal Fellows versus

schools led by all other principals. Adjusting for covariates, these differences in teacher

retention are approximately three percentage points in elementary and middle schools and eight

percentage points in high schools. Conversely, teacher retention is lower in elementary schools

led by Principal Fellows versus other in-state public MSA graduates. When using principal and

school fixed effects to generate within school estimates, many of the teacher retention results are

no longer statistically significant. Comparing within networks of principals who have led the

same elementary schools, however, individual teacher retention is significantly higher in schools

led by Principal Fellows versus schools led by all other principals. Given the concentration of

Principal Fellows in elementary schools, this result has additional practical significance.


Do Principal Fellows impact student academic outcomes?

Student Achievement

Background: We use student test score and demographic data from the 2005-06 through

2011-12 academic years to assess the impact of Principal Fellows on adjusted-average student

achievement. For these analyses we focus on exams in five grade-level/subject-area

combinations: End-of-Grade (EOG) exams in elementary grades mathematics, elementary

grades reading, middle grades mathematics, and middle grades reading and End-of-Course

(EOC) exams in the five high school courses that were taken by nearly all NCPS students during

the study period—algebra I, English I, biology, US history, and civics and economics. The

outcome variable for these analyses is a student’s standardized EOG (within subject, grade, and

year) or EOC (within subject and year) exam score.

In addition to our common set of control variables, these models control for a rich set of

student characteristics: prior scores in both mathematics and reading,8 peer ability, days absent,

mobility (within-year, between-year and structural), underage for grade, overage for grade,

giftedness, disability, subsidized school meals, gender, race/ethnicity, and limited English

proficiency.9 In these analyses we exclude classroom and teacher characteristics since these are

a primary way in which principals may indirectly impact student achievement. We estimate

these student achievement models with either a principal-by-school fixed effect or a principal

and school fixed effect.

Results: For the principal-by-school effectiveness estimates, the top panel of Table 6

shows that adjusted-average student achievement is significantly higher in schools led by

Principal Fellows than in schools led by other in-state public MSA graduates in four

comparisons—elementary mathematics, elementary reading, middle grades mathematics, and

middle grades reading. These differences are all approximately three percent of a standard

deviation in student achievement. Principal-by-school estimates are also significantly higher for

Principal Fellows versus all other principals for high school EOC exams; conversely, all other

principals have significantly higher principal-by-school effectiveness estimates in elementary

grades reading.


When using principal and school fixed effects to generate within-school estimates, results

differ substantially. The bottom panel of Table 6 indicates that adjusted-average student

8 For the high school End-of-Course exams we control for 8

th grade mathematics and reading test scores. We also

include subject-area indicator variables in reference to algebra I. 9 Unlike teachers, who do not influence a student’s prior test score, principals can influence a student’s current and

prior year test scores. This presents an additional challenge to estimating principal effectiveness. Following

Grissom and colleagues (2015), in these analyses we include students’ prior test scores in value-added models. We

acknowledge this as a potential limitation, but note that coefficients still capture whether achievement is greater than

expected given model covariates.

achievement is significantly lower for Principal Fellows versus all other principals in elementary

mathematics, elementary reading, and middle grades mathematics and significantly lower than

other in-state public MSA graduates in high school EOC exams. Since these fixed effects

results—principal-by school and principal and school—are based on both real differences in

student achievement and measurement error, we shrank the fixed effects estimates using the

empirical Bayes method (Grissom, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2015; McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz,

Louis, & Hamilton, 2004). As shown in Appendix Table 1, the shrunken fixed effects estimates

and the relationships between principal categories are comparable with and without adjustment

for measurement error.

The differences between the principal-by-school effectiveness estimates and the within-

school effectiveness estimates may be attributable to better isolating the effect of principals from

the effect of schools and/or changes in the estimation sample. Given that descriptive

characteristics show Principal Fellows leading schools that are higher-performing and that have

fewer minority and high-poverty students, the principal-by-school estimates may be a result of

these differences in school environments. However, changes in estimation sample may also be

an issue, since the principal and school fixed effects (1) exclude schools without principal

transitions during the study period and (2) make comparisons within limited sets of principals

who have led the same schools during the study period.

