This paper examines a number of promising principal preparation programs to identify lessons for improving the impact of principals on student perrmance.
A new approach to principal preparation: Innovative programs share their practices and lessons learned. Rainwater Leadership Alliance, 2010.
This literature review aims to provide district leaders with an understanding of the research and best evidence regarding the components of effective principal talent management systems.
American Institutes for Research & George W. Bush Institute’s. (2016). Principal Talent Management According to the Evidence: A Review of the Literature. Retrieved from http://gwbcenter.imgix.net/Resources/gwbi-principal-talent-management-lit-review.pdf
Intended as a formative assessment tool, this guide provides detailed, individual state profiles and state-to-state comparisons of 8 policy areas and 21 policy criteria that support the development of effective leaders.
Anderson, E., & Reynolds, A. L. (2015). A policymaker’s guide: Research-based policy for principal preparation program approval and licensure. Charlottesville, VA: University Council for Educational Administration.
This study used within-program comparison of follow-up survey responses from two sets of program graduates from a university-based leadership preparation program to determine differences in program features and outcome measures.
Ballenger, J., Alford, B., McCune, S. L., & McCune, E. D. (2010). Obtaining validation from graduates on a restructured principal preparation program. Jsl Vol 19-N5, 19 533.
Standardized tests play a critical role in tracking and comparing K-12 student progress across time, student demographics, and governing bodies (states, cities, districts). One methodology is to benchmark the each state’s proficiency standards against those of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test. This study does just that. Using NAEP as a common yardstick allows a comparison of different state assessments. The results confirm the wide variation in proficiency standards across states. It also documents that the significant majority of states have standards are much lower than those established by the NAEP.
Bandeira de Mello, V., Rahman, T., and Park, B.J. (2018). Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: Results From the 2015 NAEP Reading and Mathematics Assessments (NCES 2018-159). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Over the past 10 years, the Southern Regional Education Board has helped states and public universities across the region evaluate their state policies for preparing school principals who are leaders of instruction. This benchmark report reviews the past decade and looks at 10 learning-centered leadership indicators to gauge how far states have come and how far they need to go in selecting, preparing and supporting leaders of change.
Bottoms, G., Egelson, P., & Bussey, L. H. (2012). Progress over a decade in preparing more effective school principals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
This study examined principal preparation programs within the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education to ascertain whether their programs were structured in a way that would equip principal candidates with the leadership roles deemed essential for 21st century school leadership.
Burks, Karlin. (2014). An Analysis of Principal Preparation Programs at Pennsylvania State Schools. Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs) Paper 1934.
This report tells policymakers what metrics they must track in order to make the best decisions regarding the supply and training of school leaders.
Campbell, C., & Gross, B. (2012). Principal Concerns: Leadership Data and Strategies for States. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
This report consists of two parts: a survey of 67 public school systems district staff serving as principal supervisors and on-site analysis of six districts pre-service training and support systems for new principals.
Corcoran, A., et al. (2013). Rethinking Leadership: The Changing Role of Principal Supervisors. The Wallace Foundation.
This book provides insight into the streams that are driving leadership theory and practice today. The Nature of Leadership, Second Edition provides students with an updated and complete yet concise handbook that solidifies and integrates the vast and disparate leadership literature.
Day, D., Antonakis, J. (2012). The Nature of Leadership. SAGE.
The purpose of this study was to determine principals' perceptions of how effective mentoring programs and university-based principal preparation programs are in developing the skills necessary to carry out the 13 critical success factors identified by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). A review of the literature addressed what it means to be an effective principal and what an effective mentoring program should look like.
Dodson, R. B. (2006). The Effectiveness of Principal Training and Formal Principal Mentoring Programs.
This paper explores the implementation of a professional development program (PDP) for school principals. Two methods for measuring fidelity of implementation of the PDP are examined
exploring the nature of implementatiion
In this report, the Southern Regional Education Board evaluates some 60 internship programs within its states and finds them lacking in a number of ways, including failing to provide real experiences in leadership. It urges policymakers, universities and school districts to create apprenticeships that better prepare aspiring principals for the demands they will face.
Fry, B., Bottoms, G., & O’neill, K. (2005). The principal internship: How can we get it right. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
This study examines the influence of administrator credential programs, on-the-job experiences, and the standards in the development of urban public school principals.
Fultz, M. Assessing the Relationship Between Administrator Preparation Programs and Job Performance.
The authors have been evaluating the impact of five principal preparation programs in the United States on student outcomes. This information should be considered as one aspect of preparation program improvement and accountability. The study team lays out its recommendations in this policy paper.
