Contents

Strong Leaders Strong Schools: 2010 School Leadership Laws

• Introduction
• School Leadership Laws
• Roles and Responsibilities
• Recruitment and Selection
• Preparation Programs and Accreditation
• Licensure and Certification
• Mentoring
• Professional Development
• Authority
• Evaluation
• Compensation and Incentive
• Data Systems
• Education Governance Structures
• Appendix

Click here to download the full report:
Strong Leaders Strong Schools: 2010 School Leadership Laws

Roles and Responsibilities

The role of the school leader has changed from building manager to instructional leader. Today's school leaders are facing new and greater challenges, including increased accountability for student academic achievement; complex social environments that reflect the nation's ever-changing economic, racial and ethnic diversity; and a constantly changing educational landscape with new technology and limited resources. Effective principals create vision and set high expectations, develop and support teachers and school staff, and strengthen school culture. They also build leadership teams to share or distribute leadership roles among teachers and other school staff to bolster student academic achievement.

What is the state legislative role in strengthening the roles and responsibilities of school leaders?
States can play an important role in determining what leaders need to know and be able to do. The roles and responsibilities of school leaders are tied to a set of standards, and policymakers can adopt and refine standards that specify what school leaders need to know and be able to do to improve teaching and learning. States also can establish career pathways for teachers who want to stay in the classroom and assume additional leadership responsibilities (e.g., dean of students, activity director, department head, instructional coach, mentor, etc.) or who aspire to become assistant principals and principals.

Two states passed legislation in 2010 to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the commissioner of education and the state board of education. One state passed legislation in 2009, six states did so 2008, and seven did so in 2007. The following states passed legislation to:

• Connecticut: allow the education commissioner additional authority to waive certain superintendent certification requirements.
• Louisiana: clarify the authority of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to establish and waive qualifications for the state superintendent of education.

Recruitment and Selection

The nation is facing a shortage of effective principals. A 2009 report by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future suggests that, over the next several years, schools could lose a third of the most accomplished teachers and principals to retirement. More than half the nation's teachers and principals are baby boomers. The Obama administration also has elevated the importance of developing a pipeline of effective leaders. The federal $4.35 billion Race to the Top grant program encourages states to provide high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals. Most recently, the shortage of turnaround principals has garnered national attention. The U.S. Department of Education revised its school improvement grant guidelines to allow principals in failing schools, who were hired as part of local improvement efforts within the last three (previously two) years, to remain on the job.

States and districts are strengthening their recruitment and selection criteria and creating alternative pathways to attract potential leaders from beyond the traditional pipeline of experienced teachers who typically choose traditional university-based preparation programs. Districts and universities are developing strategic recruitment and selection policies to target candidates who meet highly selective criteria, including successful leadership experience, effective communication skills, data analysis and interpretation, strategic thinking and problem solving. Additional recruitment strategies include supporting policies by offsetting costs, ranging from tuition reimbursements, waivers or paid internships.

States are changing how principals enter the profession. Alternative principal preparation programs attract non-educators, such as businesspeople, military personnel and accomplished teachers. The programs often require demonstration of leadership experience and focus on extensive fieldbased experience, mentoring and supplemental coursework, and professional development. Rigorous candidate screening helps to ensure program success.

What is the state legislative role in recruiting and selecting effective school leaders?
States can play an important role in cultivating a pipeline of effective leaders. States can encourage or require districts to develop criteria and screening processes to identify and recruit prospective principals, vice principals and teacher leaders. They also can encourage universities and districts to partner to select candidates for preparation programs. In addition, states can allow alternative routes to administrator certification through licensure and accreditation changes. They also can ensure that program requirements for alternative certification programs are robust and that support systems are established to help candidates' make the transition into school leadership positions. Robust data systems can facilitate successful recruitment and selection processes. States can access, use and analyze data to track the supply and demand for principals, project impending retirements, and track principal preparation program enrollment and completion rates for school leaders.

