Beyond Preparation: State Approaches to Early Career Principal Induction

• In Event: Starting With Support: Promising Practices and Pitfalls in Leadership Induction

Abstract

On-the-job professional development and support for new principals has a number of benefits including improved retention and efficacy (e.g., Silver et al., 2009; Steinberg & Yang, 2022; Tingle et al., 2019). Yet, while states have increasingly adopted statewide standards and accountability systems targeting principal effectiveness, the burden for developing principals has historically been left to school districts. Recently, there has been interest in increasing the involvement of state educational agencies (SEAs) in supporting principals (Manna, 2021; Rowland, 2017). In this policy analysis, we map the current landscape of state support for early career principals (ECPs) in all 51 U.S. SEAs.

Our analysis conceptualizes induction programs as a means for (a) human capital development and (b) organizational socialization. Human capital refers the practical knowledge and skills (e.g., instructional leadership, human resource management) leaders require to carry out their domains of work (Herrmann et al., 2019; Steinberg & Yang, 2022). Organizational socialization is “the process through which an individual acquires necessary knowledge, skills, and values to perform a social role in an organization” (Bengtson et al., 2013, p. 144). Socialization includes learning to navigate challenges, forge connections with peers, and attain “insider” status within the field.

Data and Method
We performed a content analysis (Krippendorf, 2004) of state policies, rules, and guidance relating to principal induction from all 51 U.S. SEAs. Data sources consisted of publicly-available documents (e.g., state law, webpages) as well as clarifying information from SEA officials. We first devised a list of key concepts before visiting each SEA’s website and using search terms (e.g., “principal induction”; “principal mentoring”) to collect relevant webpages and documents. We also gathered each state’s ESSA plan, which contained information about how states develop their educator workforce, and contacted each SEA to ask for any additional relevant information. We used an iterative process to code all documents before organizing coded data into major themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Findings and Significance
Across SEAs, 23 (45%) required any kind of ECP induction experience while the other 28 did not. Table 1 presents state-specific results. Ten states linked principal induction to licensure requirements. Only 7 SEAs served as induction providers/sponsors. In 44 (86%) of states, districts were the main designers and providers of ECP induction, with districts serving as the sole induction provider in 27 states. Twelve states also permitted external providers to provide induction.

Findings show that, despite the increasing adoption of statewide standards and evaluation policies for principals, ongoing induction and support remains largely a district responsibility. From a socialization perspective, district involvement may support organization-specific socialization (how we do things here) but not field-specific socialization or skills acquisition (how principals do things). This disconnect between mandates and support may create challenges for districts with limited resources and expertise (Williams & Welsh, 2018). To ensure alignment between state goals, district resources, and evolving principal/school needs, we recommend that SEAs consider expanding their support for principal induction.

Authors

• Laura K. Rogers, University of Utah
  Presenting Author

• Bryan A. VanGronigen, University of Delaware
  Non-Presenting Author