-
-
Email Event
-
-
In an era of educational accountability, charter schooling, merit pay, and data-driven standards, school principals face unprecedented demands as leaders and managers. Are education schools teaching new principals the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in this new world? Addressing this vital question will be AEI's director of education policy studies, Frederick Hess, who will present new findings that document what is being taught in preparation programs for principals.*
Responding to Hess's research will be panelists James Donnelly, 2004 National Principal of the Year; Sharon Robinson, president of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE); Jon Schnur, chief executive officer of New Leaders for New Schools; and Julie Underwood, chair of the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Paul Peterson, Harvard University professor and director of the Program on Education Policy and Government, will moderate.
| 9:45 a.m. | Registration | |
| 10:00 | Presentation: | Frederick M. Hess, AEI |
| Discussants: | James Donnelly, 2004 National Principal of the Year | |
| Sharon Robinson, AACTE | ||
| Jon Schnur, New Leaders for New Schools | ||
| Moderator: | Paul Peterson, Harvard University | |
| 11:30 | Adjournment |
*Published by Harvard University and released in the Summer 2005 edition of Education Next, this research can be found at www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg beginning May 25. An adapted version will be available at www.educationnext.org.
May 2005
Leave No Principal Behind: What Is Being Taught in Principal Preparation Programs?
In an era of educational accountability, charter schooling, merit pay, and data-driven standards, school principals face unprecedented demands as leaders and managers. Are education schools teaching new principals the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in this new world? Addressing this vital question, AEI’s director of education policy studies, Frederick M. Hess, presented new findings that document what is being taught in preparation programs for principals at a May 26 AEI conference. Responding to the research were panelists James Donnelly, 2004 National Principal of the Year; Sharon Robinson, president of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE); and Jon Schnur, chief executive officer of New Leaders for New Schools.
Frederick M. Hess
AEI
Several new demands are being placed on the principals of the twenty-first century. They are now being asked to lead school improvement under accountability, actively ensure teacher quality, employ data and research, and operate in a public choice environment. Though there have been several studies decrying the lack of preparation principals gain from training programs, little research has been conducted on the actual content of these programs. These new studies ask two questions. First, what are principal candidates actually being taught in preparation programs? And second, what are they being asked to read in these programs?
Analysis of the syllabi collected from educational administration programs indicated that the largest percentage of classroom time is spent imparting technical knowledge, whereas management and leadership skills are given less attention. Within the small percentage of time allocated for management development, most of it is spent focusing on the softer side of management, instead of tough-minded evaluation and managing for results with data, research, or accountability. In leadership development, the majority of the time is spent on politics, policy, and community relations, instead of focusing on collective bargaining, small business skills, or relations with parents and the school board. A relatively small percentage of course weeks are devoted to norms and values, thus calling accusations of ideological bias into question. However, within this small percentage, the overwhelming majority of norms and values taught were identified as left-leaning.
The analysis of assigned texts also revealed an inattention to tough-minded personnel management. Words like “culture,” “data,” “values,” and “resources” were used with more frequency than “compensation,” “efficiency,” “accountability,” and “termination.” While the context in which “data” was mentioned was largely positive and prescriptive, mentions of “accountability” were more likely to be negative and contained almost no prescriptions for use.
Three main conclusions can be drawn from this new research: First, principals are not being equipped to use accountability or take responsibility for teacher quality. Second, there is little evidence of ideological bias, but the larger concern is the limited scope of preparation. Finally, structural changes make sense, but we must also consider what principals need to know and what they are being taught.
James Donnelly
2004 National Principal of the Year
These studies are very relevant, yet not very surprising. A large percentage of current principals report that they received more training from mentors or on-the-job experience than from their educations. Teaching and practicing tough-minded managerial and administrative skills is certainly important, but it proves difficult because of the amount of time it consumes and the legal complications surrounding it.
Some of the realities of the principal’s experience could not be addressed by these studies because they are overlooked by education professors. First, adequate attention is not given to the need for principals to create an effective disciplinary structure for students. A significant percentage, if not a majority, of the principal’s time is consumed with discipline and the communication with students, parents, and law enforcement that requires. This leaves little time for important activities like in-class teacher evaluation or mentoring. What is also not taken into account is the effect of generational poverty on student achievement. Though it has been debated in the public arena for many years, principals are not prepared to actually address and therefore overcome how a child’s home and community environment affect his or her performance.
Sharon Robinson
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
The essence of principal leadership is to help the whole school enterprise focus on productivity. Part of the reason preparation programs do not adequately train future principals is because there is no agreed upon required set of skills that a principal needs to lead effectively. Therefore, debates about reforming the programs are hard to begin. But the combination of quality content and practice in preparation programs can give principals the hard-edge tools they need to perform well.
Further research should be conducted to evaluate if the content of the syllabi accurately reflects the reality of classroom practice in educational administration programs. It is possible that a labeled “course week” does not capture the interplay between lecture, reading material, and other activities that comprise classroom instruction.
Jon Schnur
New Leaders for New Schools
The recent focus on principal preparation is important because principals are the key lever to successfully reaching higher levels of student achievement. These studies appropriately emphasize the need for transforming the principalship. However, modifying the training programs is a necessary but insufficient step toward this goal. These studies addressed what is currently being taught to future principals without prescribing what should be taught. Actually determining what characteristics and skills are needed to be a good principal is a critical first step to improving preparation programs.
AEI researcher Rachel Hoff prepared this summary.
