Building a Stronger Principalship: Volume 3 January 2015 Districts Taking Charge of the Principal Pipeline POLICY STUDIES ASSOCIATES, INC. Brenda J. Turnbull | Derek L. Riley | Jaclyn R. MacFarlane Commissioned by: Building a Stronger Principalship: Volume 3 January 2015 Districts Taking Charge of the Principal Pipeline POLICY STUDIES ASSOCIATES, INC. Brenda J. Turnbull | Derek L. Riley | Jaclyn R. MacFarlane Commissioned by: PR-1452-WF January 2015 Preface This is the third report from an evaluation of the Principal Pipeline Initiative. The Wallace Foundation is sponsor of the initiative and of the evaluation, which is conducted by Policy Studies Associates, Inc., and RAND. This report analyzes progress in the initiative’s implementation in the six participating school dis- tricts from grant award in August 2011 through mid-2014. e n eli p Pi al p ci n ri P e h t f o e g r a h C g n ki a T s t c ri t s Di Contents Page SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................................i 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1 Background: Design of the Principal Pipeline Initiative................................................................2 This Report and the Overall Initiative Evaluation........................................................................4 Future Evaluation Reporting........................................................................................................8 2. LOOKING AT THE WHOLE LEADERSHIP PIPELINE ....................................................................9 Strengthening the Caliber of Leaders............................................................................................9 Principal Hiring Rates................................................................................................................10 P o Positions Held Before the Principalship......................................................................................11 licy S Building a Career Progression Strategically................................................................................14 tu d Challenges Related to Assistant Principalships ..........................................................................15 ie s A Summary: Changes under the Initiative, and a Look Ahead ......................................................16 s s o c ia t e 3. STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS..........................................................................................17 s , In Standards Development ............................................................................................................17 c . Using Standards in District Policy and Practice..........................................................................19 Revising Standards and Competencies Based on Experience......................................................20 New York City’s Approach to Principal Standards ....................................................................21 Standards for Assistant Principals..............................................................................................22 Summary: Changes under the Initiative, and a Look Ahead ......................................................23 4. PRESERVICE LEADER PREPARATION ..........................................................................................25 Revising the Process of Formal Preparation ..............................................................................25 A Strong District Role in a Lengthy Preparation Process............................................................28 District-Run Programs ..............................................................................................................30 Partnerships with Programs Outside the District........................................................................30 Principals’ Experience with Preparation ....................................................................................35 Preparation for Assistant Principals ..........................................................................................39 Summary: Changes under the Initiative, and a Look Ahead ......................................................40 5. SELECTIVE HIRING AND PLACEMENT ......................................................................................41 Multi-Stage Selection and Talent Pools......................................................................................41 More Ways to Assess Candidates’ Skills ....................................................................................43 Applicants’ Perceptions of the Selection Process ........................................................................46 Succession Planning and Placement............................................................................................48 Use of Data in Principal Placement............................................................................................49 Hiring Assistant Principals ........................................................................................................51 Remaining Issues in Hiring and Placement ................................................................................52 Summary: Changes under the Initiative, and a Look Ahead ......................................................53 6. EVALUATION AND SUPPORT........................................................................................................55 Capacity for Evaluation and Support ........................................................................................55 Leader Evaluation......................................................................................................................57 Professional Development and Tailored Support........................................................................62 Summary: Changes under the Initiative and a Look Ahead........................................................68 e n eli p 7. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................69 Pi al p nci REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................73 ri P e APPENDIX A: SURVEY WEIGHTING AND ANALYSES....................................................................75 h f t APPENDIX B: AN EXPLORATORY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS......................................................77 o e g r a h C g n ki a T s t c ri t s Di Exhibits PAGE Exhibit 1: Timeline of the grants, the evaluation, and this report..............................................................5 Exhibit 2: District and partner interview respondents, by district, 2012-14..............................................6 Exhibit 3: Survey respondents and response rates, by district, 2013 and 2014..........................................7 Exhibit 4: New principals appointed, by district and school year, as a percentage of principal positions in the district................................................................................................10 Exhibit 5: Principals who had served as assistant principals and those who had also served as teacher leaders, by district, 2014 ................................................................................11 Exhibit 6: School leadership positions previously held by principals, by district, 2014 ..........................13 Exhibit 7: Principal preparation pathways..............................................................................................26 Exhibit 8: Pathways as of 2011 and pathway changes made by 2014, by district ..................................27 Exhibit 9: Median number of months between starting leadership preparation program P o and starting job as principal by district, 2013 and 2014............................................................29 licy S Exhibit 10: Principal perceptions of their preparation experiences, 2013 and 2014................................36 tu d Exhibit 11: Principal perceptions of their preparedness, 2013 and 2014 ................................................37 ie s A Exhibit 12: Principal perceptions of their past experience as a candidate for a hiring pool s s o or analogous program, 2014......................................................................................................47 cia t e Exhibit 13: Principal perceptions of their past experience as a candidate for principal positions, 2014......47 s , In Exhibit 14: Principal perceptions of their 2012 and 2013 performance evaluation ................................60 c . Exhibit 15: Assistant principal perceptions of their 2012 and 2013 performance evaluation..................60 5 Exhibit 16: Feedback received by principals on the results of their 2012 and 2013 performance evaluation..............................................................................................61 Exhibit 17: Percent of principals having mentors or coaches, by cohort, 2013 and 2014........................64 Exhibit 18: Principal perceptions of the support received from principal supervisor/evaluator and mentor/coach, 2014................................................................................................................................65 Exhibit 19: Principal agreement that different sources of support led them to make changes in their work, 2014 ........................................................................................66 Exhibit 20: Percent of assistant principals having mentors or coaches, by cohort, 2013 and 2014..........67 Exhibit A-1: Principal and assistant principal survey weights by district and year..................................75 Exhibit B-1: Principal perceptions of preservice content, 2013 ..............................................................78 Exhibit B-2: Principal perceptions of preservice content, 2014 ..............................................................78 Exhibit B-3: Principal perceptions of preservice coursework, 2013........................................................79 Exhibit B-4: Principal perceptions of preservice coursework, 2014........................................................80 Exhibit B-5: Principal perceptions of their preparedness, 2013..............................................................81 Exhibit B-6: Principal perceptions of their preparedness, 2014..............................................................82 e n eli p Pi al p ci n ri P e h t f o e g r a h C g n ki a T s t c ri t s Di 6 Summary Six urban school districts received support from The Wallace Foundation to address the critical chal- lenge of supplying schools with effective principals. The experiences of these districts may point the way to steps other districts might take toward this same goal. Since 2011, the districts have partici- pated in the Principal Pipeline Initiative, which set forth a comprehensive strategy for strengthening school leadership in four interrelated domains of district policy and practice: 1.Leader standards to which sites align job descriptions, preparation, selection, evaluation, and support. 2.Preservice preparation that includes selective admissions to high-quality programs. 3.Selective hiring, and placement based on a match between the candidate and the school. P o lic y S 4.On-the-job evaluation and support addressing the capacity to improve teaching and learning, with tu d support focused on needs identified by evaluation. ie s A s s o The initiative also brought the expectation that district policies and practices related to school leaders cia t e would build the district’s capacity to advance its educational priorities. s , In c . The foundation selected the six sites, in part because they had already launched some policies and practices i consistent with these components, and awarded grants of $7.5 million to $12.5 million over five years. The initiative also provided technical assistance. The districts agreed to adopt and implement approaches to standards-based preparation, selection, evaluation, and support for school leaders consistent with the ini- tiative’s specifications. The districts are: (cid:0) Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, North Carolina (cid:0) Denver Public Schools, Colorado (cid:0) Gwinnett County Public Schools, Georgia (cid:0) Hillsborough County Public Schools, Florida (cid:0) New York City Department of Education, New York (cid:0) Prince George’s County Public Schools, Maryland The evaluation of the Principal Pipeline Initiative has a dual purpose: to analyze the processes of imple- menting the required components in the participating districts from 2011 through 2015; and then to assess the results achieved in schools led by principals whose experiences in standards-based preparation, hiring, evaluation, and support have been consistent with the initiative’s requirements. This report addresses imple- mentation of all components of the initiative as of 2014, viewing implementation in the context of districts’ aims, constraints, and capacity. Data collection for this report took place during the first three years after the initiative’s August 2011 launch. Data sources were: (1) semi-structured interviews with administrators in district central offices and partners during site visits in each spring, 2012 through 2014; (2) focus groups with novice principals and assistant principals (i.e., those in their first, second, and third years in their position) in spring 2013 and 2014; (3) surveys of novice principals and assistant principals in spring 2013 and spring 2014; (4) docu- e n ments including the districts’ proposals, work plans, and progress reports; and (5) observation of and par- eli p ticipation in cross-site meetings from 2011 through 2014. Pi al p ci Looking at the Whole Leadership Pipeline n ri P e h f t As the Principal Pipeline Initiative matured over three years, districts were rapidly developing the capacity o e to take a strategic look at the flow of talent into the principalship. The increasing availability of data g r ha opened the way to more active management of career progressions for aspiring leaders, using approaches C g that we describe in the subsequent chapters of this report. In particular, the Leader Tracking Systems re- n aki quired and supported by the Principal Pipeline Initiative could inform this kind of active management. T s t c ri st Although not all districts had fully developed datasets with which they could analyze the pathways taken Di by their new principals, all district leaders were well aware that positions as assistant principals were part ii of the usual sequence. Their scrutiny of that position and their consideration of ways to raise the bar for as- sistant principal performance showed the strategic thinking that they were bringing to bear. Our survey data suggest that they could also look strategically at the responsibilities assigned to other leadership posi- tions within schools, which may also provide important preparation for the principals who will take office some years in the future. Leader Standards A mandate to develop standards would not necessarily lead to active, continuing use of the standards, but in this initiative that is what ensued. Each district engaged in a multi-year process of developing and then refining leader standards—statements of the competencies and performance expected of principals. They developed and adapted indicators of competency and performance appropriate to various career stages, such as the stage of application to a preparation program or that of first-year principalship. Rather than leave their standards and competencies entombed in binders on their shelves, these districts’ leaders put them to active use in structuring principal preparation, hiring, evaluation, and support. They treated the standards as living documents, and they expected to make further revisions. Preservice Leader Preparation The districts took strong roles in reshaping preservice preparation. They developed or extended their own in-house preparation programs. They also forged stronger relationships and engaged in more active, de-