Preparing Principals

Preparing School Principals:A National Perspective on Policy

and Program Innovations

Elizabeth L. HaleHunter N. Moorman

Institute for Educational LeadershipWashington, D.C.

Illinois Education Research CouncilEdwardsville, Illinois

IERC

IERC

Preparing School Principals: A National Perspectiveon Policy and Program Innovations

“No one can say for certain how the schools of the new century will differ from those of the past century – but therecan be little doubt that these schools will require different forms of leadership.”1

Elizabeth L. HaleHunter N. Moorman

September 2003

1 Statement by Member, Task Force on Reinventing the Principalship, (2000). School Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative,Institute for Educational Leadership, Washington, DC.

Preparing School Principals: A National Perspective on Policy and Program Innovations

Suggested citation

Hale, Elizabeth L, and Hunter N. Moorman. (2003). “Preparing School Principals: A National Perspectiveon Policy and Program Innovations.” Institute for Educational Leadership, Washington, DC and IllinoisEducation Research Council, Edwardsville, IL.

© 2003 by the Institute of Educational Leadership, Inc. (IEL) and the Illinois Education Research Council(IERC), Edwardsville, IL. All rights reserved. The material in this publication may be freely copied anddistributed, in whole or in part, providing appropriate credit/citation is given to IEL and IERC.

ISBN 0-937846-05-8

Additional copies of “Preparing School Principals” may be downloaded from either the IEL (www.iel.org) orthe IERC (http://ierc.siue.edu) Web site.

i


Table of Contents

AUTHORS’ NOTE ............................................................................................... ii

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1

THE NOT SO NEW NEWS ................................................................................. 2

TOWARD MORE COHERENT EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIPDEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS — THE CHALLENGES ...................................... 3

QUESTION 1: HOW DO STATE POLICIES SHAPE THE TALENT POOL? ............................................ 4

QUESTION 2: WHAT IS THE CURRENT CONDITION OF LEADERSHIP PREPARATION? ........................ 5

QUESTION 3: WHY IS CHANGE NEEDED?................................................................................... 7

QUESTION 4: WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR ACTION? ................................................................ 8

CHANGING POLICY .............................................................................................................. 8

CHANGING PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................... 10

REFORM PROGRAMS IN UNIVERSITIES — INSIDE COLLEGES OF EDUCATION ...................... 10

REFORM PROGRAMS IN UNIVERSITIES — OUTSIDE COLLEGES OF EDUCATION ................... 12

PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND/OR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ................ 12

NONTRADITIONAL PROVIDERS ...................................................................................... 12

PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 16

A NEW GENERATION OF SCHOOL LEADERS............................................. 19

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND THE ILLINOIS EDUCATION RESEARCH COUNCIL........................ 20

ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND AUTHORS’ NOTE

This report was prepared with support from the Illinois Education Research Council.Elizabeth Hale is President and Hunter N. Moorman is Director of the Education PolicyFellowship Program of the Institute for Educational Leadership. They thank Michael D.Usdan, President Emeritus and now Senior Fellow, IEL, for his advice and contribution to thisreport and the many other individuals who responded to their requests for information aboutinnovative programs, took the time to talk with them and commented on the draft report.The statements made and views expressed in this document are solely the responsibility of theauthors.

1


_________________________

2 National Commission for Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.3 The National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking and Management. (1999, June). Policy Brief:Effective Leaders for Today’s Schools: Synthesis of a Policy Forum on Educational Leadership. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation Office of Educational Research and Improvement.4 State Action for Education Leadership Project (SAELP). (2001). State Policy and Practice Compendium. Denver: Author.

Our nation is simultaneouslyacknowledging the 20th

anniversary of the landmarkreport, A Nation at Risk,2 and thewidespread and bipartisanacceptance of the need forAmerica’s schools to improve. Atthe same time, implementing theNo Child Left Behind Act(NCLB) of 2001 is forcing us toconfront the weaknesses ofcontemporary school leadershipand is making it impossible toignore the escalating need forhigher quality principals —individuals who have beenprepared to provide theinstructional leadership necessaryto improve student achievement.

Laser-like attention is beingfocused on one of the variablescritical to effective education:leadership. Today, schoolleadership — more specifically,the principalship — is a frontburner issue in every state.

The systems that produce ournation’s principals are complexand interrelated — and governedby the states. Each state

establishes licensing, certificationand re-certification requirementsfor school leaders and, in mostplaces, approves the college anduniversity programs that prepareschool leaders. State policyleaders and institutional leaders,therefore, have become keyplayers in efforts to improveprincipal preparation programsand processes. Their goal: topromote lasting improvements inschool leadership developmentsystems by identifying and thenadopting change processes thatcombine the required policy andprogram elements.

While the jobs of schoolleaders — superintendents,principals, teacher leaders andschool board members — havechanged dramatically, it appearsthat neither organizedprofessional developmentprograms nor formal preparationprograms based in highereducation institutions haveadequately prepared thoseholding these jobs to meet thepriority demands of the 21stcentury, namely, improved

student achievement.3 Allaspects of the school leadershipissue — the art and the science ofprincipal leadership, as well asthe policy and regulatoryframeworks in support of a state’scapacity to recruit, prepare andretain its educational leadershipworkforce — are on the tableand are being scrutinized.

This report focuses on twoareas in which state policies andprograms can have particularinfluence on school leadership:licensure, certification andaccreditation requirements; andadministrator training andprofessional development.4 Thisdocument is a distillation of thenational conversation aboutschool leadership and principalpreparation programs. It alsopresents promising approachesand practices as illustrated byselected changes being made orpromoted in and/or across statesystems, in local school districts,in universities and colleges, andin new provider organizationsacross the nation.

INTRODUCTION

2


Recent studies and reportshave sharpened our knowledgeabout the state of theprincipalship, but the news thatthe systems that prepare oureducational leaders are in troublecomes as no surprise. Back in1987, the educationadministration profession self-identified key trouble spots inLeaders For America’s Schools,prepared by the UniversityCouncil for EducationalAdministration (UCEA)-sponsored blue-ribbon panel, theNational Commission onExcellence in EducationalAdministration. The reportidentified several problem areas,including:! The lack of definition of

good educational leadership;! An absence of collaboration

between school districts andcolleges and universities;

! The low number ofminorities and females in thefield;

! A lack of systematicprofessional development;

! The poor quality ofcandidates for preparationprograms;

! The irrelevance ofpreparation programs;programs devoid of sequence,modern content and clinicalexperiences;

! The need for licensuresystems that promoteexcellence; and

THE NOT SO NEW NEWS

! An absence of a nationalsense of cooperation inpreparing school leaders.

The report offeredrecommendations targeted toparticular policy and decisionmakers. Suggestions forimprovement included: (1)public schools should share theresponsibility for preparingschool leaders with universities,(2) universities unable to supportthe report’s spirit of excellenceshould stop preparing schoolleaders, and (3) state policymakersshould base licensure procedureson defensible claims about whatequips an individual to effectivelylead a school.

The Commission’srecommendations were bothahead of the times and beyondthe capacity of the field toimplement. To be successful,efforts to prepare school leadersin new ways require advocateswho understand that schoolleadership is a multi-faceted issuethat includes political andmanagerial as well asinstructional and educationalcomponents. Acting alone,professional educators haveneither the leverage nor thepolitical capacity toconceptualize or implement thechanges needed, to build thenecessary broad-based coalitionsor to attract the substantial

human and financial resourcesrequired.

