Programming and Policies Advancing Leadership Induction in California: Perspectives of Program Directors, Coaches, and Leaders

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

Abstract

Objectives and Perspectives
Building on the survey analysis described above, this presentation features case studies of leadership induction programs in California. Since the introduction of the new induction requirements in 2014, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) has approved more than 50 institutions to provide induction. Although these programs do not confer degrees, they must be approved through an accreditation process similar to the one used for preliminary administrator preparation (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2018). Almost all induction programs charge tuition for participating leaders, and leaders must participate if they wish to receive a clear administrator credential. Given that these induction programs are now a required part of the early career experience for school leaders, this study explores similarities and differences in the features, funding mechanisms, and practitioner experiences with induction programs throughout the state.

Data and Methods
Data collection for this study occurred in spring/summer 2022. Researchers selected induction programs based on institution-level results from statewide survey data. In addition to high ratings on certain survey measure, sites were selected based on geographic diversity and provider type (i.e., public vs. private IHEs, statewide professional organization, LEAs). Researchers conducted over 25 interviews and focus groups with program administrators, induction coaches, and program participant/graduates. To analyze the data, researchers engaged in an iterative process to create deductive codes derived from prior research and programmatic documents as well as inductive codes developed in early analysis. With these codes, researchers coded the transcribed data and triangulated findings across multiple data sources. This research process resulted in six case studies and a cross-case analysis.

Findings and Significance
The six programs studied in this analysis differed considerably in their programmatic and funding structures. Notably, four of the programs hired and trained their own coaches (former school and district leaders) who were then assigned to work with program participants. The other two programs required that leaders enrolled in induction find their own coach and only offered limited support to those coaches. Programs also varied in their offerings of professional development outside of coaching. Additionally, participants’ share of funding for programs differed; some participants pay for their program themselves, some split the cost with their school or LEA, and some receive full funding support from their school or LEA.

Interviews with program participants provided insight into the timing of induction in their careers, how they chose their programs, and what they valued most. Induction program participants are assistant principals, early career principals, or district administrators. Participants choose programs based on prior relationship with the institution, program cost, accessibility, recommendations and guidance from colleagues, and district support. Lastly, participants identified the opportunity to build a professional network through their induction program as particularly valuable. Many also spoke of the desire for ongoing coaching support.

This study adds to existing research on preparation for effective school leadership and provides guidance for how induction leaders and policymakers can strengthen and support programs in California and throughout the country.

Authors

• Stephanie Levin, Learning Policy Institute
  Presenting Author

• Susan Kemper Patrick, Learning Policy Institute
  Non-Presenting Author

• Charlotte Thompson, Learning Policy Institute
  Non-Presenting Author

• Marjorie Wechsler, Learning Policy Institute
  Non-Presenting Author