Eight states passed legislation in 2010 (and late 2009) to recruit and select effective leaders, including creating and expanding alternative routes to administrator certification. The following states passed legislation to:

• Arizona: allow a variety of alternative teacher and administrator preparation programs with variations in preparation models and courses of study.
• Connecticut: define new procedures and criteria for approving alternative routes to certification programs for school administrators, including a one-year residency experience.
• Hawaii: require the State Department of Education to establish alternative routes to certification for school principals and vice-principals.
• Illinois: allow for expanded alternative certification programs for teachers and administrators.
• Michigan (late 2009): require the State Department of Education to recognize alternative pathways to earning a school administrator's certificate.
• New Mexico: require the newly created School Leadership Institute to partner with state agencies, institutions of higher education and professional associations to identify and recruit candidates for the institute.
• Oregon: establish the Career Preparation and Development Task Force to, among other things, identify the strengths of, needs for, and gaps in practices and procedures used to recruit and retain teachers and administrators.
• Washington: 1) Expand alternative routes to certification. 2) Expand administrator preparation programs to include community and technical colleges or non-higher education providers. All approved program providers must adhere to the same standards and comply with the same requirements as traditional preparation programs. 3) Require annual review of educator work force data to make projections of certificate needs and identify how preparation program recruitment and enrollment plans reflect need.

Preparation Programs and Accreditation

Well-prepared school leaders are critical to better classroom instruction and increased student academic achievement. A good principal is the single most important determinant of whether a school can attract and keep the high-quality teachers necessary to turn around schools. University-based leadership preparation programs—where most principals are trained—have long been criticized for not adequately preparing leaders to meet the challenges of 21st century schools. Many training programs— be they university, state or district-based—do not adequately prepare principals to lead improvements in teaching and learning. Moreover, an increased demand in turnaround principals has shed light on the lack of qualified principals who can successfully lead under-performing schools. A 2007 report from Stanford University found that exemplary principal preparation programs ensure that recruitment and selection are central to program design, use professional standards as a tool to strengthen instructional leadership and school improvement, develop collaborative partnerships between districts and universities, integrate program features (e.g, internship, coursework, clinical experiences, etc., to connect theory and practice) and reinforce a robust model of leadership, and require adequate resources, especially human resources to support learning embedded in practice. In addition, programs should respond to local needs, give candidates opportunities to solve real-world problems, provide adequate follow-up support, and track graduates into the workplace to continually improve program effectiveness. In response, several colleges and universities are redesigning their administrator preparation programs to:

• Establish rigorous, targeted recruitment and selection policies and procedures;
• Create authentic partnerships between universities and school districts
• Develop a real-world, problem-based curriculum focused on student achievement and aligned with rigorous and well-defined statewide leadership standards;
• Emphasize knowledge and skills for improving schools and raising student achievement;
• Focus on active, student-centered instruction that integrates theory and practice and stimulates reflection;
• Provide well-planned and supported schoolbased experiences through paid internships or medical-based residency programs;
• Create cohorts of candidates who train together;
• Formalize mentoring and coaching by expert principals;
• Evaluate participants' mastery of knowledge and skills; and
• Evaluate program effectiveness.

At the same time, a growing number of states and large districts are attempting to address these challenges by creating new preparation programs. Several states—including Illinois, Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon and Virginia—have created task forces and legislative working groups to redesign leadership preparation. Alternative preparation programs such as statewide leadership academies, district-led programs and independent nonprofit organizations (e.g., New York City Leadership Academy and New Leaders for New Schools) create collaborative partnerships with state agencies, school districts, professional associations and institutions of higher education. They also make available alternative pathways that are responsive to district leadership needs and create competition for university-based leadership preparation programs.

What is the state legislative role in strengthening preparation for school leaders?
States can play a key role in strengthening school leader preparation by adopting rigorous leadership standards to guide all aspects of leader development and aligning to those standards preparation, licensure, mentoring and induction, professional development and evaluation. States can leverage policy to develop tougher program accreditation and leader licensure requirements; use data and evaluations to improve preparation programs; provide ongoing training and support; and create alternative preparation programs.

