Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Transcription

1 ISLLC Analysis Report Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis Mary Canole, CCSSO Consultant on School Leadership Michelle Young, Researcher, Executive Director of UCEA

2 Growth Model Comparison Study: A Summary of Results A paper commissioned by the Technical Issues in Large-Scale Assessment and Accountability Systems & Reporting State Collaboratives on Assessment and Student Standards Council of Chief State School Officers Authored By: Bill Auty, Education Measurement Consulting Frank Brockmann, Center Point Assessment Solutions Supported By: Charlene Tucker, TILSA Advisor Duncan MacQuarrie, Associate TILSA Advisor Doug Rindone, Associate TILSA Advisor Based on Research and Commentary From: Pete Goldschmidt Kilchan Choi J.P. Beaudoin Special Thanks: Arie van der Ploeg, American Institutes for Research This report was prepared for the Technical Issues in Large Scale Assessment (TILSA) and Accountability Systems & Reporting (ASR) members of the system of State Collaboratives on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) supported by the Council of Chief StateSchool Officers (CCSSO). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of CCSSO, its board, nor any of its individual members. No official endorsement by CCSSO, its board, nor any of its individual members is intended or should be inferred. Copyright 2012 by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC All rights reserved. Copyright 2013 by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.

3 Table of Contents I. Introduction: An Analysis of Leadership Standards...3 II. Brief History of the ISLLC Standards...5 III. A Change in the Context for School Leaders...8 IV. The Development of Leadership Standards in Cutting Edge Districts: Defining the New Role of Principals...12 V. Large Urban Districts Putting Leadership Standards to Work in Principal Evaluation Systems...17 VI. Leadership Research Since VII. Mapping of the Leadership Standards and a Review of Previous Mapping Work...39 VIII. Questions for Consideration...44 I. References List of Appendices...49 A. Research Supporting the ISLLC/ELCC Standards (Source: Young and Mawhinney, 2012) B. InTASC 2011/ Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders/ISLLC 2008 Standards Crosswalk C. Mapping the Model Teacher Leadership Standards with the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC D InTASC Standards/Teacher Leader Model Standards E. A Crosswalk of Principal Implementation of Common Core Shifts in ELA and Math, the ISLLC 2008 Standards, and Performance Expectations & Indicators for Education Leaders F. A Comparison of the NAESP and NASSP Framework for Rethinking Principal Evaluation to A Framework for Principal Evaluation: Key Evaluation Elements and Considerations G. Gap Analysis between ISLLC 2008 and the Principal Pipeline District Leader Standards H. National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals and ISLLC I. A Comparison of New Leaders Urban Excellence Framework and ISLLC J. May 2012 SCEE State Progress Survey Compilation of Responses to Questions Pertaining to Leader Effectiveness K. Mapping of the ISLLC 2008 to the ELCC Standards L. Findings from the Council of the Great City Schools Survey on Principal Evaluation

4 This report was developed by Mary Canole 1 and Michelle D. Young 2 to inform the work of national educational leadership stakeholders concerning the review of leadership standards and decisions concerning the revision of the ISLLC 2008 standards or the development of a new set of leadership standards and companion documents and tools. The report includes a comparison and analysis of state and national educator standards and practices, and analyses of the current research on leadership practice. The report poses questions, options, and recommendations based on comparisons, analyses, surveys, and research. The authors gratefully acknowledge support from The Wallace Foundation 3 for this report, which was produced with assistance from the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), and researchers working in affiliation with the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). 1 Mary Canole is a consultant on school leadership for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 2 Michelle D. Young is a researcher, the director of the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) and a professor of educational leadership at the University of Virginia

