Better Leaders for America's Schools: A Manifesto. With Profiles of Education Leaders and a Summary of State Certification Practices (original) (raw)
Related papers
Good Principals Are the Key to Successful Schools: Six Strategies To Prepare More Good Principals
2003
This report defines six strategies that state and district leaders can employ to secure an ample supply of highly qualified school principals. The six strategies were drawn from research and direct experience in helping schools, universities, and state agencies rethink and redesign educational leadership programs. The six strategies are as follows: (1) Single out high performers; (2) recalibrate preparation programs; (3) emphasize real-world training; (4) link principal licensure to performance; (5) move accomplished teachers into school leadership positions; and (6) use state academies to cultivate leadership teams in middle-tier schools. For each strategy the report addresses five questions: What is the proposed strategy? What are the issues? Where do states now stand? What are some promising practices? and What can states do? The report concludes that each state should choose its best forum, based on the six proposed strategies, to train, recruit, and retain effective school principals. (WFA) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. SREB Southern Regional Education Board 592 10th St. N.W.
2012
Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders proposes state policies for improving principal effectiveness and student achievement. It uses policy examples from eight-lagging‖ and eight-leading‖ states as a means of advocating for a wide range of policy actions aimed at influencing principal preparation, licensure and retention. The report, however, has several flaws that undermine its usefulness. It provides little explanation on how the state exemplars were selected or why they were considered to be leading or lagging. It makes little use of existing research. It does not report on extensive current state and professional activities on leadership standards, program accreditation and licensure requirements that address exactly these features. It recommends ending the-monopoly‖ of higher education in principal preparation and broadening (or lowering) the criteria for becoming a principal, but it provides no research or other evidence that such changes are warranted, will improve student achievement, or have other beneficial effects. The report's endorsement of broadly accepted, almost platitudinous reform principles, coupled with unsupported and possibly counterproductive recommendations, renders the report of little value in improving the quality of principals.
2012
In December 2008, the Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee approved a 2009 research agenda for the Office of Education Accountability that included a review of training requirements for superintendents, school board members, principals, and school-based decision making council members. This report provides data on the perceived effectiveness of leadership training in preparing superintendents, principals, school board members, and school-based decision making council members. The Office of Education Accountability would like to thank the Kentucky School Boards Association, the Kentucky Association of School Councils, and all superintendents and principals who participated in leadership training surveys.
NEPC Review: Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders
2012
Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders proposes state policies for improving principal effectiveness and student achievement. It uses policy examples from eight-lagging‖ and eight-leading‖ states as a means of advocating for a wide range of policy actions aimed at influencing principal preparation, licensure and retention. The report, however, has several flaws that undermine its usefulness. It provides little explanation on how the state exemplars were selected or why they were considered to be leading or lagging. It makes little use of existing research. It does not report on extensive current state and professional activities on leadership standards, program accreditation and licensure requirements that address exactly these features. It recommends ending the-monopoly‖ of higher education in principal preparation and broadening (or lowering) the criteria for becoming a principal, but it provides no research or other evidence that such changes are warranted, will improve student achievement, or have other beneficial effects. The report's endorsement of broadly accepted, almost platitudinous reform principles, coupled with unsupported and possibly counterproductive recommendations, renders the report of little value in improving the quality of principals.