Ten states passed legislation and appropriated funds in 2010 to strengthen the quality of leadership preparation. Eleven states passed legislation in 2009, 10 did so in 2008, and four did so in 2007. The following states passed legislation to:

• Colorado: require an annual report on the effectiveness of educator preparation programs (teachers and principals), including alternative programs, using data obtained through the statewide educator identifier system.
• Connecticut: require data systems to track principal data on preparation programs completed.
• Iowa: set standards and procedures for approval of training programs for those who seek authorization for employment as school business officials responsible for the financial operations of school districts.
• Illinois: require institutions of higher education and not-for-profit entities that offer principal preparation programs to redesign their programs to meet new standards that focus on instruction and student learning and that must be used for professional development, mentoring and evaluation in order to receive state principal preparation program approval.
• Minnesota: govern data sharing for program approval and improvement of teacher and administrator preparation programs.
• New Mexico: create the statewide School Leadership Institute to provide a comprehensive and cohesive framework for preparing, mentoring and providing professional development for principals and leaders in public schools.
• Oklahoma: create the Oklahoma School Principal Training Task Force to review the current training requirements for principal certification and study ways to improve and incorporate more leadership training into certification requirements.
• Oregon: establish the Career Preparation and Development Task Force to develop a proposal for a seamless system of professional development for teachers and administrators that begins with career preparation and continues through employment.
• Washington: require review and revision of teacher and administrator preparation program approval standards and accept proposals for new programs that could include community and technical colleges or non-higher education providers. All approved program providers must adhere to the same standards and comply with the same requirements as traditional preparation programs.

The following states appropriated funds:

• Illinois: $1 million for administrative costs and to award grants associated with the Education Leadership Institute.
• Maryland: $100,000 to the Academy of Leadership and $1.494 million to the Department of Education's Division of Leadership Development.

Licensure and Certification

The state's authority to license and certify school leaders can be an important policy tool to ensure that schools are led by effective leaders. States, serving as gatekeepers, regulate entry into principalship and set the qualifications for school leaders. Traditional licensure requirements for principals typically requires the candidate to have a set number of years of teaching experience, complete university coursework in education administration and pass a state certification exam. A 2005 comprehensive report on licensure for school leaders from the Center on Reinventing Public Education concluded that licensure and certification across the states does not, for the most part, reflect a focus on student learning, and no state has crafted licensing policies that reflect a coherent learning-focused school leadership agenda. Thirty-five states have licensing requirements that are focused on the individual (background checks or academic degrees). In 10 states, licenses are primarily based on organizational skills and knowledge, such as problem analysis, communication, oversight and resource management.

Increasingly, states are revising licensure and certification to focus more explicitly on evidence of knowledge and skill, rather than on classroom experience and credentials. A growing number of states have implemented two- or three-tiered licensure systems. These systems require candidates to receive an initial certificate, typically with limited renewal options, and then obtain professional certification with additional coursework, evaluation and/or professional development. Entry-level and experienced leaders must demonstrate their ability to improve instruction and student learning. Tiered certification requirements vary by state, but can include a combination of graduate coursework, education leadership experience, an internship or clinical experience, participation in a meaningful mentoring program, professional development, professional portfolio documents, and evidence of improved student achievement.

States also are revising licensure and certification requirements to create and expand alternative routes to certification. Such policies can attract non-educators, including businesspeople, military personnel and accomplished teachers. This strategy can be used to address job shortages in high-need schools by building a pool of leaders who can be effective in today's high-stakes school environment. To date, this route is not producing a large number of candidates. It is important to focus efforts on strengthening both traditional and alternative routes to principal certification. Furthermore, however principals become licensed, they should be evaluated to measure effectiveness.

Although licensure is an important state policy tool to strengthen leadership, it cannot operate in isolation. Licensure must be coordinated with other aspects of leadership development, including standards, preparation, internship, mentoring, ongoing professional development and evaluation.

What is the state legislative role in strengthening licensure and certification?
The state role in creating licensure and certification requirements for school leaders is paramount. States can determine licensure and certification qualifications, including development of advanced licensure systems that focus on mastery of skills and knowledge and evidence of improved student achievement. States also can create or encourage alternative licensure programs. All licensure programs can be aligned with the state's leadership standards.

