This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-01-CO-0012, Task Order D010, with WestEd. Sharon Horn served as the contracting officer's representative.

U.S. Department of Education
Rod Paige
Secretary

Office of Innovation and Improvement
Nina S. Rees
Assistant Deputy Secretary

Michael J. Petrilli
Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary

Patricia Gore
Director, Teacher Quality Programs

December 2004

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, Innovations in Education: Innovative Pathways to School Leadership, Washington, D.C., 2004.

To order copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov;

or order online at: http://www.edpubs.org/;

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-877-576-7734.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/recruit/prepare/alternative/index.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

Figure 1. Characteristics of Profiled Programs

Figure 2. Study Scope and Guiding Questions

Figure 3. Boston Principal Fellowship’s Competencies of Effective Principals

Figure 4. New Leaders for New Schools Candidate Selection Criteria

Figure 5. Interview Guide to Identify First Ring Superintendents’ Priorities

Figure 6. Boston Public Schools’ Essentials of Whole School Improvement

Figure 7. NJ EXCEL e-Mentor Responsibilities

Figure 8. LAUNCH Mentor Contract

Figure 9. Principals Excellence Program Self-Assessment

Figure 10. NJ EXCEL Program Standards and Performance Rubric

I am pleased to introduce the sixth publication in the Innovations in Education series: Innovative Pathways to School Leadership. This series, published by my Department's Office of Innovation and Improvement, has already identified concrete, real-world examples of innovations in five important areas: public school choice, supplemental educational services, charter schools, magnet schools, and alternate routes to teacher certification.

As we approach the third anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act, early evidence shows that America's schools are meeting the challenge of moving our students toward proficiency in reading and math. The people most responsible for this progress are the leaders of our schools, who play a critical and important role in developing a vision for a high-quality education for every student and in implementing and supporting a learning environment that is developed and shared by key stakeholders. No Child Left Behind puts enormous pressure on these leaders to increase student achievement and close the achievement gap. We want to ensure that they are provided with the tools and training they need to succeed in this endeavor. This guide is dedicated to them.

As readers may know, my father was a school principal, and my mother a librarian. They taught me the importance of education-to individuals, and to communities. I have been proud to honor their examples by serving as superintendent of the seventh-largest school system in the nation, and now as secretary of education. But I never forget that the most challenging—and rewarding—leadership roles in education are on the front lines in the schools.

We know from decades of research and common sense that a strong school leader is an indispensable ingredient for school improvement. Yet, for too long, we have been satisfied with preparation programs that often lack rigorous standards and a coherent, systemic approach for recruiting, preparing, and supporting school CEOs. However, that is changing. A consensus is forming across political and ideological perspectives that our nation needs to tap new sources for school leaders, as well as support the talented educators already in the system.

We are still in the early days of this movement to create innovative, effective pathways to school leadership. In fact,while many states have made great progress in tearing down the barriers that keep talented individuals out of the teaching profession, similar barriers remain largely in place for potential school leaders. Nevertheless, even undercurrent constraints, entrepreneurial school districts, states, higher education institutions, and others have developed promising programs that draw new talent into leadership roles and provide job-embedded preparation and support to ensure the success of these leaders in today's schools.

This guide highlights six of these programs. They are a diverse set—rural and urban, focused on traditional public schools and on charter schools, and so forth. But they all have a few things in common: an unrelenting commitment to program rigor and quality; a clear vision of strong school leadership; a cohort structure that encourages candidates to support one another throughout their careers; and a culture of continuous improvement. Most of these programs are relatively young. While they have not been in place long enough to have extensive data proving their effectiveness, they do appear to have some promise for success. It is our hope that these pioneering programs will provide ideas and strategies that help to strengthen school leadership preparation and professional development efforts.

Those of us at the federal level will continue to keep an eye on these promising programs and root for their success and replication. We will also continue to encourage and promote the efforts of those who are in schools and on the front lines, doing the difficult but exhilarating work of fulfilling the promise to leave no child behind.

Rod Paige
U.S. Secretary of Education

December 2004

Unequivocal urgency shapes our national discussion of public education. Students strive to meet new academic standards while their teachers work to improve the quality and equity of education opportunities. Yet achievement gaps persist, particularly in urban and rural schools. The demand for effective leadership is clear. We need school leaders who visualize successful student learning, understand the work necessary to achieve it, and have the skills to engage with others to make it happen. How can we prepare more individuals to meet these challenges?

This guide highlights six diverse examples of the hard work underway across the country to answer that question. These programs are offering innovative pathways to school leadership, and people like Kyle Dodson are signing on.

Kyle Dodson hadn't planned to become a public school principal at this stage of his life. Although part of him was drawn to the idea of working with urban youths, his life had taken him in a different direction. He had earned a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard University and an MBA from Columbia University. In January 2003, he was working as the director of multicultural student affairs at Saint Michael's College in Vermont. The thought of enrolling once again at a university just to "jump the hurdles" of getting an administrative credential held no appeal.

But when a friend told Dodson about an expedited principal preparation program called Boston Principal Fellowship Program (BPF) that focuses on developing effective leaders for Boston's most challenging schools, something resonated. Taking this step would mean moving his family, but, on the other hand, he could earn a Massachusetts Administrative credential without needing to return to school. And at the other end of this one-year program, he would be prepared to take the helm of an urban school—a prospect that until that point had seemed out of reach.

Dodson says BPF spoke to him because he wanted to make a difference in the lives of urban youths, especially African-American students "who need some hope in their lives." Kyle's philosophy is, "Deal with life as it is and work to change it to what you want it to be." Being a principal would give him an opportunity to do that work. So, with his family's support, he applied to BPF and was accepted in June 2003 as a fellow in the program's first cohort.

Dodson was just the kind of candidate a nontraditional program hopes to attract. In addition to a graduate degree in management, Dodson brought a background of successful leadership experience; a deep understanding of the most pressing issues facing urban education; strong skills in building relationships with students and adults; an ability to analyze and interpret data; and a passion for the work.

In May 2004, Dodson was hired as the principal of a new school in Boston. Looking ahead to the challenge, he said: "I believe that all young people want to and can learn at high levels. I also believe that there are some very basic principles and practices that will best provide a young person with an opportunity to be successful. One of the primary tasks seems to be creating an environment where the dizzying array of societal and personal challenges that each student brings to the building can be stabilized and brought under control long enough to develop the skills and competencies that will give that young person options."

It's too soon to know the full impact Dodson will have at his school, but he brings with him the skills, the leadership qualities, and the understanding of students' context that promise success. These include the determination and ability to create a culture of high-quality performance that energizes, motivates, and supports teachers who, in turn, can help their students hurdle the achievement gap.

Dodson embodies the promise of new pathways to school leadership such as BPF and the five other unique programs introduced in this guide. All are based on the premise that by inventing new pathways to school leadership, attracting experienced and successful leaders, focusing on the essential elements of school improvement, and clearing unnecessary hurdles along the path, they can attract high-quality professionals to lead schools where they are most needed. Most of these programs are relatively young in their development.

They are testing and learning new ways to do things that are creative responses to the urgent need in their particular settings for high-quality principals. In doing so, they demonstrate innovative strategies that can be adapted to other settings.

Preparing the Next Generation of School Leaders

Great schools have great leaders. That's the compelling if obvious message from two decades of research on effective schools.¹ Yet finding effective leaders is not easy. As with many things, when it comes to principals,the central issue isn't quantity, it's quality. While most states have plenty of people who are credentialed as school administrators—often more than they need—many school districts report having too few highly qualified candidates to fill their vacant positions. The shortage of top-notch principals is worrisome in the face of the escalating demands of No Child Left Behind. The job of a principal, always challenging and complex, is becoming even more so.

