The Changing Role of the Principal

Published on December 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 46 | Comments: 0 | Views: 562
of 37
Download PDF   Embed   Report

A series of case studies sheds light on the changing landscape of school leadership and principal professional development.

Comments

Content


The Changing Role of the Principal
How High-Achieving Districts Are Recalibrating School Leadership
By Lee Alvoid and Watt Lesley Black Jr. July 2014
WWW. AMERI CANPROGRESS. ORG

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
P
R
E
S
S
/
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
D
R
E
W
The Changing Role
of the Principal
How High-Achieving Districts Are Recalibrating
School Leadership
By Lee Alvoid and Watt Lesley Black Jr. July 2014
1 Introduction and summary
5 Implications of teacher evaluation on the principalship
8 Recommendations for principal professional development at
the district level
28 Conclusion
29 Appendix A: Interviews with district experts
30 About the authors
31 Acknowledgements
32 Endnotes
Contents
1 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Introduction and summary
Te principal has historically been portrayed in television and flm as decid-
edly unheroic. From the hated Mr. Woodman on the 1970s television sitcom
“Welcome Back, Koter” to the mean-spirited and incompetent Ed Rooney in
the flm “Ferris Bueller’s Day Of,” the principal has been cast as inept at best and
villainous at worst. While the creators of such characters certainly relied heavily
upon comedic license in crafing such caricatures, there was nonetheless a kernel
of truth in the stereotype upon which these depictions were based. In the public
mind, principals were ofen thought of as mere school-building managers, indi-
viduals who were more interested in wielding power and enforcing compliance
than in the lofier concerns of teaching and learning.
Today, however, those stale notions could not be further from the truth. Te job
of a modern-day principal has transformed into something that would be almost
unrecognizable to the principals of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Te concept of
the principal as a building manager has given way to a model where the principal
is an aspirational leader, a team builder, a coach, and an agent of visionary change.
New teacher- and principal-appraisal systems are contributing to the principal’s
changing landscape. Tese changes have rightly put student performance at the
forefront, and principals are being asked to develop new competencies largely
centered around data, curriculum, pedagogy, and human capital development
in order to meet the new expectations. But make no mistake, the increasing
emphasis on instructional leadership does not mean that the more traditional
managerial concerns of school administration have disappeared. Indeed, prin-
cipals are still expected to be efective building managers, disciplinarians, and
public relations experts.
2 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Tese changing expectations, coupled with insufcient training and support,
have led many principals to the conclusion that the job is no longer sustain-
able. Atrition due to resignations and early retirements, along with a shortage
of qualifed candidates for open principal positions, is leading toward a crisis of
leadership in American education.
1
Principals do not feel sufciently prepared by
their preservice training to successfully meet the demands of school leadership.
Furthermore, once on the job, they do not feel adequately supported in their roles
by their school districts, as districts’ expectations of principals have traditionally
been limited to simply being compliant, enforcing compliance from others, and
managing confict. In a 2011 survey of American educators, almost 70 percent
of principals reported that their job responsibilities are much diferent than they
were just fve years before, and 75 percent of those reported that their jobs are too
complex and have led to higher levels of stress and less job satisfaction.
2

As new principal recruits assume positions of leadership, the difculty of the job
has ofen proved overwhelming. A 2012 study of frst-year principals by New
Leaders, a national nonproft that develops school leaders, found that 20 percent
of newly minted principals lef their positions within two years. Principals placed
at the lowest-performing schools were most likely to leave. Moreover, schools that
lost principals were more likely to perform poorly the subsequent year.
3
Tese
fndings indicate that a lack of continuity in leadership bodes poorly for schools
and underscore the importance of districts having well-designed plans for recruit-
ment, training, and ongoing support of their principals.
Tis report examines the changing landscape of school leadership, most nota-
bly as a result of increased expectations around instructional improvement and
teacher development. Although teacher evaluation reform is not its primary
focus, the report discusses the components of certain appraisal systems and the
demands they place on school leaders in terms of expertise and time—demands
that have prompted some school districts to consider more proactive ways to
support principals and successful implementation of teacher evaluation reform
at the building level.
Troughout the report, a series of case studies are referenced to shine a light on
innovative ways in which districts are training and supporting school leaders so
that they are able to meet the ever-increasing demands placed upon them, such as
a strategic focus on coaching and instructional feedback, customized professional
development, streamlining of the principal’s job duties, and partnerships with
universities and nonprofts to train the next generation of principals.
3 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Furthermore, the case studies—which look at Gwinnet County Public Schools in
Gwinnet County, Georgia; Denver Public Schools in Denver, Colorado; District
of Columbia Public Schools in Washington, D.C.; Charlote-Mecklenburg Schools
in Charlote, North Carolina; Uplif Education in Dallas, Texas; and Northeast
Leadership Academy at North Carolina State University—were also used to
inform the following eight principal professional-development recommendations
for districts:
1. Redesign school organizational charts and job descriptions.
2. Develop instructional-leadership capacity around the principal.
3. Focus principal training on coaching teachers.
4. Build the capacity of central-ofce administrators to support principals.
5. Provide regular opportunities for principals to gather around self-selected prob-
lems of practice.
6. Develop partnerships with universities and nonprofts to recruit and train
future principals.
7. Develop and train principals on district-wide teaching and leadership
frameworks.
8. Provide technological supports that allow administrators to record and share
instructional data.
Overhauling teacher evaluation substantially afects the job of the principal. Our
initial fndings indicate that the new models of teacher evaluation will not only
dramatically change the amount of time principals spend observing and con-
ferencing with teachers but will also alter the nature of their interactions with
teachers. Principals must be able to manage the new demands; training in time-
management strategies and structures that encourage strategic prioritization and
delegation of administrative tasks will be of the utmost importance. Furthermore,
these new systems require principals to function not only as evaluators but also as
instructional coaches. Principals must have the requisite skills to function in the
coaching role if reformed evaluation systems are to be successfully implemented.
4 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
While teacher evaluation reform is a national policy initiative that has been greatly
accelerated by the Race to the Top initiative, success will be determined at the
local level and will depend, at least in part, on whether principals are ready, will-
ing, and able to implement more robust systems of evaluation. It is incumbent
upon local districts to prioritize the development of their current and future prin-
cipals by providing relevant professional development and appropriate support
systems to ensure that the work is sustainable. Failure to do so will make it less
likely that teacher evaluation reform will efect the desired change—instructional
improvement at scale. Tis report explores how the principalship is changing
and ofers recommendations regarding how school districts can most efectively
ensure that principals are able to meet the ever-increasing demands of their jobs.
Te accompanying case studies highlight districts and organizations that have suc-
cessfully prioritized principal development.
