Research suggests that districts can shape the working environment for the principal in a variety of ways, including:

• Policies that support or restrict principal autonomy (e.g., the ability of principals to make important decisions related to hiring and firing teachers, selecting curriculum, assessment, and professional learning resources, and general spending and budget priorities);
• The extent to which the district imposes principal accountability measures without providing necessary supports or training; and
• The amount of support provided to principals through their supervisor or evaluator, as well as other support resources offered by the district.

Research also indicates that an improved working environment may lead to greater principal job satisfaction, enhanced principal practice, and increased principal retention. A case study the Bush Institute completed on Gwinnett County Public Schools in 2015 showed that supportive district culture, effective principal management and support, and aligned school-level talent management policies can positively influence the work of principals. Notably, such policies and practices that influence a principal’s administrative environment are distinct from other factors that may influence working conditions. These other factors, such as student demographics or neighborhood characteristics, are largely out of a district’s control.

Additional research on the role of the principal supervisor shows that principal supervisors may currently have caseloads ranging from three to 100 principals, despite expert suggestions that this number should be closer to eight to twelve in order for a supervisor to provide meaningful support. However, there is currently no empirical evidence that directly links the roles and responsibilities of principal supervisors to improvements in student learning, and we encourage more research to be done in this area.

• Program coherence and alignment to research-based competencies that allow candidates to demonstrate practices of effective leaders (e.g., the ELCC Educational Leadership Program Standards);
• A rigorous recruitment and selection process for entrance into the program based on the skills, tasks, and dispositions of effective leadership;
• A meaningful residency experience that provides candidates with opportunities to apply knowledge and skills, observe current leaders modeling effective practice, and receive feedback on performance;
• A commitment to collecting evidence of program effectiveness and engaging in continuous improvement; and
• Strong district-program partnerships that align program standards and district needs.

Research on the impact of these practices, and principal preparation programs more generally, on student achievement is not definitive. Although some studies have found that these practices have no impact on achievement, others have identified a positive, if limited, effect. For example, additional evaluation of the NYC Leadership Academy’s Aspiring Principals Program noted a limited impact on student achievement in ELA (particularly after the second year of the program), but no effect on student achievement in math—regardless of the duration of the intervention.

Additionally, in a 2016 study, the Bush Institute found that graduates of five selected preparation programs that embrace the “promising practices” outlined above are no more or less effective, on average, than graduates of other preparation programs. The study did find, though, that preparation programs produce a significant variation of individual performers, meaning some principals have a very positive impact on student achievement while others do not. Finally, other studies on the impact of selected principal preparation programs have found that these programs may have a positive but modest effect on student learning.

Findings from literature reviews, case studies, and program evaluations suggest that districts should align recruitment, selection, and hiring procedures to a set of research-based leadership performance standards or competencies. Findings from case studies also suggest that using technology to share information among schools—to support the creation of a strong candidate pool—may help districts effectively match principals to schools.

Implementing these strategies at the district level requires a shared understanding of the characteristics of effective principals—as well as an understanding of the factors that make for a strong candidate pool, both of which can vary by district and school context. Some research also points to the importance of establishing structured hiring processes that considers the candidate’s “fit” for a school. While additional research is needed on the characteristics of effective principals and how to best identify “fit,” experts encourage districts to use data tracking systems to learn more about the characteristics and experiences of successful principals in their own systems.

In a study of five districts, the Bush Institute found that, in many cases, important human resources data related to principals (e.g., where they received their training, what supports they receive from the district) are not collected uniformly or may be difficult to access. More systematic data collection and organization could provide districts with important information on the characteristics, experiences, and supports provided to their most effective principals—and help inform recruitment, selection, and professional development efforts.

Additionally, some experts recommend proactive succession planning as a solution to strategically filling leadership vacancies. Districts can predict the number of expected principal vacancies over the next three to five years—based on upcoming retirements or expected promotions, student enrollment growth, and natural attrition in the district—and use these projections to inform a strategic hiring and succession planning process. With rapid principal turnover in high-need schools and principals retiring each year, districts must have a talent identification pipeline in place to tap future leaders for principal positions so they are able to quickly fill any leadership gaps—both foreseen and unforeseen.

