School leadership is one of the keys to making our schools stronger and giving every student the educational opportunities that prepare him to succeed. That’s why the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Center on Reinventing Public Education recently released A Policymaker’s Guide to Improving School Leadership for state policymakers and advocacy groups interested in improving school leadership policies.
Much attention has been focused on teacher effectiveness, but there has been too little discussion about the role that principals play in ensuring that educators have the support, tools, and working environment they need to provide high-quality instruction. Education advocates need to understand which state policies most impact principal quality and how they can strengthen or alter them to benefit schools.
As with any proposed reform, however, advocates are likely to encounter some pushback from institutions and individuals resistant to change. Yet many of the arguments against changing school leadership policies are not founded on a full understanding of the research and facts. What follows are rebuttals to five common justifications for maintaining the status quo.
1. Improving the principal training pipeline
Argument: It’s not clear that preparation programs are the problem. And even if they are, we can’t fix them by adopting new state policies.
Rebuttal: Researchers have been recommending that states raise standards and strengthen oversight of principal preparation programs for over a decade. Yet studies indicate that states are still woefully behind on basing decisions about leadership programs on key data indicators, like how well principals perform once they’re on the job. Far too many training programs are not providing rigorous courses or relevant clinical experience, so it’s unsurprising that schools and CMOs across the country report significant challenges in recruiting effective principals.
2. Evaluations
Argument: It’s too difficult to evaluate principals because a school’s success depends on too many other factors outside a principal’s control.
Rebuttal: When it comes to in-school factors that influence student success, school leadership is second only to classroom instruction. In fact, highly effective principals raise student achievement by somewhere between two and seven months of additional learning each school year compared to the average principal, while ineffective principals lower achievement by the same amount. And a great leader’s impact is more significant in more challenging schools. So it’s clear that we need to be able to identify our strongest principals and make sure they’re leading schools where students need them the most.
More importantly, research shows that successful principals are making better decisions and using their time more wisely. For instance, effective principals set high standards and create school cultures that facilitate high-quality teaching and learning, leading to better classroom instruction and greater school-wide gains. Good principals are also more likely to make personnel changes in grade levels where students are underperforming. In short, there are many things within a principal’s control that impact whether students and educators are more successful, and we should evaluate principals on their effectiveness in these areas.
3. Distributed leadership
Argument: Schools work best when there is one leader in charge, and most teachers just want to teach and be left alone. How do we know distributed leadership will even work?
Rebuttal: When the objective of a good distributed leadership model is improving instruction, researchers have found that the model strengthens the professional community and helps educators demonstrate instructional practices that are strongly associated with student achievement.
Moreover, it’s no secret that some schools and districts have a serious problem retaining their best teachers. One key reason? Teachers often feel that they don’t have advancement opportunities, particularly those that enable them to stay in their schools and classrooms. Distributed leadership eases the burden for principals and provides important opportunities for great teachers to develop and practice leadership skills while remaining in teaching roles.
The United Kingdom is way ahead of the United States in this area, having redesigned school leadership positions to create specific, substantive responsibilities for teachers at different levels within schools. And although it’s true that distributing leadership might not work in every school, it has shown great promise when teachers are responsible for carrying out certain leadership practices and the principal’s role is aligned to fit the new model.
4. Empowering principals with autonomy
Argument: The problem isn’t that principals don’t have enough authority, but rather that they just aren’t doing their jobs.
Rebuttal: We know that principals have a big job to do, and they know it too. One problem is that less than half of principals surveyed feel like they have control over the things that facilitate success. And they’re right. Principals often lack control over how to build and manage staff, even though it is one of the most important elements of principal effectiveness. And many have little say in how they can use their funding; they often encounter inflexible and outdated district procurement rules that make it difficult to spend quickly, efficiently, and creatively.
All of these issues matter because research shows that leaders in schools that have autonomy to determine their needs, goals, and programs do the best job of identifying approaches to change. Simply put, when effective principals have autonomy over decision making, schools improve.
5. Retaining our best principals
Argument: Principal turnover might be a problem, but it’s primarily the result of district under-funding and troubled schools.
Rebuttal: Principal turnover is a big problem. According to one study, more than one-half of middle school principals and almost three-quarters of high school principals leave their initial schools within five years. That’s bad for school stability and expensive for districts.
There are, however, other factors at work beyond the tough job and limited resources. Compensation is a problem. The difference in pay between veteran teachers and school principals is often small and not proportional to the latter’s greater responsibility and accountability. And principals often come in unprepared; this is especially true when they are placed in schools that don’t match their skills, even though a good fit is a major factor in principal success. Districts need to account for this reality in recruitment, because when they don’t, principals feel isolated and hamstrung by policies that rob them of their autonomy over personnel and funding decisions.
When faced with such challenging environments, it’s no wonder that many principals leave in search of a school that makes life a little easier.
It doesn't have to be this way. States can do a lot to improve retention of great principals, such as investing in leadership development, establishing peer networks, requiring districts to provide ongoing coaching, and removing barriers to autonomy. And states can help keep the best principals at the schools that need them most by ensuring that districts have greater flexibility when it comes to compensation—and incentivizing them to use it.
***
Enough with the excuses and cynicism! School leadership matters a lot, so let’s help states position their principals for success.
Eric Lerum is the author of A Policymaker’s Guide to Improving School Leadership. He is also vice president of growth and strategy for America Succeeds, where he leads the organization’s efforts to amplify the business leader voice in support of improving public education.