5 Section One Introduction: An Analysis of Leadership Standards The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness (SCEE) and The Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) received a grant award from The Wallace Foundation to support principal effectiveness and a strong principal pipeline. According to the foundation, the goal of the principal pipeline is to develop and ensure the success of a sufficient number of principals to meet district needs. The SCEE-CGCS project was designed to address the lack of expertise concerning principal evaluation that exists among current educators and policymakers at all levels. This project seeks to survey and document the knowledge and practice of districts and states that have developed effective principal evaluation systems, and to share these success stories with others. This grant-funded report is focused on improving principal evaluation, which is a major thrust of principal pipeline initiatives. It is hoped that this report will serve as a catalyst for the education leadership community to come together to discuss and identify the necessary steps for ensuring that each and every school has an effective leader. The Wallace Foundation is currently working with six large urban districts on principal pipeline development in order to test its theory about what it takes to build a sustainable principal pipeline. 4 According to The Wallace Foundation, This [principal pipeline] initiative utilizes the results of 10 years of site work and research in education leadership to inform the construction of a sustainable principal pipeline. The goal is to demonstrate that when an urban district and its principal training programs provide large numbers of talented, aspiring principals with the right pre-service training and on-the-job evaluation and supports, the result will be a pipeline of principals able to improve teaching quality and student achievement district-wide, especially in schools with the greatest needs. 5 In support of this goal, the foundation plans to document strategies employed by the six demonstration districts as well as the lessons learned while building their own district principal pipeline. This information will serve as a resource to other states and districts engaged in similar work. CCSSO and CGCS s work was multi-faceted and entailed the implementation of the following strategies: Analyze leader standards Principals are measured against criteria that, ideally, emerge from formal leadership standards. The most recent data from CCSSO s SCEE show that the majority of states are using a variety of tools, most of which aren t current with the realities faced by today s principals, such as the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). An analysis and comparison of leader standards with other educator and policy standards will provide insight into the continuities and discontinuities among expectations for leader practice. 4 Major-Principal-Pipeline-Initiative-to-Help-School-Districts-Build-Corps.aspx 5 Major-Principal-Pipeline-Initiative-to-Help-School-Districts-Build-Corps.aspx// 3

6 Synthesize district lessons and needs CGCS will survey its members to identify promising practices and gaps in leader evaluation systems. A synthesis of this survey data, combined with information from CGCS s district audits, will provide the basis for further discussion among districts which will take place primarily through webinars and conference calls. Vet and synthesize the results of the strategies above Vetting the results of the above analyses is an essential validation step in developing reliable, relevant, and useful policy guidance for states/districts. Such steps will also strengthen recommendations formulated for new tools or other products. CGCS surveyed its members about their leader evaluation systems and the role of the principal supervisor. SCEE completed the mapping of select state and principal pipeline districts leadership standards with such national standards and frameworks as the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 (CCSSO, 2008), referred to in this document as the ISLLC standards or the ISLLC 2008 standards ; Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders (CCSSO, 2008b); InTASC 2011; New Teacher Leader Standards; CCSS shifts in English language arts and mathematics; NASSP/ NAESP and New Leaders frameworks; and, the National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals (NBPTS, 2010). In addition, SCEE conducted a study of the six principal pipeline districts leadership standards development process. The purpose of this report is to review the ISLLC 2008 standards in light of today s educational context and educational research and practice. This report includes eight main sections and a series of appendices. These sections include 1) an introductory analysis of leadership standards; 2) a brief history of the ISLLC standards and the Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders; 3) key changes in our education context since 2007; 4) the development of leadership standards in cutting edge districts; 5) large urban districts putting leadership standards to work in principal evaluation systems; 6) leadership research since 2007, detailing what we know now that we didn t know then; 7) a mapping of leadership standards and a review of previous mapping work including studies of sample state and district leadership standards currently in use and the differences between these current standards and the ISLLC 2008 standards; and, 8) questions to consider to inform stakeholder discussions concerning the review of leadership standards as related to whether a new set of leadership standards should be developed to serve as living documents, responsive to ongoing changes in the education context. Note: A preliminary draft of this report and key-mapping artifacts were shared with members of the National Policy Board for Education Administration (NPBEA) at their meeting in Alexandria, VA, on November 30, 2012, and with the members of The Wallace Foundation Principal Pipeline Initiative Professional Learning Community on Leader and Teacher Evaluation during the December 6-7, 2012 Wallace Principal Pipeline Convening in New York. Preliminary report authors Young and Canole reviewed data from the Principal Pipeline Districts Survey and Focus Group on the leadership standards development processes and analyzed feedback from the Wallace Principal Pipeline Initiative Professional Learning Community on Leader and Teacher Evaluation and revised the proposed questions for consideration for leader standards, and companion documents and tools accordingly. 4