While the Commission’ssweeping recommendationsfailed to prompt action thatmight have changed theprofession, the report spawned anumber of smaller steps that havehelped point the way toimprovement. One such stepwas the development by theCouncil of Chief State SchoolOfficers (CCSSO) in 1996 of aset of standards for school leadersby the Interstate School LeadersLicensure Consortium (ISLLC),a representative body of most ofthe major stakeholders ineducational leadership includingnational associations, states andcolleges and universities.

At least 35 states haveadopted the ISLLC standardsand use them to guide policy andpractice related to principalpreparation. But, the ISLLCstandards have drawn criticism.Some suggest that the standardsare not anchored in a rigorousresearch or knowledge base, thatthey unduly reinforce the statusquo, and that they lack sufficientspecificity or operationalguidance to help school leadersfigure out what to do.5

Despite the criticisms, theISLLC standards are animportant development in the

_________________________

5 Achilles, C. M., and William J. Price. (Winter 2001). “What Is Missing in the Current Debate About EducationAdministration (EDAD) Standards!” AASA Professor 24, 2 : 8-13. http://www.aasa.org/publications/tap/Winter_2001.pdf

3


field of educational leadership.They were never intended to beall-inclusive. Rather, they wereintended as indicators ofknowledge, dispositions andperformances important toeffective school leadership. Theyestablished a new vision forthinking in terms of standards-based policy and practice andmade a new dimension ofaccountability possible. Thestandards confirmed thecentrality of the principal’s rolein ensuring student achievementthrough an unwavering emphasison “leadership for studentlearning.”

To date, the ISLLC standardshave served in many states andinstitutions as the framework for

revising principal preparationprograms and in-serviceprofessional developmentactivities. The EducationalTesting Service (ETS), incollaboration with ISLLC,recently created The SchoolLeadership Series, a set ofperformance-based assessmentsbased on the ISLLC standardsand used for the licensure andprofessional development ofschool superintendents,principals and other schoolleaders. These assessmentstranslate the ISLLC standardsinto performance measures onwhich candidates can demonstratetheir qualifications, reflect ontheir professional responsibilityand actions, and identify

information and strategies thatwill enable them to continuegrowing in knowledge and skills.Currently, 13 states use this ETSassessment system to gaugecandidates’ proficiency levels.

In 2002, the NationalCouncil for Accreditation ofTeacher Education (NCATE)aligned its accreditationstandards for educationalleadership training programswith the ISLLC standards. Thismerger provides a unified set ofstandards, the EducationalLeadership Constituent Council(ELCC) standards, for the reviewand accreditation ofadministrator preparationprograms.

The intense pressure forprincipals to be instructionalleaders who can more effectivelyimplement standards-basedreform has given unprecedentedprominence and politicalvisibility to the problems ofpreparing school principals. Fewdisagree about what is wrong withhow our nation recruits andprepares school principals; theflaws are strikingly similar to theones identified in 1987. The

disagreements arise when policyand institutional leaders try toaddress those flaws and createmore coherent systems fordeveloping and supportingeducational leaders.

The challenges of trying tocreate more coherent statewidesystems for developing andsupporting school leaders areframed through the lens of fourcore questions: How do state

policies shape the talent pool?What is the current condition ofleadership preparation? Why ischange needed? What are theoptions for action? Asking thesequestions should be the startingpoint for policy and institutionalleaders who are trying to improvea state’s capacity to develop andsupport educational leadership.

TOWARD MORE COHERENT EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIPDEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS — THE CHALLENGES

4


_________________________

6 Hess, F. M. (2003, January 31). A License to Lead? A New Leadership Agenda for America’s Schools. PPI Policy Report .Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute 21st Century Schools Project. p. 12. Available from http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=135&contentID=2512397 Gates, S. et al. (2003). Who Is Leading Our Schools? An Overview of School Administrators and Their Careers. Arlington, VA:RAND Education.8 The Broad Foundation and The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2003, May). Better Leaders for America’s Schools: A Manifesto.Washington, DC: Authors. p. 16. Available from http://www.edexcellence.net/manifesto/manifesto.pdf9 Southern Regional Education Board. (2001, April). Preparing a New Breed of School Principals: It ’s Time for Action. Atlanta:Author.

QUESTION 1: HOW DO STATE POLICIES SHAPE THE TALENT POOL?

“Administrators are selected from a talent pool constructed without regard to aptitudefor leadership and one that excludes many who may be well suited to serve.” 6

States have establishedpolicies on certification, licensureand program accreditation as wellas standard processes to validateand accredit administratorpreparation programs. Throughthese official tools and strategies,states control entry into the fieldof educational administration.

The fact that all states exceptMichigan and South Dakotacurrently require schooladministrators to be licensedillustrates how state policyconstrains the administratorcandidate pool. Generallyspeaking, becoming a licensedprincipal requires the successfulcompletion of a fixed number ofcredit hours in an approvedprincipal preparation program(historically in a college oruniversity, but “the times they area ‘changin” as the final section ofthis document reports),certification as a teacher andclassroom experience. Thesepolicies limit both the size andthe overall quality of theadministrator candidate pool andare the subject of much criticismand controversy.

A recent RAND report notedthat, “formal barriers such ascertification requirements andinformal barriers such as districthiring practices all but excludethose without teachingexperience from considerationfor administrative positions.”7

The Broad Foundation and TheThomas B. Fordham Institute’sreport, Better Leaders for America’sSchool: A Manifesto, reached asimilar conclusion: statelicensure systems and processescontribute to and exacerbate theproblem.

The Manifesto emphasizedthe impact of current policies onthe quality of the candidate pool.“Our conventional proceduresfor training and certifying publicschool administrators . . . aresimply failing to produce asufficiency of leaders whosevision, energy and skill cansuccessfully raise the educationalstandard for all children.”8 Thereport suggested minimizingregulations (i.e., requirement forprevious teaching experience)that choke off the pipeline andmake it impossible for interested

applicants trained in other fieldsand disciplines to enter theprofession. As a matter of recordand formal policy in 48 states,able non-teachers interested incareers as school administratorsare automatically barred fromconsideration.

The Southern RegionalEducation Board (SREB), in anearlier report, also echoed theneed for states to addresscertification issues in order toexpand their pool of skilledleaders. Simply put, SREBsuggested that what states neededto do was to create more flexiblecertification processes to enableindividuals with proven skills toenter the principalship beforethey completed a universityprogram.9

Data from the NationalCenter for EducationInformation (NCEI) confirmthat the states are not hotbeds ofactivity focused on bringing non-traditional professionals intoschool leadership positions. Datafrom NCEI also confirm thatonly eleven states report alternate

5


Nearly 20 years of efforts toreform administrator preparationprograms have produced littleprogress. The reforms promptedby such well-known nationalinitiatives as the U.S.Department of Education’sLeadership in EducationalAdministration Development(LEAD) Program (1987–1993)and the Danforth Foundation’sPrincipals Preparation Programachieved rather limited success.Ample research on schoolleadership preparation programsmakes it clear that many existingprograms are in dire need ofimprovement.