Ten states passed legislation in 2010 (and late 2009) to create, modify, align and expand licensure and certification requirements for school leaders. Five states passed legislation in 2009, and two did so in both 2008 and 2007. The following states passed legislation to:

• Arizona: allow a variety of alternative teacher and administrator preparation programs with variations in preparation models and courses of study.
• Connecticut: 1) define new procedures and criteria for approving alternative routes to certification programs for school administrators, including a one-year residency experience; 2) specify qualifications for the initial administrator certificate, including requiring individuals who completed the administrator's alternative route to certification program to obtain a master's degree within five years; 3) allow the education commissioner additional authority to waive certain superintendent certification requirements; and 4) require data systems to track principal data on certification level and endorsements and credentials, such as master's degrees.
• Delaware: create license denial and revocation standards for non-public school administrators that are consistent with those for public school administrators.
• Hawaii: require the State Department of Education to establish alternative routes to certification for school principals and vice-principals.
• Illinois: 1) discontinue the general administrative endorsement, and instead create a new principal endorsement that emphasizes the unique preparation necessary to become the instructional leader of a school and 2) allow for expanded alternative certification programs for teachers and administrators.
• Louisiana: 1) provide greater flexibility to obtain principal certification and 2) clarify qualifications for the state superintendent of education.
• Michigan (late 2009): 1) require certification for school administrators, and 2) require the State Department of Education to recognize alternative pathways to earning a school administrator's certificate.
• Oklahoma: 1) create the Oklahoma School Principal Training Task Force to review the current training requirements for principal certification and study ways to improve and incorporate more leadership training into the certification requirements, and 2) modify certification requirements for school principals and superintendents.
• Washington: 1) expand alternative routes to certification, and 2) expand administrator preparation programs to include community and technical colleges or non-higher education providers. All approved program providers must adhere to the same standards and comply with the same requirements as traditional preparation programs.
• Wisconsin: provide principals in the state's lowest performing schools with opportunities to pursue other professional certification, including certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

Mentoring

Like most professionals, school leaders can benefit greatly from more and better mentoring once on the job. Mentoring can be an integral component of leadership preparation programs that are designed to improve school and student performance and can be linked to licensure requirements. States and districts should ensure that mentoring is focused on student learning. Research suggests that protégés and mentors benefit greatly from mentoring.

Protégé benefits include:

• Guidance and support during initiation;
• Increased self-confidence and encouragement to take risks to achieve goals;
• Opportunities to discuss professional issues with a veteran; and
• Networking.

Mentor benefits include:

• Opportunities for professionals to strengthen their knowledge and improve communication, teaching and coaching skills;
• Greater collegiality among new and veteran professionals;
• Satisfaction gained from helping newcomers to the field; and
• Professional reputation for commitment.

According to the Southern Regional Education Board, the components of effective mentoring include:

• High standards and expectations for performance;
• Commitment of university and district partners;
• Problem-focused learning;
• Clearly defined responsibilities for mentors, university supervisors and district internship program coordinators; and
• Meaningful performance evaluations.

In addition, mentors should receive high-quality training to successfully support new and aspiring principals, and the mentoring should last for more than a year to help the new principal make the transition to being an effective instructional leader. According to a 2007 Wallace Foundation report, more than half the states and many districts have recently introduced mentoring programs to support new principals and administrators during their first few years on the job.

What is the state legislative role in strengthening mentoring and induction for school leaders?
States can ensure that high-quality mentoring is an essential component of advanced licensure systems and on-the-job training, and can provide funding for quality programs.

Four states passed legislation and appropriated funds in 2010 to support and strengthen mentoring for principals and superintendents. Six states passed legislation in 2009, two did so in 2008, and three did so in 2007. The following states passed legislation to:

• Iowa: clarify eligibility guidelines so beginning principals and superintendents were the primary recipients.
• Illinois: require all institutions of higher education and not-for-profit entities to meet new standards that focus on instruction and student learning. The standards must be used for mentoring in order for them to receive state principal preparation program approval.
• New Mexico: require the statewide School Leadership Institute to provide mentoring to new principals and superintendents in public schools.
• Wisconsin: provide supplemental mentoring for principals in the state's lowest-performing schools who have an emergency license or permit.

Iowa appropriated funds:

• Iowa: $195,157 for FY 2010-11 to the State Department of Education for administration of the Beginning Administrator Mentoring and Induction Program.