New expectations for principals run well beyond traditional requirements of managing school operations. Recent and ongoing research² points to some key actions that effective school leaders consistently demonstrate. Notably, successful principals³ establish an intense focus on learning and communicate its centrality in everything they do. Their high expectations combine with a sense of urgency to focus attention on learning for all subgroups of students, including the economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minorities, students with disabilities, and English language learners. No excuses override their commitment to student learning. Effective school leaders understand that they are in a position to mobilize others by:

• articulating and modeling core values that support a challenging and successful education for all;
• establishing a persistent, public focus on learning att the school, classroom, community,and individual levels;
• working with others to set ambitious standards for learning; and
• demonstrating and inspiring shared responsibility and accountability for student outcomes.

Current research⁴ also suggests that effective school leaders set a tone of mutual trust and respect among teachers, students, parents, and community members. They take deliberate action to understand their school communities and form partnerships that focus on learning both inside and outside of the school.

These leaders garner the full range of resources available for their schools, and they develop alliances to proactively seek support for student and professional learning goals. Moreover, they deeply understand effective instructional strategies and help teachers learn them. Indeed, they create structures and time for teachers to collaborate, examine student work together, identify instructional improvement strategies, and learn from one another. They frequently visit classrooms and coach classroom teachers in how to analyze student achievement data so that they can make more effective instructional decisions.

These leaders act strategically to: define and guide needed improvements in teaching and learning; identify teacher-leaders who have the potential to guide and support others' learning; create opportunities to share responsibility and leadership for learning; make workplace improvements that contribute to improving instruction and learning; build organizational coherence; and engender confidence among student sand teachers that, individually and together, they will successfully achieve their learning goals and sustain continuous improvement over time.

Traditional education administration programs and certification procedures are producing insufficient numbers of these leaders. State laws and regulations generally set forth certification requirements for public school principals,⁵ which typically require a set number of years of teaching experience and the completion of university coursework in education administration. Customarily, students self-enroll into traditional preparation programs, rather than being recruited, and selection procedures in these programs rarely include a screening to determine candidates' leadership experience and potential along with other preferred qualities and dispositions (e.g., belief that all students can learn, ability to handle pressure, commitment to excellent teaching).

In most cases, once accepted, individual candidates progress through a curriculum that includes a series of discrete courses that are not connected to the reality of a school leader's actual work. Often such coursework presents the complexity of what principals do as a set of independent components, leaving candidates to put the pieces together on their own with little practical school administrative experience or context. Moreover, traditional preparation programs are unlikely to customize or personalize coursework to prepare potential principals to effectively lead schools with the particular characteristics of those in which they will work (e.g., high poverty, low-achieving urban schools; schools with a majority of English learners; isolated rural schools).

The pressing need for a greater number of principals capable of meeting higher expectations has generated promising reforms in some traditional administrator preparation programs, such as cohorts of candidates who train together, field-based experiences, and more practical application of coursework. These reforms are hopeful and well-intentioned, but insufficient. The urgent and compelling need for large numbers of effective school leaders requires more. It calls for accelerated and intensely focused preparation programs that strategically recruit and rigorously screen potential candidates, then immerse them in authentic coursework and integrated field experiences that prime candidates for success in challenging and demanding school settings.

FIGURE 1. Characteristics of Profiled Programs

Bold New Approaches

This guide looks at six pioneering programs that recruit and prepare principals in inventive ways. Building on their states' modifications to leadership credentialing requirements ⁶—and the ability of state-approved preparation programs to apply for waivers from existing certification requirements—these innovative and entrepreneurial programs are developing new recruiting strategies to attract potential leaders from beyond the traditional pipeline of experienced teachers who self select into the profession through university-based coursework. One way they are streamlining the preparation process is by accepting candidates who meet highly selective criteria, including successful leadership experience along with effective skills in communication, interpersonal relationship-building, data analysis and interpretation, strategic thinking, and problem solving. These programs concentrate learning experiences on the knowledge and skills needed to succeed as a principal in challenging circumstances. They provide intensive supports such as mentoring and coaching by experienced successful principals. Moreover, they emphasize the principal's role as a catalyst for change and prepare principals to hold themselves accountable for student achievement results.

All of these programs have the same aim: generating highly qualified principals. But each does it in a way that reflects its unique roots and context: an urban school district's need for well-prepared leaders who can carry out its school reform agenda; a rural district building an internal leadership pipeline; a consortium of "first ring" urban-suburban school districts developing a shared pool of highly qualified principal candidates; a state school administrators association determined to create an expedited route to the principalship; a large urban school district's administrators' union committed to recruiting, preparing, and supporting fledgling principals; and a national nonprofit organization focused on developing a new generation of highly skilled urban principals.

The six programs featured in this guide offer promising practices for others who aim to develop innovative solutions to our schools' urgent demand for greater numbers of effective school leaders, particularly in high-need urban and rural schools. While each program is unique, they collectively reflect our emerging understanding of what it takes to be an effective school leader and of what it takes to develop that leader.⁷

The innovative programs profiled in this guide have attracted a range of experienced and talented leaders, including many who other wise would not have considered becoming school principals because of the barriers—real or imagined—they encountered. These programs appeal to individuals who want to lead challenging schools in specific urban or rural settings and those who want a deeply practical, "real-life" preparation experience. They illustrate commitment, ingenuity, and a variety of practices from which other programs may learn and which can be adapted to other settings and school leadership contexts.

Case Study Sites and Methodology

The six programs featured in this guide are: Boston Principal Fellowship Program, Boston, Mass.; First Ring Leadership Academy, Cleveland, Ohio; LAUNCH (Leadership Academy and Urban Network for Chicago), Chicago, Ill.; NJ EXCEL (New Jersey Expedited Certification for Educational Leadership), Monroe Township, N.J.; New Leaders for New Schools, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and San Francisco Bay Area; and Principals Excellence Program, Pike County, Ky. Basic statistics about these sites appear in figure 1. For a narrative summary of each site's context and program description, see Part II of this guide.

These sites were selected from a larger pool of possible programs through the benchmarking methodology that underlies this study. Adapted from the four-phase benchmarking process used by the American Productivity and Quality Center, as well as general case study methodology, the study proceeded through several phases (described more fully in appendix A).

A study scope or conceptual framework was developed at the beginning of the project to guide site selection and analysis. Developed from an examination of relevant research literature, the framework was reviewed and refined by a panel of experts. Figure 2 outlines the final study scope and guiding questions.

Initially, 60 potential sites were identified using online search descriptors such as "alternative leadership preparation," "alternative principal certification," "alternative administrative certification," "expedited certification," and "accelerated certification." A screening process honed the list to 18 sites. These second-round sites were selected based on four criteria:(1)candidates are recruited into the program based on demonstrated leadership experience; (2)the program offers an accelerated route to certification; (3) the program is currently accepting candidates; and(4) it has evidence of promising practices in the 24 areas of the study scope, such as screening candidates using stated criteria, having tailored, field-based programming, and providing strong mentor support. The 18 potential sites were then screened using a weighted criteria matrix based on the study scope. The final six sites scored between 24 and 20 on a scale of 24 possible points and were ranked as the top six. In addition,they represented a range of geographic locations and types of programs.