5 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Implications of teacher evaluation
on the principalship
Recent education reform initiatives such as Race to the Top and waivers out of
the requirements under the No Child Lef Behind Act have prompted states and
districts to create and/or revamp teacher-evaluation systems throughout the
United States. A unifying feature of the newer teacher-evaluation systems is their
complexity. Twenty-eight states have redesigned their teacher-appraisal systems to
require multiple measures, 45 states require classroom evaluation, and 25 of those
require multiple observations.
4
Other measures that have been used in redesigned
teacher-evaluation plans are student and parent surveys, peer observations, self-
evaluation, classroom- and school-level achievement data, and even evidence of
professional-growth activities, such as certifcates of completion or writen sum-
maries.
5
Tere are many moving parts by necessity, and the more complex the plan
the more difcult the implementation challenges—especially for principals who,
in many cases, are the sole implementers of these systems.
While policy advocates have devoted much time and atention to the question of
why teacher evaluation reform is necessary, there has been very litle focus on the
question of how such changes can be implemented successfully. Consider the state
of Florida, which in 2010 overhauled its teacher-evaluation system to include con-
sideration of student test scores. Afer the system had been in place for more than
a year, it was revealed that even under the new system, 97 percent of all teachers
were still at or above the efective measure.

Reforms in Tennessee have produced
similarly discouraging results.
6
Florida undertook an efort to train administrators on the new evaluation sys-
tem, including an online certifcation test to measure inter-rater reliability.
Administrators passed the test at a rate of 97 percent.
7
A state-commissioned
study found that Florida’s administrators were successfully able to identify the
highest performers on their teaching stafs, but they “systematically failed to
identify the lowest-performing teachers, leaving these teachers without access
to meaningful professional development and their parents and students without
reasonable expectation of improved instruction in the future.”
8
6 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
In 2012, Chicago Public Schools introduced a new teacher-evaluation system
that incorporated multiple measures, including student growth.
9
Te system was
referred to as Recognizing Educators Advancing Chicago Students, or REACH
Students. Te launch was preceded by a teacher strike, the frst in Chicago in
more than a quarter century, and the details of the appraisal plan were a well-doc-
umented point of disagreement.
10
In September 2013, the University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Research published a study of the frst year of
implementation that in some ways was encouraging but also highlighted certain
challenges for which other school systems would be wise to plan.
Te study included randomly selected interviews with a number of classroom
teachers and principals, as well as two separate surveys of district teachers—one
in the fall and another in the spring.
11
An encouraging fnding was that teach-
ers overwhelmingly felt that the new system promoted professional growth and
improved the level of professional communication between them and administra-
tors.
12
Furthermore, teachers indicated that they had a high level of confdence in
their principals’ competence in terms of fairly observing and evaluating instruc-
tional practice.
13
However, administrators expressed a strong desire for beter and
more frequent training on how to coach and give feedback and how to help teach-
ers gain more clarity around score calculations. Accordingly, one of the questions
raised by the authors for further consideration was how to “ensure appropriate and
ongoing training across all participants in the evaluation program.”
14
Building principals in Chicago also expressed concerns about the demands
of the new system on their time and capacity. Considering the time spent on
preconferences, postconferences, and data management, in addition to the actual
observation, each formal observation cycle required an average of six hours of
administrative time.
15
Once extrapolated, this meant that elementary school prin-
cipals were spending an average of 120 hours on observations specifcally related
to teacher evaluation; high school principals were spending an average of 180
hours on these observations.
16
Te resulting strain on administrators forced them
frequently to choose between implementing their REACH Students responsibili-
ties and performing other important job duties, such as interacting with students
or parents and focusing on improving school climate.
17
Te Wallace Foundation, a national philanthropic organization based in New
York City, has been focusing on this issue since the early 2000s. Te foundation
launched a pilot program in Louisville, Kentucky, in 2002 known as the School
Administration Manager, or SAM, which efectively restructured the principal’s job
7 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
responsibilities by creating an administration manager to whom the principal could
delegate noninstructional tasks. Although the model envisioned the SAM as an
additional position to be created, in practice, an existing employee is typically desig-
nated as the SAM—such as an assistant principal or member of the clerical staf.
18
As part of the SAM process, the principal carefully tracks his or her time use and
is able to make adjustments to more efciently support instruction based on daily
meetings with the SAM. Te SAM program has spread, and it is now used in 82
school districts across 18 diferent states. Indeed, more than 600 individual school
buildings are currently using the SAM model.
19
Te Wallace Foundation claims
that an independent analysis done in 2011 shows that principals who utilized the
SAM model for two years increased the percentage of time they were able to focus
on instruction to the point that they were spending a majority of their time on it.
Before these principals had a SAM, however, they typically spent approximately
only one-third of their time on instructional work. Te increase is the equivalent
of an additional 90 minutes per day devoted to instruction.
20
What the research has yet to show is whether this increased time spent on instruc-
tion will result in improved student outcomes. In fact, some research suggests
otherwise. A 2012 study found that principal time allocation had litle predictive
value in terms of the building success or the principal’s longevity. High levels of
teacher capacity and cohesiveness were most positively associated with school
and principal success.
21
Another recent study indicated that principals who spend
more time on organizational management tasks are more likely to lead schools to
improvement.
22
A subsequent study suggested that the majority of time principals
devote to instruction is in the form of informal walk-throughs, which are nega-
tively correlated with positive student outcomes. On the other hand, principals
rarely engage in coaching, an instructional activity that the researchers discovered
has a signifcant positive impact on student outcomes.
23
Tese fndings make it clear that it’s not just how much time the principal devotes
to instruction but also the quality and type of instructional involvement that
makes a diference. Furthermore, a district cannot discount the importance of the
sof skills of leadership—such as relationship building and praise—that enable
principals to establish trust and nurture a cohesive, positive, and professional
esprit de corps among the faculty. In order to improve instruction at scale, the
principal must be able to coach, communicate, and motivate teachers to change
and improve their practices.
8 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Recommendations for principal
professional development at the
district level
With the changing landscape of education and the pressure it’s puting on the
principalship, districts must make it a priority to invest the requisite time, money,
and efort into developing the capacity of current and future leadership ranks. In
order to provide insight into how districts might best support the development of
principals’ instructional-leadership capacity, the authors compiled a series of case
studies that profle the work being done in six diferent educational organizations
around the country. Te profles include a mix of traditional urban public school
districts, an urban charter school organization, and a unique partnership between
a state university and surrounding rural school districts. Te case studies revealed
common approaches to leadership development at the school level, and those
fndings were considered when determining the following recommendations. Full
profles of the educational organizations can be found on the Center for American
Progress website.
1. Redesign school organizational charts and job descriptions
Finding the time to spend on instruction is the principal’s greatest challenge.