7 Section II Brief History of the ISLLC Standards In the mid-1990s, the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA), a consortium of stakeholder groups in educational leadership 6, created the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) to take up the challenging task of designing the first set of national standards for educational leaders. This new consortium was organized and facilitated by CCSSO. Led by Joseph Murphy of Vanderbilt University and Neil Shipman of the University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill, a group of individuals representing numerous professional organizations and 24 states developed the Interstate School leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders, which were adopted by the NPBEA and released in 1996 (CCSSO, 1996). Eight states adopted the ISLLC standards outright, 23 others added to or modified the standards for leadership frameworks, and 10 states separately developed leadership standards found to align with the standards. Within a decade, the ISLLC standards had become almost universally accepted across the United States, and by 2005, 46 states had adopted or slightly adapted the standards, or had relied upon them to develop their own set of state standards (Murphy, Young, Crow, & Ogawa, 2009; Sanders & Simpson, 2005). Furthermore, Sanders and Simpson (2005) note that states not using the ISLLC standards show marked similarities. The ISLLC standards, which placed great emphasis on the instructional leadership responsibilities of administrators, have provided a common vision for effective educational leadership. For example, approximately half of the states in the US have mandated that aspiring administrators take and pass a standardized examination as a condition of attaining their administrative licenses (Adams & Copland, 2005). Of these states, 16 require the School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA) developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), which is aligned with the ISLLC standards (McCarthy & Forsyth, 2009). Furthermore, these standards have provided states with leverage to implement significant changes in their program accreditation policies and processes and to mandate reviews of their approved leadership preparation programs (Murphy, 2003). At the national level, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) educational leadership specialty area, conducted by the Educational Leadership Licensure Consortium (ELLC), has used a modified version of these standards to guide their leadership preparation program reviews since NPBEA is currently comprised of a representative from the following associations: American Association of Colleges of Education (AACTE), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), Association of School Business Managers (ASBM), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA), National School Boards Association (NSBA), and University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). 5

8 The extensive use of the ISLLC standards to guide leadership preparation, practice, and evaluation has solidified their role as the de facto national leadership standards. As such, the ISLLC standards have not only served as a basis for developing a coherent leadership development pipeline, but their almost universal use by states as a guide for the preparation, practice, and evaluation of educational leaders enables comparisons across states (CCSSO, 2008a). The standards, however, have not been immune to criticism. Indeed, a wide range of concerns has been raised over the years. Some of the more significant and recurring concerns include a lack of direct connection between the leadership standards and student achievement gains (Davis, Darling- Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Gronn, 2003); the omission of specific areas such as school technology leadership; the under-specification of criteria to be met (Keeler, 2002; Leithwood & Steinback, 2005); the lack of consideration given to the role of context in leadership practices (English, 2003; Gronn, 2003); an assumption that leadership is provided by a single person (Pitre & Smith, 2004); and, the failure to identify the empirical knowledge/research upon which the standards are based (Achilles & Price, 2001; Hess, 2003; Waters & Grubb, 2004). On balance, many of the above concerns have been countered, explained, or justified by ISLLC supporters (see, for example, Murphy, 1999; 2002; 2003; 2005; Murphy, Yff, & Shipman, 2000). Addressing some of the most common criticisms, Murphy (2005) highlighted an important focus of the original ISLLC work group, The goal has been to generate a critical mass of energy to move school administration out of its 100-year orbit and to reposition the profession around leadership for learning (p. 180). Perhaps more importantly, specific efforts have been made to address issues such as the under-specification of general criteria and the failure to identify the empirical research base upon which the standards are built. With regard to the former, a sub-group of CCSSO representing 24 different states, SCEL, created Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders (CCSSO, 2008b). This document articulates concrete expectations for the practice of educational leaders in various roles at different points in their careers and was designed as a guidebook for states implementing the ISLLC standards in the new education context of the time. In terms of the final criticism, two efforts have been made to ensure that the ISLLC and ELCC standards are anchored to the empirical research on educational leadership. These efforts are described below. Recognizing the need to ensure the relevancy and currency of such an important set of standards, the NPBEA voted in 2005 to review and potentially revise both the ISLLC standards and the ELCC Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership. The ISLLC standards were updated and revised in Led by Richard Flannary (NASSP) and Joe Simpson (CCSSO), a steering committee made up of representatives from each of the NPBEA member organizations named one representative to collaboratively embark upon this work (CCSSO, 2008a). In addition to soliciting input from educational leaders, researchers, and other leadership stakeholder groups, the steering committee created an expert panel to consider research in the field of educational leadership related to the standards, review recommendations from stakeholder organizations in NPBEA, recommend researchbased changes, and articulate the research base (NPBEA, 2006). 6

9 As a result of this process, in 2008 the NPBEA adopted a slightly revised version of the ISLLC standards, renamed the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 (NPBEA, 2006; Young, 2008). The previously mentioned CCSSO report, Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders, was named as a companion guide to the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC The explicit description of individual ISLLC standard expectations through dispositions, elements, and indicators helped to operationalize the policy standards at a more granular level. Subsequently, NPBEA designed a similar process to revise the ELCC preparation program standards and worked with the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) to ensure that the revised standards were based on current research concerning effective educational leadership (Young & Mawhinney, 2012). A good deal has changed in the decade and a half since the original publication of the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders (CCSSO, 1996). Standards and accountability issues have moved from the margins to the center of educational discourse, not only in K-12 schools and districts, but in college and university preparation programs as well. Moreover the pace of change in educational policy and practice has quickened. Indeed, since the revision of the 1996 ISLLC standards in 2008, several important federal and state level policy movements have emerged with significant implications for the practice of educational leaders. 7

