Another theme is that state standards for the principal job can be a powerful policy lever to influence principal training, development and support—if they are actively used. “When standard-writing itself becomes an end, rather than a means to an end, standards can proliferate and foster compliance work that fails to enhance quality or equity,” says Manna, Hyman Professor of Government and Director of the Public Policy Program at William & Mary. “In contrast, when states embrace well-crafted standards and make them relevant by tying them to other policy levers that bear on principal training, licensing, support, and evaluation…they can foster coherence and quality and increase the chances that all students are well-served.”

The two efforts varied considerably in both aim and approach. The more open-ended ESSA Leadership Learning Community, set up in response to a federal law providing states with significant authority over federal education funds, brought together 11 state teams comprising districts, community groups, state agencies and others to promote effective school leadership in their localities. The University Principal Preparation Initiative was tightly focused on improving pre-service school leadership training; it assembled institutions including universities, school districts and state agencies to redesign university-based preparation programs. Manna offers considerations for how to use these two models in future state efforts to develop and support principals to lead schools.

In the end, both endeavors show that state officials need not stand on sidelines when it comes to bolstering school leadership. “Even though these were two different efforts, the results convey quite clearly that state policymakers have invaluable roles to play in advancing the principalship, regardless of the particular implementation model or models that might inform future work,” Manna concludes.