Below is an introduction to the Policy Update, to download click the following link:

Policy Update - The State Role in Preparing School Leaders

Expectations for principals have changed dramatically with the advent of stringent state accountability systems that hold them responsible for the achievement of all students. In 1999, the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) issued a report on the changing role of the principal, noting that the “task of placing a high-quality principal in every school is more challenging than ever.” NASBE cited changing job expectations, a looming administrator shortage, and inadequate principal preparation, support, and professional development as impediments to providing an adequate supply of principals.

In recent years, the No Child Left Behind Act has further sharpened the technical requirements for leaders in steering school improvement, analyzing test score data, using research to inform instructional decisions and improvement strategies, crafting staff development, and providing specific feedback to teachers on improving instructional practice. The resulting press for equity and accountability implies new sets of roles and responsibilities around the dogged pursuit of powerful, equitable learning opportunities for all students.

Since the release of the NASBE report Principals of Change, significant research on leadership has been conducted that highlights the importance of school leadership in improving student performance. A landmark study supported by The Wallace Foundation reached the resounding conclusion that, “Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school.” The study added that the positive effects of leadership are greatest in schools and districts with the greatest needs. The authors describe the influence of leadership on classroom learning as indirect, mediating teaching and learning by:

• Setting directions to chart a common course;
• Developing people by providing opportunities to increase their capacity and practice; and
• Redesigning the basic organizational culture and condi­tions that exist within schools.

Yet, the ultimate impact of leadership across a state rests on the quality of its system in screening, selecting, preparing, support­ing, and placing principal candidates. Too many principal candidates and existing principals are ill-prepared and inadequately supported to organize schools to improve learning while man­aging all of the other demands of the job. It is clear that merely holding a credential or professional degree says little about whether a candidate is actually prepared to lead the implemen­tation of effective instructional practices that result in the level of student learning that current demands require. Researchers have found that despite the widespread adoption in more than 40 states of standards for school leaders established in 1996 by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), the policy frameworks for how leaders are developed continue to be ill-defined, irregularly applied, and lacking in rigor.

The leadership preparation institutions that bestow these credentials have been roundly criticized for years. In 2005, Arthur Levine, former president of Columbia University, led a study of the preparation and development of school leaders in education schools and found that the quality at a majority of these programs ranged from inadequate to appalling. Even as education administration programs are graduating an increas­ing number of certified school leaders, Levine reported, the conditions of these programs lead to thousands of principals across the country being ill-equipped for the job of promoting powerful teaching and learning. University-based leadership training, for the most part, remains inadequately connected either to state standards and unresponsive to the day-to-day realities and learning goals principals encounter. A national survey by Public Agenda found, in fact, that 80 percent of superintendents and 69 percent of principals think that the leadership training in graduate schools of education is out of touch with the realities of today’s school districts.

So what can state policymakers do to address inadequate preparation of school leaders? How can states build coherent leader development systems to attract, train, and support highly qualified school leaders that have the knowledge and skills to promote powerful teaching and learning in our schools?

To download click the following link: Policy Update - The State Role in Preparing School Leaders