Educational Leadership

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.