aimed to increase public confidence in
the province’s 5,000 publicly funded
schools.
The defining feature of the initiative
was its focus on building capacity
in schools to raise achievement.
Elementary school teachers received
extensive professional development on
key instructional practices in literacy
and numeracy, with intensive assistance
given to schools in greatest difficulty. At
the high school level, “student success
officers” identified potential dropouts
and developed individualized education
and support mechanisms to keep them
in school.
As part of this reform, the province
developed a coherent leadership
development strategy—the Ontario
Leadership Framework and Principals’
Qualification Plan—which changed the
function of the principal from administrator to instructional leader. Supporting
the instructional core became the focus
of principal preparation programs.
Now, in addition to successful experience as a teacher and completion of
a principals’ training program at a university, every principal and vice principal receives two years of mentoring in
each of these roles from an experienced
principal. This mentoring is funded by
the Ontario Ministry of Education but
organized through local school boards.
The program includes training for
mentors and a clear learning plan for
mentees.
In consultation with their school
boards, principals set a number of challenging goals and strategies to achieve
those goals. This becomes the basis of
their evaluation, which takes place every
five years. There’s also considerable job-embedded professional development
and information sharing across schools.
The ministry also gave each of the 72
local school boards funding to develop
a leadership succession plan so reform
momentum isn’t lost when principals
move on.
As a result of these measures, by
2010, 68 percent of students
achieved the 6th grade pro-
ficiency standard—up from
54 percent in 2004—and
the high school graduation
rate moved to 79 percent,
up from 68 percent in 2004.
The reforms also reduced the
number of low-performing
schools from 20 percent
to under 5 percent and
decreased the attrition rate of
new teachers by two-thirds
(Levin, 2008).
Lessons Learned
What lessons can the United
States take from international
efforts to develop the next generation of school leaders?
Redefine the Role
of School Leaders
As countries seek to raise the
performance of their education
systems and adapt them for
the 21st century, they recognize that
the role of the principal as conceived
in the past (and codified in regulations) is no longer appropriate. These
countries have developed new standards to redefine the responsibilities of
school leaders to focus on leadership for
learning. Overall, the definition of the
principal’s role has changed from “bells,
buildings, and buses” to a focus on
instructional leadership.
Although these new leadership standards include many items, they tend to
focus on the following responsibilities,
which seem most closely linked to
improved student outcomes (Pont,
Nusche, & Moorman, 2010):
n Supporting, evaluating, and devel-
oping teacher quality.
n Setting school goals for student
performance, measuring progress, and
making improvements.
n Strategically using resources
to focus all activities on improving
teaching and learning.
n Partnering with communities, social
agencies, and universities to support the
development of the whole child.
Although it’s not entirely clear what
experiences actually serve to develop
such leaders, especially on a scale
large enough to staff a whole system,
many places, including Australia, New
Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway,
and Hong Kong, are exploring new
leadership models like those described
here.
Take a Comprehensive Approach
Although the United States tends to
focus on developing new kinds of
training programs for aspiring and
current principals, training programs on
their own will not ensure a sustainable
supply of effective school leaders. The
highest-performing countries take a
comprehensive approach to attracting,
recruiting, and supporting high-performing school leaders.
Current international best prac-
tices target four areas. First, there’s an