However, principals have countless noninstructional responsibilities as well, such
as infuencing the building climate for both students and adults, overseeing a fair
and equitable system of student management, and handling confict within and
between their constituencies. Furthermore, principals are now more acutely aware
of issues involving school safety, emergency planning, and crisis management than
ever before—an area of concern that rivals academics in urgency. Te breadth of
the job has lef many principals feeling like the work is unmanageable, and this
perception is causing atrition within the ranks of school leadership and discour-
aging capable teachers from aspiring to become leaders.
24
9 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Teacher evaluation reforms have exacerbated the strain on principal capacity. Tis
has been demonstrated in practice by the experiences of administrators in Chicago,
who felt forced to choose between their traditional responsibilities and those related
to the new teacher-appraisal program. Te School Administration Manager pilot
program—which has been successful in Gwinnet County, Georgia—is a good
example of how, once freed of managerial responsibilities, principals are much more
able to spend their time on what maters most: instruction.
Gwinnett County Public Schools, or GCPS, has taken the bold step of closely ex-
amining and modifying the responsibilities of the principal to make the job more
manageable in consideration of all the additional instructional-leadership responsi-
bilities that come with reform. It is one of the districts nationally that participates in
The Wallace Foundation’s SAM pilot program. The district’s leadership-development
department manages the program, which is optional for school principals. Through
the SAM program, the district has been able to train other personnel to assume
some of the management tasks that distract principals from classroom observation
and teacher support.
In GCPS, a few schools have repurposed existing positions to manage time-con-
suming tasks after retraining on specialized tools and technology. In an effort to
underscore the centrality of instructional leadership in the role of the principal, the
job descriptions of both principals and assistant principals have been rewritten to fo-
cus on human capital development, instructional support, and curriculum alignment
based on achievement data. Current practice in GCPS suggests that districts leave
autonomy to principals in key areas such as the collection and analysis of relevant
data, budget, staffing, scheduling, and the selection of instructional techniques. The
newly developed implementation guide for GCPS’ systemic approach to school lead-
ership also suggests that districts manage maintenance requests, policies on student
discipline, and most compliance issues, including those in human resources.
Sources: Glenn Pethel, phone interview with authors, January 9, 2014; GCPS implementation guide received via personal com-
munication from Glenn Pethel, executive director, Department of Leadership Development, Gwinnett County Public Schools,
January 9, 2014. (see Appendix A)
Gwinnett County Public Schools
10 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
In making the instructional mission central to the principal’s job, districts should
not discount the importance of sound management at the building level, par-
ticularly in a day and age of heightened security concerns. Uplif Education in
Dallas, Texas, is onto a promising approach: creating what it terms a “peer-level”
operations manager at the building level. (see text box below) However, under
its structure, the responsibilities of dealing with student discipline and parental
complaints remain under the auspices of the school directors and deans.
Uplift Education is a highly successful and rapidly growing network of charter
schools that operates in the urban areas of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex in
North Texas. At the recommendation of Bain & Company, a management-consult-
ing firm working on a pro-bono basis, Uplift Education added at each school an
operations director who is responsible for all the noninstructional aspects of the
operation, such as budgeting, building maintenance, student health services, and
student nutrition. The building operations director would report to a regional op-
erations director. In contrast to the SAM model, where management duties might
be delegated to an assistant principal or even to an administrative assistant, the
building operations director would be a position of high authority and responsibil-
ity—a position that Uplift Education CEO Yasmin Bhatia referred to as a “peer-level”
position to the building director. Unfortunately, finding qualified building opera-
tions directors has proven to be more difficult than expected, as Bhatia reports that
candidates rarely have both the necessary management expertise and enough
experience in an educational setting to fully understand how operational decisions
affect the instructional program and culture of the school. With a highly functioning
building operations director in place, however, the director and deans are relieved
of myriad managerial responsibilities and duties and are better able to focus their
attention on instruction and culture.
Source: Yasmin Bhatia, phone interview with authors, November 26, 2013. (see Appendix A)
Uplift Education
As an alternative, districts might consider an administrative model where an
executive principal not only handles traditional maintenance and operations
issues but also handles student management, parental complaints, supervision
of student services, budgeting, and compliance issues. Freed from these time-
consuming administrative issues, a principal of academic programs would focus
only on maters of curriculum and instruction, with authority over hiring, fring,
11 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
developing, and evaluating all professional staf, as well as authority over master
scheduling, teacher assignment, and course development. Te executive principal
should be required to hold the same or similar credentials and qualifcations as
the principal of academic programs, since he or she would be involved in handling
myriad student-related issues that would demand high levels of personal efective-
ness, preparation, and a big-picture understanding of how to build and maintain
a positive school culture. Ideally, a team of assistant principals would support
the executive principal, and instructional deans would support the principal of
academic programs.
Te two principals might share the public relations aspect of the job, atending
public functions and communicating the vision and mission of the school to
parents and the community at large. Tis means they would both be fully involved
in the process of strategic goal seting and would both need to understand fully
and be able to communicate the vision to others. But during the school day, the
principal of academic programs and his or her team would be exclusively focused
on the work of instructional improvement, while the executive principal’s span of
control would more broadly encompass the managerial aspects of running a safe,
orderly, and focused school that is responsive to its community.
Although we are advocating for a reduction in the principal’s span of control,
we are also recommending that districts carefully consider which key autono-
mies they will reserve for the building principal and which ones will be retained
in the central ofce. Granting instructional leaders unwanted or unneeded
autonomies might overburden their capacity, but principals need enough
autonomy in key areas to be able to respond appropriately to the unique needs
of a building. For example, Uplif Education allows principals to have autonomy
over hiring, student management, and instruction, within certain parameters.
GCPS specifcally grants autonomy to principals in areas of data collection and
analysis, budgeting, stafng, and instruction, while centrally handling opera-
tional concerns such as maintenance requests and human resources. Tis type
of bounded autonomy makes clear the chain of command, liberates principals
from distracting operational responsibilities, and allows them the authority they
need to make decisions that are in the best educational interests of their specifc
learning communities.
12 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
2. Develop instructional-leadership capacity around the principal
position
Te demands on the instructional-leadership roles of the principal require a deep
and robust understanding of content standards; however, it is challenging for a
school leader to become an expert in every content discipline. Development of
a strong cadre of teacher leaders who have content expertise is key to helping a
principal make an impact on instructional practice.
National atention has been focused on teacher leadership through initiatives
such as the National Teacher Leader Standards project, sponsored by the Teacher
Leadership Exploratory Consortium—a collaborative that consists of teacher
organizations, universities, certifcation organizations, and the Council of Chief
State School Ofcers. Tese standards can be used to develop strategies that lever-
age teacher expertise to support instructional improvement in buildings. Domain
4 of the standards is to “facilitate the improvement of instruction and learning” in
a building.
25
With a formal teacher-leadership structure, principals can get assis-
tance from master teachers with content expertise to implement peer observations
and coaching components of evaluation systems, such as those in North Carolina;
Georgia; Colorado; and Washington, D.C.