10 Section III A Change in the Context for School Leaders As a nation, our expectations for student learning have never been higher. Students are expected to know more and be able to do more with what they know than has previously been the case. These expectations, which have been expanding for some time, now, have significant implications for educators, particularly educational leaders. Mounting demands are rewriting administrators job descriptions every year, making them more complex than ever (CCSSO, 2008a, p. 3). Notably, the key rationale for updating the 1996 ISLLC standards (CCSSO, 1996) to the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC was a significant increase in performance expectations for education leaders. With the nation s implementation of President George W. Bush s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 8 the responsibilities of educational leadership shifted and expanded significantly. Indeed, state and federal requirements to increase student learning shifted the overarching role of school leader from managing orderly environments to leading instruction. Furthermore, the continued existence of management responsibilities necessitated more collective and distributive leadership models. School and district leaders have been expected to shape a collective vision of student success, to create a school culture that promised success for each and every student, and to purposefully distribute leadership roles and responsibilities to other administrators and teachers in their schools so that teaching and learning would improve and the highest levels of student achievement would be realized. The implementation of NCLB has been followed by the adoption and implementation of several other high impact educational initiatives and policies. Thus, while it has been only five years since the release and implementation of the ISLLC 2008 standards, the role of education leaders and the context in which they lead is dramatically different. There are four primary catalysts driving the changes our education leaders are experiencing, and each is described below: 1. The Common Core State Standards were developed as a result of state education leaders coming to consensus in 2008 on the need for fewer, higher, clearer standards for all students. These standards provide the basis of an education for all students that prepare them to graduate from high school college-and-career ready. The National Governors Association (NGA) and CCSSO led the development of the standards. The standards were released for state adoption on June 2,

11 2. The $4.35 billion Race to the Top (RTTT) 10 contest was created to spur innovation and reforms in state and local district K-12 education. It is funded by the U.S. Department of Education Recovery Act as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and was announced by U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on July 24, Nineteen states have been awarded funding for satisfying certain educational policies, such as the development of rigorous standards and better assessments; adoption of better data systems to provide schools, teachers, and parents with information about student progress; support for teachers and school leaders to become more effective; and increased emphasis and resources for the rigorous interventions needed to turn around the lowest-performing schools. The RTTT initiative prompted 48 states to adopt a set of common standards for K-12 education, and to adopt new strategies for educator evaluation. 3. The March 2010 Blueprint for Reform communicated President Obama s vision for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In this blueprint, the President communicated the moral imperative that every child in America deserves a world-class education. This imperative was described as the key for securing a more equal, fair, and just society. In his own words he asserts: We must do better. Together, we must achieve a new goal, that by 2020, the United States will once again lead the world in college completion. We must raise the expectations for our students, for our schools, and for ourselves this must be a national priority. We must ensure that every student graduates from high school well prepared for college and a career. This effort will require the skills and talents of many, but especially our nation s teachers, principals, and other school leaders. Our goal must be to have a great teacher in every classroom and a great principal in every school While the President s Blueprint for Reform has yet to result in reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), it did purposefully shape the voluntary ESEA Flexibility Program which allows states to submit ESEA Flexibility Requests in order to better focus on improving student learning and increasing the quality of instruction. This voluntary opportunity provides educators and State and local leaders with flexibility regarding specific requirements of NCLB in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction. This flexibility is intended to build on and support the significant state and local reform efforts already under way in critical areas such as transitioning to collegeand career-ready standards and assessments; developing systems of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; and, evaluating and supporting teacher and principal effectiveness A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, March See page 1 of