To investigate how changes in estimation sample may have influenced the student

achievement results, we took two additional steps. First, for each of our value-added models, we

identified the average number of principals contributing to effectiveness estimates when using a

principal and school fixed effect. In elementary, middle, and high school the averages were 2.32,

2.30, and 2.29, respectively. Essentially, the modal category was comparing the effectiveness of

two principals. Second, we re-ran our principal-by-school effectiveness models focused only on

the sample of principals and schools in our within-school effectiveness approach. As shown in

Appendix Table 2, adjusted-average student achievement in elementary grades reading remains

higher in schools led by all other principals versus schools led by Principal Fellows—this result

is consistent across modeling approaches. Other results differ between Table 6 and Appendix

Table 2, suggesting that the estimation sample and methods meaningfully influence principal

effectiveness estimates.

Student Absences

Background: Research shows that more experienced principals and principals in the top

quartile of value-added effectiveness are associated with significantly higher student attendance

rates (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2012; Clark, Martorell, & Rockoff, 2009). Given this, we

use data from the 2005-06 through 2011-12 school years to assess principals’ impact on number

of days absent for students in elementary, middle, and high schools. In all student absence

models, we control for year fixed effects, school covariates, a linear and quadratic form of

principal experience and tenure, and a set of student demographic characteristics—race/ethnicity,

gender, subsidized school meals, limited English proficiency, giftedness, disability, underage for

grade, and overage for grade. As with our other outcome measures we used two modeling

approaches—a principal-by-school fixed effect and a principal and school fixed.


Results: The top panel of Table 7 reports student absence estimates from the principal-

by-school fixed effects models. Here, results indicate that the level of student absences is lower

in high schools served by Principal Fellows compared to high schools led by other in-state public

MSA graduates and all other principals. In middle schools, the number of student absences at

schools led by Principal Fellows is lower than in schools led by other in-state public MSA

graduates but higher than in schools led by all other principals. Comparing within networks of

principals who have led the same schools, the bottom panel of Table 7 reports student absence

results in middle schools that are comparable to the principal-by-school fixed effects models.

Results at the elementary school level show that student absences are significantly lower in

schools led by Principal Fellows versus schools led by all other principals.

Do Principal Fellows Persist in School Principal Positions?

Beyond attracting competitive candidates and producing effective school leaders, it is

important to know whether the outlay of state funds to the Principal Fellows program reduces

principal attrition. This is particularly important since inexperienced principals (less than five

years as a school principal) comprise more than 50 percent of the principal workforce in North

Carolina (Bastian & Henry, 2015) and research shows that transitions to first-time principals

have adverse effects on student achievement, student attendance, and teacher persistence

(Beteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2012; Burkhauser, Gates, Hamilton, & Ikemoto, 2012; Dhuey &

Smith, 2013; Miller, 2013). Therefore, we examine school leader persistence by (1) reporting

the percentage of Principal Fellows who fulfill their program service requirements and (2)

estimating models predicting that principals return in the following school year.

As a condition of their scholarship loan, in the six year period post MSA graduation,

Principal Fellows must work as a full-time school administrator—assistant principal or

principal—in a NCPS for at least four years or repay their scholarship loan with interest. To

determine the percentage of Principal Fellows fulfilling this requirement, we used salary data

provided by the NCDPI to track the employment status of the 1996 through 2006 Principal

Fellows graduating cohorts over the six year period post MSA graduation. In total, 87 percent of

the 867 Principal Fellows in these graduating cohorts fulfilled their service requirement. When

we expanded our analysis to include the 2007 and 2008 graduating cohorts and limited the post-

graduation period to five or four years, respectively, 86 and 85 percent of eligible Principal

Fellows fulfilled their service requirement.

To assess whether Principal Fellows, relative to other in-state public MSA graduates and

all other principals, return to a school principal position in the following school year, we used

data from the 2005-06 through 2011-12 academic years to estimate linear probability models for

principal persistence. Since principal attrition from a school can be influenced by factors beyond

a principal’s control—e.g., districts re-assigning an effective principal to a low-performing

school—we specified models predicting principal persistence in the same school or in any

NCPS. We estimated these models in elementary, middle, and high schools and controlled for

year fixed effects, a linear and quadratic form of principal experience and tenure, school

characteristics, and basic principal demographics—gender, race/ethnicity, and age.