Charlote-Mecklenburg Schools in North Carolina has further increased instruc-
tional capacity around principals by entering into a partnership with Public
Impact, an organization that helps schools create what it terms an “opportunity
culture” that places teachers in formal leadership positions to support instruc-
tional improvement.
26
13 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, or CMS, created a teacher-leader support structure
to assist principals with instructional-leadership activities. With the support of Public
Impact, CMS implemented an opportunity culture across a subset of schools. In an
opportunity culture, strong teachers assume formal leadership roles, such as that of
an instructional facilitator or similar roles. Teacher leaders can assist the principal in
the observation process and provide coaching feedback to teachers. The point of the
program is to have great teachers expand their reach to more classrooms. Some-
times, they might be responsible for the development of a small group of teachers
or assist with the implementation of instructional-technology initiatives. Selected
buildings have also added a dean of students position; this individual is in place to
support principals with student issues.
Source: Rashidah Lopez Morgan and Valda Valbrun, phone interview with authors, November 22, 2013. (see Appendix A)
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Initiatives such as the Aspiring Leaders Program ofered by Uplif Education
and GCPS, as well as the New Leaders program in Washington, D.C., serve not
only to create expertise among faculty members that can be a valuable support to
principals but also to prepare these teachers to enter the administrative pipeline.
Encouraging assistant principals to participate in aspiring-principal programs such
as the ones in Denver, Gwinnet County, and Charlote-Mecklenburg also cre-
ates capacity around a principal. Greater big-picture knowledge held by teachers
and assistant principals creates a team that understands how the components of
a school work together to support student achievement. Although it may create
frequent turnover on a team, the benefts of pulling quality participants into the
pipeline outweigh the drawbacks. If an assistant principal aspires to a future role as
a principal, he or she ofen works in a more efective manner than those who view
the assistant principalship as a terminal position.
3. Focus principal training on coaching teachers
Although research points toward coaching teachers as one of the higher-leverage
instructional activities in which a principal can engage, it is also an endeavor
that principals ofen feel the least comfortable and qualifed undertaking.
27

Traditionally, teacher-appraisal systems have placed principals solely in the role
14 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
of evaluator. In contrast, new teacher-appraisal systems ofen require principals
to function not only in the evaluative role but also in the less familiar role of
coach. Tis can lead to challenges, as teachers might be less likely to openly
refect on their own performance defciencies with a coach who also functions
as an evaluator. Principals must be able to skillfully balance these dual roles if
they are to be efective.
Lessons from Chicago’s implementation of Recognizing Educators Advancing
Chicago Students reinforce the notion that the primary training focus for prin-
cipals should be around coaching teachers to higher performance. Principals
reported that they were comfortable observing and recognizing best practice
or areas of needed improvement, and teachers reported that they trusted their
administrators’ ability to do so. However, principals reported a lower comfort
level in terms of knowing specifcally how to work with teachers to facilitate
improvement. Furthermore, there were issues around communication and trust
that could be mitigated with training in coaching strategies and techniques.
28
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
North Carolina’s CMS has focused principal professional development on coach-
ing strategies needed to implement its teacher-evaluation system. The district has
designed district-level professional development focused on coaching and how to
have conversations with teachers about changing practice. For example, principals
are trained on how to differentiate their coaching strategies with teachers based on
whether performance problems are the result of a lack of skill or a lack of will. Teach-
ers who have performance deficits but a strong work ethic and desire to improve
require a different coaching approach than teachers who have the requisite instruc-
tional knowledge but lack the motivation to do the work.
Community superintendents, who serve as principal supervisors, reinforce instruc-
tional coaching during learning-community meetings and meet monthly in order to
calibrate feedback and coaching strategies used with building leaders. The community
executive directors, who work under the superintendents, conduct walk-through visits
and provide guidance and support to principals to make sure that everyone is clear
on what good teaching looks like. Principals in CMS have also formed study groups to
examine problems of practice, with many choosing teacher observation, feedback, and
coaching as their practice issue for further study and collaboration.
15 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
4. Build the capacity of central-office administrators to support
principals
Te span of control of the person who observes, supports, and evaluates the
building principal is a critical issue. Denver Public Schools, or DPS, addressed this
through the addition of deputy instructional superintendents to its elementary-
area clusters, to rave reviews from the principals within those building clusters.
Washington, D.C., also doubled the number of instructional superintendents prior
to implementing IMPACT—the evaluation system for the nearly 6,500 school-
based personnel in the District of Columbia Public Schools—for school leaders,
as it realized that principals would need support if they were to meet the increas-
ingly difcult expectations of their job descriptions.
A recent study reinforced earlier findings that simply increasing principal time on
instruction will not improve student outcomes if the time spent is purely evaluative
and is not focused on coaching teachers toward performance.
29
The study indicated
that teachers who believed that a principal’s presence in their classroom was part of
their professional development—as opposed to simply an exercise in compliance—
had better success at improving student achievement. In short, while the evaluative
role the principal plays is critical, it is the quality of his or her coaching skills that has
greater potential to close the achievement gap.
Source: Rashidah Lopez Morgan and Valda Valbrun, phone interview with authors, November 22, 2013. (see Appendix A)
16 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Denver Public Schools
In 2010, after receiving federal grant money, DPS took steps to enhance the capacity of
the central office to coach and support principals whose schools were underperform-
ing. The district regrouped 20 of its lowest-performing schools geographically into two
clusters and appointed an instructional superintendent and a deputy instructional
superintendent to supervise each cluster of schools. This effectively reduced the num-
ber of buildings and principals each supervisor was responsible for to five, significantly
lower than the number that those who supervise principals are typically assigned.
The feedback from principals within those 20 schools was so overwhelmingly posi-
tive that Patricia Slaughter, the assistant superintendent of elementary education at
the time, decided to expand the model by hiring a deputy instructional superinten-
dent to pair with the instructional superintendent in charge of the southwest cluster,
which consisted of 17 buildings. Principals in the southwest cluster immediately
noticed the greater level of access to and support from their direct supervisors—and
the supervisors found that the arrangement led to an increased level of meaningful
professional discourse and idea sharing from building to building. The reorganiza-
tion within the southwest cluster proved so popular that principals in other regional
clusters began requesting similar changes, which the district facilitated by cutting
other central-office staff considered less essential.
Source: Sean Precious, phone interview with authors, December 17, 2013. (see Appendix A)
District of Columbia Public Schools
In anticipation of the IMPACT rollout for school leaders, District of Columbia Public
Schools, or DCPS, doubled the number of instructional superintendents in order to
facilitate greater support for building principals, including more observation and feed-
back, as well as opportunities for school clusters to meet more regularly for customized
professional development. According to Hilary Darilek, the deputy chief of principal
effectiveness at DCPS , “the goal was to move the superintendent role from a com-
pliance-based position to one where the superintendent could observe and support
principals and have a consistent and significant presence in schools.” As a result, the
instructional superintendents have developed stronger relationships with principals.
