Grounding FAPEL’s White Paper
Recommendations for an accountability model for school leadership preparation programs in Florida. 

Teacher Leader Preparation Implementation Committee

Call to Strengthen Program Approval Process.

Develop new program approval processes based on rigorous standards to increase accountability for school leadership programs and require evaluations of their effectiveness that include data on graduates’ effect on student achievement.

National Conference of State Legislature: Preparing a pipeline of effective principals, 2012, p.11.

Assessment of the Research and Literature Review

•	Meta analysis completed by South East REL-Examining the Characteristics of Effective School Leaders-Osborne-Lampkin, Sidler-Folsom & Herrington will help us understand the  current literature base (2012 ongoing). 

Identified Three Challenges:
1. Achievement is affected by different factors;
2. Difficult to distinguish the principal effect from other characteristics (e.g., outside of the principal influence);
3. Some of the effectiveness of the school may be due to factors that were in place prior to the principal.

Joint University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) /American Educational Research Association/Testing, Evaluation, and Assessment SIG and Leadership Preparation Program Evaluation Task Force have promoted more outcomes-oriented leadership preparation evaluation program

Critiques of Leadership Preparation
Professor Qualifications
Faculty Size
Adjunct Usage/Quality
Admission Standards
Student Quality
Curriculum
Textbooks
Teaching Methods
Clinical Experiences 
Program Delivery
Candidate Assessment
Program Evaluation
Program Size (number students served) 
Program Purpose
Institutional Capacity
Research Production
 
A Comparison

UCEA’s Concerns

•	Quality Candidates 
•	Standards and Research-Based Curriculum
•	Praxis Based Programming
•	Quality Program Faculty
•	Appropriate Enrollments
•	Program Evaluation and Improvement
•	Institutional Capacity
•	Program Approval & Accreditation
•	Licensure

Levine (2005) Concerns

•	Low Admission and Graduation Standards
•	An Irrelevant Curriculum 
•	Inadequate Clinical Instruction
•	A Weak Faculty
•	Inappropriate Degrees
•	Poor Research

Report from the RAND Corporation (2012) investigated the relationship between first year principals and student achievement

Our findings suggest that the outcomes achieved by first-year principals vary tremendously. Principals enter schools that differ in terms of context, but there is little evidence that this context drives outcomes. We find that new principals placed in low-performing schools are somewhat more likely to leave after one year, but that may be because these schools are under greater scrutiny by their districts, the state, and the public. Rapid turnover appears to stem from school, district, or CMO choices based on performance rather than individual choices on the part of the principals—in particular, a desire to “trade up” to a “better” school.

Resource: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2012/RAND_TR1191.pdf

The Principal Policy State Survey (2013)
special report from The George W. Bush Institute’s (GWBI) Alliance to Reform Education Leadership 

•	Focused on specific state roles and policies impacting principal quality
•	50 states and the District of Columbia participated in the survey

Findings
•	States generally relying on input-based measures i.e. previous experience in teaching or obtained level of education rather than performance-based measures requiring aspiring leaders to demonstrate competency and skills. 
•	Little to no research supporting input-based measures as accurate proxies or predictors of principal effectiveness

•	States do not know whether graduates are successful in earning licensure, securing a job, retaining that job, and being effective in raising student achievement.

Policy Recommendations for 
Principal Preparation Program Approval

Key elements of an effective Principal Preparation Program
•	expressly designed to produce and place principals who improve student learning;
•	clearly defined principal competencies;
•	strategically recruit high-potential candidates into the program;
•	rigorous candidate selection process; 
•	relevant coursework taught by faculty with practitioner experience;
•	authentic learning experiences in real school settings; 
•	demonstrate competency mastery.

States need to
•	incorporate into principal preparation programs the growing body of research focused on the skills and behaviors that principals need to succeed; 
•	be able to measure principals’ ability to secure jobs, retain jobs, demonstrate an impact on student achievement, and receive effective evaluation ratings;
•	monitor principal preparation program outcome data and hold programs accountable for producing effective principals.

Source: The Principal Policy State Survey, Special Report from George W. Bush Institute, 2013

Empirical evidence evaluating leader preparation programs and their outcomes is thin (Pounder, 2001).

Findings a decade later: Leader preparation special issue: Implications for policy, practice, and research. Educational Administration Quarterly February 2011 47: 258-267, first published on October 29, 2010 

•	Principals’ preparation background can influence their position opportunities and their likelihood of inheriting and/or creating school conditions that enhance student learning (Fuller, Young, &  Baker, 2011).

•	Frequent use of effective leadership practices results in greater school improvement progress and school effectiveness learning climate. However, challenging school conditions (e.g., student poverty, mobility, excessive absence, lack of parental involvement) moderate school improvement progress of leaders (Orr & Orphanos, 2011). 

•	The positive relationship between high-quality leader preparation and leaders’ school improvement progress is moderated by challenging school conditions (Pounder, 2011).

Implications of research for future leader preparation

Graduates’ on-the-job leadership behaviors may be the most important set of program outcomes one might study—particularly leadership behaviors that have been shown to improve school conditions to create effective learning environments for all students. This is where leader preparation effects research and leadership effects research are best linked. That is, by using effective leader behavior measures that have been developed in either of these lines of inquiry, these two bodies of work can be linked to enhance our overall leadership knowledge base.
 
Pounder, 2011, p.265

References
Burkhauser, S., Gates, S. M., Hamilton, L. S., Ikemoto, G.S. (2012). First-year principals in urban school districts: How actions and working conditions relate to outcomes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.

Orr, M.T., & Orphanos, S. ( 2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 18-70.

George W. Bush Institute’s & Alliance to Reform Education Leadership (2013). Operating in the dark: What outdated state policies and data gaps mean for effective school leadership. Special Report: The Principal Policy State Survey .

Pounder, D.G. ( 2011). Leader preparation special issue: Implications for policy, practice, and research. Educational Administration Quarterly , 47(1), 258-267.

Southern Regional Education Board www.sreb.org

Shelton, S. (2012). Preparing a pipeline of effective principals: A legislative approach. National Conference of State Legislature.

Florida Association of Professors of Educational Leadership 

The purpose of the organization is to promote the improvement of the education of educational leaders through teaching, research, and service within a program of activities including, but not limited to the following:
 
A. To foster educational improvement through the inclusion of educational leadership in the teaching and learning process.
 
B. To provide leadership in the effective implementation and evaluation of statewide projects and programs.
 
C. To promote the flow of information, ideas, and services among professors of educational leadership in Florida.

D. To work cooperatively and collaboratively with similar state, regional, national, and global organizations.
 
E. To sponsor professional conferences and workshops on behalf of the membership.
 
F. To provide an organized forum for experimentation, research, and development.
 
G. To provide leadership in the development, implementation, evaluation, and redesign of educational leadership consistent with valued research and history, and most recent needs, research, and development.
 
H. To provide expertise drawn from the membership to help shape, define, implement, evaluate, and positively influence educational leadership policy and for all interested or affected stakeholders. 
                                                                                                                      Source: http://floridaedleadership.com/

White Paper