For principal persistence in the same school, the top panel of Table 8 indicates that in

high schools other in-state public MSA graduates are significantly more likely to return as

principals in the following school year. This result is consistent with other positive results—

school vision and culture and student achievement—for other in-state public MSA graduates at

the high school level. For principal persistence in any NCPS, the bottom panel of Table 8

reports significantly higher probabilities of retention for other in-state public MSA graduates in

high schools; conversely, Principal Fellows are more likely to return to a principal position than

all other middle school principals. This result for Principal Fellows is consistent with other

positive results—school vision and culture, instructional leadership, teacher retention—for

Principal Fellows versus all other principals in middle schools.

Discussion

In this study we assessed the impacts of the Principal Fellows program, a statewide,

merit-based scholarship loan designed to attract academically-competitive individuals into

university-based school leader preparation and school administrator positions. Given program

goals and the range of school and student outcomes that principals influence, we examined the

characteristics of program participants and the schools that they lead; the impacts of Principal

Fellows on school, teacher, and student outcomes; and principal retention. We compared

Principal Fellows to two groups—other principals who receive MSAs from in-state public

universities and all other principals. These groups complement each other. Other in-state public

university MSAs received similar training to Principal Fellows; all other principals are not as

similar in training or career progression, but make up the bulk of the principal workforce in

North Carolina and are more likely to have served the same schools before or after a Principal

Fellow.

The stated goal of the Principal Fellows program is “to prepare the most outstanding

candidates for full-time school administration in North Carolina” (NC Principal Fellows, 2015).

Compared to other in-state public university MSA graduates, we find that Principal Fellows have

stronger academic credentials, as measured by licensure test scores, and are significantly more

likely to work as an assistant principal or principal in NCPS after completing their degree.

Furthermore, nearly 90 percent of Principal Fellows fulfill the school administrator service

requirements specified by the scholarship loan. In policy terms, this evidence suggests that a

scholarship loan program for prospective school leaders can serve as a mechanism to provide a

supply of highly qualified principals and assistant principals.

This study faces several limitations in attempting to estimate impacts of the Principal

Fellows on school, teacher, and student outcomes. First, the effect of principals on many

outcomes of interest, especially those at the student level, is indirect. Second, principal effects

may take time to develop. This can make it difficult to identify the influence of a principal,

particularly in models comparing principals who have led the same school, since the influence of

the first principal is likely to continue to be observed into the tenure of the next principal.

Finally, principals are not randomly assigned to schools, and as such, it is difficult to separate the

influence of school characteristics from the effect of the principal. This limitation is particularly

salient in our analyses because there are some significant differences between the schools led by

Principals Fellows and those led by principals with other forms of preparation.

Given that principals have a more direct impact on school working conditions and teacher

retention, we began our analyses by assessing relationships between principal preparation and

two working conditions constructs and teacher retention. Here, Principal Fellows appear to have

an advantage relative to all other principals. Principal Fellows lead elementary and middle

schools rated higher on school vision and culture and instructional leadership; they also lead

schools with higher levels of teacher retention, particularly in elementary schools where

Principal Fellows are concentrated. This suggests that Principal Fellows compare favorably to

the largest group of principals currently working in NCPS. In comparison to other in-state public

university MSA graduates, Principal Fellows lead schools rated lower on a school vision and

culture construct and have similar levels of teacher retention.

Results for student outcomes—which principals impact indirectly—are less conclusive.

Regarding student test scores, estimates show that adjusted-average student achievement in

elementary and middle schools led by Principal Fellows is generally higher than in schools led

by other in-state public university MSA graduates but lower than in schools led by all other

principals. For high schools this trend is reversed—adjusted-average student achievement in

schools led by Principal Fellows is higher than in schools led by all other principals but lower

than in schools led by other in-state public university MSAs. Importantly, these differences

between groups are not consistently statistically significant across the principal-by-school and

principal and school fixed effects models. For absences, students in middle schools led by

Principal Fellows have fewer absences than their peers attending middle schools led by other in-

state public university MSA graduates but more absences than peers attending middle schools

led by all other principals. The remaining significant results suggest fewer absences in schools

led by Principal Fellows but are not consistently significant across models. Overall, these

student-level results are mixed—perhaps reflecting the challenge of estimating principal effects

on student outcomes—and suggest that any differences in student outcomes between principal

preparation groups may be relatively small.