Source: Hilary Darilek, phone interview with authors, January 15, 2014. (see Appendix A)
17 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Te traditional principal’s position is lonely, with no one at the building level with
whom he or she can discuss a problem or seek quality feedback or guidance. For
many administrators, greater access to central-ofce staf to answer questions, give
feedback, or simply act as a sounding board would be a welcome support. It bears
mentioning that there is a fne line between providing support to and micro-
managing a principal, and districts should take steps to ensure that those who
supervise and evaluate principals have the type of growth mindsets that would
encourage principals to trust them enough to speak openly about work-related
concerns.
CMS has undertaken training for district leaders who coach and supervise prin-
cipals. District ofcials there meet together to discuss coaching strategies and
training needs they observe while engaging in frequent meetings and observations
with principals. GCPS’ central ofce has assumed responsibility for supporting
building leaders in multiple ways to allow them to focus on instructional concerns.
District leaders atend principal-training sessions so they are able to utilize content
to reinforce positive practices during coaching sessions.
30
Gwinnett County Public Schools
Support for principals from central-office staff is a hallmark of GCPS’ focus on quality
leadership. The district’s senior leaders, including the superintendent, spend sig-
nificant time and energy creating a culture where all district employees—including
central-office staff—support the district’s school leaders in order to drive student
success in GCPS. Some examples of this effort include coaching and mentoring
during the first two years of an individual’s principalship and the creation of peer-
support networks of other school leaders who face similar demographic conditions
and related opportunities. Assistant superintendents are the direct supervisors of
principals and deliver professional development and real-time training as principals’
needs are discovered through the supervisory process.
Source: Glenn Pethel, phone interview with authors, January 9, 2014. (see Appendix A)
18 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
5. Provide regular opportunities for principals to gather around
self-selected problems of practice
Te principal experience varies dramatically depending on the school climate; the
community; and the individual talents, traits, and characteristics of the principal.
Districts that wish to support and develop leadership capacity must embrace what
researchers at the University of Illinois call the principles of “fexibility” and “equi-
fnality”—principles that recognize the reality that there are ofen multiple routes
to the same destination.
31
While it is vital for districts to provide uniform trainings
in order to establish common practices and calibrate evaluation reliability, school
districts cannot take a one-size-fts-all approach to professional development for
principals. Training models must refect the complexity of the job and the diverse
needs of the principals in diferent districts.
Uplift Education
Ongoing observation and feedback is a central theme within Uplift Education, and it
is applied at both the teacher and leadership levels. Managing directors are assigned
as coaches to school directors, who are observed three times per semester—once
while leading a data meeting, once while conducting a staff-development session,
and once while conferring with a teacher. Based upon these observations, directors
are given midyear feedback on a core set of competencies and also receive quarterly
visits from Uplift Education CEO Bhatia and Chief Academic Officer Richard Harrison.
Furthermore, directors undergo a critical exercise, known as a “case consultancy,”
in which they present their building strategic plans for peer review by other school
leaders. This practice allows directors a safe environment to pose problems of prac-
tice to their peers and receive specific feedback for improving their building plans.
Source: Yasmin Bhatia and Richard Harrison, phone interview with authors, November 26, 2013. (see Appendix A)
19 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Just as each principal has a unique set of professional-growth targets, most prin-
cipals also have areas of great strength that would be a valuable resource to their
peers. However, the isolated nature of the job ofen provides principals with no
way to communicate and interact with their peers about problems of professional
practice. Professional-development models, such as the afnity groups established
by DPS, allow principals to select areas where they need support and provide
them a safe environment where they can share and learn from other principals
experiencing similar challenges.
32
In CMS, principals meet in small groups and select problems of practice for year-
long study.
33
DCPS allows principals to self-select into professional-learning com-
munities to study specifc and relevant problems of practice.
34
In the Northeast
Leadership Academy, or NELA—a program organized by North Carolina State
University to provide a principal pipeline and support to 13 high-need rural
school districts in northeast North Carolina—graduates maintain contact and
conduct frequent consultancy conversations with cohort members via technology
such as Skype, since travel to common sites is challenging.
35
Tis type of fexible
approach encourages collaboration, creates more-relevant training opportunities,
and allows principals more ownership of their professional growth.
6. Develop partnerships with universities and nonprofits to recruit
and train future principals
Most successful districts that have strong leadership pipelines have discovered
how critical it is to have strategic partners who are aligned with the needs, values,
and beliefs of the district. Tere are several types of partnerships that appear to
facilitate the creation of efective pipelines of new leaders to replace the alarming
number of retirements that loom in the near future. According to the National
Center for Education Statistics, the atrition rate for all principals during the 2007-
08 school year was 12 percent, with roughly half of those due to retirement.
36

Principal three- and fve-year turnover rates have been steadily increasing over
the past 15 to 20 years, and recent research has emerged that suggests that fewer
than half of the newly hired principals sampled last more than three years in their
jobs.
37
Atrition rates are greater at the middle school and high school levels, and
they are even higher at schools where more than 50 percent of the students are
classifed as economically disadvantaged.
38
20 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Te most prevalent partnerships are those with university preparation programs
and/or nonproft organizations, but other unique partnerships can be found
around the country.
Partnership between Achievement First and New
Haven Public Schools, Hartford Public Schools, and
Bridgeport School District
One unique partnership between a charter management organization and three
public school districts in Connecticut is worthy of study. Achievement First, a
successful charter system with a distinctive leadership-training track record, has
partnered with the New Haven, Hartford, and Bridgeport school districts to develop
a leadership-pipeline program called the Residency Program for School Leadership.
The program consists of two intensive skill-building summer workshops, a year of
mentored residency in an Achievement First school, a mentored year-long residency
in a school district school, weekly leadership classes, and weekly coaching sessions.
39

Funds to support the program and the subsequent follow-up coaching were jointly
raised by Achievement First and the three participating school districts.
District candidates remain district employees with full benefits, including tenure and
union status even during their year of Achievement First residency. Since Connecti-
cut does not require a graduate degree for certification, candidates who complete
all requirements can be certified through the program. The districts and Achieve-
ment First jointly conduct the evaluation of candidate success, but each district
retains rights to placement. According to Paige MacLean, senior director of strategic
partnerships for Achievement First, the unique partnership has leveraged the best of
both organizations to strengthen leadership in Achievement First schools as well as
the participating school districts.