Despite progress in certain districts, professional learning for principals has, historically, been very limited. Principals often participate in district professional development designed for teachers rather than trainings or supports designed specifically for school leaders. Many principals report receiving little if any support specifically targeted to their learning needs, the very type of professional development that experts in the field suggest that principals truly require.

In fact, experts recommend that professional learning should be based on a thorough understanding of an individual principal’s immediate needs—not according to a one-size-fits-all model. To this end, some districts now use principal evaluations to identify these needs and embed cycles of goal setting and professional growth planning within the evaluation process.

However, there is only limited research on the efficacy of specific mentoring practices and the outcomes of individual programs. Some experimental studies have found positive effects of specific professional development programs on leadership practice—or an association between particular types of professional development and improved student performance, school climate, teacher collaboration, or principal retention—but there is little expert consensus about the most effective design for professional development programs.

Although the supporting empirical evidence is limited, experts and principals generally agree that quality mentoring programs, in particular, are valuable. They recommend that mentorship programs carefully consider the “match” between a mentor and mentee—and that mentors themselves are selected carefully for the role.

Although there is no definitive evidence that points to the best approach for measuring principal practice—or for ensuring that measures of practice are valid and reliable—there is a significant body of literature, based on expert opinion, that provides guidance to districts on how to approach evaluation. Expert opinion suggests that principal evaluation should be standards-based, and include multiple measures of performance. Measures of principal practice can include various types of evidence, including:

• Observation of a principal engaging in some of their critical responsibilities (e.g., providing instructional feedback to teachers, or leading data team meetings) and using a rubric to evaluate proficiency on specific principal practice standards;
• Collection and scoring of “artifacts” of principal practice that demonstrate proficiency on particular standards of principal practice (e.g., agenda and session materials from professional development sessions run by principals, school improvement plans, etc.);
• Teacher perception data through leadership “360 degree” surveys (e.g., the VALED survey); and
• Measures of school and student performance and growth.

Experts also recommend that performance evaluation results connect with professional learning so that principals engage in individualized growth plans that align to their particular needs.

Notably, designing effective performance evaluation systems for principals remains an ongoing challenge for many states and districts. In particular, training evaluators to use systems with fidelity—to ensure accuracy and reliability—is essential to assessing principal performance and using data to inform professional development. Some states and districts are evaluating the extent to which their current systems effectively measure principal performance, and, as a result, contribute to improved student outcomes. The results of these evaluations inform continuous improvement processes (see for example, the evaluation conducted by Kimball et al., 2007).

• A school achieves a certain number of target outcomes,
• A principal commits to leading a high-needs school for an extended period of time,
• A principal increases his or her skills through professional development or takes on additional responsibilities, or
• Principal evaluations show evidence of effective leadership.

There is some qualitative and quantitative research that connects salary to principals’ decisions to stay in schools. Some studies also indicate that increased salaries may attract more qualified candidates to the profession or to hard-to-staff schools. This finding is particularly important given that schools with higher percentages of low-income students, lower performing schools, or schools with predominantly minority students more often report difficulty finding and keeping principals. There is also evidence emerging from existing district compensation and incentive initiatives that connect performance-based compensation to improved principal retention, principal practice, and student achievement.

Some district leaders see non-monetary recognition and incentives as one way to attract a broader candidate pool and keep their best principals in the position for a longer period of time. Additionally, some experts suggested non-financial incentives might appeal to younger, new principals in the millennial generation, although it is challenging to identify examples of this practice in the field of education. One expert cited Deloitte’s sabbatical program—which allows employees to take unpaid or partially paid sabbaticals—as an example of a compelling non-monetary incentive. However, the research to date on the impact of non-monetary incentives on principal hiring, performance, and retention is limited.