Moving forward, states and school districts need more evidence about the effectiveness

of the principal recruitment and preparation programs that supply their school leader workforce.

More broadly, further research is needed about specific principal recruitment and training

practices—such as competitive scholarship loans—that are effective. With these data states and

school districts can strengthen their principal pipelines and staff schools with higher quality

school leaders.

References

Bastian, K.C. & Henry, G.T. (2015). The apprentice: Pathways to the principalship and student

achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(4), 600-639.

Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012). Stepping stones: Principal career paths and

school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41, 904-919.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., & Loeb, S. (2011). The influence of school

administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal,

48(2), 303-333.

Branch, G., Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector

productivity: The case of school principals. NBER Working Paper 17803.

Branch, G., Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2013). School leaders matter. Education Next, 13(1),

1-8.

Burkhauser, S., Gates, S., Hamilton, L., & Ikemoto, G. (2012). First-year principals in urban

school districts: How actions and working conditions relate to outcomes. Santa Monica,

CA: RAND Education.

Chiang, H., Lipscomb, S., & Gill, B. (2012). Is school value-added indicative of principal

quality. Mathematica Policy Research. Available from: http://mathematica-

mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/value-added_principal_quality.pdf

Chicago Public Schools. (2013). Principal quality and effectiveness: Board Briefing. Available

from: http://www.cpsboe.org/content/documents/principal_evaluations_012313.pdf

Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance. Calder

Institute Working Paper 38.

Coelli, M., & Green, D. (2012). Leadership effects: School principals and student outcomes.

Economics of Education Review, 31(1), 92-109.

Corcoran, S., Schwartz, A.E., Weinstein, M. (2012). Training your own: The impact of New

York City’s Aspiring Principals Program on student achievement. Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 232-253.

Dhuey, E., & Smith, J. (2013). How school principals influence student learning. Retrieved from

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/S13_Dhuey.pdf

Grissom, J., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2015). Using student test scores to measure principal

performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 3-28.

http://mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/value-added_principal_quality.pdf

http://mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/value-added_principal_quality.pdf

http://www.cpsboe.org/content/documents/principal_evaluations_012313.pdf

Grissom, J., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of

parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills.

American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091-1123.

Grissom, J., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders:

Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433-

444.

Handa, S., Thompson, C.L., Marcus, J.V., & Smith, A.A. (2010). The effects of UNC Master of

School Administration programs on NC public schools, 2004-2008. Carolina Institute for

Public Policy. Available from: http://publicpolicy.unc.edu/research/publications-

presentations-and-reports.

Henry, G.T., Bastian, K.C., & Smith, A.A. (2012). Scholarships to recruit the “best and

brightest” into teaching: Who is recruited, where do they teach, how effective are they, and

how long do they stay? Educational Researcher, 41(3), 83-92.

Hirsh, E., Koppich, J.E., & Knapp, M.S. (2001). Revisiting what states are doing to improve the

quality of teaching: An update on patterns and trends. Center for the Study of Teaching and

Policy. Available from: http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/States-HKK-02-2001.pdf

Horng, E., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness.

American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-523.

Ladd, H. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned

and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235-261.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research,

1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199.

Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Horng, E.L. (2010). Principal preferences and the uneven

distribution of principals across schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2),

205-229.

Martorell, F., Heaton, P., Gates, S.M., & Hamilton, L.S. (2010). Preliminary findings from the

New Leaders for New Schools evaluation. Rand Education. Available from:

https://192.5.14.43/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2010/RAND_WR739.pdf

McCaffrey, D.F., Lockwood, J.R., Koretz, D., Louis, T.A., & Hamilton, L. (2013). Models for

value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,

29(1), 67-101.