Principals across the nationagree that administrator trainingprograms deserve an “F.” In asurvey of educational leadersconducted by Public Agenda,69% of the principals respondingindicated that traditionalleadership preparation programs

were “out of touch with therealities of what it takes to runtoday’s schools.”12

Other major voices ineducation who have reached thesame conclusion include JosephMurphy, co-author of the ISLLCstandards, who characterizes theprograms as “bankrupt,”13 andMichelle Young, ExecutiveDirector of the UniversityCouncil for EducationalAdministration (UCEA), whoconcedes that universityprograms have been slow tochange and that faculties are notconnected to the field and oftenhave a laissez-faire attitude aboutthe need to adopt standards.14

So broad is the consensus forchange that scores of individualsand organizations representingK-12 and higher educationestablished the National Com-mission for the Advancement of

Educational Leadership Prepara-tion (NCAELP) in 2001. Com-prised of 40 individuals, includ-ing major scholars and leaders inthe field of educational leader-ship and of national organiza-tions, NCAELP’s charge is toexamine and improve the qualityof educational leadership in theUnited States. Six papers and twocommentaries solicited by theCommission to guide discussionsare available at the NCAELPWebsite, http://www.ncaelp.org/

The general consensus inmost quarters is that principalpreparation programs (with a fewnotable exceptions) are tootheoretical and totally unrelatedto the daily demands oncontemporary principals. Thecourse work is poorly sequencedand organized, making itimpossible to scaffold thelearning. Because clinicalexperiences are inadequate or

_________________________

10 Information provided to the National Center for Education Information (NCEI), by state licensing officials, July-October 2002.11 Glasman, N., Cibulka, J., and Ashby, D. (2002). Program Self-Evaluation for Continuous Improvement. EducationalAdministration Quarterly 38 (2) p. 262.12 Farkas, S., et. al. (2001, November). Trying to Stay Ahead of the Game: Superintendents and Principals Talk About SchoolLeadership. New York: Public Agenda.13 Murphy, J. (2001, September). Reculturing the Profession of Educational Leadership: New Blueprints. Paper commissioned bythe National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation, Racine, Wisconsin. 15 pages.14 Norton, J. (2002). Preparing School Leaders: It’s Time to Face the Facts. Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional EducationBoard.

QUESTION 2: WHAT IS THE CURRENT CONDITION OF LEADERSHIP PREPARATION?“Those who seek entrance to leadership programs gravitate toward programs

based on convenience and ease of completion; quality of program is hardly a leading criterion.” 11

certification routes for principalsand superintendents and that awhopping 99.3% of all principalshave teaching experience.10

Since state licensure policieshave such a direct impact on theultimate quality of the talentpool, it is important to reviewaccredited principal preparation

programs. The goal: to look forindicators of quality, as well asfor alternatives to consider intheir place.

6


non-existent, students do nothave mentored opportunities todevelop practical understandingor real-world job competence.

Admission standards to mostaccredited programs are too lowand few, if any, efforts are madeto identify high potentialapplicants, to target women andminorities for inclusion or toidentify individuals interested inworking in high needs rural orurban environments. Schooldistrict pay policies may be partof the problem, too. Typically, aschool district pay scale rewardsthose who accrue credits beyondthe undergraduate level. Suchcredits can be easily obtained bytaking courses throughadministrator preparationprograms. This encourages self-selection by many applicants whomay be of dubious quality andhave little or no intention of everseeking an administrative post.15

Since self-selection is a standardpractice, administrator programs

generally end up serving clustersof individuals operating on theirown rather than serving cohortsof individuals who are developedinto a learning community — anintegral feature of an effectivepreparation program.

The lack of partnershipsbetween colleges and universitiesand school districts affects theselection and admission ofcandidates and the design andconduct of the preparationprogram. Absent partnershipswith school districts, there are noeasily accessible mechanisms foridentifying the best candidates –individuals who have shown thegreatest promise of future successas a principal and who will belikely to return to the schooldistrict and make valuablecontributions. 21st centurypartnerships between schooldistricts and universities are not“your father’s Oldsmobile.”Today’s partnerships must focuson the areas of greatest need.

Schools and universities mustwork together to recruit andprepare diverse cohorts of highlyqualified candidates – men andwomen who can serve in urbanor rural settings, lead low-performing schools and preparetheir communities to meetchanging demographic, social,economic and political change.

The lack of strong workingrelationships with school districtsalso makes it impossible todevelop learning laboratories inwhich “student-principals” canmake protected or mentoredmistakes from which they canlearn and develop. As Cambron-McCabe and Cunningham haveobserved, “ . . . the need forchange in leadership preparationis not an issue. Rather, thepossible approaches that can betaken to strengthen our field arethe subject of debate.”16

_________________________

15 About 25% of those certified to be administrators actually enter the leadership arena. However, a recent study by the IllinoisEducation Research Council (DeAngelis, K.D. 2003. In the Pipeline: The Early Career Paths of Administrative CertificateHolders in Illinois. Edwardsville, IL: Illinois Education Research Council.) showed that, in Illinois, almost one third of recentrecipients of administrative certification applied for such a position but either did not receive an offer or did not accept aposition.16 Nelda Cambron-McCabe and Luvern L. Cunningham, “National Commission for the Advancement of EducationalLeadership: Opportunity for Transformation.” Commentary Paper commissioned by the National Commission for theAdvancement of Educational Leadership Preparation. February 2002. 4 pages.

7


Our nation is nowconfronted by a profounddisconnect between pre- and in-service training, the currentrealities and demands of the joband the capacity of school leadersto be instructional leaders.Strong leadership is the heart ofall effective organizations, bethey private, public or non-profit. An increasing body ofevidence confirms that suchleadership is also important forpublic schools – but it isleadership of a very special sort.The clarion call today is for adeptinstructional leaders, not merebuilding managers.

There is a growing consensusthat “command and control”leadership models do not andwill not work in today’s highaccountability school systems.Good leadership for schools isshared leadership. It has manyforms and many names:distributive leadership, changefacilitation and constructivistleadership.

The old model of leadershipwith its strict separation of

QUESTION 3: WHY IS CHANGE NEEDED?“. . . the ‘leadership ability’ and ‘leadership values’ of the principal determine in large measure

what transpires in a school; what transpires in a school either promotes,nourishes, or impedes and diminishes student academic success.” 17

_________________________

17 Reyes, P. and Wagstaff, L. (2003). How Can Educational Leaders Improve the Education of Students from Diverse Backgrounds?Division A Task Force to Develop a Research Agenda on Educational Leadership. www.cepa/gse/rutgers.edu/DivisionA.htm.18 Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000, October). Leadership for Student Learning: Reinventing the Principalship.Washington, DC: p. 2.19 Barth, R. S. (2001, February). Teacher Leader. Phi Delta Kappan. p. 82.20 Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000, October). Leadership for Student Learning: Reinventing the Principalship.Washington, DC: p. 4.

management and production isno longer effective. “Principalsmust serve as leaders for studentlearning. They must knowacademic content andpedagogical techniques. Theymust work with teachers tostrengthen skills. They mustcollect, analyze and use data inways that fuel excellence.”18

Principals also must be able topermit and encourage teachers toexercise leadership outside theclassroom. Roland Barth, thefounder of the HarvardPrincipals’ Center, notes that . . .“there are at least ten areas . . .where teacher involvement isactually essential to the health ofa school, ranging from selectingtextbooks and instructionalmaterials to designing staffdevelopment programs toevaluating teacher performance.”19

Schools of the 21st centuryrequire a new kind of principal,one who fulfills a variety ofroles: 20

" Instructional leader — isfocused on strengtheningteaching and learning,professional development,

data-driven decisionmakingand accountability.

" Community leader — isimbued with a big pictureawareness of the school’s rolein society; shared leadershipamong educators,community partners andresidents; close relations withparents and others; andadvocacy for school capacitybuilding and resources.

" Visionary Leader — has ademonstrated commitmentto the conviction that allchildren will learn at highlevels and is able to inspireothers inside and outside theschool building with thisvision.