Source: Paige MacLean, phone interview with authors, November 26, 2013. (see Appendix A)
21 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
University partners are ofen necessary for credentialing purposes. Many states
require a graduate degree and certifcation requirements from a state-approved
certifcation program. Districts then add their own pipeline-training requirements
to fll in perceived gaps in more traditional preparation programs. Most of the dis-
tricts featured in this report have approved university programs that are acceptable
for credentials if one wants to be a candidate for leadership in a district.
GCPS works with fve university programs that specifcally align with the Aspiring
Leader Academy pipeline program in the district. CMS has partnerships with
Winthrop University and Queens University of Charlote to develop programs
that align with district priorities, and it also works with New Leaders, an organi-
zation for potential leaders who aspire to lead in schools with great need. DPS
partners with the University of Denver and the University of Colorado, Denver,
to support multiple principal-pipeline programs. Te NELA program at North
Carolina State University is an interesting fipped partnership program, where the
university designed the program and sought partnerships with high-need school
districts in rural northeast North Carolina.
40
All of these university partnerships
take time and efort to cultivate and develop. In the process of aligning programs
with the demographic needs of the partner districts, university partners ofen have
been forced to abandon tradition and become more responsive to the communi-
ties they serve.
Uplift Education
For those who aspire to earn their state credentials as well as their master’s degrees,
Uplift Education is a partner district with the Urban Principal Preparation Program—
a collaborative partnership between the Teaching Trust, a Dallas-based nonprofit,
and the Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education and Human Development at
Southern Methodist University, or SMU. The Teaching Trust was co-founded by Uplift
Education’s founder Rosemary Perlmeter, who transitioned from Uplift Education
with a keen awareness that leadership—at a variety of levels—is a high-impact lever
in both a charter organization’s ability to grow with quality and a traditional school
district’s ability to successfully manage transformational change.
22 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Nonproft organizations are ofen part of a three-way partnership. Since nonprof-
its such as New Leaders and the Teaching Trust—which partners with Uplif
Education—are typically unable to certify students in the states where they
operate, there is ofen a university partner involved along with the nonproft and
school district. While complicated, navigation of such rich resources can contrib-
ute to an enriched pipeline program where districts help provide internships and
residencies, participate in the training of fellows or candidates, and leverage the
capacity of cuting-edge nonproft agencies that are passionate about providing
strong leaders for complex schools.
Te most challenging partners can be the universities: When institutions based on
a 16th century model of education encounter entrepreneurial-training-program
demands, there can be confict. However, the necessary negotiations between the
two types of entities are timely, as the nation is questioning the accountability of
higher education in matching the needs of the communities it serves. Such part-
nerships can result in the best of three worlds—universities, school districts, and
nonproft sectors—coming together for the beneft of strong school leadership
development.
The Teaching Trust-SMU partnership is part of the Alliance to Reform Education
Leadership, or AREL, network run by the George W. Bush Institute, which is housed in
the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum on the SMU campus. Uplift Edu-
cation employees accepted into the program take classes for a full year, during which
time they interact with aspiring leaders from other partner districts and organizations.
Upon completion of the classwork, candidates are placed in a building leadership role
for a year-long residency. Students in the program are granted scholarships that cover
a large portion of their tuition and expenses in exchange for an agreement to work
in the Uplift Education network for a minimum of three years after completing their
residency. This makes the entire program a five-year commitment.
Source: Yasmin Bhatia and Richard Harrison, phone interview with authors, November 26, 2013. (see Appendix A)
23 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Denver Public Schools
In addition to supporting in-service principals in the aforementioned ways, DPS has
also invested heavily in the leadership pipeline. In partnership with the University
of Denver, the district supports two different programs that enable future leaders to
earn both principal credentials and master’s degrees: the Ritchie Program for School
Leaders and the Executive Leadership for Successful Schools, or ELSS, program. Both
cohorts are part of the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies program in the
Morgridge College of Education at the University of Denver and are members of the
George W. Bush Institute’s AREL network. The Ritchie Program for School Leaders
features a paid internship in a Lead in Denver-approved school, and its classes are
conducted in person. The ELSS program is a blended model that is partially online
and features an unpaid internship.
Also part of the AREL network of principal-preparation programs is the Get Smart
Schools initiative in Denver. Get Smart Schools is a nonprofit organization that
provides intensive summer training, ongoing day-long seminars on a monthly
basis, executive coaching, opportunities for students to visit exemplary sites, and
ongoing support after program completion. Program graduates who complete the
tuition-free program, according to the literature, will be specifically prepared to “lead
turn-around efforts, transform schools to innovation or open new schools in neigh-
borhoods where there is a need.”
41
DPS also works in concert with the University of
Colorado, Denver, or UCD, which offers a blended online and in-person program that
is specifically aligned with the DPS School Leadership Framework. Students in the
UCD program can earn their principal certification as well as a master’s degree or an
education specialist degree in administrative leadership and policy studies.
Source: Sean Precious, phone interview with authors, December 17, 2013. (see Appendix A)
24 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
7. Develop and train principals on district-wide teaching and
leadership frameworks
In order for principals to move the work of instructional improvement forward
within an organization, they must share a common understanding of what out-
standing instruction looks like in practice. Te districts profled in this report have
sought to accomplish this through the development of robust teaching frame-
works that refect a deep understanding of a wide range of high-leverage instruc-
tional practices. Districts must also ensure that proper training and accountability
measures are in place so that principals develop sufcient expertise around these
frameworks. In Denver, for example, principals must demonstrate profciency
in assessing instructors against the framework before being certifed to appraise
teachers in the district.
42

In addition to frameworks for instruction, successful districts are also investing
in the development of leadership frameworks to clearly defne expectations for
school leaders. Framework competencies may be skills or knowledge based but
are ofen dispositional in nature, providing expectations for leader behavior that
align with the central goals and mission of the district. While desirable disposi-
tions alone do not make a leader, these competencies are necessary to coach
and manage human capital efectively, to establish an aspirational and inclusive
vision, and to inspire and motivate students and adults to work toward that vision.
Dispositional competencies within a framework provide exemplars of the type
of behaviors that districts expect from their leaders and provide a tool for profes-
sional goal seting and development that would otherwise be absent.
25 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Locally developed leadership frameworks also help cultivate the kind of leader-
ship that is responsive to the specifc needs of a community and help unify stake-
holders around a central vision. CMS, for example, engaged in the development
of localized standards to support the state Leader Keys Evaluation System and
found that the process had an important impact on creating buy-in and fostering
implementation of the evaluation system.
45
Specifcally, principals felt that their
voices were heard during the development of the “super standards,” which has
made the implementation of the system go more smoothly.
46
Te super standards
represent the standards that have the greatest leverage to drive improvement in
student achievement.
Denver Public Schools
Along with the DPS Framework for Effective Teaching,
43
the district developed the
DPS School Leadership Framework, a shared definition of leadership practices that
serve as the criteria for principal appraisal. Together, the district views the dual
frameworks as “the foundation for ensuring that we have excellent teachers and
school leaders to serve our students and fulfill our vision.”