George W. Bush Institute & Education Reform Initiative. (2016). Developing Leaders: The Importance--and the Challenges--of Evaluating Principal Preparation Programs, Retrieved from https://gwbcenter.imgix.net/Resources/gwbi-importance-of-evaluating-principal-prep.pdf
This paper highlights the limitations of district-level data on principals encountered during data collection for a study on principal preparation programs.
George W. Bush Institute & Education Reform Initiative. (2016). What Districts Know--and Need to Know--about Their Principals. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570674
With this current study, the Bush Institute sought to go beyond sharing information about best practices in principal preparation and connect information about program graduates to student outcomes. Specifically, this study evaluated the impact of five Alliance to Reform Education Leadership Network programs on student achievement.
George W. Bush Institute & American Institutes for Research. (2016) Following the Leaders: an Analysis of Graduate Effectiveness from Five Principal Preparation Programs. Retrieved from http://gwbcenter.imgix.net/Resources/GWBI_AIR-GraduateEffectiveness.pdf
The role of today's principal is changing, as is the principal workforce. The new generation of principals is younger with less teaching experience, and is more mobile, working more hours, and experiencing more job stress. Understanding how to better prepare new leaders for the role of principal is an urgent policy concern.
George W. Bush Institute, Education Reform Initiative, (2016). Developing Leaders: The Importance—and the Challenges—of Evaluating Principal Preparation Programs. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570672
This publication seeks to help answer those questions by bringing together findings from four reports commissioned by The Wallace Foundation to inform its development of a potential new initiative regarding university-based principal training.
Mendels, P. (2016). Improving University Principal Preparation Programs: Five Themes from the Field. Wallace Foundation.
There are a number of vehicles federal policymakers can use to create or encourage effective leadership policies. Throughout this series we will describe an ideal policy and then suggest potential vehicles policymakers could use to pursue that policy.
New Leaders. (2014). Pre-Service Preparation: Building a Strong Supply of Effective Future Leaders. Retrieved from http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/file-8-pre-service-prep-2016.pdf
This literature review highlights central elements of the residency component of school leader preparation programs by aggregating the results of studies conducted on existing principal preparation programs.
New York City Leadership Academy. (2013). Literature Review of Principal Preparation Programs. Retrieved from https://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/residency-design-literature-review.pdf
This report provides an overview of NYCLA’s flagship principal preparation program. Intended to help others involved in principal preparation think through important elements of principal preparation, including candidate selection, developing experiential learning opportunities, and funding, staffing and sustaining the program, the guide shares NYCLA’s successes and lessons learned during the 11 years we have delivered the Aspiring Principals Program in New York City, as well as through our work with various state and district partners nationally to adapt the program.
NYC Leadership Academy (2014). Taking Charge of Principal Preparation-A Guide to NYC Leadership Academy's Aspiring Principals Program. Retrieved from http://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/news-and-resources/tools-and-publications/pdfs/app-guide-full-guide.
Ready to Lead presents the collective expertise of educators engaged in building or conducting research on principal residency designs across the United States, and answers the call for greater clarity on principal residency design.
NYC Leadership Academy & American Institutes for Research. (2016). Ready to Lead: Designing Residencies for Better Principal Preparation. Retrieved from https://www.air.org/resource/ready-lead-designing-residencies-better-principal-preparation
This report outlines steps States can take to strengthen the approval and renewal processes of their principal preparation programs.
Reform Support Network. (2014). Promising Practices in Approving and Renewing Principal Preparation Programs. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/promising-practices-principal-preparation.pdf
This is the fifth report from an evaluation of the Principal Pipeline Initiative (PPI), in which six large urban school districts have received support for strengthening novice principals' capabilities through specific strategies. The report details the implementation approaches, accomplishments, and challenges of participating districts; identifies factors that helped or impeded their progress; highlights lessons learned; and presents implications for policymakers and other districts.
Turnbull, B. J., Anderson, L. M., Riley, D. L., MacFarlane, J. R., & Aladjem, D. K. (2016). The Principal Pipeline Initiative in Action. Building a Stronger Principalship: Volume 5. Policy Studies Associates, Inc.
Intended for state officials involved in the assessment and approval of university and other programs to train future school principals, this report describes five design principles for effective program evaluation.
UCEA and New Leaders (2016). Improving state evaluation of principal preparation programs. Retrieved from: www.sepkit.org
This study compares the effect size and return on investment for rapid assessment, between, increased spending, voucher programs, charter schools, and increased accountability.
Yeh, S. S. (2007). The cost-effectiveness of five policies for improving student achievement. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 416-436.