To be sure, all three types ofleadership are important, but thepriority must be instructionalleadership – leadership forlearning. Principals of today’sschools must be able to (1) leadinstruction, (2) shape anorganization that demands andsupports excellent instructionand dedicated learning bystudents and staff and (3) connect

8


During the early 1990s,several states mandated policiesto make fundamental changes inthe structure and content of theirstate’s leadership preparationprograms. Through targetedpolicy reform processes, thesestates changed how and wherethey prepared educational leadersand began to develop morecoherent educational leadershipdevelopment systems.

In North Carolina, thereform process was initiated inthe state legislature. Changeswere made in licensure, stringentcriteria for the approval ofprincipal preparation programs

CHANGING POLICY

QUESTION 4: WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR ACTION?

the outside world and itsresources to the school and itswork. As a corollary proposition,preparation programs mustfulfill the vision embodied in theISLLC standards and developprincipals who have theknowledge, skills and attributesof an instructional leader and thecapacity to galvanize the internaland external school communitiesin support of increased studentachievement and learning.

Traditionally, college- anduniversity-based educationalleadership programs haveemphasized management andadministrative issues rather than

curricular and instructionalissues. The paramount nature ofteaching and learning — thebusiness of schools — has neverbeen stressed. Recent findingsfrom the Southern RegionalEducation Board (SREB)reaffirm the assertions theNational Commission onExcellence in EducationalAdministration made more than15 years ago: There is a need forbetter systems to support therecruitment and development ofprincipals. SREB’s report, GoodPrincipals Are the Key to SuccessfulSchools, exhorts the states to take“luck” out of the process and to

_________________________

21 O’Neill, K., Fry, B., Hill, D., and Bottoms, G. (2003). Good Principals Are the Key to Successful Schools: Six Strategies toPrepare More Good Principals. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.

establish a leadershipdevelopment system thatproduces principals who:

" Understand which schooland classroom practicesimprove studentachievement;

" Know how to work withteachers to bring aboutpositive change;

" Support teachers in carryingout instructional practicesthat help all studentssucceed; and,

" Can prepare accomplishedteachers to become principals.21

were adopted and a rigorousreview of all such programs wasundertaken. This processensured that some preparationprograms would be dropped andthe state would be left with high-quality programs servingappropriate geographic regionsthroughout the state.

In Mississippi, the StateSuperintendent of Educationinitiated the reform process. Hisoffice controlled teacher andadministrator program approval,but the university programs wereunder the general authority ofanother state agency, Institutionsof Higher Learning, or of the

boards of trustees of privatecolleges and universities. TheChief created a special entity —the Commission on Teacher andAdministrator Education,Certification, Licensure andDevelopment — that developedrigorous, research-based criteriafor the State Board of Education.

These reform effortsincorporated redesigns intoformal state policies that reflecteda reconceptualization of theadministrator role as one focusedon leadership for learning. Eachstate required interested highereducation institutions to applyfor program approval, absent

9


which program accreditation andprofessional licensure would bedenied. The linchpin of thesereforms was an objective externalprogram review by a panel thatmade approval recommendationsto the state’s most influentialpolicymakers. Such strategiesgave external credibility to thereform process and, equallyimportant, gave state officials aheat shield. The external panels’findings and recommendationsled to state decisions to approve,delay or deny program approval.The overall result was a reductionin the number of accreditedpreparation programs and animprovement in the ones thatcontinued.

More recent efforts to take apolicy-focused approach tochanging how a state prepares itseducational leaders and to createmore coherent educationalleadership development systemsare being promoted by the workof the Wallace Foundationthrough its Leaders Countinitiative. The Foundationcreated the State Action forEducational Leadership Project(SAELP), a consortium ofnational organizations servingstate policymakers; the Council

of Chief State School Officersmanages and supports theconsortium.22 SAELP awardedthree-year grants of $250,000 to15 states to support the analysisof existing state-level policies andpractices that enhanced orimpeded the development ofeducational leadership. The statesare charged with implementingpolicies that address educationand professional learning;licensure, certification andprogram accreditation;professional practice conditions;governance structures; businesspriorities and practices; anddiversification of thesuperintendent and principalcandidate pool.

In Iowa, SAELP support isenabling the Director of theDepartment of Education to leadan effort focused on reformingadministrator preparationprograms. As in North Carolinaand Mississippi, preparationprograms in Iowa are nowrequired to apply for re-approval.These programs, as well as newapplications, are assessed againstrigorous new criteria that reflectthe roles and responsibilities oftoday’s administrators.University and college faculty

members in Iowa arerestructuring programs with thefull knowledge that approval(and personal survival) will bepredicated on changingtraditional offerings to thesatisfaction of the state’s mostauthoritative policymakers.

Several important lessonsemerge from such statewidereform actions:

" State policy levers that arepart of a well-conceived andsupported plan of reform canprompt change moreeffectively than can a relianceon market or professionalincentives.

" The adoption of formalpolicy alone does notguarantee change.Implementation must beaccompanied bycomplementary elementssuch as formal programreview, technical assistanceand monitoring.

" While the unit of change isthe individual institution, thestate can play an effective roleby encouraging collaborationinstead of competitionamong institutions.

_________________________

22 SAELP members include: the National Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the NationalAssociation of State Boards of Education, and the Education Commission of the States.

10


REFORM PROGRAMS INUNIVERSITIES — INSIDE

COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

_________________________23 Jackson, B. L., and Kelley, C. (2001, September). Exceptional and Innovative Programs in Educational Leadership. Papercommissioned by the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation, Racine Wisconsin. p. 7.

CHANGING PROGRAMS

University-based programsthat get the highest marks forpreparing principals who canmeet the demands of the job inthe 21st century are often viewedas deviations from the norm.Typically, such programs arecohort-based and serve between20 and 25 students who enterthe program at the same timeand are bonded into acommunity of learners.Extensive clinical activities andfield-based, mentored internshipsintegrate the practical lessons ofacademic coursework and groundthem in the day-to-day realitiesof schools. Students are givenopportunities to solve realproblems in real schools.

Faculty and other programstaff work together, often withschool district administrators, todevelop and integrate theprogram in ways that enablestudents to master identifiedcritical competencies. “[Suchprograms] . . . tend to be moredemanding of participants and tohave more careful selection andscreening processes. . . . [They]are more coherent and focusedand pay attention to thesequencing and scheduling ofcourses, and have strongcollaboration with areadistricts.”23

There are some excellentprincipal preparation programsin existence. They are anchoredby what the research tells us

about teaching and learning andabout the role of the principal asan instructional leader. Theseprograms strive to prepareindividuals who can meet thechallenges of school leadership inthe 21st century. Illustrativeprincipal preparation programsare reported here in fourcategories that denote the changestrategy being used: ReformPrograms in Universities – InsideColleges of Education; ReformPrograms in Universities –Outside Colleges of Education;Partnerships between SchoolDistricts and/or OtherOrganizations; andNontraditional Providers. A fifthcategory, Principal ProfessionalDevelopment, provides asnapshot of selected programsusing similar change strategies toimprove principal professionaldevelopment activities.

panel of national experts. Thefocus is on preparing futureprincipals to lead schools in therural regions of the MississippiDelta. Fifteen prospectiveprincipals are selected toparticipate each year. Whilesome teachers apply on theirown, most applicants arenominated by their employingschool districts as individuals of“high promise.” Participantsserve as interns under mentorprincipals for one year whilesimultaneously attending classes.Students who are on “paidsabbaticals” from school districtsare required to work in thesponsoring school district aftercompleting the program.