Data collection took place through: two-day on-site visits; interviews with program administrators, faculty, current candidates, and graduates; and review of documentation. This guide is synthesized from a more comprehensive research report that includes case descriptions and cross-site analysis of key findings.

This descriptive research process suggests promising practices—ways to do things that others have found helpful, or lessons they have learned about what not to do—and practical "how-to" guidance. The recommendations in this guide are based on a qualitative analysis of data from each site and do not represent experimental research or quantitative analysis that can yield valid causal claims about what works. Therefore, readers are advised to judge the merits of these suggestions according to their understanding of the reasoning behind them and their fit with local circumstancers.

The six innovative programs in this study evolved in response to school districts' frustration in finding and keeping adequate numbers of well-prepared school principals who are willing and able to lead challenging schools to high performance. In each case, the founders of these "grow-your-own" programs determined that existing ways of attracting and preparing principals for these jobs were falling short of what was needed in their particular context.

These pioneering programs seek to recruit successful and experienced leaders from both within and without public education and prepare them to be ready to succeed as leaders in challenging public school settings. To do so, each program has started with a clear vision of the kinds of leaders needed to meet the needs of its constituent districts and regions. In addition, each has developed rigorous recruiting and candidate selection criteria, a meaningful and relevant program of coursework and fieldwork, and processes for building and sustaining the program over time.

Guiding Vision of Powerful School Leadership

Driving the development of each program was a compelling belief in the importance of highly committed and high-performing school leaders—individuals who were prepared to successfully mobilize the necessary knowledge, skills, resources, and energy to challenge and overcome institutionalized barriers to student achievement and to generate conditions in which all students achieve successful outcomes. Each of the six programs began with a clear and highly focused vision of the kinds of leaders needed within its specific context, and each continues to relentlessly pursue that vision through its program structure and design.

The vision of Kentucky's Principals Excellence Program (PEP), which serves rural districts, exemplifies the deliberation that characterizes each program: "The Principals Excellence Program will transform the principalship in underserved rural school districts from school management to visionary instructional leadership that assures high-quality learning for all rural students." That vision permeates all facets of PEP's program and is the basis for decisions about program design and refinement. Eight program objectives define PEP's path to achieve the vision.

Focusing the Program: What Makes a Great Principal?

Extensive research over the last two decades has contributed to our understanding of what it takes to be—and to develop—an effective principal.⁸ Analysis of these data yields a clear picture of what effective principals do, what they know, what they believe about student learning, how they interact with teachers, and how they reach out to parents and the broader community. The most significant and instructive finding emerging from the research is this: Leadership matters—a lot. Simply stated, it takes an effective principal to make a successful school. When leaders mobilize action by declaring a focus on learning and then lead from a set of fundamental values and beliefs about learning and about students' ability to achieve, their schools are more likely to identify, set, and achieve ambitious goals for student learning.

While it's clear that good school leaders share common characteristics, it's equally clear that effective leaders are deeply attuned and responsive to the environment in which they operate. It makes sense that productive community outreach and parental engagement are likely to look very different in the hills and hollows of rural Kentucky than in the densely packed urban neighborhoods of Boston, Chicago, or New York City.

Similarly, successful instructional leadership and teacher development may require a different approach in a high-turnover district where a significant percentage of teachers each year are new to the profession as compared to a district with large numbers of veteran educators and an active mentoring program. So while all six sites highlighted in this guide have grounded their program development and goals in the significant body of research about effective school leadership, each has interpreted that research against the backdrop of the districts it serves. The aim is to prepare the next generation of leaders to be able to step in and do well by any school but, most of all, to be effective in each program's constituent district or districts, able to engage with the district's vision of school improvement, and ready to undertake the hard work required to realize it. Operating on the belief that "great principals lead great schools," the New Leaders for New Schools program defines a great principal as one who coaches and inspires teachers to reach and teach every child and collaborates with students' parents, families, and communities to make schools work. The program boldly aspires to transform American education by creating a critical mass of such principals in urban school districts.

The Boston Principal Fellowship Program (BPF) evolved from the district's ambitious whole-school reform initiative and its superintendent's conviction that school leadership is the single most important factor in each school's success. In support of that conviction, he allocated district funds and other resources to create an internal leadership development program to enhance the skills of the district's current principals, preparing them to carry out their critical role in Boston's whole-school reform plans. The superintendent also launched a "grow-your-own" preparation program—Boston Principal Fellowship Program (BPF)—that immerses participants in the daily work of effective principals and then places them in some of the city's neediest schools. The program's driving vision is that principals are "instructional leaders who effectively improve the teaching and learning process in their schools." (See figure 3 for Boston's competencies of effective principals.)

Moving Forward in a Focused Direction

New Jersey's EXCEL (Expedited Certification for Educational Leadership) program intends to prepare its candidates to be "visionary leaders with the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and readiness for them to be effective agents of change and improvement and effective instructional leaders who actively advocate for and guide the achievement of high academic standards by all students."

The concept of the principal as a "change agent" also guides the First Ring Leadership Academy in Cleveland, which defines an effective principal as "a change agent able to lead a school community to improve instruction so that all students in First Ring schools achieve at high levels." Similarly, Chicago's LAUNCH identifies a highly qualified principal as one who is "ready to lead the school to high achievement by continuously improving teaching and learning so that every child realizes his or her educational potential." Each of these programs delineates—in a set of standards—the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors one needs to grow into the role of instructional leader, and then structures selection criteria, curricula, an apprenticeship, and performance measures around those standards.

The critical importance of the program vision in these six programs is illustrated in the many significant ways their visions have provided a clear focus and sense of purpose for them. LAUNCH incorporates its vision and focus into a standards-based assessment program. Twenty-four indicators of effective leadership serve as the foundation for both its instructional program and its formative assessment of candidates' leadership competencies.

Invest in Being Selective

All six programs offer an accelerated pathway to becoming a principal. While the programs differ from one another in design and structure, they share such characteristics as a rigorous curriculum, demanding fieldbased projects, and an expedited timeline. All of the featured sites agree that their programs do not have the luxury of time to shape a candidate's belief system about student learning or to develop foundational leadership skills. Candidates must come with these qualities fully developed. In short, they need to be able to hit the ground running. Furthermore, each program invests substantially in its candidates. (Figure 1 details the cost per participant in each program.) Ensuring a good return on that investment is a high priority.

All programs strongly emphasize that they are not remedial; instead, they aim to transform individuals with a proven track record of leadership into school principals who can effectively promote great instruction and learning in their schools. They say the secret to their success is not so much the specifics of their instructional program—important as that effort is—as it is to enroll the right candidates.

Each program deliberately screens and selects participants who are already equipped with the appropriate experiences and dispositions to become powerful principals. And each provides those participants with an accelerated program whose every element powerfully radiates from its vision.

Each of the six programs defines the ideal candidate slightly differently, but the personal traits and leadership competencies sought are similar in all. The programs seek people with a passionate and demonstrated commitment to academic improvement for every student, a genuine belief that all children are intelligent and will learn and make progress, given the right circumstances. They want self-aware individuals who understand great teaching and learning, are creative problem solvers, and have strong communication and collaboration skills. To that end, each program starts with a comprehensive screening process based on program-specific criteria that reflect its guiding vision of powerful school leadership. (See figure 4 for an example of screening criteria from New Leaders.)

All programs require at least a bachelor's degree; in New Jersey and Chicago, candidates must have a master's degree. All require professional experience, including some teaching, although Boston accepts those with a youth development background. In some instances, programs are designed specifically to develop new principals; others also look to further develop individuals who are already working as principals or assistant principals.