Professional Development

Leadership training should not end once leaders are on the job. Continuous highquality professional development and support strengthens a school leader's capacity to improve instruction and creates a school culture of shared leadership, collaboration and high expectations for all students. Research suggests that effective professional development should be ongoing, embedded in practice, linked to school reform initiatives, problem-based, and tied to the individual's strengthens and weaknesses. It also should be linked to rigorous leadership standards. High-quality professional development should be continuously available to strengthen leaders' capacities to improve curriculum and instruction and create a highly effective organization. Special attention should be given to building strong leadership teams, including teachers, to support continuous improvement and address school-specific challenges, particularly in low-performing schools.

Professional development for advanced or renewed licensure can be important to advancing the knowledge and skills of principals in leading school improvement. Tiered licensure systems typically require professional development in order for candidates to move from an initial to a professional certification. Roughly half the states have minimum professional development requirements for administrator license renewal. Assessments can also be a part of an ongoing professional development process to gather data to track how well principals are doing and pinpoint shortcomings that could be remedied.

What is the state legislative role in strengthening professional development for school leaders?
States can ensure that leaders at all levels—teacher leaders, assistant principals, principals and superintendents— receive continuous, high-quality, standards- based professional development, especially in low-performing schools, and provide funding for these programs. Professional development can be an integral component of leadership preparation programs and can be linked to licensure requirements and evaluation.

Eight states passed legislation and appropriated funds in 2010 (and late 2009) to provide and expand professional development opportunities for principals and superintendents. Six states passed legislation in 2009, seven did so in 2008, and five did so in 2007. The following states passed legislation to:

• Arizona: require teacher and principal evaluation instruments to include best practices for professional development.
• Illinois: require all institutions of higher education and not-for-profit entities to meet new standards that focus on instruction and student learning. the standards must be used for professional development in order for them to receive state principal preparation program approval.
• Michigan (late 2009): require that teacher and principal evaluations be used to make decisions about professional development.
• New Mexico: require the statewide School Leadership Institute to provide intensive support for principals at schools in need of improvement and professional development for aspiring superintendents.
• New York: require evaluations to be a significant factor in principal professional development, including coaching, induction support and differentiated professional development.
• Oregon: establish the Career Preparation and Development Task Force to develop a proposal for a seamless system of professional development for teachers and administrators that begins with career preparation and continues through employment.
• Wisconsin: require 60 hours annually of professional development for principals in the state's lowest-performing schools.

Florida appropriated funds:

• Florida: $197,309 for the Florida Association of District School Superintendents Training and $40,514 for the principal of the year.

Authority

As school leaders strive to meet increasingly demanding state and federal accountability, they are seeking sufficient autonomy over budgets, curriculum and staffing; access to timely and useful data; and meaningful professional development and evaluation systems. In exchange, principals must be held accountable for their results. This can include assessing improved student achievement; graduation rates; increased attendance; reduced truancy; and teacher improvement, satisfaction and retention.

Collaboration between states and districts promotes more supportive conditions for school leaders. New research from the RAND Corporation suggests that, where state and district policies are closely aligned, principals report greater authority over hiring teachers, determining school schedules, and defining student achievement goals. They also are able to devote more time on average to improving instruction.

What is the state legislative role in strengthening professional development for school leaders?
States can ensure that principals have sufficient autonomy, access to timely and useful data, and adequate resources to lead school improvement. States can also collaborate with school districts to align state and district policies to better support leader working conditions, including providing increased authority, in exchange for greater accountability.

Six states passed legislation in 2010 to provide principals and schools with more authority over budgets, hiring, and curriculum. One state passed legislation in 2009, two did so in 2008, and one did so in 2007. The following states passed legislation to:

• Colorado: require that a teacher be assigned to a school only with the mutual consent of the principal and input from at least two teachers employed at the school.
• Connecticut: permit innovation schools to improve school performance and student achievement by giving schools autonomy and flexibility over their curriculum, professional development, budget, schedule and calendar; school district policies and procedures; and staff policies and procedures, including waivers from or modifications to union contracts.
• Iowa: establish innovation zone schools that are afforded greater flexibility in regard to state statutes and rules.
• Maine: allow the commissioner to waive state requirements upon request by a school board to establish an innovative, autonomous public school.
• Massachusetts: 1) give superintendents greater authority in turning around low-performing schools, including flexibility in regard to authority over curriculum, budgets, schedules and personnel; and 2) allow creation of innovation schools to improve school performance and student achievement through increased autonomy and flexibility.
• Oklahoma: allow establishment of empowered schools, zones or districts to improve student and school performance through increased autonomy and flexibility.