All students in the master’sdegree program in educationalleadership at East Tennessee StateUniversity move through thedegree program as part of acohort group. Students areselected on the basis of academiccredentials, experience andleadership potential. They arerequired to complete anextensive, focused fieldexperience as part of theprogram. Students also develop aprofessional portfolio, thepresentation and committeereview of which serves as aculminating experience.Development of the portfolioprovides each student withopportunities for reflection andself-evaluation. The portfolio alsoserves to spotlight skills and

When a diverse group ofindividuals was asked to identifyinnovative university-basedprincipal preparation programs,three programs were mentionedmore frequently than wereothers: Delta State University,East Tennessee State University andWichita State University. TheDelta State University program,inaugurated in 1998, wasdeveloped with assistance from a

11


Francisco Bay Area. The PLIassumes that administratorsshould be educational leadersfirst and foremost,knowledgeable aboutinstructional alternatives and ableto work collegially with teachersto improve the quality ofteaching and learning. Studentsbecome familiar with thebroadest possible range ofreforms and are able tounderstand the processes ofchange in order to implementreforms. Strong relationshipswith area school districtsfacilitate field experiences,provide feedback on theprogram, and ensure a stronglink between universitycoursework and urban schoolreality.

In a one-of-a-kindcollaboration, the 13 schooldistricts surrounding the city ofCleveland joined forces withCleveland State University tocreate The First Ring LeadershipAcademy for aspiring schoolprincipals. Participants holdvarious positions in first ringschool districts and haveidentified their desire to becomeschool leaders. The non-traditional curriculum isperformance-based and wrappedaround the ISLLC standards.The field-based application ofbest practices occurs under thecritical guidance of an exemplaryprincipal. The Academy hasspecial authorization from theOhio Department of Educationto serve as an alternative route toprincipal licensure. A Mastersdegree + the Academy + the

accomplishments that will be ofinterest to future employers.Students are assessed throughsuch strategies as writtenexaminations, videotapedperformances, materialsdevelopment, research projects,and oral presentations.

The state of Kansas is movingtoward competency-basedcourses in educationaladministration. Wichita StateUniversity’s innovative programleads to building-level licensureand a master’s degree ineducational administration.Students begin the program witha cohort that becomes their“learning family” during the two-year program. They begin towork “in the real world” ofschool leadership from the start.With the guidance of a mentor(usually the student’s buildingprincipal), they assess their ownstrengths and weaknesses andidentify strengths and weaknessesin their school. Studentscapitalize on strengths and workto correct weaknesses —individually and organizationally— throughout the two-yearprogram. The program requires33 credit hours of courseworkplus a comprehensiveexamination during the lastsemester of enrollment. Therequired curriculum, deliveredthrough seminars andcomplementary practica, isfocused on educationalleadership and school finance;interpersonal relations andsupervision; school law andpersonnel management;curriculum and learning theory;

school closing and schoolopening; and diversity and socialjustice.

Three additional university-based programs conductingbusiness in different ways werebrought to our attention: thePrincipal Licensure Program(PLP), Antioch McGregorUniversity; the PrincipalLeadership Institute (PLI),University of California,Berkeley; and the First RingLeadership Academy, ClevelandState University. The PLP atAntioch McGregor University isdesigned for educators who (1)want to be school principals inthe state of Ohio, (2) have amaster’s degree from anaccredited regional college oruniversity and (3) meet the state’srequirements for licensure. It is areality-based program focused onfour themes: establishing trust,empowering stakeholders,reframing school structures, andcreating new opportunities. Thecollaborative approach combinesAntioch’s tradition of addressingintellectual, emotional andethical development withorganizational managementskills. Students learn throughreal challenges, interaction withsuccessful school and districtleaders, and guided inquiry intoreal school problems.

The Kenneth E. BehringCenter for EducationalImprovement at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley houses thePLI, an initiative to prepare anew generation of leaders forurban schools in the San

12


NONTRADITIONAL PROVIDERS

PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN

SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND/OR

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

successful completion of thePraxis = grounds for licensure.Twelve graduate credits oftraditional educationaladministration courses arewaived!

The principal preparationprogram at the University ofCentral Arkansas is now housedin the Graduate School ofManagement, Leadership andAdministration. It is aperformance-based program thatis aligned with ISLLC standardsand focused on providingprospective administrators withthe skills necessary to effectivelylead schools in the 21st century.

In a bold innovationdesigned to meet new demands,Rutgers, The State University ofNew Jersey, Camden, has created anew strand in its publicadministration program,Educational Policy andLeadership. Fifteen Camdenschool district teachers, selectedby the school district, willparticipate in a three-yearprogram emphasizing policyanalysis, leadership strategies,communications skills andsystemic school reform. Theprogram includes an internshipmentored by a Rutgers facultymember. Graduates will receivethe MPA degree and fulfill therequirements for a certificate ofeligibility as a school principal inNew Jersey.

The partnership between theUniversity of North Texas and theDallas Independent School Districtis setting a high bar for principalpreparation programs and forpartnerships. As a starting point,the partners agreed on sevenqualities that the leadersproduced by the preparationprogram would possess (see Box 1).The district taps individuals ofhigh promise, selecting teams ofteachers who can meet theuniversity’s admissionrequirements and who have thepotential to become outstandingschool leaders. The two- to four-member teams use their schoolsas learning laboratories,conducting site-based projectsand activities designed to lead toschool improvement.

The Holyoke Public SchoolSystem is partnering with theUniversity of Massachusetts to

REFORM PROGRAMS INUNIVERSITIES — OUTSIDE

COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

develop a leadershipdevelopment program whoseultimate goals are to enhancestudent outcomes and thesatisfaction of various communitystakeholders. Key interventionsinclude a two-year, onsite,NCATE-approved research- andproblem-based program leadingto a Massachusetts certificate for18 aspiring principals (and athree-year professionaldevelopment program in whichevery principal and assistantprincipal will participate on amonthly basis during the schoolyear). Holyoke principals willserve as mentors for certificationcandidates. The U.S. Departmentof Education’s School LeadershipProgram provides funds tosupport this initiative.

Currently, universities andcolleges prepare the bulk ofprincipals, but the times arechanging. Reflecting a trend in

Box 1: UNT–Dallas ISD Partnership7 Qualities of Leaders

www.sreb.org/main/Leadership/pubs/Leadership_newsletter_F2002.pdf

# Support rigorous academic standards and instructionalmethods that motivate and engage students.

# Make meaningful connections between abstract parts of thecurriculum and the real world.

# Create and manage a system of support that enables allstudents to meet high standards and motivates faculty to havehigh expectations for all students.

# Set priorities for change that can be measured and managedrealistically.

# Create a personal, caring school environment that helpsstudents meet higher standards.

# Apply research knowledge to improve school practices.

# Use technology for management and instructional purposes.

13


all of graduate education, not justin the field of educationalleadership, non-traditionalproviders have emerged to meetnew demands. These newproviders are offering principalpreparation and professionaldevelopment programs throughnew models and using deliverymechanisms that many think aremore appropriate to the needs ofprincipals in the 21st century.Two such providers haveachieved national recognition.

New Leaders for New Schools(NLNS) (see Box 2), is aprincipal preparation programcurrently operating in New YorkCity, Chicago and in the SanFrancisco Bay Area (twoadditional program sites,Baltimore and Washington,D.C., will be operational in thefall of 2004). It is focused onrecruiting talented individualswho (1) have a diverse butproven set of skills, strengths andsuccesses and (2) can becomesuccessful urban schoolprincipals. NLNS wants tocreate a pathway for principalrecruitment, preparation andongoing support that will serve asa model for school districts,universities and other providers.Partnerships with National LouisUniversity (Chicago and SanFrancisco) and Baruch College(New York) ensure that theNLNS participants are certified.