Beyond such basic requirements, the programs also look at more qualitative factors. Boston, for example, asks candidates to articulate their personal theories of leadership. New Leaders seeks people with an unrelenting commitment to ensuring that every child achieves at high levels. Its selection criteria (see figure 4) are based on its vision of effective school leadership that consists of high expectations and respect for every child, instructional leadership, school-family-community partnerships, data-driven decisions, collaboration and distributed leadership. The PEP screens its candidates for a strong knowledge of instruction, curriculum, and assessment, along with an understanding of Kentucky's statewide reform program. PEP looks for a commitment to improving rural schooling conditions and an appreciation of Kentucky's rural culture; it also screens for a belief in the capacity of every student to achieve Kentucky's academic standards.

Recruitment

The starting place for attracting good candidates, as well as for dissuading those not qualified, is the recruitment process. Program directors spoke of beginning a year ahead of their start dates to publicize and promote the opportunity. Chicago's LAUNCH, for example, issued 3,200 brochures in November 2003 to spread the word to prospective 2004 participants about what the program is, who might qualify for admission, and where the application could be found online. New Jersey's EXCEL relies largely on word-of-mouth generated by its graduates, but also recruits via the publications of its parent organization, a statewide principals and supervisors association.

New Leaders for New Schools targets its marketing and recruitment in hopes of attracting not just those currently working in a school system, but also those who have led community organizations, nonprofits, and youth development programs. It utilizes an executive search-style approach of creating local, regional, and national networks. As a result, more than half of the new leaders are considered "nontraditional" in that they were from outside the public school systems with which New Leaders works, although all participants have strong K-12 experience. For its first 150 fellowships, New Leaders received over 2,600 applications representing a selection rate of 6 percent.

Several programs, such as LAUNCH and PEP, seek nominations from school or district administrators. In Cleveland, participants are handpicked by participating superintendents based on their perceived potential as schools leaders or, in the case of assistant principals or officially designated teacher-leaders, their actual performance. Program staff report that this recruitment approach has the added bonus of sending a message that the districts value the capacity development of their own staff.

The Screening Process

Each program has structured a clearly defined and multiphased process for screening applicants. The first phase may be the application itself, designed in some cases to help ensure that candidates self-select based on rigorous criteria. Succeeding phases involve interviews and, in some programs, performance assessments.

In New Leaders, the application is a weeding tool. It defines criteria (e.g., skills in project management, communication, listening, relationship-building) and requires would-be candidates to answer 14 complex questions designed to reveal how well their backgrounds, experiences, and personal qualities meet the criteria. Similarly, Chicago and Boston applicants receive prompting questions for which they must develop essay responses that are scored by program teams.

In most programs, the screening process is followed by an interview phase. The most intensive and elaborate of these is New Leaders. The roughly 50 percent of applicants who make it through the first screening must then participate in a second screening that includes an hour-long interview with two staff members and requires applicants to produce a written analysis of a case study. About half of the applicants are successful. These individuals then go on to a full-day interview with staff and program mentors, which includes role-playing and the evaluation of a simulated classroom lesson.

In Boston, teams of principals, teacher-leaders, district administrators, and higher education faculty interview candidates, who are also rated on a performance assessment in which they are asked to conduct a teacher observation and assessment at a designated school. Chicago uses a similar panel approach (theirs consists of principals, administrators, and staff from Northwestern University) for interviewing the 30 percent of candidates who make it past the initial application screening. New Jersey's screening requires candidates to formally present a professional portfolio, complete a writing sample that includes a statement of their educational philosophy and personal vision for school leadership, and respond to problem-based scenarios.

Design a Meaningful, Relevant Program

For all these programs, six key elements help to ensure an experience that is meaningful for candidates and relevant to the needs of their students and schools: 1) knowledgeable, committed leadership within a partnership structure; 2) a standards-based curriculum incorporating clear performance indicators; 3) instructional design based on adult learning theory; 4) an intensive, focused induction; 5) a supportive cohort structure; and 6) a school-based practicum, involving expert mentors.

Create a Partnership Structure

All of the programs studied operate as partnerships between a school district or multiple school jurisdictions and other entities, notably universities and foundations. Such partnerships often support the initial costs of program staffing, design, and development, and they contribute to the program's long-term sustainability.

Cleveland's First Ring Leadership Academy, for example, is led by a collaboration of the 13 school districts that encircle the city. Their superintendents, working in partnership with Cleveland State University, launched the academy in response to the critical shortage and high turnover of qualified principals in their districts. Figure 5 is the interview guide that academy staff used to identify the superintendents' program priorities. Each superintendent commits to identifying two or more promising leaders for each academy cohort and supporting them through the academy, then sharing the pool of academy graduates across First Ring districts to fill principal vacancies. The university is committed to customizing the program for participants and making personalized services and resources available to them so that they have every opportunity to become effective school leaders.

The New Leaders national team is a diverse mix of social entrepreneurs and leaders from education, business, and public policy. They staff a program that operates as a partnership of five metropolitan school districts—in New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Memphis, and the San Francisco Bay Area—and several of the nation's leading venture philanthropists. Further support comes in the form of strategic consultancy from the Monitor Group, a leading strategy firm, and pro bono legal assistance from Kirkland and Ellis, a major New York City law firm. New Leaders provides the framework for public and private sector leaders to join together and commit time and resources to transforming public school leadership.

Boston's and Chicago's district-based programs also benefit from partnerships. Boston's operates as a collaboration of the Boston Public Schools and the University of Massachusetts. Chicago's LAUNCH is operated by the Chicago Principals and Administrators Association in collaboration with Chicago Public Schools and Northwestern University. NJ EXCEL partners with the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association and the Association's Foundation for Educational Administration. Kentucky's PEP is a dynamic partnership between the Pike County School District, a deeply rural Appalachian community, and the University of Kentucky in Lexington.

Develop a Standards-Based Curriculum

Across all six programs, standards guide the structure and sequence of the leadership curriculum and establish indicators of effective practice. In each case the curriculum derives from local- or state-adopted performance-based standards, such as the New Jersey Professional Standards for School Leaders. All of them delineate what school leaders need to know and be able to do at various points in their careers, and all of them draw from the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers in 1996.⁹

In each case, overarching leadership standards are integrated with the specific kinds of knowledge and skills the particular program was founded to develop. Boston, for example, focuses on effective practices as defined by Boston's six Essentials of Whole School Improvement (see figure 6), which emphasize principals' need to deeply understand instruction and organize the entire school enterprise to improve student learning. Likewise, New Leaders focuses on 12 essential competencies that reflect research on the practices of urban school principals who have successfully turned around low-performing schools. Chicago's program is guided by the seven leadership proficiencies in that district's educational improvement plan.

The First Ring Leadership Academy (FRLA) in Cleveland developed its curriculum by identifying and prioritizing the recurring and challenging issues and concerns that the next generation of leaders will encounter in the schools FRLA serves. From a priority-setting process that used a focus group consisting of a cross section of district and community leaders, five persistent leadership challenges emerged as critical: increasing student diversity; parent and community involvement; communication; legislati on and politics; and the need to balance priorities. FRLA then cross-checked these five themes with the ISLLC standards to ensure that they were embedded in all learning experiences. The end result is a curriculum scope that integrates FRLA contextual issues with the ISLLC standards and indicators.