Mihaly, K., McCaffrey, D., Lockwood, J.R., & Sass, T. (2010). Centering and reference groups

for estimates of fixed effects: Modifications to felsdvreg. The Stata Journal, 10(1), 82-103.

http://publicpolicy.unc.edu/research/publications-presentations-and-reports

http://publicpolicy.unc.edu/research/publications-presentations-and-reports

https://192.5.14.43/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2010/RAND_WR739.pdf

Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review,

36, 60-72.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2013). North Carolina standards for school

executives. Available from: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/district-

humanresources/evaluation/standardsadmin.pdf

North Carolina Principal Fellows. (2015). http://www.ncpfp.org/

Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An

analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly,

44(5), 635-674.

Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement.

American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36.

Vanderhaar, J., Munoz, M. & Rodosky, R. (2006). Leadership as accountability for learning:

The effects of school poverty, teacher experience, previous achievement, and principal

preparation programs on student achievement. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,

19(1-2), 17-33.

http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/district-humanresources/evaluation/standardsadmin.pdf

http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/district-humanresources/evaluation/standardsadmin.pdf

http://www.ncpfp.org/

Table 1: Characteristics of Principal Fellows and Other In-State Public MSA Graduates

Characteristics Principal Fellows Other In-State Public MSA

Total Number of Graduates

(1996-2012) 1228 4530

Percentage Female 71.12** 64.62

Percentage Racial/Ethnic

Minority 26.01

** 31.99

Age at Completion of MSA 36.07** 38.17

Std. Principal Licensure

Exam Scores 0.313

** 0.043

Taught in NCPS 0.963** 0.906

Years Teaching in

NCPS Pre-MSA 6.58

** 8.98

Assistant Principal in NCPS 0.963** 0.611

Principal in NCPS 0.461** 0.269

Age at First Principalship 38.45** 40.58

Note: This table displays descriptive characteristics for Principal Fellows and all other in-state public MSA

graduates from 1996 through 2012. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences between Principal

Fellows and other in-state public MSA graduates at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table 2: School Characteristics for First-Time Principals and All Principals

First-Time Principals All Principals

School

Characteristics Principal Fellows

Other In-State

Public MSA All Other Principal Fellows

Other In-State

Public MSA All Other

Subsidized School

Lunch Percentage 56.26 58.85 57.32 54.54 59.37

** 55.88

*

Minority Student

Percentage 46.56 49.93

+ 45.50 46.18 49.32** 46.42

Performance

Composite 73.93 70.75

** 71.35

* 72.64 70.36**

70.97**

Total Per-Pupil

Expenditures 8932.98 9219.30 10305.53

* 8779.73 9623.95**

9433.55**

Novice Teacher


+ 22.78

+ 21.76 20.96** 21.36

NBC Teacher


+ 10.23 12.14 11.41**

11.63*

Advanced Degree

Percentage 26.61 25.95 28.84

** 28.51 26.95**

29.08*

School Level

Elementary 71.29 61.59**

57.62** 66.51 56.68

** 57.09

**

Middle 18.39 20.21 20.28 19.00 19.42 17.10*

High 9.68 16.77**

19.77** 13.77 22.48

** 23.57

**

K-12 0.64 1.43 2.33* 0.72 1.42

** 2.24

**

Unique Principal

Count 322 891 828 520 1175 2565

Principal-by-Year

Count 322 891 828 2368 4727 9903

Note: The left panel of this table displays school-level characteristics for first-time principals during our study period. These characteristics are from the year

before the principal assumes leadership—the characteristics the first-time principal inherits. The right panel of this table displays school-level characteristics for

all principal-year combinations during our study period. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences between Principal Fellows and the other

principal preparation categories at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table 3: TWC Survey Items Included in Outcome Constructs

School Vision and Culture

Teachers and staff work in a school environment that is safe

The school leadership consistently enforces rules for student conduct

Teachers are centrally involved in decision making about educational issues

In this school we take steps to solve problems

There is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect within the school

The school leadership consistently supports teachers

The faculty and staff have a shared vision

Instructional Leadership

Teacher performance evaluations are handled in an appropriate manner

The procedures for teacher performance evaluations are consistent

Teachers are held to high professional standards for delivering instruction

Teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching

Professional development provides teachers with the knowledge and skills most needed to teach

effectively

Table 4: Results for School Vision and Culture and Instructional Leadership

Approach 1: Principal-School Estimates

School Vision and Culture Instructional Leadership

Elementary

Schools

Middle

Schools

High

Schools

Elementary

Schools

Middle

Schools

High

Schools

NCPF 0.097

(1.083)