The Principal ResidencyNetwork (PRN), (see Box 3 onnext page) is based on the beliefthat school leadership can best betaught and learned in theschoolhouse. The program isindividualized to meet the needsof aspiring principals and isdedicated to changing theconditions of work by designingand then partnering with small,personalized schools. The PRNrelies on a careful selectionprocess of both aspiringprincipals and the mentorprincipals with whom they workclosely. Careful attention also is

paid to attract potential leadersof color. The program consists ofindividual work, group work andthe demonstration of one’s workin different ways. Aspiringprincipals document their effortsand create extensive portfolios.Performance is assessed throughportfolios, public exhibitions,mentor narratives and a cycle offeedback. Certification isprovided through arrangementswith a growing number ofcolleges and universities.

Box 2: New Leaders for New Schools

http://www.nlns.org

NLNS is focused on improving education for every child by recruiting anddeveloping talented, individuals who will become successful principals inurban public schools. NLNS wants to create a pathway for principalrecruitment, preparation and ongoing support that will serve as a modelfor school districts, universities and others.

The program operates in three locations (New York, Chicago and the SanFrancisco Bay Area) (sites in Baltimore and Washington, D.C. will beoperational in the fall of 2004) and recruits talented individuals with adiverse but proven set of skills, strengths and successes. Participantsreceive a full fellowship and living stipend. Aspiring principals are trainedin an intensive summer institute developed and taught by leadingpractitioners and academics. This provides an essential foundation andtoolkit of skills needed to lead instructional improvements, manageeffective organizational change and school operations and engageparents and the outside community. Participants use these skills in a full-time yearlong internship guided by an exceptional mentor principal.

The program helps place graduates in urban public schools and providesthem with ongoing support, networking and a community of peers.Working with National Louis University and Baruch College, graduates ofthe program are awarded formal, standard certification in their state.Applicants without a master’s degree are not guaranteed administrativecertification until they take nine credits of pre-determined coursework attheir own expense.

14


include four curriculum blocksand an internship/practicum.The program can be completedin 11 to 18 months, dependingon the participant’s schedule andinitiative. Affiliated withNortheastern University, thisprogram is one of 11 preparationprograms run by non-degreegranting organizations that havebeen approved by theMassachusetts Department ofEducation.

The Massachusetts SecondarySchool Administrators’ Association,the Massachusetts Association forSupervision and CurriculumDevelopment and Teachers 21sponsor an innovative programthat is a rigorous, comprehensivecourse built on the knowledgebase on effective teaching andlearning and the best practices ofeffective instructional andorganizational leadership.Designed with the practicingeducator in mind, the programincludes summer and weekendcoursework, a practicum, aperformance assessment, andbeginning administratorinduction. Highly skillededucational leaders teach thecurriculum modules, whileschool mentors and programsupervisors support participants’work in the practicum. Theprogram begins in June andconcludes the following May.(Box 4 lists all AdministratorLicensure Programs sponsored bynon-degree granting organizationsin Massachusetts as of July2003.)

Both of these highly visible,nationally known, non-traditionalprincipal preparation programshave arrangements with variousuniversities and colleges to certifytheir graduates. Resolving thecertification issue puts them in astrong position to challengeuniversity-based programs onseveral fronts: entrancerequirements; curriculum; andduration, focus and location oftraining.

Professional associations atthe state and national levels, aswell as other establishedorganizations, have taken on newroles: they are new providers ofprincipal preparation programs.For example, the state ofMassachusetts leads the way in

creating a statewide system ofprincipal preparation programsthat includes establishedtraditional programs run bygraduate level institutions ofhigher education and programsrun by non-degree grantingorganizations such asadministrator professionalassociations, educationalcollaboratives and schooldistricts. The nontraditionalprograms are not required topartner with colleges oruniversities. The MassachusettsElementary School PrincipalsAssociation (MESPA), the longeststanding of the nontraditionalprograms, runs the MESPACertification Program.Participants are involved in studyand practice experiences that

Box 3: The Big Picture Company – The Principal ResidencyNetwork (PRN)

http://www.bigpicture.org

Dennis Littky and Elliott Washor worked with Roland Barth, founder of HarvardPrincipals’ Center, and exemplary principals from across the county to designthe PRN to train principals in the schoolhouse. The program is individualizedto meet the needs of aspiring principals and is dedicated to changing theconditions of work by designing and partnering with small, personalizedschools where the rewards of leadership can be realized.

The program carefully selects both aspiring principals and mentor principals,with attention to people of color. The selection process involves the aspiringprincipal and requires an understanding and commitment on the part of amentor principal, superintendent and the district that the applicant is headingfor a principalship.

Consequential school-based projects are at the core of the program andcontribute to the school while fostering the individual’s leadership learning.The six focus areas are: moral courage; moving the vision; instructionalleadership; relationships and communications; management throughflexibility; and efficiency and public support. These areas correspond to theInterstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards and tovarious state competencies. The program is comprised of individual work,group work and the showing of one’s work in different ways. Aspiringprincipals document their efforts and create extensive portfolios.Performance is assessed through portfolios, public exhibitions, mentornarratives and a cycle of feedback.

Initially, Lewis and Clark College granted certification to aspiring principalswho completed the program. Currently, Northeastern University, Johnson &Wales University, Rhode Island College, Providence College and Keene StateCollege also put their college seals on the program.

15


In February 2003, theAmerican Association of SchoolAdministrators (AASA)announced a partnership with asuccessful online-trainingcorporation, Canter & Associates,a division of Sylvan Learning,and with a nationally rankeduniversity, Vanderbilt University,to prepare an online principalpreparation program thatincorporates new standards. Thetwo-year program will organizeparticipants into small cohorts of15-20 participants and take themthrough a curriculum basedlargely on the ISLLC standards.For example, the first course ofthe program deals with effectivelearning for all students andmodules on recent research on

learning, effective teaching andthe barriers to learner-centerteaching. This program is notintended to serve those who aresimply looking for a way toincrease their salaries. JosephMurphy, Professor of Educationat Vanderbilt University, andWillis Hawley, former Dean,College of Education, Universityof Maryland, are leading a teamof prominent administrators andscholars in developing a “worldclass” curriculum. The programwill award graduates a master’sdegree in educationaladministration and the programorganizers hope the degree willbe accepted for licensure throughreciprocity agreements. Thecurriculum will be tested this fall

and hopefully launched in thespring of 2004.

To education leaders andpolicymakers alike, web-basedprincipal preparation programsprobably sound far fetched or alittle like a Harry Potter novel.However, a preliminary searchidentified no fewer than eightonline educationaladministration degree programsdesigned to meet state licensingand content standards and toprepare individuals for theprincipalship. Universitiesproviding programs that relyprimarily on 21st century toolsand resources are a diverse mix ofinstitutions and include:University of Phoenix Online,Walden University, JonesInternational University,University of Cincinnati, CapellaUniversity (the first onlineuniversity to receive stateapproval for K-12 educationaladministrator preparation),Emporia State University, NovaSoutheastern University,University of MassachusettsLowell and Electronic UniversityConsortium (EUC) of SouthDakota.

