Help Principals Focus on Instruction
Recent studies (Turnbull et al., 2009)
find that principals may spend as little
as one-third of their time each day on
instructional matters, bogged down
instead by lunch menus, bus schedules,
and other administrivia. One response
is the School Administration Manager
(SAM) process, created in Jefferson
County, Kentucky, and, as of 2012,
in use in 82 districts in 17 states (see
www.wallacefoundation.org/Pages/SAM
.aspx).
Participating schools hire a “SAM” to
take over noninstructional tasks from
the principal, or more commonly, the
principal designates a person or small
team from the existing staff to take on
the functions. The SAM or SAM team
then meets regularly with the principal to help him or her schedule more
instructional leadership time, reflect on
whether changes in time allocations are
affecting instruction as intended, and
designate other school employees to
take on noninstructional chores that the
principal need not handle.
An evaluation of 93 principals who
used the SAM process found that after
two years, they spent an average of one-and-a-half to nearly two hours more
each day on instruction (Turnbull,
Arcaira, & Sinclair, 2011).
It’s still unclear, however, whether
the SAM process ultimately bolsters
student achievement. An early study
showed a mixed picture in a comparison
of student achievement gains at SAMs
schools with gains of similar schools that
did not use SAM (Turnbull, White, &
Arcaira, 2010).
Plan for Changes in Leadership
Not all turnover is bad. Districts should
be able to remove subpar principals
who can’t or won’t improve, even with
support. And a good deal of turnover is
inevitable from retirements, promotions,
and transfers. The real harm comes from
frequent, unplanned leadership changes,
which can have significant negative
effects on student achievement and can
More districts are
exercising their
“consumer clout” to
prod training providers
to pay closer attention
to district realities.
lead to staff cynicism about principal
commitment and a loss of momentum
in accomplishing school change (Louis
et al., 2010).
How might districts lessen unwanted
turnover and its damage? More careful
screening of potential principals is one
approach. Better training and mentoring
for novice principals is another.
In 2002, the Jefferson County, Kentucky, school district collaborated with
University of Louisville faculty members
to create a leadership development
process that aims to narrow the field
to the most promising leadership candidates and guide them from initial
training through their early years on
the job. The process begins with a
selective, yearlong certification program
co-created and taught by faculty and
district staff members, followed by
a yearlong, district-paid internship.
Finally, the district provides mentoring
for all its new principals. District leaders
credit this multistage process with a
70 percent drop in principal turnover
between 2005 and 2010.
Some districts allow transferring
principals to bring in their own teachers
and administrators to smooth the tran-
sition. When Massachusetts classified
its Springfield school district as under-
performing in 2010, the district was
ordered to replace instructional staff
in its 10 lowest-performing schools. In
the five schools in which the principals
were removed, the district allowed the
replacement principals to bring along
a team of teachers and administrators
who had helped them succeed in their
previous schools.
Cultivating Success
These actions to build and support a
stronger bench of school leaders are
all essential and mutually reinforcing.
Recent experiences have yielded some
other lessons on how districts can con-
tribute to the success of their principals:
n Leadership and authority don’t
reside in any single person or position.
Durable school change occurs through
the consistent, shared exercise of
leadership by many within the school
and district. A principal’s influence and
authority don’t ebb when broadly shared
(Louis et al., 2010; Portin et al., 2009).
n Investing in better leadership makes
economic sense as a way to spread good
practices to every classroom. Still, there
are real costs: Developing well-crafted
leadership standards typically takes
months or even years of work; and
creating data systems, providing high-
quality principal internships and men-
toring programs, or assigning specific
district employees to work closely with
school leaders all come at a price (Orr
et al., 2010; Wallace Foundation, 2011).
n Districts owe their principals a
well-articulated vision of academic
success based on high expectations for
all students—and the flexibility and
authority to achieve that vision in their
own schools (Bottoms & Schmidt-
Davis, 2010).
The big lesson, however, is that principals matter to the academic success of
students—and districts should therefore
take a strong hand in selecting and
training their leaders and cultivating
their continuing success.
“Leadership is the fundamental
element that can drive an organization
to phenomenal success,” says J. Alvin