44
The School Leadership
Framework comprises leadership expectations around culture, equity, instruction,
and human resources. Additionally, there are expectations around strategic, organi-
zational, and community leadership. Principals self-assess and goal set in these areas
and meet twice annually with their evaluators. During the midyear meeting, princi-
pals and evaluators collaboratively agree on target areas and plan for professional
growth. Each principal must have a professional-growth plan in which target areas
and goals are identified and professional-development plans are articulated. Addi-
tionally, principals are allowed to self-select into affinity groups of approximately 15
school leaders who come together around a particular problem of practice. Accord-
ing to Sean Precious, DPS’ senior manager for leading effective academic practice, or
LEAP, training & systemization, principals are “over the moon and through-the-roof
satisfied” with this particular model of professional growth.
Source: Sean Precious, phone interview with authors, December 17, 2013. (see Appendix A)
26 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
8. Provide technological supports that allow administrators to
record and share instructional data
Districts that are making strides in the area of teacher appraisal have invested in
data systems that enable them to record and monitor the observation and feed-
back that is taking place in the district. Tese systems enable principals and other
observers to quickly enter data on a teacher and for the central ofce to monitor
and track what’s happening in the building in real time. Not only are they able
to monitor the amount of time and number of observations each principal is
conducting, but they also are able to track feedback and identify trends in instruc-
tion that help plan for future professional development. Furthermore, in systems
where there may be multiple observers for one teacher in the appraisal system, this
is a vital efciency for the principal, saving him or her the time of collecting and
inputing observation data from multiple sources.
Gwinnett County Public Schools
GCPS has created a dashboard system that allows principals to track observation
data to assist with the analysis of teacher-performance patterns for summative
conferences. District officials can monitor if a principal is on track with his or her
observations and feedback conferences with teachers. Data are available almost im-
mediately to help principals with time management and planning.
The performance indicators from the teacher-evaluation system are part of the
dashboard system. As principals upload findings from observations, connections
are made to the performance indicators. Principals and district officials can assess if
there might be a school-wide issue with the positive-learning-environment indicator
or a differentiation of instruction in order to support student performance. Data from
trends in the observation findings can be used to diagnose professional-develop-
ment needs for individual teachers, groups of teachers, or the school.
Source: Glenn Pethel, phone interview with authors, January 9, 2014. (see Appendix A)
27 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
NELA uses technology in a variety of ways to facilitate communication and con-
duct training with program participants at remote sites. Whether posting video-
taped coaching sessions for online commentary or using electronic conferencing
to provide feedback to participants in their programs, technology is an essential
tool in making the NELA partnerships efective.
47
Obviously, technological advances have already enhanced principal efciency in
countless ways, and innovation continues at a remarkable pace. Te organizations
featured in this report have all wisely made it a priority to invest in technology in
ways that strategically advance the capacity of their school leaders to positively
afect instruction.
28 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Conclusion
Te job of the school principal has never been an easy one, with increased
accountability making it even more challenging and the stakes higher than ever
before. Education reform advocates can shape the direction of policy, but without
skilled implementation at the building level, even the most worthy reforms are
likely to fail. Principals must receive adequate on-the-job training and support in
order to successfully lead change. Districts must be commited to the job of devel-
oping building leadership and be willing to invest the time, energy, and resources
necessary to do so.
Tis report has highlighted some educational organizations throughout the coun-
try that are engaging in innovative and strategic approaches to rethink leadership
development. Te examples set in places such as Denver, Colorado; Gwinnet
County, Georgia; and Charlote, North Carolina are instructive for educational
administrators and policymakers. Te type of partnerships modeled by North
Carolina State University and the small rural districts in northeastern North
Carolina can serve as a template for other states and universities to help rural
school districts across the country make a diference for students—a diference
that might be out of their reach otherwise.
Te organizations profled in this report are on the leading edge of these promis-
ing principal practices. While there has been a heavy focus in the educational
community on reforming the way teachers are evaluated, there has been less focus
on evaluating principal practice, and even less on supporting and developing
school-building leaders professionally. Tis must change, as strong school leader-
ship is essential in order to successfully reform schools and move student achieve-
ment forward.
29 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Appendix A:
Interviews with district experts
Te interviews that are part of this report were conducted during November and
December 2013 and include the following participants:
Glenn Pethel, executive director, department of leadership development,
Gwinnet County Public Schools, Gwinnet County, Georgia
Sean Precious, senior manager, LEAP training & systemization,
Denver Public Schools, Denver, Colorado
Hilary Darilek, deputy chief, principal efectiveness, District of Columbia
Public Schools, Washington, D.C.
Meredith Zackey, coordinator, school leadership strategy and principal
efectiveness, District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, D.C.
Rashidah Lopez Morgan, then-executive director of talent management,
Charlote-Mecklenburg Schools, Charlote, North Carolina
Valda Valbrun, executive director of organizational development,
Charlote-Mecklenburg Schools, Charlote, North Carolina
Yasmin Bhatia, CEO of Uplif Education, Dallas, Texas
Richard Harrison, chief academic ofcer, Uplif Education, Dallas, Texas
Bonnie Fusarelli, director of and principal investigator for the Northeast
Leadership Academy; associate professor at North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina
Paige MacLean, senior director, strategic partnerships, Achievement First,
New Haven, Connecticut
30 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
About the authors
Lee Alvoid is a clinical associate professor and chair of the Department of
Education Policy and Leadership at the Annete Caldwell Simmons School of
Education and Human Development at Southern Methodist University in Dallas,
Texas. She earned her doctorate degree in reading with a minor in educational
leadership at Texas Woman’s University in 1983. She has 32 years of experience
in public schools, including 21 years in leadership roles. She served as a middle
school and high school principal prior to joining the SMU faculty in 2001. Since
the Education Policy and Leadership Department was founded in 2008, Alvoid
has launched three innovative graduate programs in school leadership that span
pre-K through higher education. Her belief is that all students deserve great lead-
ers regardless of their ZIP codes or levels of education. Te department faculty
has doubled in size and continues to be recognized as a unique leader-preparation
department in the feld.
Watt Lesley Black Jr. is a clinical associate professor of education policy and
leadership at the Annete Caldwell Simmons School of Education and Human
Development. He earned his doctorate degree in educational leadership from
the University of North Texas in 2002. A legal researcher and writer, his inter-
ests include student and faculty rights as well as diversity and equity in public
schools. He has published in West’s Education Law Reporter and authored a book
titled Public School Diversity and Afrmative Action Admissions: Te Constitutional
Implications. In fall 2013, he presented his article, “Omnipresent Student Speech
and the Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker in the Digital Age” at the annual
conference of the Education Law Association. Prior to coming to SMU, he worked
for more than 20 years as a public school teacher and administrator, culminating
with an eight-year stint as principal of a large urban middle school.