Base the Instructional Design on Adult Learning Theory

The structure and focus of the instructional part of each program varies, but each involves a combination of coursework and fieldwork, and each is organized around a cohort and small groups. This approach is in keeping with adult learning theory, which holds that significant learning results from experiences that allow adults to: 1) engage with meaningful content; 2) socially process the information; and 3) construct their own meaning through a self-regulated process.

Begin With an Intensive and Highly Focused Induction Experience

Most of the programs initiate candidates with a rigorous induction experience designed to help participants develop a strong conceptual framework for understanding—and later applying—a deep knowledge of the leadership theory that drives the program. Whether it is a summer residency or an accelerated course sequence, these experiences demand an intense commitment, leading candidates to describe them variously as a "drop-everything-else dedication" and "the most challenging and powerful learning experience I've ever had." They serve multiple purposes, including testing a participant's commitment and drive to take on the challenging role of being a fully invested and effective school leader and arming candidates with the conceptual knowledge and informational resources that they will need on the job. In effect, these induction experiences serve as a final screening. Participants who cannot or do not want to make such a commitment opt out.

The New Leaders program, which aims to equip participants to be catalysts of urban change, starts with a six-week summer institute at the Wharton School of Management in Philadelphia where the group focuses on developing instructional, transformational, and operational leadership skills. At this early stage, bonding and network-building are valuable natural outcomes. Chicago holds a five-week summer leadership academy at Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management, emphasizing instructional leadership. Skills are built around the school district's principal leadership competencies, including creating a studentcentered climate, improving teaching and learning, and increasing parent involvement and community partnerships. During this beginning phase, the fellows in the program have opportunities to build an "urban network" that offers networking connections for fellows throughout their careers.

NJ EXCEL initiates candidates during a demanding twoweek summer residency. This expedited learning experience introduces candidates to the rigorous theory- and research-based curriculum and the action-research projects they will be expected to complete. At this point, candidates also begin to assess their knowledge and skills against specific standards and criteria.

Develop a Supportive Cohort Structure

All programs use a cohort group structure and all report that participants find cohort interactions to be the most valuable element of the program. Cohorts allow participants to proceed through the program with the safety and support of a learning community. Members of the cohort construct meaning and make sense of new contexts by comparing experiences, and they generalize theories of action by sharing individual successes and failures. In short, over the course of their time together, they adopt new identities, in essence "becoming" principals. Together, they evolve from teacher or other professional into an accountable educational leader who knows how to manage a school and improve teaching and learning. Far from disbanding at program completion, the cohort tends to be an ongoing source of support as people progress in their careers.

In the Principals Excellence Program, the cohort of approximately 15 is a uniquely defined community of learners that remains intact throughout the entire program year. Early and ongoing community-building strategies help to create a sense that the cohort is a safe haven for problem solving and brainstorming. Boston's fellows report that this kind of ongoing interaction led them to recognize the expertise of their colleagues and allowed them to benchmark their own progress with that of other cohort members.

Cleveland's program puts a premium on developing trust and reliance among cohort members as a means of creating a strong network of new leadership within the 13 First Ring school districts. The expectation is that cohort members will sustain and support each other as they begin and continue through their careers as school principals, directors, and superintendents.

New Jersey's cohort structure develops collegiality, collaboration, and peer support as candidates engage in a range of program activities. All candidates participate in regional inquiry groups, which meet regularly and continually communicate online to discuss readings, problem-based activities, and day-to-day challenges. Members of each regional inquiry group also support one another with peer reviews and feedback related to action research and school-based projects. Each group works with an "e-mentor" who facilitates the group's activities and serves as its primary advisor. (See figure 7 for a description of e-mentor responsibilities.)

FIGURE 7. NJ EXCEL e-Mentor Responsibilities

e-MENTOR RESPONSIBILITIES

Communication Plans minimum of 18 hours face-to-face Inquiry Group meetings scheduled at time/site by the group Conducts ongoing communication with candidates using NJ-EXCEL's On-Line Learning Community (e-mail, Discussion Board, Instant Messenger) Conducts additional individual/group meetings as needed at discretion of candidates and e-Mentor

Coordinating and Guiding Inquiry Group Meetings and Other Ongoing Activities Extends discussions from cohort seminars on critical topics and tasks Conducts discussions of research and readings Conducts problem-based and critical analysis activities (case studies, in-basket activities, simulations, ect.) within group meetings and/or continuing discussion as Discussion Board activity using NJ EXCEL's On-Line Learning Community Stimulates information sharing and networking activities Plans peer reviews that provide feedback to candidates related to their projects and portfolios Arranges inter-district activities as appropriate

Providing Individual and Group Guidance, Support, and a Collegial Environment Guides ongoing self-assessment, reflection, feedback for development of Professional Growth Plans (PGP) Guides development of Action Research and Job-Embedded Projects Conducts peer reviews of projects and portfolios to encourage feedback and continuous improvement

Candidate Assessment and Recordkeeping Maintains the NJ EXCEL Requirements Checklist for each assigned candidate, submit complete Checklist to NJ EXCEL Coordinator for Research and Evaluation at end of program Conducts quarterly reviews of candidates' portfolios to determine progress toward completion of program requirements: Professional Growth Plan (PGP) Personal Educational Platform (professional philosophy, vision for school leadership, personal professional code of ethics) Reflective Journal Inquiry Group Log Internship Log Action Research Project Action Research Project Presentation Job-Embedded Projects Leadership e-folio Module Activities Completes formal assessment of Action Research Project, Action Research Project Presentation, and Job-Embedded Projects using NJ EXCEL Rubrics Completes an e-Mentor Assessment Report at the end of the program that reflects the e-Mentor's summative assessment of the candidate's overall performance

Participation in Other NJ EXCEL Activities Attends Candidate Orientation scheduled at beginning of program Attends training for NJ EXCEL's On-Line Learning Community scheduled at beginning of program Attends Action Research Project Presentations for Inquiry Group scheduled at end of program Attends External Portfolio Reviews scheduled at end of program Attendance at 1-2 e-Mentor Organizational Meetings during the year as neede d

(Revised February 2004)

Include a School-Based Practicum With Expert Mentors

Participants in all six programs identified their fieldwork—a school-based internship, or residency—as second only to cohort interactions in effectiveness in engendering powerful professional learning. In most of the programs, participants are paired with mentor principals—professional experts committed to sharing successful practices and supporting the development of effective new principals. These programs use specific practices for identifying and selecting mentors. Several have published guidelines for mentoring and require mentor training that is focused on key instructional components, expectations, and program beliefs and value systems.

In Boston, the residency is the primary framework for learning. Each fellow has a paid, yearlong residency, four days a week, with one of Boston's most effective principals. As with all of these programs, Boston puts forth great effort into ensuring that theory and practice are integrated. Therefore, a course on learning theory, for example, is coupled with classroom observations of students and teachers during the residency. These observations are guided by the mentor principal to hone the fellows' skills in understanding students' learning processes and the instructional strategies of effective teachers. As one former fellow said, "The school was my classroom, and my teacher was my mentor principal. He identified what I needed to know by having me do the real work, and then he gave me feedback." That kind of mentoring helps the fellows construct meaning from the theory they are learning in their 70 days of coursework.

Since the fellow-mentor relationship is the linch-pin of the program, great care is taken to identify excellent mentors based on demonstrated leadership and mentoring skills, their schools' success in implementing the six Essentials of Whole School Improvement, and raising student achievement. Equal care is then taken in matching a fellow to a mentor.