As stakeholders look closelyat their state’s educationalleadership system, they will noteobvious distinctions betweentraditional programs and thoseoffered by the new providers.The demand for change in all ofadvanced or graduate educationis being driven by the need torespond quickly to new

Box 4: Massachusetts Department of Education (MDE)Administrator Licensure Programs - July 2003

(non-degree granting organizations operating with formal approval and/orinformal approval (one-year agreement) to recommend candidates for licensure)

PrincipalMassachusetts Elementary School Principals’ Association (MESPA):Springfield Public SchoolsMerrimack Education CenterBoston Public Schools, School LeadershipThe Education Collaborative (TEC)EDCO Collaborative

Principal, Supervisor/DirectorLeadership Licensure Program, Massachusetts Secondary SchoolAdministrators’ Association (MSSAA), Teachers 21, and MassachusettsAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development (MASCD)

Principal/Special Education AdministratorSouth Coast Educational Collaborative

School Business AdministratorLower Pioneer Valley Educational Collaborative

OtherMDE-sponsored Administrative Apprenticeship Pilot Program(presented by Framingham Public Schools and the Lower Pioneer Valley

Educational Collaborative)

16


workplace needs. Nontraditionalprograms do not have thetraditions of academic institutionsand are freer to developinnovative courses and curricula.Personnel can be brought onboard irrespective of academicrank or degree. Income can bereturned to program operationinstead of siphoned off for otherinstitutional needs. It remains tobe seen whether universities willembrace needed changes in orderto create new ways of doingbusiness. 24

Patrick Forsyth, the WilliamsProfessor of EducationalLeadership at the University ofOklahoma, observes that, “Ifuniversity leadership programsexpect to prosper in education’shigh-stakes environment, theyhave to convince skeptical schoolsystems that they can producegraduates who can lead schoolsto greater levels of achievement.”25

The University of Oklahoma isone of 11 universities participatingin a Wallace Foundation-fundedinitiative based at SREB andfocused on the redesign of schoolleadership preparation programsby working with diverse partnersincluding faculty, businessleaders, exemplary principals,state education departments andschool districts.

Many of the same strategiesbeing used to improve traditionaluniversity-based principalpreparation programs are alsobeing used to improve principalprofessional developmentprograms. New providers such asThe National Center onEducation and the Economy(NCEE) are working on site withpracticing principals. NCEEworks through its NationalInstitute for School Leadership(NISL) to help school districtsprepare practicing principals tobe outstanding instructionalleaders in high-performance,standards-based schools. Theprogram helps principals meetchallenges such as thinkingstrategically, sharingresponsibility for leading theschool, getting staff and parentson board, implementing fullyaligned standards andinstructional systems andmanaging for results. EveryNISL partner–whether a schoolsystem, a university or aneducation association–selects ateam of local educators (from 4to 12 individuals) to learn theNISL curriculum and then teachit to local principals. The core ofthe leadership curriculum is

taught during summer institutes.The first is a three-week sessiontaught by NISL staff. Leadershipteams work through units onstrategic thinking, standards-based instructional systems, theprincipal as school designer, andother topics. The teams thenreturn home to plan theirtraining of local principals, whichcombines face-to-face instructionwith state-of-the-art interactiveWeb-based learning.

Partnerships between schooldistricts, colleges and universitiesand other entities are helpingensure that practicing principalsare, in fact, instructional leaders.Three programs funded in partby the U.S. Department ofEducation’s School LeadershipProgram illustrate how morefocused and targeted partnershiparrangements are helping tochange the nature of principalprofessional development.

The University of Kentucky isworking collaboratively withMorehead State University and thePike County (KY) Schools todevelop and refine a model forimproved leadership to ensurelearning for at-risk students inrural school districts. Theproject, serving a cohort of 15principals and/or individualscertified for the principalship, isfocused on three themes:

_________________________

24 Haiger, J. D. Defining Graduate Education, 55th Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Association of Graduate Schools. St.Louis, MO, April 1999. www.smsu.edu/mags/1999mags/Haeger.htm.

25 Forsyth, P. (2002, Fall). Uneasy Collaborators Must Learn to Redesign Leadership Preparation Together. Universities in theLead: Redesigning Leadership Preparation for Student Achievement. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.

PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

17


visionary practices, collaborationand school-based action research.Key objectives includeestablishing professionalnetworks and career pipelines forthe identification, preparationand ongoing development ofschool leaders; assuring ongoinglearning for aspiring andpracticing school leaders; offeringsituated learning and job-embedded development throughmentoring by practicingprincipals; and assessing andexposing practicing principals’needs and challenges in assuringimproved learning. The three-year program has the potential toprovide a model for preparing,developing and re-culturingschool leadership to assurelearning for at-risk students inrural school districts.

The Austin (TX) IndependentSchool District is working withthe University of Texas, Austin andthe Texas Education Agency’sRegion XIII Service Center toassess all district assistantprincipals and principals on theISLLC standards. If a schoolleader shows a need forimprovement on one or morestandards, he/she receivesintensive professionaldevelopment assistance. Otherassistance provided includes afocus on developing schoolleaders who can speak Spanishand understand the Hispanicculture, and intensive mentoringfor first-year principals and/or forthose new to the state of Texas.

The Leadership for LearningProject is a partnership betweenthree urban New Jersey SchoolDistricts (Newark, Paterson andTrenton) and the Center forEvidence-Based Education, NewAmerican Schools. The goal is tobuild the capacity of bothexisting principals and viceprincipals to lead their colleaguesin their work toward improvedstudent performance. Theprogram addresses participants’learning needs through acombination of targetedworkshops, onsite leadershipreviews, job-embedded practiceassignments, mentoring and adedicated Web-based program ofparticipative inquiry.

Gathering a state’s programsand resources under oneumbrella is a strategy some statesare using to strengthen principalprofessional development. In2002, the state of Georgiacreated the Georgia LeadershipInstitute for School Improvement, abroad-based partnership devotedto the success of Georgia’seducational leaders in meetingelevated expectations for studentachievement and schoolperformance. The partnership iscomprised of the Board ofRegents of the University Systemof Georgia, business leaders, theGeorgia Partnership forExcellence in Education, theGeorgia Professional StandardsCommission, state governmentofficials and K–12 educators.

The Institute’s funding base isbroad and includes the Wallaceand the Bill and Melinda GatesFoundations, state governmentand business partners.

The Institute provideseducation and development foreducational leaders and isworking to research, define andinstitutionalize a “charter”leadership preparation programfor aspiring principals that is jobembedded and that operatesoutside existing higher educationstructures as an impetus tochanging leadership preparationprograms. The laboratories forthis work are in the AtlantaPublic Schools and at GeorgiaState University. Theinstructional design will ensurethat leaders both “get it” and can“do it.” The Institute has putGeorgia on the road to creating astatewide system through whichschool leaders can be developedand supported.

The Arkansas LeadershipAcademy, established in 1991, is anationally recognized statewidepartnership of 44 organizations:universities; professionalassociations; educationalcooperatives; state agencies;corporations and foundations.It is an innovative academypreparing educational leaderswho can develop highperforming learningcommunities throughout

18


Arkansas. Using research andbest practices, the Academydesigns creative and innovativeapproaches to establish learningcommunities in public schools bydeveloping human resources andby modeling and advocatingcollaboration, support, shareddecision making, team learning,risk taking, and problem solving.Partners commit to changingtheir organizations to supportsystem improvement. TheAcademy’s Principal Institute,offered through four residentialsessions over a one-yeartimeframe, is focused onincreasing the capacity ofprincipals to build professionallearning communities inArkansas schools.

Traditionally, other countriesrely less on institutions of highereducation for the preparation ofleaders. In England, for example,the National College for SchoolLeadership (see Box 5) wascreated as a new partner on thenation’s education stage. TheCollege, funded by theDepartment of Education andEmployment, is designed toprovide a single national focus

for school leadershipdevelopment and research, to bea driving force for world classleadership in the schools and toprovide and promote excellence.Today, the College has three coreareas of activity: national leadershipdevelopment programs; researchand development; and onlinelearning, networks and

information. The College’s mainresponsibility is to develop andoversee a coherent nationaltraining and developmentframework. This get-it-together,one-stop stopping center forschool leaders is an idea fromwhich the United States mighttake a few cues.

