Updating university-based principal preparation programs in line with research-supported practices, interactive and experiential pedagogies, and aligned to state and national standards, results in principals who are better prepared to be change agents in today’s schools.
A new report from RAND, researched and written on behalf of the Wallace Foundation, notes how complex the jobs of school principals have become in recent years. University-based principal preparation programs (PPPs) prepare the majority of principals for their roles, and need to update their programs to prepare them adequately for today’s school management needs as well as to support them in their roles as instructional leaders. The report’s findings are based on a five-year study of seven university principal preparation programs and how they reorganized their programs around research-based practices.
Leading researchers have generally agreed on the qualities of “exemplary” PPPs:
- Proactive recruitment of candidates
- Authentic learning opportunities
- Course content focused on developing instruction, personnel, and organizational features of the school
- A cohort structure to provide collegial support
- Problem-based pedagogy
- Authentic clinical experiences
- Experienced mentors or coaches
The Wallace Foundation awarded grants to seven public universities in seven states to redesign their PPPs with the help of partner districts and the state agencies that license principal training programs. They developed a working model focused on a systems approach to change.
How the Programs Changed
Those programs that engaged with districts to make recruitment more intentional and collaborative worked to attract candidates with specific qualifications and included more performance-based tasks during the selection process to assess applicants’ readiness for a rigorous program.
Although each university redesigned their program individually, there were some common themes that emerged. Most programs put equity in the center. Other commonalities were collaboration, relationship-building, and developing others. By the end of their redesign, all programs had sequenced and scaffolded their courses and aligned them to state and national standards.
An example from North Carolina State illustrates how a program increased their use of interactive and experiential pedagogies. Working in groups, NC State principal candidates are required to learn about the developmentally appropriate practices required to lead schools at various levels, including early childhood, elementary, middle and high schools. Candidates investigate their district’s programming for every age group. After studying the physical, cognitive, social and emotional development of each age group, candidates visit schools.
The visits include classroom observations and interviews with teachers, students, leaders and other stakeholders after which principal candidates reflect on the implications for their leadership practice.
These programs also changed the type of faculty instructors they used by including faculty with actual K–12 experience and moving away from tenured faculty. This was also a best practice as districts need principals who can integrate theory and practice through active learning and input from faculty with school administration experience.
Most of the programs also increased their focus on “authentic work” in coursework and internship to mirror the work of active principals. Instead of just observing meetings, the candidates actively participated in district meetings, hiring and interviewing teachers, and doing some instructional coaching. The redesigned programs encouraged experiences like conducting an equity or school climate audit so that candidates had access to critical learning experiences.
New Outcomes
One strategy that helped support strong program implementation was hiring a liaison to work with both the university and the district. A continuous improvement process was built into the redesign and implementation process—there was no “one and done.” The communication tools, strategies, and protocols that the various teams used were all research-based, effective management practices.
They also took advantage of state policies to promote principal quality, including establishing leadership standards, approving programs that prepare aspiring principals, supporting the recruitment of high-quality candidates, guiding professional learning, and facilitating communication across the system.
Although there was turnover at every level, including faculty, the study demonstrated that it was feasible for universities to improve their PPPs to include the best available evidence of efficacy. One realization was that the path to becoming a principal is not solely defined by the PPP but is part of a system that includes districts and state officials. The study concludes that the redesigned programs were more rigorous, coherent and authentically connected to the work of active principals. Also, they equipped principals with the skills they needed to be change agents in their schools to effect meaningful change to ensure all students are successful.