Chicago's fellows begin a yearlong paid internship (again, with exemplary mentor principals) that includes both an elementary and secondary experience. Mentor principals are selected through an application and screening process. They are required to attend a half-day session at the summer leadership academy as well as seminars on coaching and feed back. Fellows and mentors sign a contract for each site experience—one elementary and one secondary—that explains each person's role in working to develop the fellow's skill in Chicago's principal leadership competencies. (See figure 8 for the mentor contract.)

New Leaders residents enter into a formal yearlong, full-time relationship with a successful mentor principal who shares his or her knowledge and experience and creates opportunities for the resident to take the lead in multiple aspects of the urban principal's role. The most direct support, however, is provided by a specially trained leadership coach who visits each resident and mentor at least once a week. Working with no more than 10 residents, coaches help structure the re sident-mentor relationship, as well as assist residents in integrating theory from course work into their day-to-day leadership challenges. Coaches are recruited from a pool of outstanding, retired urban principals, and they undergo their own training as a cadre in addition to attending the residents' summer coursework and seminars.

Build and Sustain Over Time

Each program studied conducts ongoing evaluations on several levels, using evaluation findings to continuously improve program performance and outcomes in ways that will help to sustain the program over time. The progress of each participant is tracked for both formative and summative purposes. Systematic monitoring of overall program effectiveness yields data used to guide program improvements.

Assessing Candidate Performance

The intent of candidate assessment in the six programs is to prepare candidates for success as principals in challenging schools. Indeed, each sees assessment as a learning tool. Rather than casting blame when assessment identifies the need for improvement, this system of intelligent accountability rewards learning and continued effort. The programs also recognize the need for public accountability, using assessment to verify and validate candidates' competency and readiness to take charge in a real school with the education of real students at stake.

In addition to serving as the foundation of each program's curriculum, the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards provide a framework for assessing candidates' performance and are the gauge by which candidates and program staff alike assess a candidate's professional growth over time. Each program has contextualized the ISLLC standards and aligned them with program performance goals. For example, NJ EXCEL's School Leader Standards Framework includes the six ISLLC standards and adds a seventh for technological leadership, a key program goal aligned with Technology Standards for School Administrators. NJ EXCEL inducts candidates into its program by developing their understanding of the standards-based requirements, expectations, and performance criteria against which their success in the program is measured. At the start of their program experience, candidates assess themselves against the program's standardsbased performance indicators. EXCEL then uses data from those assessments to guide instructional, mentoring, and coaching efforts. It also publishes for each cohort group a summary of program requirements, the timeframe for completing the requirements, a description of the assessments, and an indication of who will assess their performance. To prepare candidates for success, EXCEL provides them with exemplars of the types of work products and performances that have been judged as meeting the standards and have contributed to effective leadership on the job.

Chicago's LAUNCH program aspires to develop leaders capable of transforming ineffective schools into organizations that work for all students. LAUNCH has translated the ISLLC standards into its own Principal Competencies, which form the foundation of the program's standardsbased curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

Its five standards and 24 performance indicators represent the goals that successful LAUNCH candidates will achieve. To facilitate their success, the program provides candidates with an assessment tool that they are expected to monitor throughout their program experience. To this end, LAUNCH has created a clear and focused assessment guide with a structure that lays out its standards and performance indicators in a page-by-page format. Each page presents one of the five standards with its related performance indicators, a description of the indicators at their highest level of performance, a list of competency-based learning opportunities, and a four-stage rubric that describes four developmental stages of competency (rudimentary, emerging, competent, and transformative).

That assessment guide enables candidates to continuously assess their progress, and it provides a focus for coaching and mentoring. Candidates use the feedback information to develop their own professional growth plan, and then use that plan as a tool for setting developmental goals. They document their work in a professional portfolio that is assessed by LAUNCH staff members, coaches, mentors, and others, using a rubric with which candidates have been familiarized.

Other programs follow a similar process. In Boston, fellows begin the program by completing a self-assessment on the district's 11 competencies of effective principals. Based on this assessment, the fellows work with their mentors and program staff to develop a personal learning contract that provides a map for their first four months. At the end of that period, both fellow and mentor review the contract, benchmark progress made toward its goals, and revise or set new goals for the balance of the program.

When participants begin Kentucky's PEP, they complete a comprehensive six-part survey that enables them to establish baseline data about their leadership skills. It also asks them to develop their own vision of the kind of leader they want to be. (Figure 9 displays one page of the 10-page survey.) The completed survey serves as a self-assessment and goal-setting tool that participants can use throughout their PEP experience to monitor their leadership development.

Every program maintains a rigorous academic gauge of candidate performance and publishes a grading or rubric system that is used for assessing the quality of candidates' coursework assignments, projects, and other work products. Most programs use a portfolio system as a cumulative file of projects, products, assessments, and observation records that document and verify candidates' professional growth and their readiness to successfully assume the role of leader in a difficult school.

ASSESSING PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

The most telling data about a program's performance are those that portray its ability to reach its goals. In the case of school leadership preparation programs, data about the performance of graduates in leadership roles will provide a lens for assessing program effectiveness. Most of the programs in this study are not far enough along in their development to use this lens. Nonetheless, Chicago's LAUNCH program, which initiated its first cohort in 1998, is taking a courageous look at student performance on standardized tests in the schools where its graduates are serving as principals. LAUNCH has compiled five-year profiles of these schools to track student performance on the district's mandated standardized tests from 1999 through 2003. Each year these schools have made an average gain, with the highest gains in math. By tracking their graduates using school performance data, LAUNCH intends to investigate the relationship between its school leadership preparation program and improvements in student learning.

FIGURE 9. LAUNCH Mentor Contract

2003 Apprenticeship Contract Mentor Mentor:________________________________________________ Fellow: ________________________________________________ School: ________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________ I ________________, Principal of ___________________ (School) agree to the following conditions during the Apprenticeship (August 18, 2003 - January 30, 2004): Allow the LAUNCH principal to shadow and work with with me in all aspects of the principalship. Meet with my LAUNCH principal regularly, one-on one, to plan, discuss and debrief day-to-day activities. Include the LAUNCH principal on my Administrative Leadership Team. Attend and actively participate at all LAUNCH professional development sessions. Commit to provide opportunities for the LAUNCH prinicpal to learn and practice all of the principal proficiencies listed in the Apprenticeship Guidebook, with particular focus on skills in categories L (Learning) and N (No experience). Commit to provide the support and guidance necessary to make the LAUNCH principal successful in the apprenticeship. __________________________ Mentor Signature   ____________ Date   * I have seen and am aware of the responsibilities of the Mentor. __________________________ Fellow Signature ____________ Date

In Chicago, a public education fund has supported several external evaluations of LAUNCH's progress and outcomes relative to its goals. Findings indicate that LAUNCH principals perform more like veteran principals than their non-LAUNCH counterparts. Indeed, their leadership actions demonstrate that they understand the complexities of the principal's role and are able to guide instructional improvement from the outset of their principalship. In addition, findings show that LAUNCH has been able to recruit and place Latino principals, who traditionally have been underrepresented in Chicago public schools and that LAUNCH graduates appear to be more active than either other new leaders or veteran principals in obtaining professional development for themselves and their faculties.

Every program in the study relies on many partners and multiple measures to help evaluate and continuously improve itself. Feedback from candidates and mentors, as well as candidates' progress-as evidenced by their portfolios, for example-help gauge program and faculty effectiveness and guide mid-course and annual improvements. The First Ring Leadership Academy (FRLA) in Cleveland and PEP in Pike County use "barometer" surveys and focus groups to help identify perceptions about program responsiveness and effectiveness.