Evaluation

States continue to strengthen their efforts to evaluate school leaders and are using assessments to improve preparation programs, licensure and certification, mentoring, and ongoing professional development and support. Valid, reliable quality leadership assessments can help align leadership policies, steer preparation program design and delivery, and provide accountability data. Consequently, leadership evaluation should not be viewed as single-purpose, but rather as a continuous process for gathering data to improve the quality of leadership, teaching and learning.

Robust data systems allow states to connect teachers and principals to student data and use that data as a factor in evaluations. Evaluation criteria, aligned with rigorous standards, should clearly differentiate between effective and ineffective principals. States can consider using multiple indicators to evaluate principals, including performancebased measures and measures of annual individual student growth and other student data. Various measures can include improved high school graduation, college readiness, matriculation and attendance rates. In addition, states can use other measures to evaluate principals, such as teacher effectiveness, retention and transfer rates and working conditions surveys. A well-designed evaluation system:

• Provides continuous feedback to school leaders and tracks individual progress toward mastering the knowledge, skills and behaviors needed to improve student learning and school performance;
• Advances career development and helps individuals meet the requirements for professional- level licensure;
• Identifies professional development and supports customized to the needs of individual leaders and schools;
• Provides feedback to licensing institutions on graduates' performance to help them improve their preparation programs; and
• Provides information for state and federal accountability.

What is the state legislative role in strengthening evaluation for school leaders?
States can decide whether and how frequently to require evaluation of school leaders. They also can decide whether to require evaluation for successful completion of preparation programs, entry-level and advanced licensure, mentoring programs and professional development, all aligned to statewide leadership standards. Evaluation data also can be used for educator development and accountability.

Fourteen states passed legislation in 2010 (and late 2009) to evaluate school leaders. Five states passed legislation in 2009, two did so in 2008, and three did so in 2007. The following states passed legislation to:

• Arizona: require annual principal performance evaluations, with student academic progress accounting for at least 33 percent to 50 percent of the evaluation by school year 2012-13. The evaluation instrument must include best practices for professional development and evaluator training.
• Colorado: require by 2013-14 that principals receive annual evaluations, with at least 50 percent of a principal's evaluation determined by student academic growth. In addition, the evaluation will determine the demonstrated effectiveness of the teachers in the principal's school.
• Connecticut: require development of a model teacher and principal evaluation program that includes multiple measures of student academic growth by July 2013.
• Illinois: 1) require school districts to establish teacher and principal evaluations that include student performance data as a significant factor by September 2012 for all principals; 2) require evaluators to participate in training; and 3) require all institutions of higher education and not-for-profit entities to meet new standards that focus on instruction and student learning. The standards must be used for evaluation in order to receive state principal preparation program approval.
• Kentucky: clarify evaluation requirements for school superintendents.
• Louisiana: require annual formal evaluations by local school boards for all teachers and administrators, with 50 percent of evaluations based on student academic growth using value- added assessments by school year 2012-13.
• Maine: eliminate the prohibition on using student assessment data in the evaluation of teachers and principals; requires districts that choose to use student assessments as part of evaluations to use one of the models developed by the State Department of Education; extends the models for evaluation to principals; and requires that the models include numerous measures.
• Maryland: require the State Board of Education to establish model performance evaluation criteria for annual teacher and principal evaluations, with student growth data as a significant factor.
• Michigan (late 2009): require the annual evaluation of teachers and administrators to be based, in part, on significant student growth. Evaluations will be used to make decisions about principal effectiveness, promotion, retention, tenure, development and professional development.
• New York: require annual professional performance reviews of teachers and principals based on performance, including measures of student achievement by school year 2012-13. Evaluations will be used to make decisions about employment and professional development.
• Oklahoma: require annual evaluations of teachers and principals, with 35 percent of the evaluations to be based on student academic growth by 2013-14. Evaluations will be used to make decisions determining retention or reassignment of teachers and leaders. Requires training for individuals conducting evaluations.
• Tennessee: create a 15–member Teacher Evaluation Advisory Committee to develop and recommend to the State Board of Education guidelines and criteria for the annual evaluation of all teachers and principals to be effective by July 1, 2011. Fifty percent of teacher and principal evaluations will be based on student achievement data, of which 35 percent will use student growth data of the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) or comparable student growth data if no TVAAS data is available. The remaining 15 percent will be drawn from other measures of student achievement. Evaluations will be used to make employment decisions.
• Washington: require school districts to establish performance criteria and an evaluation process for teachers and principals, using revised evaluation criteria and a four-level rating system by school year 2013-14. When student growth data is available, it must be based on numerous measures if referenced in the evaluation.
• Wisconsin: require annual vigorous and equitable performance evaluations for teachers and principals in the state's lowest-performing schools using multiple measures and including improvement in pupil academic achievement as a significant factor.

