Preparation
State Actions

Over the past six years, The Wallace Foundation has committed considerable resources to two dozen states and scores of districts to help develop effective approaches, policies, and practices aimed at improving leadership. As a result, key lessons have emerged as states have instituted substantial changes that anchor the design of their leader development systems around a robust vision of leadership embedded in professional standards. The states have carefully examined the overall integration of critical features within preparation programs, in addition to crafting new approaches to hold universities and districts accountable for designing and implementing more effective programs.

For example, Delaware, beginning with a task force in 2001, designed a blueprint for strengthening school leadership that includes new state board regulations for accrediting preparation programs in alignment with the Delaware School Leader Standards. The state expanded the Educators Data System that tracks educators' credentials as well as where administrators complete their preservice training. The state plans to fully implement the Delaware Performance Appraisal System that has been piloted as a performance evaluation of school leaders in four areas: leader standards, goals and priorities, school or district improvement plans, and measures of student achievement.

Connecticut relied upon data from the state performance assessment of principals to review and accredit programs, as well as assess the readiness of individual school leaders. Connecticut's Administrator Test used performance tasks (including videotapes of teaching and samples of student work) to assess principals' abilities to evaluate teaching, guide professional development, and design school improvement processes based on research and knowledge of specific school contexts. The state holds preparation programs accountable for graduates' performance by requiring 80 percent of graduates to pass the Administrator Test in order for the university program to keep its accreditation.

A number of states have strengthened their program approval requirements in recent years by shifting emphases and adopting new structures with greater coherence around coursework and field experiences. Alabama's new regulations include: requiring potential candidates to show evidence of their ability to improve student achievement and leadership potential; providing structured, supervised field experiences codesigned with school districts; and rigorously evaluating candidates' performance.

Georgia stipulated that its "teacher and student leader training system [must rely] on an integrated relationship between the school districts and universities based on the principles of quality assurance, collaboration, and responsiveness." Universities must assure the quality of their graduates in advancing student learning by guaranteeing that graduates meet all expectations before certification; providing additional training for any graduate identified by a school system as not performing to standard; and securing at least an annual 80 percent pass rate for leader candidates on certification exams.

Iowa developed statewide standards of effective leadership for principals and focused on ensuring that training programs and evaluation criteria are based on those standards. To that end, the state instituted a rigorous new review process two years ago for university- and nonuniversity-based principal training programs, with accreditation approval based on whether or not programs are aligned with Iowa's Standards for School Leaders. As a result of this rigorous process, only five of nine programs were approved.

In order to ensure an adequate supply of qualified administrators to lead the state's ambitious reforms, Massachusetts took the bold step of allowing school districts to certify aspiring school leaders. Springfield Public Schools requested this designation in order to better train and hire principals suited to the differing needs of its schools. This use of district-specific principal preparation ensured that university programs would respond to the particular culture and context of the district. Working in collaboration with the University of Connecticut, the Springfield program places strong emphasis on classroom instruction, internships, and mentoring—all with a focus on the specific needs of Springfield schools.

Other states are beginning to launch state academies that foster durable partnerships between districts and universities. Along with state supports, these academies ensure a strong candidate pool, expanded resources, continuity in developing practices appropriate for a particular context, and reciprocal institutional improvements that produce better programs and stronger leaders. For example, Georgia is working with universities and school districts to prepare principals to work in low-performing schools. The state has developed a model training program that is being replicated in three regions, including Atlanta, as part of the redesign of their leader training program at Georgia State University.

In 2008, Kentucky adopted new regulations for principal preparation in alignment with the ISLLC 2008 standards. The new guidance requires all institutions of higher learning to submit plans to receive accreditation that adhere to new design elements (e.g., district partnerships, rigorous selection criteria, ongoing performance assessments, school-based experiences).