FRLA is also partnering with the Batelle Memorial Institute, a third-party evaluator, to establish a program evaluation protocol that will be used to collect field data about FRLA's graduates working in new leadership positions. The protocol process will collect observational and interview data that FRLA staff plan to use to identify program-wide strengths and weaknesses. Batelle evaluators will also use data collected by Academy staff, conduct surveys and observations, and establish a control group of non-participating first-year principals for comparison purposes.

In keeping with its core philosophy, New Leaders puts a major emphasis on using data analysis to determine program effectiveness. Data on candidate success, for example-during and after the program-provide feedback on the selection process. The program also tracks candidate placement rates and monitors student achievement results over time in schools led by program graduates. New Leaders' strategy of ongoing assessment ensures the development of outstanding principals, while also creating key learning to continuously improve the program model and to share with the field.

New Jersey EXCEL annually evaluates its program design and effectiveness against six program standards and related performance rubrics that are aligned with national accreditation standards for universities (see figure 10). The evaluation data are used to make formative adjustments in the program and they feed in to EXCEL's five-year evaluation plan that will report the program's long-term effectiveness.

FIGURE 10. NJ EXCEL Program Standards and Performance Rubric (page 1 of 2)

Program Evaluation Design and Standards

NJ EXCEL's Program Evaluation Design and Standards are aligned with the program accreditation process and standards utilized by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) to ensure that NJ EXCEL's program effectiveness will be measured according to professional expectations for high quality leadership preparation. Six (6) Program Standards are applied to the NJ EXCEL Program. Program Standards #1 and #2 focus on candidate performance outcomes, and Program Standards #3 through #6 address the components of a coherent program that supports candidate learning and performance. Together, the six Program Standards are designed to present strong evidence about the coherence, effectiveness, and results of the NJ EXCEL Program. A description of data sources for Program Standards 1, 3, 4 and 5 is attached. Program Evaluation Rubrics are designed to delineate the elements of each standard and describe three levels of program effectiveness for each element (Unacceptable, Acceptable, Target).

Program Standard #1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions (for New School Leaders)

Description Candidates know and demonstrate the professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to function as school leaders who have the ability to effectively create an environment that supports student learning and guide instruction that results in high achievement for all students. Assessments indicate that candidates meet performance standards aligned with NJ Standards for School Leaders and ISLLC national school leader standards and Technology Standards for School Administrators(TSSA).

Program Evaluation Rubrics: Candidate Knowledge and Skills (including Technology) Candidate Dispositions and Ethical Behavior (including Diversity) Candidate Application to Practice: Performance

Program Standard #2 Assessment System and Program Evaluation

Description The program's assessment system collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and program implementation to evaluate and continually improve the program.

Program Evaluation Rubrics: Assessment System Data Collection, Analysis, & Evaluation Use of Data for Program Improvement

(Rev. March 2004 Manual Section 1)

All of the programs have demonstrated a culture of continuous improvement and professional excellence. Each defines success differently, but all show relentless energy in striving to achieve it.

Summary

The six leadership preparation programs in this study are distinct strategic responses to one underlying crisis: the pervasive need to identify, recruit, prepare, and place high-quality principals in our nation's schools. While this crisis is most acutely experienced in challenging urban and rural areas, the problem of an insufficient applicant pool or pipeline of effective school principals is spreading into every region of the United States. Without more innovative pathways to leadership certification, the problem is likely to worsen with 40 percent of current school principals eligible for retirement in the very near future.¹⁰

Simultaneously, across the country, elected officials, policymakers, parents, and educators themselves are pressing schools for higher returns on the public investment. This press for improvement reflects discontent with the results our schools are yielding and our understanding that, as a society, we are not yet meeting our responsibility for ensuring that every child achieves academic success. A growing body of research suggests that we will only be able to do that when we improve the ability of principals to skillfully remove barriers to learning and put in place conditions for academic success.¹¹

Each program had a unique creative approach that enabled it to move beyond traditional structures. Every program started with a profound belief that what currently existed was insufficient for meeting the urgent need. An ability to work both with and around existing structures, leaving them intact and building relationships with them, allowed the innovative new programs to gain some footing, then some traction, and, ultimately, make sure-footed progress.

The development of this guide was initiated and directed by Nina S. Rees, assistant deputy secretary in the Office of Innovation and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education. Sharon Horn was project director.

An external advisory panel provided feedback to refine the study scope and prioritize issues to investigate. Members included Dick Flanary, National Association of Secondary School Administrators; Libia Gil, New American Schools; Betty Hale, Institute for Educational Leadership; Frederick Hess, American Enterprise Institute; Lynn Liao, Broad Foundation; Kent Peterson, University of Wisconsin at Madison; Terry Ryan, Fordham Institute; and Jon Schnur, New Leaders for New Schools.

Staff in the Department of Education who provided input and reviewed drafts include Susan Sclafani, Tom Corwin, Michael Petrilli, Meredith Miller, Phil Rosenfelt, John Gibbons, Jeff Sims, Pat Gore, Peggy Zelinko, and Jacquelyn Zimmermann.

This guide was written, designed, and based on a report by WestEd.

WestEd is a nonprofit research, development, and service agency committed to improving learning at all stages of life, both in school and out. WestEd has offices across the United States and also serves as one of the nation's 10 regional educational laboratories.

WestEd's partner in developing this series of research reports and innovation guides is Edvance. Created by the American Productivity and Quality Center, Edvance is a resource for process and performance improvement with a focus on benchmarking, knowledge management, performance measurement, and quality improvement initiatives in education.

The six programs cooperating in the development of this guide and the report from which it is drawn were generous with both their time and attention to the project. We would like to thank all those who were instrumental in coordinating and participating in the site visits that inform the report and this guide.

The research design and methodology for this project is an adaptation of the four-phase benchmarking process used by the American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC), along with general case study processes. This guide is based on a longer and more detailed report that includes individual case studies of each of the six study sites and a cross-site analysis of key generalizable findings. While classic benchmarking looks for best or promising practices using quantitative measures and comparisons among organizations, most of the innovative programs in this study are too new to fully support this methodology. A brief overview of this project's adapted methodology follows.

A study scope or conceptual framework was developed from an analysis of research and descriptive information about school leadership preparation, including alternative route programs. Experts in leadership development and alternative route approaches were recruited to serve on an external advisory panel that provided feedback to refine the framework and prioritize issues to investigate. The resulting study scope and guiding questions directed all aspects of the study (see figure 2 on page 7).

Site selection was a multistep process to ensure that the guide would feature an array of practices reflected in the elements of the study scope and would represent a variety of geographic locations and contexts with which district administrators, university faculty members, and other key stakeholders could identify. Initially, 60 potential sites were identified based on public documents, marketing materials, reports, and program Web sites using online search descriptors such as alternative leadership preparation, alternative principal certification, alternative licensure for school administrators, expedited certification, and accelerated certification.

A screening process filtered the list to 18 sites. These second-round sites were selected based on four criteria: candidates are recruited into the program based on demonstrated leadership experience; the program offers an accelerated route to certification; the program is currently accepting candidates; and the program has evidence of promising practices in the 24 areas of the study scope, such as screening candidates using stated criteria, tailored, field-based programming, and strong mentor support.

