The Role of Collective Efficacy in Closing Student Achievement Gaps: A Mixed Methods Study of School Leadership for Excellence and Equity

ABSTRACT

Previous research demonstrates that collective efficacy positively predicts students' academic achievement (e.g., Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2000). However, unaddressed by the current literature is whether collective efficacy also works to reduce inequity by closing achievement gaps. To learn about the operation of collective efficacy, we designed a mixed-methods study, situated in the elementary and middle schools of one large urban district in Texas. Hierarchal linear modeling was employed to model the degree to which collective efficacy explained differences among schools in student mathematics achievement and the Black-White achievement gap. We also drew upon focus group data collected at 6 schools. We found that collective efficacy was associated with an increase in mathematics achievement as well a 50% reduction in the academic disadvantage experienced by Black students. Focus groups revealed the importance of school principals in supporting teacher collaboration and peer observation as well as a sustained focus on instructional improvement.

Notes

¹ Our HLM models showed that after accounting for the effects of student sociodemographic background variables, including prior achievement, special education, and ESL program placement, the Latino-White achievement gap was statistically equivalent to zero. That is, Latinos with average prior achievement who were not receiving a free lunch, not in special education, and not in ESL had mean achievement that was statistically equivalent to that of White students. Hence, we could not model the Latino achievement gap. Similarly, the socioeconomic status, special education, and ESL achievement gaps were not modeled because their effects also did not vary among schools. For this reason, our analysis focuses on the only gap we found, which was between Black and White students.

² As described earlier, we examine this gap because it was the only one that was statistically significant in our sample.

³ Notably, the effects associated with ESL and special education student status did not differ significantly across schools so these effects were not modeled in the multilevel analysis.

⁴ We acknowledge that we cannot claim causality and recognize that a reciprocal relationship might also exist, i.e. that strong student achievement contributes to collective efficacy. However, in the absence of experimental manipulation of collective efficacy, we employed a quasi-experimental design in which we control for multiple student and school factors that might explain achievement to avoid omitted variable bias.