12 These four initiatives have made district and school leaders central to a system of accountability that requires them to ensure that each child is college and career ready upon graduation from high school and that each teacher effectively meets the diverse learning needs of his/her students on a daily basis. Furthermore, school principals and district administrators are expected to lead the full implementation of the new CCSS, which will require the transformation of instruction, the use of new assessments, and the adoption and implementation of new educator evaluation and support systems. In sum, today s leaders must engage in the practice of continuous school improvement and support that leverages the highest levels of student learning and the most impactful teacher instructional practice. There is no doubt that policy leaders at the federal, state, and local levels expect more out of today s educational leaders. In December 2012, CCSSO released a new report, titled Our Responsibility, Our Promise: Transforming Educator Preparation and Entry into the Profession, which serves as a call to action for states and educator preparation programs to ensure that our principals are school-ready. A school-ready principal is ready on day one to blend their energy, knowledge, and professional skills to collaborate and motivate others to transform school learning environments in ways that ensure all students will graduate college and career ready. With other stakeholders, they craft the school s vision, mission, and strategic goals to focus on and support high levels of learning for all students and high expectations for all members of the school community. To help transform schools, they lead others in using performance outcomes and other data to strategically align people, time, funding, and school processes to continually improve student achievement and growth, and to nurture and sustain a positive climate and safe school environment for all stakeholders. They work with others to develop, implement, and refine processes to select, induct, support, evaluate, and retain quality personnel to serve in instructional and support roles. They nurture and support professional growth in others and appropriately share leadership responsibilities. Recognizing that schools are an integral part of the community, they lead and support outreach to students families and the wider community to respond to community needs and interests and to integrate community resources into the school (CCSSO, 2012, p. iv). If you look at new iterations of state and district leadership standards developed in response to this new policy context, you find that the roles and responsibilities of school leaders align with but are described very differently from four years ago when the ISLLC 2008 standards were released. One striking example is found in the Denver Public Schools Framework for Effective School Leadership Evidence Guide, Version 2.0: This framework outlines the new performance expectations for school principals in the Denver Public Schools (DPS) district and is used within the DPS-University of Denver principal preparation program for aspiring school leaders. 10

13 The Denver Public Schools leadership expectations and indicators include: 1. Culture and Equity Leadership a. Leads for equity toward college and career readiness b. Leads for culture of empowerment, continuous improvement, and celebration 2. Instructional Leadership a. Leads for high-quality, data-driven instruction by building the capacity of teachers to lead and perfect their craft b. Leads for the academic and social-emotional success of all students (linguistically diverse, students with disabilities, gifted and talented, historically under-achieving students) c. Leads for effective English Language Acquisition (ELA) programming (ELA Program School Leaders) 3. Human Resource Leadership a. Identifies, develops, retains, and dismisses staff in alignment with high expectations for performance b. Applies teacher and staff performance management systems in a way that ensures a culture of continuous improvement, support, and accountability 4. Strategic Leadership a. Leads the school s Vision, Mission and Strategic Goals to support college readiness for all students b. Distributes leadership to inspire change in support of an empowered school culture 5. Organizational Leadership a. Strategically aligns people, time, and money to drive student achievement b. Ensures effective communications with and between all staff and stakeholders 6. External Leadership a. Actively advocates for members of the school community and effectively engages family and community b. Demonstrates professionalism and continuous professional growth Educational stakeholders agree that schools need leaders who can support student success and teacher effectiveness. How such needs are translated into leadership standards, however, has changed over the years with slight differentiations across state and local contexts. The DPS example provided above offers an alternative way of thinking about the work of school leaders in light of the current educational context. Although a mapping of the DPS standards to ISLLC 2008 demonstrates marked similarity, the DPS example raises questions about which leadership performances to emphasize as primary, how expectations should be articulated, and what supervisors and evaluators should look for as evidence of effective practice. In addition to the DPS framework, there were other striking examples of new district leadership standards from the other Wallace Foundation Principal Pipeline Initiative districts that provided very rich illustrations of what effective leadership practice needs to look like in today s educational context. The difference between these district standards and the ISLLC 2008 standards prompted an investigation into the Principal Pipeline Districts leadership standards development process, which is presented in the next section of this report. 11