The 18 sites were then screened using a weighted criteria matrix based on the study scope (figure 2). The screen ing process was conducted through targeted phone interviews with program staff and thorough reviews of program materials including: recruiting and application procedures; selection criteria and screening process; curriculum scope and sequence; instructional manuals; residency experience; coaching; mentoring; participant evaluation and support; follow-through support; and program evaluation information. The selected six sites scored between 24 and 20 on a scale of 24 possible points and were ranked based on their weighted scores. In addition, they represented a range of geographic locations, contextual conditions, and types of programming.

Collect Data

Collecting detailed descriptive information from program staff, partners, funders, participants, and district leaders was key to understanding each program's practices, the outcome or impact each achieved, and the lessons learned from which others could benefit. The major steps to this phase involved finalizing the site visit interview guide based on the study scope and arranging and conducting site visits to the programs

Each of the six sites hosted a two-day visit that included interviews with administrators, program participants, and partners, as well as observation of events when scheduling permitted. During the site visits, these key personnel and stakeholders were asked questions from the site visit discussion guide tailored to their particular role group. In addition, artifacts from the sites, such as applications, planning tools, interview protocols, curriculum materials, and participant work were collected to provide concrete examples of program practices. The study team collated the information collected during the site visits and developed a case study for each site

Analyze and Report

Once all the data were collected, the project team analyzed them to understand the promising practices uncovered throughout the benchmarking project, both within and across programs.

Two products resulted from this research: a report of findings and this practitioner's guide. The report provides a more detailed analysis of key findings across sites, a detailed case study of each site, a collection of artifacts, and key project documents. The practitioner's guide is a summary of the report intended for broad distribution.

Adapt

This guide offers descriptive examples of new ways to prepare school leaders for the challenging work awaiting them. Ultimately, readers of this guide will need to select, adapt, and implement practices that meet their individual needs and contexts. The guide will be broadly distributed around the country through presentations at national and regional conferences, as well as through national associations and networks. The guide is also accessible online at http://www.ed.gov/admins/recruit/prepare/alternative/index.html.

The organizations listed below are provided as examples of resources that may be helpful to the reader. Their inclusion should not imply an endorsement by the Department. There also may be many other useful resources on this topic.

The Broad Foundation works to improve k-12 urban public education through better governance, management, and labor relations. The foundation's goals are to train a broad, deep bench of current and aspiring leaders in education; to redefine the traditional roles, practices, and policies of school board members, superintendents, principals, and labor union leaders to better address contemporary challenges in education; to attract and retain the highest quality talent to leadership roles in education; to equip school systems and their leaders with modern tools for effective management; to provide tangible incentives for educators to advance academic performance; and to honor and showcase success wherever it occurs in urban education. http://www.broadfoundation.org/

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, based in Washington, D.C., supports research, publications, and action projects of national significance in elementary and secondary education reform, as well as significant education reform projects. In May 2003, the institute, along with the Broad Foundation, published Better Leaders for America's Schools: A Manifesto. The document contends that American public education faces a "crisis in leadership" that cannot be alleviated from traditional sources of school principals and superintendents. Its signers do not believe this crisis can be fixed by conventional strategies for preparing, certifying, and employing education leaders. Instead, they urge that first-rate leaders be sought outside the education field, earn salaries on par with their peers in other professions, and gain new authority over school staffing, operations, and budgets. http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/

The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) seeks to improve education—and the lives of children and their families—through positive and visionary change. Through its School Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative, IEL has published several informative reports on the state of school leadership and the need for highly qualified leaders in America's public schools. The task force report Leadership for Student Learning: Reinventing the Principalship (October 2000) suggests that the core mission of the principalship must be redefined as leadership for student learning. To "reinvent the principalship" for 21st century schools, communities must fill the pipeline with effective school leaders, support the profession, and guarantee quality and results. Guidelines and suggested questions are included for those who wish to start conversations on reinventing the principalship in their communities by bringing together diverse constituencies and empowering leaders with knowledge and applicable ideas. http://www.iel.org/

The National Center for Education Information (NCEI) is a private, nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C., specializing in survey research and data analysis. NCEI is the authoritative source of information about alternative preparation and certification of teachers and school administrators. The Web site provides easy access to detailed information about policies and alternative certification routes in each state. http://www.ncei.com/

The Haberman Educational Foundation, Inc. promotes research-based models for identifying teachers and principals—particularly educators who serve students at risk and in poverty. The Foundation's "Star Online Administrator Questionnaire" and "Online Pre-Screener" identify candidates who are likely to succeed in alternative administrative certification programs. http://www.habermanfoundation.org/

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions. CCSSO provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues. In its publication The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards For School Leaders (1996), the ISLLC standards present a common core of knowledge, dispositions, and performances that link leadership to productive schools and enhanced education outcomes. The ISLLC standards have been used as a foundational source for the six programs in this guide. http://www.ccsso.org/

The Education Commission of the States (ECS) is a nonprofit organization that provides information to state education policy leaders on many critical education issues. The ECS Web site offers data about what states are doing regarding alternative licensure and certification of principals and superintendents. Recent publications include: Licensure/Certification: What States Are Doing—Administrator License Requirements, Portability, Waivers and Alternative Certification, which contains information on license requirements, portability, waivers, and alternative certification for administrators and allows for comparing across states (April 2004), and Certification of Principals and Superintendents in the U.S., 2003, which provides information on school administrator certification requirements for each state. This document provides state-by-state information on regular path and alternate path certification requirements for school administrator certification. http://www.ecs.org/

¹ Elaine McEwan summarizes 20 years of research on effective schools and discusses her analysis in The traits of highly effective principals: From good to great performance (Corwin Press, 2003).

² Murphy, J. and Louis, K. S. (1999). Handbook of research on educational administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Smith, W. F. and Andrews, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; and Elmore, R. J. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York: The Albert Shanker Institute.

³ Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., and Bryk, A. S. (2001). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

⁴ For a perspective on the school community environment as a positive force for school reform, see Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press, pp. 84-103.

⁵ Feistritzer, E. (January 2003). School administrator certification in the United States, 2002. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Information.

⁶ The 11 states reporting that they have approved innovative pathways to administrative certification include California (new legislation), Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland (intended for people already in the education system), Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio (not used), Tennessee (not used), and Texas (only for people who have been teachers or principals). Although New Jersey, New York, and Oregon report having no alternate routes, they do have programs for non-traditional candidates to get into administrative jobs. Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, and Kansas have alternate routes for superintendents, but not for principals. Hawaii, which has only one school district, has an alternate route for principals. Florida passed legislation in 2002 giving local school boards authority to set their own alternative qualifications for persons wishing to become principals. Feistritzer, op.cit.

⁷ Leithwood, K. and Duke, D. L. (1999). "A century's quest to understand school leadership." In Murphy, J. and Louis, K. S., Handbook of research on educational administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 45-72.

⁸8 Haycock, K. (1999). Dispelling the myth: High-poverty schools exceeding expectations. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust; Barkley, S., Bottoms, G., Feagin, C. H., and Clark, S. (1999). Leadership matters: Building leadership capacity. Atlanta, Ga.: Southern Regional Education Board; Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press.

⁹ http://www.ccsso.org/Projects/interstate_school_leaders
_licensure_consortium/standards_for_ school_leaders/562.cfm. See also WestEd. (2003). Moving standards into everyday work: Descriptions of practice. San Francisco: Author.

¹⁰ NAESP Fact Sheet/NAESP 2002 Survey at http://www. naesp.org.

¹¹ Knapp, M. S. et al. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press; Charles A. Dana Center. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-performing highpoverty urban elementary schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education; Blase J., and Blase J. (1999). "Principals' instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers' perspectives," Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (3), 349-78.