Box 5: National College for School LeadershipDepartment of Education and Employment, England

Serving School Leaders – From Start to Finishhttp://www.ncsl.org.uk/

At about the same time the United States developed the ISLLCstandards (1997), England announced plans to create a NationalCollege for School Leadership (NCSL), an entity responsible fordeveloping school leaders (headteachers aka principals) andsupporting them throughout their careers. The College has threecore areas of activity: national and partnership leadershipdevelopment programs (National Professional Qualification forHeadship – NPQH, Headteacher Induction Program – HIP,Leadership Program for Serving Headteachers - LPSH); research anddevelopment; and online learning, networks and information.

The NPQH is the qualification for aspiring Headteachers (principals)and is the benchmark for entry into the profession. The programprepares candidates for the challenging but rewarding role ofheadship. It offers stimulating, professional training that is focusedon candidates’ development needs and underpinned by theNational Standards for Headteachers.

The HIP program is available to newly appointed headteachers intheir first substantive headship. It provides a grant for training anddevelopment that can be used over a 3-year period. Key elementsof the program include needs assessment, coaching, mentoring,and visioning. Individuals also can choose to take modules focusedon issues such as raising pupils’ achievement, leading schoolsfacing challenging circumstances, inclusion and working with thegoverning body.

Experienced and practicing headteachers are served through theLPSH, a program that provides them with a chance to focus on howtheir leadership influences standards in schools. Anotherleadership development program, The Ithaka Leadership Program,enables headteachers to understand and make more effective useof their skills. This program is available only to heads with at leastseven years of experience.

19


The bad news is that aradically new generation ofschool leadership is needed andthe preparation programs oftoday are not yet up to the taskof equipping these leaders for thechallenges of the 21st century.However, the good news is thatwe know much of what we needto know in order to address thesituation with optimism.

New conceptualizations ofthe school administrator as the“leader of student learning” haveopened the doors to changes inpractice and preparation. Yearsof critique and experimentationhave produced blueprints forchange in preparation programs.There are good models ofeffective programs operatingacross the country that can serveas guides to others committed tochange. And, many states havecome to appreciate the criticalrole they can and must play inproviding policy leverage as wellas implementation frameworks insupport of reform.

To recruit and prepare theprincipals a state wants andneeds, policy and programleaders must know how theirstate answers the four corequestions raised in this Report:How do state policies shape the

newly minted administrators arepoorly prepared to fill that role.

To amend this troubling stateof affairs, policy and institutionalleaders must demand thatcolleges and universities beinnovative in their principalpreparation programs. They mustwelcome and support newproviders and they must regulatetheir entrance into themarketplace in ways thatencourage a maximum of healthyinnovation and competitivenesswhile concurrently encouragingnovel collaborations thatcombine the best of what thedifferent organizations have tooffer. Policy and institutionalleaders also must encourage allparts of the educationalleadership development systemto work together to make thesystem more coherent and, moreimportant, to ensure that thesystem produces exemplaryinstructional leaders.

First and foremost, however,policy and institutional leadersmust remember that the businessof schools is teaching andlearning, that all educationpolicies must support studentachievement27 and that allpreparation programs mustdevelop school leaders who canprovide instructional leadership.

talent pool? What is the currentcondition of leadershippreparation? Why is changeneeded? What are the optionsfor action? Armed with theanswers, states can continue towork to create educationalleadership development systemsthat will ensure success.

While there are no simplesolutions to the challenges facingstates as they attempt to createbetter systems to support schoolleadership, policy andinstitutional leaders are pursuingnew pathways to resolve theproblems they and theirconstituents and customersidentify. Equally important, theyare strengthening existingpractices and innovations thatshow promise of future success.

We know that littleconsequential or enduringchange occurs in the absence of awell-crafted and well-disseminated bipartisan vision ofeducation — one that anchors,supports and guides reforms. Ifour nation’s efforts to implementthe No Child Left Behind Acthave taught us anything, it is thatthe principal’s role indetermining school quality andstudent achievement is decisiveand that most incumbent and

_________________________

26 National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2002, May). Recognizing and Encouraging Exemplary Leadership inAmerica’s Schools: A Proposal to Establish a System of Advanced Certification for Administrators. Arlington, VA: Author. p. 1.27 Broad, E. (2003, April). School Boards: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution. Paraphrase of comment at the 3rd AnnualJacqueline P. Danzberger Memorial Lecture, Institute for Educational Leadership and the National School Boards Association,

A NEW GENERATION OF SCHOOL LEADERS

“When . . . expectations meet a system where the incentives for change are few and far between,the times demand bold solutions infused with large doses of imagination, creativity and inventiveness.” 26

20


ABOUT THE INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Since 1964, IEL has been at the heart of an impartial, dynamic, nationwide network ofpeople and organizations from many walks of life who share a passionate conviction thatexcellent education is critical to nurturing healthy individuals, families, and communities.

IEL's mission is to help build the capacity of people and organizations in education and related fields towork together across policies, programs, and sectors to achieve better futures for all children and youth. Tothat end, IEL works to: build the capacity to lead; share promising practices; translate our own and others'research into suggestions for improvement; and share results in print and in person.

IEL believes that all children and youth have a birthright: the opportunity and the support to grow,learn, and become contributing members of our democratic society. Through our work, we enablestakeholders to learn from one another and to collaborate closely—across boundaries of race and culture,discipline, economic interest, political stance, unit of government, or any other area of difference—toachieve better results for every youngster from pre-K through high school and on into postsecondaryeducation. IEL sparks, then helps to build and nurture, networks that pursue dialogue and take action oneducational problems. We provide services in three program areas: Developing and Supporting Leaders;Strengthening School-Family-Community Connections; and Connecting and Improving Policies andSystems that Serve Children and Youth.

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 310, Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone: 202-822-8405 • Fax: 202-872-4050

E-mail: [email protected] • Web site: http://www.iel.org

IERC

IERC

ABOUT THE ILLINOIS EDUCATION RESEARCH COUNCIL

The Illinois Education Research Council (IERC) was established in 2000 to provide Illinoiswith objective and reliable evidence for P-16 education policy making and programdevelopment. It is housed at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. With the guidance ofits Advisory Board, the Council initiates research and policy analyses that address issues ofcritical importance to Illinois as it strives to build a seamless education enterprise. The Illinois Education Research Council publishes research reports and issues analyses

that are written by IERC staff or commissioned by the IERC. It also hosts an annual Focuson Illinois Education Research Symposium.

This document was commissioned as part of IERC’s Issues in Education series (IERC-2003-I-3). Itprovides a national perspective on school leadership issues and principal preparation programs. We hope thatIllinois policy makers and practitioners will find the information useful as they continue their own work toinfluence the quality of school leadership.

Box 1064, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Illinois 62026Telephone: 618 650 2840 • Fax: 618 650 2425

E-mail: ierc @siue.edu • Web site: http://ierc.siue.edu

22

Institute for Educational Leadership1001 Connectivut Avenue, NW, Suite 310, Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone: 202-822-8405 $ Fax: 202-872-4050Email: [email protected] $ Web site: http://www.iel.org

Illinois Education Research CouncilSIUE Box 1064, 0107 Alumni Hall, Edwardsville, IL 62026-1064Telephone: 618-650-2840 $ Fax: 618-650-2425Email: [email protected] $ Website: http://ierc.siue.edu

IERC

IERC

Preparing Principals

Documents

Transcript of Preparing Principals