Compensation and Incentive

Across the country, states are experiencing a shortage of effective school leaders in the nation's hardest-to-staff schools. New research from the universities of Minnesota and Toronto finds rapid turnover of principals in schools: a new one every three or four years, on average. This changeover in leadership has a distinctly damaging effect on school culture and a measurable negative effect on student achievement. Contributing factors include challenging working conditions, large concentrations of impoverished or minority students, lower per-pupil expenditures, inadequate benefits and compensation, cumbersome policy and regulatory barriers, and increasingly demanding job responsibilities that hold leaders accountable for the success of all students. To attract and retain exemplary school leaders, particularly those serving in the lowestperforming schools, states are reexamining how they compensate leaders.

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education awarded $442 million to school districts in 27 states to develop and implement performancebased teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools. The Teacher Incentive Fund competitive grant program seeks to strengthen the education profession by rewarding excellence, attracting teachers and principals to high-need and hard-to-staff schools, and providing all teachers and principals with adequate feedback and support to succeed.

What is the state legislative role in providing compensation and incentives for school leaders?
States can provide compensation and incentives to recruit and retain qualified leaders, particularly in low-performing schools. States also can improve the working conditions of teachers and leaders to attract and retain effective educators.

Nine states passed legislation during 2010 (and late 2009) to help recruit and retain effective school leaders through implementing compensation and incentive policies and removing barriers. Six states passed legislation in 2009, five did so in 2008, and three did so in 2007. The following states passed legislation to:

• Arizona: require that 20 percent of a school district superintendent's annual salary be based on performance pay.
• Connecticut: allow administrators with tenure from another district or state who are employed in a priority school district to attain tenure in half the required time.
• Georgia: allow certain exceptions to a 2009 law that compensates educators for their leadership degree only if they are serving in a leadership position.
• Maryland: require the State Board of Education to establish a program to support locally negotiated incentives (financial incentives, leadership changes or other incentives) for highly effective classroom teachers and principals to work in hard-to-staff schools.
• Michigan (late 2009): require that compensation for teachers and school administrators be based on job performance and job accomplishments as a significant factor.
• New York: require teacher and principal evaluations be used to make decisions about supplemental compensation.
• Oklahoma: 1) allow school districts to implement an incentive pay plan that rewards teachers and leaders who are increasing student and school achievement and 2) allow districts to develop and implement incentive pay systems for teachers and leaders who work in low-performing and hard-to-staff schools or districts.
• Tennessee: alter principal performance contracts and specify that evaluations must be based on student achievement data.
• Wisconsin: prohibit tenure for principals and assistant principals.

Data Systems

Longitudinal data systems are a basic requirement for improving teaching and learning and ensuring effective accountability. Data systems can provide timely, valid and relevant data to help make decisions that are critical to both policymakers and educators. Data can be used to foster school improvement strategies, allocate resources, identify and share best practices, and hold schools and districts accountable for student learning.

According to the 2010 Data Quality Campaign annual survey, states, with the infusion of federal stimulus money, have made unprecedented progress toward building the infrastructure needed to collect statewide longitudinal data, but have not taken action to ensure data are used to improve student achievement. The campaign also suggests that states are just beginning to take the necessary steps to use longitudinal data for continuous improvement. To date, 42 states assign a unique educator ID to principals. This data element is essential to improving educator preparation programs, crafting performance-based licensure systems, creating targeted professional development opportunities, and developing robust evaluation and compensation policies.