0.117

(1.043)

0.404

(0.938)

0.075

(1.107)

0.188

(0.988)

0.111

(1.256) Principal-School

Count 464 136 107 464 136 107

Other In-State

Public MSA

0.175

(1.117) 0.325

+

(1.085)

0.372

(1.211)

0.177

(1.128)

0.320

(1.072)

0.022


Count 838 289 342 838 289 342

All Other -0.118

**

(1.266) -0.208

**

(1.101) -0.247

**

(1.436) -0.113

**

(1.292) -0.223

**

(1.126)

-0.028


Count 1625 529 691 1625 529 691

Approach 2: Within School Estimates

NCPF 0.239

(1.059)

0.069

(0.864)

0.008

(0.585)

0.305

(1.296)

0.138

(0.691)

-0.095

(0.794)

Principal Count 240 61 48 240 61 48

Other In-State

Public MSA 0.360

(1.113) 0.313

+

(0.822) 0.182

+

(0.664)

0.468

(1.314)

0.197

(0.726)

-0.185

(0.840)

Principal Count 491 165 168 491 165 168

All Other -0.248

**

(1.229) -0.192

*

(0.931)

-0.083

(0.660) -0.321

**

(1.555) -0.140

**

(0.733)

0.096

(0.924)

Principal Count 944 291 372 944 291 372 Note: For the school vision and culture and instructional leadership constructs, the top panel of this table displays mean principal-by school fixed effects

estimates for each principal preparation category. The bottom panel of this table displays mean principal fixed effects estimates for each principal preparation

category. Standard deviations of the mean fixed effect estimates are in parentheses. +, *, and ** indicate a statistically significant mean difference between

Principal Fellows and other in-state public MSA graduates/all other principals at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table 5: Teacher Retention Results


Principal Category Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools

NCPF 0.014

(0.124)

0.013

(0.097)

0.052

(0.193)

Principal-School Count 478 142 118

Other In-State Public MSA 0.032

*

(0.127)

0.024

(0.122)

0.045

(0.185)


All Other -0.021

**

(0.156) -0.016

**

(0.148) -0.031

**

(0.239)



NCPF 0.021

(0.093)

0.005

(0.054)

0.004

(0.101)

Principal Count 252 65 54


(0.089)

0.003

(0.062)

0.021

(0.106)


All Other -0.021

**

(0.107)

-0.003

(0.060)

-0.010

(0.115)

Principal Count 977 306 412 Note: The top panel of this table displays mean principal-by-school fixed effects estimates for each principal

preparation category. The bottom panel of this table displays mean principal fixed effects estimates for each

principal preparation category. Standard deviations of the mean fixed effect estimates are in parentheses. +, *, and

** indicate a statistically significant mean difference between Principal Fellows and other in-state public MSA

graduates/all other principals at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table 6: Student Achievement Results


Principal Category Elementary Math Elementary Reading Middle Math Middle Reading High School EOC

NCPF 0.002

(0.142)

-0.018

(0.136)

0.020

(0.153)

0.013

(0.103)

0.045

(0.216)

Principal-School Count 469 469 223 223 115

Other In-State

Public MSA -0.025

**

(0.200) -0.046

**

(0.157) -0.012

*

(0.187) -0.016

**

(0.136)

0.039

(0.245)


All Other 0.012

(0.164) 0.029

**

(0.170)

0.002

(0.198)

0.006

(0.152) -0.026

**

(0.256)



NCPF -0.008

(0.080)

-0.027

(0.108)

-0.009

(0.083)

0.001

(0.064)

-0.004

(0.107)

Principal Count 249 249 116 116 54

Other In-State

Public MSA

-0.013

(0.087)

-0.037

(0.108)

-0.016

(0.086)

-0.006

(0.062) 0.050

**

(0.128)


All Other 0.009

**

(0.092) 0.026

**

(0.129) 0.011

*

(0.097)

0.003

(0.081)

-0.020

(0.142)