31 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to those subjects who took time out of their busy schedules
to participate in telephone interviews, respond to emails, share documents, and
otherwise assist us in the preparation of this report. It is heartening to know that
such bright, talented, and commited individuals are working on issues related
to school leadership in the various locales profled in this report. We also wish
to thank Kaitlin Pennington and Jenny DeMonte from the Center for American
Progress for trusting us to work on this important project and for steering us in
the right direction in terms of how to begin our research. A huge thanks also goes
to our editor, Emily Hargrove Black, whose contributions to this report cannot
adequately be measured.
32 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
Endnotes
1 Task Force on the Principalship, School Leadership for
the 21st Century Initiative, “Leadership for Student
Learning: Reinventing the Principalship” (Washington:
Institute for Educational Leadership, 2000), available at
http://www.iel.org/programs/21st/reports/principal.
pdf.
2 MetLife, “The Metlife Survey of the American Teacher:
Challenges for School Leadership” (2013), available
at https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/foundation/
MetLife-Teacher-Survey-2012.pdf.
3 Susan Burkhauser and others, First-Year Principals
in Urban School Districts: How Actions and Working
Conditions Relate to Outcomes (Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation, 2012), available at http://www.rand.org/
pubs/technical_reports/TR1191.html.
4 National Council on Teacher Quality, “State of the
States 2013 – Connect the Dots: Using evaluations of
teacher efectiveness to inform policy and practice”
(2013), available at http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/
State_of_the_States_2013_Using_Teacher_Evalua-
tions_NCTQ_Report.
5 Ibid.
6 Frederick M. Hess, “The Missing Half of School Reform,”
National Afairs (17) (2013): 19–35, available at http://
www.nationalafairs.com/publications/detail/the-
missing-half-of-school-reform.
7 Patrick McGuinn, “The State of Teacher Evaluation
Reform: State Education Agency Capacity and the
Implementation of New Teacher Evaluation Systems”
(Washington: Center for American Progress, 2012),
available at http://americanprogress.org/issues/educa-
tion/report/2012/11/13/44494/the-state-of-teacher-
evaluation-reform/.
8 Ibid.
9 Susan E. Sporte and others, Teacher Evaluation in Prac-
tice: Implementing Chicago’s REACH Students (Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School
Research, 2013).
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 The Wallace Foundation, “The National SAM Innova-
tion Project: Helping Principals Make Time to Focus
on Instructional Leadership,” available at http://www.
wallacefoundation.org/Pages/SAM.aspx (last accessed
January 2014).
19 Ibid.
20 The Wallace Foundation, “Districts Matter: Cultivating
the Principals Urban Schools Need” (2013), available at
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/
school-leadership/district-policy-and-practice/pages/
districts-matter-cultivating-the-principals-urban-
schools-need.aspx.
21 Burkhauser and others, First-Year Principals in Urban
School Districts.
22 Susanna Loeb, Eileen Horng, and Daniel Kasik, “Prin-
cipal’s time use and school efectiveness,” Journal of
Education 116 (4) (2010): 491–523.
23 Jason A. Grissom, Susanna Loeb, and Ben Master,
“Efective Instructional Time Use for School Leaders:
Longitudinal Evidence from Observations of Principals,”
Educational Researcher 42 (8) (2013): 433–444, available
at http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/fles/efec-
tive%20instructional%20time%20use.pdf.
24 MetLife, “The Metlife Survey of the American Teacher.”
25 Teacher Leader Model Standards, “Home,” available at
http://www.teacherleaderstandards.org/thevision (last
accessed June 2014).
26 OpportunityCulture.org, “Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools and Project L.I.F.T.,” available at http://opportu-
nityculture.org/our-initiative/participating-sites/cms-
project-lift/ (last accessed January 2014).
27 Grissom, Loeb, and Master, “Efective Instructional Time
Use for School Leaders.”
28 Sporte and others, “Teacher Evaluation in Practice.”
29 Grissom, Loeb, and Master, “Efective Instructional Time
Use for School Leaders.”
30 Unpublished Gwinnett County implementation guide
received via personal communication from Glenn
Pethel, executive director, Department of, Leadership
Development, Gwinnett County Public Schools, Janu-
ary 9, 2014.
31 Benjamin Superfne and others, “Promising Strategies
for Improving K-12 Education in Illinois: Improving the
Educator Work Force” (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois,
2009), available at http://illinoisschoolleader.org/use-
ful_resources/documents/P49-64_K-12stratagiesA.pdf.
32 Sean Precious, phone interview with authors, Decem-
ber 17, 2013.
33 Rashidah Lopez Morgan and Valda Valbrun, phone
interview with authors, November 22, 2013.
34 Personal communication from Meredith Zackey,
coordinator, school leadership strategy and principal
efectiveness, District of Columbia Public Schools, Janu-
ary 15, 2014.
35 NELA 2.0, “About NELA 2.0,” available at http://nela2.
wordpress.ncsu.edu/about-nela-2-0/ (last accessed
January 2014).
36 National Center for Education Statistics, Principal
Attrition and Mobility: Results from the 2008-09 Principal
Follow-up Survey (U.S. Department of Education, 2010),
available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010337.pdf.
33 Center for American Progress | The Changing Role of the Principal
37 University Council for Educational Administration, “The
Revolving Door of the Principalship” (2008), available
at http://ucea.org/storage/implications/Implications-
Mar2008.pdf.
38 Ibid.
39 Achievement First, “Residency Program for School
Leadership,” available at http://www.achievementfrst.
org/our-approach/residency-program/program-com-
ponents/ (last accessed January 2014).
40 Bonnie Fusarelli, phone interview with authors, Decem-
ber 12, 2013.
41 Denver Public Schools, “Get Smart Schools,” available at
http://www.leadindenver.com/leadindenver/pathways-
to-school-leadership/get-smart-schools-fellowship-
program.html (last accessed June 2014).
42 Precious, phone interview with authors.
43 Denver Public Schools, “Overview: The Foundation,”
available at http://leap.dpsk12.org/The-Framework/
Overview (last accessed June 2014).
44 Denver Public Schools, “The DPS School Leadership
Framework,” available at http://www.leadindenver.com/
leadindenver/school-leadership-framework.html (last
accessed January 2014).
45 Grissom, Loeb, and Master, “Efective Instructional Time
Use for School Leaders.”
46 Morgan and Valbrun, phone interview with authors.
47 NELA 2.0, “ABOUT NELA 2.0.”

The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute
dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity
for all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to
these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies reflect these values.
We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and
international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that
is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
1333 H STREET, NW, 10TH FLOOR, WASHINGTON, DC 20005 • TEL: 202-682-1611 • FAX: 202-682-1867 • WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close