Accessing, using and analyzing data are critical to improving teaching and learning. A growing number of states require collection of teacher and principal data in their statewide longitudinal data systems to inform decision making. States are beginning to track career paths of school leaders from preparation to employment to study the effectiveness of preparation, mentoring and professional development programs. States also are accessing and analyzing data to track the supply and demand and project retirements and turnover. Some also are linking principal data to student, teacher, school and district performance to evaluate the effectiveness of school leaders.

Building a robust longitudinal data system is not enough, however. Teachers and leaders need to be trained to access, analyze, interpret and use data. A focus on professional development centered on the appropriate interpretation and use of data is critical to helping teachers and principals use data to improve instructional practice. A state's ability to link educator and student data facilitates educator capacity around successful data use. Effective data use can be linked to training, professional developments and licensure and certification to ensure that today's leaders can successfully use data to improve teaching and learning.

What is the state legislative role in accessing, using and analyzing data to strengthen school leadership?
States can require that their longitudinal data systems collect a wide range of teacher and principal data to improve preparation, licensure, mentoring, and professional development programs, with the ultimate goal of improving academic success for all students. In addition, a leader's ability to use data effectively can be a requirement for preparation program accreditation, licensure, professional development and evaluation.

Seven states passed legislation in 2010 to create and enhance a statewide framework for accessing, using and analyzing data to strengthen school leadership. Four states passed legislation in 2009. The following states passed legislation to:

• Colorado: require an annual report on the effectiveness of educator preparation programs using data obtained through the educator identifier system.
• Connecticut: expand its public school information system to, among other things, track and report to local and regional school boards data on teachers, principals, students, schools and school districts.
• Illinois: require a system to annually collect and publish data by district and school on teacher and administrator performance evaluation results. The system must ensure that no educator can be personally identified by publicly reported data.
• Maine: eliminate the prohibition on using student assessment data in the evaluation of teachers and principals; require districts that choose to use student assessments as part of evaluations to use one of the models developed by the State Department of Education; extend the models for evaluation to principals; and require that the models include numerous measures.
• Minnesota: govern data sharing for program approval and improvement for teacher and administrator preparation programs.
• New Mexico: codify the requirements for a prekindergarten through postsecondary (P- 20) education accountability data system in order to collect, integrate and report longitudinal student-level and educator data required to implement federal or state education performance accountability measures; conduct research and evaluation of federal, state and local education programs; and audit program compliance with federal and state requirements. It includes as data components the use of common student and educator identifiers.
• Washington: require annual review of educator workforce data to make projections of certificate needs and identify how preparation program recruitment and enrollment plans reflect need.

Education Governance Structures

As policymakers examine ways to recruit, prepare, support and retain effective school leaders, they also are examining education governance structures to determine how to most effectively improve teaching and learning. In many states, local school boards and superintendents make most decisions for the students within their system. Due to a shift in education funding from the local to the state level during the past several decades and to increasingly higher academic expectations, states are holding schools and school districts more accountable for their students' progress.

What is the state legislative role in creating strong governance systems to strengthen school leadership?
States can foster governance structures that support school-based management; clarify leaders' roles among school boards, superintendents, principals and teacher leaders to share leadership responsibilities; provide necessary training for school board members; and restructure current governance systems to promote efficiencies and high academic achievement.

Five states passed legislation in 2010 relating to education governance structures. Two states passed legislation in 2009, five did so in 2008, and seven did so in 2007. The following states passed legislation to:

• Connecticut: require school boards with lowachieving schools to establish school governance councils. The councils, made up of parents, teachers, community leaders, students and the principal, are empowered to advise the principal in developing budgets, policy, and programmatic and operational changes.
• Georgia: require the State Board of Education to adopt a training program for members of local school boards.
• Louisiana: increase the number of hours of training and instruction required annually for local school board members.
• New York: require all first-term board members, elected or appointed, to attend training sessions within one year of taking office to acquaint themselves with the powers, functions and duties of boards of education and other administrative authorities affecting public education.
• Rhode Island: require members of school committees to undertake six hours in the professional development educational program developed by Rhode Island College.

« Previous | Next »