14 Section IV The Development of Leadership Standards in Cutting Edge Districts: Defining the New Role of Principals As Tricia McManus, a district administrator in Hillsboro County Public Schools, shared, Standards are only as good as how they are put to use. In an effort to understand how states and districts are using the ISLLC 2008 standards in the development of their effective leadership systems, the leadership development and evaluation work of several districts with strong leadership development pipelines were examined. The practice of these districts, which are participating in The Wallace Foundation s Principal Pipeline Initiative, is of particular interest because the districts stand out among others in the nation as providing cutting edge thinking and action around the development of strong leadership pipelines. In our investigation, we worked to gain an understanding of the districts leadership development work, particularly around the development and use of standards. Specifically, we examined recently developed district leadership standards, investigated how they were developed, probed explanations for why they were developed, and explored how they were used within the cutting edge districts leadership pipeline work. To assist our efforts in gaining insight into the above questions, we first surveyed district personnel. We then held a focus group interview with key informants from each district, and, finally, followed up with individual key informants concerning information or resources specific to their district s work. More information on our information gathering efforts and findings follow. In an effort to understand why districts developed new leadership standards and how they used them, we administered an electronic survey (Survey Monkey) to the primary developers of the leadership standards in each of the six pipeline districts: Charlotte-Mecklenburg in North Carolina; Denver; Gwinnett County in Georgia; Hillsborough County in Florida; New York City; and, Prince George s County in Maryland. Respondents to this survey included Rashidah Morgan (Charlotte-Mecklenburg); John Youngquist (Denver); Glenn Pethel (Gwinnett County); Tricia McManus (Hillsborough County); Maria Esponda (New York City); Lorraine Madala and Pamela Shetley (Prince George s County). The survey was also administered to five other districts that were first generation Wallace Foundation grant recipients. In addition to the survey, we facilitated an extended focus group with the six pipeline district respondents to collect more information pertaining to their use of the ISLLC standards, the purpose of developing a revised set of leadership standards and their use, and the importance of tools to support the implementation of the new leadership standards. District representatives explained that their standards development work was motivated by a need to highlight and define the changing role of today s principal, respond to leadership needs specific to their 12

15 district s context, and ensure the alignment between the different elements of a principal pipeline. 13 In order to meet these needs, they initiated a leadership standards development process that included reviewing, analyzing, and/or mapping their district or state s current standards; gaining stakeholder and/or expert input at one or more stages of the process; drafting and revising standards based on stakeholder input; and, in some cases, piloting. Districts included a variety of stakeholders in their leadership standards development process. During the extended focus group, districts were asked to design an ideal process for developing standards. They were asked to provide details concerning how the standards would be used as well as what the development process would look like. They were also asked to articulate key steps, identify who would be the critical partners, and articulate the goals of developing new standards. Their responses were characterized by a desire for inclusiveness, contextual relevancy, and thoroughness. The following excerpts illustrate these characteristics. New York City responded that the ideal process needs to be district dependent and include a range of perspectives such as union partners, principals, principal supervisors, private partners, state, and higher education. Hillsborough shared that in their process, decisions were always taken back to their current principals to vet as the new standards were being developed. This created ownership. Hillsborough has a lot of competencies that they ve narrowed down to just nine for selection and hiring. Gwinnett emphasized the value of research and including outside experts. Joe Murphy (Vanderbilt University) and Steve Tozer (University of Illinois at Chicago) were named. New York City reminded us that in addition to having a diverse group of partners participating in the development process, it is critical to gather a spectrum of experience from first year principals to veteran principals. A principal s 1st year is very different from their 3 rd or 6 th year. Some external partners New York City used were Bank Street, Teachers College, New Leaders, and New York City Leadership Academy. The goal of the standards development process was to build coherence around common language and understanding. It is important to work toward simplicity and make sure the standards are relevant to what principals are actually engaging in. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools included Assistant Principals in their discussions. A leadership facilitator outside the field of education facilitated their discussions. Prince George s County Schools said the process lets them look at the importance of standards and how they relate to performance. The district is able to see how they can build leader capacity with the standards and use the standards as a lever to drive practice. 13 According to The Wallace Foundation, a strong principal pipeline has four aligned components: 1) Defining the job of the principal and assistant principal. Districts create clear, rigorous job requirements detailing what principals and assistant principals must know and do. These research-based standards underpin training, hiring, and on-the-job evaluation and support. 2) High-quality training for aspiring school leaders. Pre-service principal training programs, run by universities, nonprofits or districts, recruit and select only the people with the potential and desire to become effective principals and provide them with high-quality training. 3) Selective hiring. Districts hire only well-trained candidates to be school leaders. 4) Leader evaluation and on-the-job support. Districts regularly evaluate principals and provide professional development, including mentoring, that aims to help novice principals overcome weaknesses pinpointed in evaluations. 13

