Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Policies to Strengthen School Leadership

Thu, April 21, 9:45 to 11:15am PDT (9:45 to 11:15am PDT), San Diego Convention Center, Floor: Upper Level, Room 11A

Abstract

This paper will share findings from a study examining the evidence regarding the influence of state policy on principal preparation and in-service professional development. The paper describes how policies related to principal professional learning have evolved over time, the current status of accreditation and licensure policies at the state level, and the uses of federal funds to build principals’ leadership capacity.

Research has shown that state policies are central to the design and funding of principal development program models and principals’ satisfaction with their preparation, which in turn influence their entry to the principalship and their levels of stress and continuation in the job (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Federal policies under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the Higher Education Act also influence funding for programs and program designs (e.g., residencies that are emphasized in ESSA).

To understand the role of federal and state policies in shaping principal learning, we examined over 160 articles, books, chapters, and policy reports and tracked significant policy changes over time. This review illuminates the relationship between policies and the design, implementation, and outcomes of principal learning.

Several themes emerged from our examination. First, standards for high-quality leadership practice have increasingly been integrated into local, state, and federal policies. A number of studies emphasize standards’ power to drive change, especially when they are used coherently throughout the principal development system and translated into tools such as performance assessments.

Second, while most states have integrated new standards into licensing and accreditation and program approval policies, few states have adopted the most high-leverage policies like targeted recruitment of candidates, district participation in selection and program design, internships that engage candidates in core leadership responsibilities with an expert mentor for an extended period of time, or performance-based assessments.

Third, a number of studies emphasize the importance of comprehensive, systemic change in which such high-leverage practices are adopted and linked to standards that influence recruitment, preparation, induction, and ongoing professional learning. In states that have insisted on changes in preparation or induction practices that infuse standards with strong field-based training and applied learning experiences (California, Illinois, and North Carolina), principals’ perceptions of their preparedness, and their likelihood of entering and staying in administrative jobs have been found to increase. In the case of Pennsylvania’s statewide induction program that combined a long-term project-based approach with learning how to set a vision, support instruction, and use data for school improvement, gains in student achievement were found.

Finally, while there has been some progress since 2000 in principals’ access to important learning opportunities, there is still a long way to go. Fewer than 60% of principals nationally reported that they received pre-service preparation for their jobs and just over 50% said they received mentoring or coaching – one of the most important aspects of learning that improves principals’ effectiveness.

This paper will show how state policies matter for principal learning, in general, and will highlight the policy context and changes in California, in particular.

Author