Principal Count 975 975 498 498 422 Note: The top panel of this table displays mean principal-by-school fixed effects estimates for each principal preparation category. The bottom panel of this

table displays mean principal fixed effects estimates for each principal preparation category. Standard deviations of the mean fixed effect estimates are in

parentheses. +, *, and ** indicate a statistically significant mean difference between Principal Fellows and other in-state public MSA graduates/all other

principals at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table 7: Student Absences Results


Principal Category Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools

NCPF -0.075

(0.047)

0.405

(0.123)

-0.977

(0.306)


Other In-State Public MSA -0.005

(0.039) 0.780

*

(0.104) -0.217

*

(0.212)


All Other 0.010

(0.030) -0.548

**

(0.087) 0.190

**

(0.161)



NCPF -0.055

(0.455)

0.143

(1.014)

-0.031

(1.619)



(0.540) 0.480

*

(1.097)

-0.045

(1.641)


All Other 0.055

**

(0.584) -0.306

**

(1.488)

0.023

(1.692)

Principal Count 966 306 407 Note: The top panel of this table displays mean principal-by-school fixed effects estimates for each principal

preparation category. The bottom panel of this table displays mean principal fixed effects estimates for each

principal preparation category. Standard deviations of the mean fixed effect estimates are in parentheses. +, *, and

** indicate a statistically significant mean difference between Principal Fellows and other in-state public MSA


Table 8: Principal Persistence

Principal Persistence in the Same School

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools


(0.014)

0.000

(0.027) 0.078

*

(0.032)

All Other 0.010

(0.014)

-0.027

(0.024)

0.042

(0.031)

Cases 7644 2366 2799

Principal Persistence in NCPS

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools


(0.011)

-0.010

(0.021) 0.053

+

(0.029)

All Other 0.007

(0.011) -0.044

*

(0.021)

0.034

(0.028)

Cases 7644 2366 2799 Note: Cells report coefficients from linear probability models in reference to Principal Fellows with standard errors

in parentheses. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels,

respectively.

Appendix Table 1: Student Achievement Results with Empirical Bayes Shrinkage



NCPF 0.003

(0.132)

-0.014

(0.120)

0.024

(0.134)

0.016

(0.078)

0.044

(0.194)


Other In-State Public

MSA -0.016

*

(0.130) -0.035

**

(0.111) -0.004

*

(0.161) -0.009

**

(0.102)

0.043

(0.213)


All Other 0.013

(0.139) 0.024

**

(0.134)

0.009

(0.167)

0.009

(0.109) -0.015

**

(0.228)



NCPF -0.006

(0.068)

-0.023

(0.094)

-0.005

(0.064)

0.003

(0.049)

-0.001

(0.093)



MSA

-0.010

(0.071)

-0.031

(0.092)

-0.015

(0.071) -0.007

*

(0.039) 0.039

**

(0.102)


All Other 0.006

*

(0.072) 0.021

**

(0.105) 0.009

*

(0.077)

0.003

(0.042)

-0.015

(0.114)

Principal Count 975 975 498 498 422 Note: The top panel of this table displays mean principal-by-school fixed effects estimates for each principal preparation category. The bottom panel of this

table displays mean principal fixed effects estimates for each principal preparation category. Standard deviations of the mean fixed effect estimates are in

parentheses. +, *, and ** indicate a statistically significant mean difference between Principal Fellows and other in-state public MSA graduates/all other

principals at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Appendix Table 2: Student Achievement Results Using Restricted Sample

Approach 1: Principal-School Estimates using Within School Effectiveness Sample


NCPF 0.007

(0.132)

-0.012

(0.119)

0.003

(0.172)

0.022

(0.125)

-0.104

(0.242)



MSA

0.010

(0.146)

-0.024

(0.131)

-0.021

(0.172)

0.003

(0.145)

-0.071

(0.233)


All Other -0.007

(0.160) 0.016

**

(0.141)

0.011

(0.226) -0.007

*

(0.155) 0.043

**

(0.404)

Principal-School Count 975 975 498 498 422 Note: This table displays mean principal-by-school fixed effects estimates for each principal preparation category. Standard deviations of the mean fixed effect

estimates are in parentheses. +, *, and ** indicate a statistically significant mean difference between Principal Fellows and other in-state public MSA


scholarships for school leaders: impacts of the north ... · scholarships for school leaders:...

Documents