16 Denver Public Schools said that the presence of standards is valuable in evidencing effectiveness. Denver is undergoing its second standards revision process. Gwinnett County Schools shared that research played a great role in their process (i.e., The Wallace Foundation research on school leadership (e.g., Leithwood, et. Al; McREL; Dr. James Stronge from the College of William and Mary, etc.). Research provides the parameters for the standards. New York City communicated that the role of the leader is at the forefront to impact student achievement; you need to constantly bring partners together to review research and our work. It was clear that all of the districts used the ISLLC 2008 standards at some time during their development process. In most cases, ISLLC was used in addition to state leadership standards; other districts leadership standards; the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education s Core Competencies and Key Processes; and, leadership standards or frameworks developed by McREL, New Leaders, and the National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals (NBPTS, 2010). During the extended focus group, districts were asked to elaborate on how the ISLLC standards influenced thinking in their district around leadership standards. Prince George s County conducted an inquiry process to start and created a matrix of key principal behaviors and folded in the ISLLC standards after that; New York City developed their own school leadership competencies and then cross walked those to ISLLC and looked at how these competencies inform the work of the principals and how they would be used in their leader evaluation process. New York City is now creating a Leadership Framework to create coherence and adjust to the new expectations for principals in today s context. Gwinnett County, like New York City, explained that their leadership standards development work was an extension of work that began in their district seven years ago when they asked the question: What are the knowledge, skills, and competencies of effective leaders? Gwinnett wanted to narrow their focus and get a more clearly defined set of standards. They worked with James Stronge from the College of William and Mary to explore the qualities of effective principals. Gwinnett s design influenced standards development work at the state level, which has led to the state s adoption of leader standards and indicators. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools began with a state mandated principal evaluation instrument, which was informed by the 7 standards from McREL and grounded in ISLLC. Charlotte- Mecklenburg spent their time examining the purpose of standards and competencies and how they translated into the district. They explored the competencies that were essential to being a successful leader in the district. These competencies were then aligned to the standards. They also developed indicators (examples of effective leader behavior). When asked how the field might benefit from new leadership policy standards if they were more reflective of the adaptations within the pipeline districts, several ideas were shared. For example, Gwinnett County explained that the principal pipeline standards exemplified precision and simplicity and those standards need to be made simple so that there is precision pertaining to the indicators, ratings, and scoring, and rubrics. Hillsborough cautioned, though, the importance of the 14

17 standards extends beyond what the standards say. Rather, what s most important is what s done with the standards. They need to be used as a through-line for all aspects of the leader pipeline. The districts explained that they planned to use their district leadership standards throughout the principal/leader pipeline selection, development, and evaluation process. In a few cases they described specific individual steps (e.g., professional development), but generally noted that the standards were used throughout. Interestingly, there was no consensus among the districts that some standards were more important than others, although some districts cited instructional leadership as critical. A few districts mentioned visioning and culture, strategic leadership, micropolitical leadership, human resources, climate, planning, and assessment. Districts agreed that their new standards set the expectations for principal/leader performance and the evaluation process. Generally, districts viewed the standards as a basis for their leadership evaluation and support system. To assist principals/leaders in meeting this new set of expectations, the districts understood that support was absolutely necessary. As a matter of fact, the district respondents believed that the support should be yearlong and personalized, and could include such strategies as SAM (School Administrative Assistant), coaching, and professional development for leaders and supervisors. In support of implementation, the districts discussed the need for particular tools or resources they would require. These resources included examples of the leadership standards in action; performance rubrics; electronic tools to track performance; calibration tools; and, resources from The Wallace Foundation. Some districts already had developed or were planning to develop performance rubrics of their own. In addition, districts discussed other tools that they had developed including leadership standards maps; electronic evaluation forms; interview questions; school match documents; performance criteria/indicators; and performance examples. During the extended focus group, districts were asked: What will successful implementation of your new leadership standards look like in your district? What tools are most critical in supporting successful implementation? Hillsborough Has created selection competency rubrics for leader performance across the career continuum. Rubrics are most helpful. Prince George s County Wants a tool that captures the spirit of the leader and provides the overall story. Is there a way to tell the story of the quintessential leader? We talked about concrete competencies and drilled down into detail, but we want more of an emotional story. We need leader profiles and how the standards support them. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools Need tools to roll out information on standards that are contextual for the district. Competencies mean different things to different people. Denver Public Schools The implementation of leader competencies drives the curriculum of Denver s principal residency program. Stories have been documented on the growth of the residents by using the Individual Leadership Compact that residents develop and continually revise. The compacts identify the strengths and gaps of the resident using competencies. The Individual Leadership Compact becomes the story of their residency and growth. 15

18 It is clear that the pipeline districts are very committed to implementing their new leadership standards; however, it appeared that little thought had been given to developing a process for redesigning the standards in the future to keep them current and responsive to ongoing changes in the education context. Districts expect that their new leadership standards will result in higher quality leadership and improved leadership evaluation and performance over the short and long term. There were a few districts that said the new leadership standards identified common expectations for leadership, and one district even claimed to already be seeing changes in leadership effectiveness. None of the districts discussed the impact on student achievement although one district said that it would be unlikely that they would be able to identify leaders by student achievement in the near future. A survey administered by CGCS includes a look at the role leadership standards play in relation to evaluation systems put in place for principals in the nation s largest urban districts. The findings from this survey are discussed in Section V of this report. 16

19 Section V Large Urban Districts Putting Leadership Standards to Work in Principal Evaluation Systems As part of the effort to develop a deeper understanding of the use of standards in leadership evaluation and development efforts, CGCS surveyed close to 70 large urban districts on issues concerning their leadership evaluation practices, specifically the ways principals are supported and evaluated within large urban district contexts. The following excerpt from the report shares the key findings shared within the CGCS s survey report titled Principal Evaluation and Principal Supervisor (Casserly, Lewis, Simon, Uzzell, & Palacios, 2013, p. 1). For the full report, see the link provided in Appendix L. OVERVIEW Principals serve as both instructional and administrative leaders in their schools. Their roles and responsibilities vary from managing school compliance issues to facilitating and assisting teachers with their instructional duties. In order to support principals in public schools, district leaders and others are working to build the kinds of professional development, organizational structures, and supports principals need. Moreover, big city school systems and others continue to debate how to evaluate and hold principals accountable for achieving results. In the fall of 2012, CSCG received a grant from The Wallace Foundation to investigate the ways principals are supported and evaluated in large urban school districts and districts that participate in the Wallace leadership initiative. This involves taking a closer look at the roles and responsibilities of principal supervisors defined here as individuals who directly oversee and/or evaluate the performance of principals. This interim report summarizes the results of a survey administered to district staff in these positions in the fall of These results will be followed up with a second report detailing the findings of extensive site visits to the six districts participating in The Wallace Principal Pipeline Initiative. 14 This report does not provide recommendations or identify best practices, but seeks to present an overview of the ways districts support the critical work performed by principals and their supervisors. (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 1) 14 The six pipeline districts are Charlotte-Mecklenburg in North Carolina; Denver; Gwinnett County (near Atlanta) in Georgia; Hillsborough County (near Tampa) in Florida; New York City; and Prince George s County (near Washington, DC) in Maryland. Two districts Gwinnett County and Prince Georges County are not CGCSmember districts. 17

20 METHODOLOGY CGCS surveyed its 67 member urban public school districts along with two other school systems that are part of The Wallace Foundation s Principal Pipeline Initiative, but are not members of CGCS. The survey was sent to superintendents in each district and was conducted via Survey Monkey. Superintendents were asked to forward the survey to staff member(s) who best fit the principal supervisor role. The instrument remained in the field between October 10 and November 26, 2012, and multiple reminders were sent to boost response rates. Surveys with usable data were received from 41 of the 67 CGCS member districts and the two other non-member Wallace pipeline districts for a response rate of nearly 60 percent. It is important to note that most districts have more than one principal supervisor, so the total number of responses involved 135 individuals in 41 districts. In general, the survey asked for information about the characteristics and roles of principal supervisors, the professional development provided to them, and the perceived effectiveness of their principalevaluation system. The survey also asked respondents to indicate how these roles and responsibilities had changed between 2010 and June Otherwise, all results apply to the school year ending in June Apart from selected data on the numbers of principal supervisors, all other data are reported in the aggregate rather than by district. (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 1) PRINCIPAL EVALUATIONS Principal supervisors reported having principal-evaluation systems in place in their districts for an average of 7 years. These systems were reported to have been in place anywhere from 1 year to 31 years. Some 13 districts reported that their principal-evaluation systems had only been in place for a single year, which suggests that this is a new phenomenon for many districts. (Figure 8) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 13) Principal supervisors reported having an evaluation system in place for assistant principals for an average of 8 years. The total number of years these systems had been in place ranged from 1 to 31 years. The similarity in the figures for principals and assistant principals suggests that the evaluation systems for principals and assistant principals were often developed simultaneously. (Figure 9) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 13) Approximately 96 percent of principal supervisors said that the purpose of their district s principalevaluation system was to improve principal effectiveness; 79 percent said that the purpose was to identify items for ongoing principal professional growth for individual principals; 74 percent said the purpose was to make decisions about principal retention; and, 65 percent indicated that the purpose was to identify items for ongoing professional growth for all principals. Very few reported that the purpose of the principal-evaluation systems was to make decisions about principal pay, merit pay, or promotions. (Figure 10) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 13) 61 percent of responding principal supervisors reported that their district s principal-evaluation system was created by their own school district. Some 22 percent indicated that they were required 18