Strengthening Hawaii`s Principal Pipeline

Strengthening Hawaii’s
Principal Pipeline:
Voices from the Field
May 2010
©2010 Harold K. L. Castle Foundation, Kailua, Hawaii
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America, First Edition.
Portions of this work may be reproduced without permission, provided that acknowledgement is given to the Harold K. L. Castle Foundation.
Printed Copies of Strengthening Hawaii’s Principal Pipeline: Voices from the Field are available from the Harold K. L. Castle Foundation,
1197 Auloa Road, Kailua Hawaii 96734. An electronic version is available at the Foundation Website, www.castlefoundation.org.
Table of Contents
President’s Message
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................... 1
Good Leadership Leads to Student Achievement ................................................................................................ 4
Methodology......................................................................................................................................................... 5
5
Data Collection .........................................................................................................................................
Survey ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Interviews ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Participant Selection ................................................................................................................................ 6
Profile of CAS and Principals .................................................................................................................... 7
Document Collection................................................................................................................................ 7
Analysis..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 7
General Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Complex Area Superintendent Findings ............................................................................................................... 10
Recruitment ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Selection .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Training..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Certification and Placement .................................................................................................................... 12
Support and Retention............................................................................................................................. 13
Principal Interview Findings ................................................................................................................................. 15
New Generation of Leaders...................................................................................................................... 15
Recruitment and Selection....................................................................................................................... 15
Leadership Training and Support.............................................................................................................. 16
Organizational Culture and Community ................................................................................................... 16
Challenges and Opportunities .................................................................................................................. 17
Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendices
Appendix A - Complex Area Superintendent Survey Questions
Appendix B - Principal Interview Questions
Appendix C - References
Appendix D - Recommended Readings
Appendix E - Harold K.L. Castle Foundation Investments in Principal Leadership
Appendix F - Professional Development Education and Research Institute (PDERI) Documents
“I’m still here because I love kids, and I believe it’s our moral obligation to do right by them.
That’s what keeps me coming to work.”
-Veteran Principal
President’s Message
The Harold K.L. Castle Foundation believes that a child’s learning opportunities should not be determined by
his or her zip code, skin color, or household income. Rather, we are committed to ensuring that all of Hawaii’s
children gain access to a high-quality education that prepares them for a fulfilling life of citizenship and work.
We believe that the well-being of our families, our communities, our economy, our very democracy depends on a
system of excellent public schools for all.
For the Foundation, this starts with an effective leader in each school -- an individual with the vision, capacity
and commitment to make change where change is necessary and to sustain it over time. We need principals
who create learning-centered schools that place student needs above all others. We also need an organizational
culture that supports the creation and development of these leaders.
To help craft a grantmaking strategy aligned to the needs of current and future school leaders and to determine
the most effective opportunities for investment, the Foundation surveyed 13 of Hawaii’s 15 Complex Area
Superintendents and interviewed 50 sitting principals on four islands. We also talked with other leaders in the
Hawaii Department of Education as well as individuals from non-profit and academic organizations with a stake
in public education.
We asked these stakeholders to reflect on the education leadership pipeline in Hawaii. We posed guiding
questions pertaining to each phase of the pipeline. How do we currently recruit, select, train, certify, place, and
support principals? How effective are we at preparing quality leaders? What barriers exist to effective leadership
development? How well are we developing the future generation of Hawaii school leaders? How well are we
supporting the current generation? What specific needs do current and future principals have that have not yet
been addressed?
Our research, detailed in this publication, revealed that Hawaii’s challenges and opportunities start where
the pipeline begins – identification of emerging leaders and their recruitment – and continues through to its
end – retention and retirement. The first set of challenges was articulated by a principal who said, “I identify
potential leaders at my school soon after they arrive as teachers. I often have to spend years trying to convince
them to take on leadership roles. It’s not that they aren’t committed to students and the school, but they see
what I go through on a daily basis as a principal and think, ‘No, that’s not for me.’“
In short, the voices from the field confirmed that the days of principal as lone hero are numbered. In light of
what we heard, it is time to rethink the principalship itself, ensuring that school leaders have time to focus
on the tasks they deem most important such as instructional leadership and closing the achievement and
preparation gaps, perhaps looking to a more distributed and collaborative leadership model.
“The most effective training really comes with on the job experience and…
a highly skilled mentor who works with the training.”
- Complex Area Superintendent
Once in the pipeline, Complex Area Superintendents and principals alike shared the view that good mentoring
and coaching were absolutely integral to their development as effective school leaders. When asked to name
their most important professional development experience, over 85% of principals mentioned some form of
one-on-one mentoring. Recounted one principal, “The relationships I’ve built with mentors and colleagues over
the years have been critical to my success as a principal and my sanity as an individual. I’ve learned so much from
hearing what others do, through sharing what I do and asking questions to the right people at the right time.”
Summarized another veteran principal, “In all of my years in schools, what’s helped me grow the most has been
the people I’ve had around me, those who at one point in time knew more than I and chose to share what they
knew so that I could get better at what I did.”
As we might have suspected, our principals identified being an instructional leader as one of the most important
and difficult aspects of their job. “Learning to be an instructional leader once you’re a principal is really hard.
You don’t have time and you might not have the credibility you need to have an impact on curriculum from
the very beginning,” commented one elementary principal. In the end, principals said that what sustains them
amidst their ever-growing assemblage of responsibilities are their core values and their commitment to students.
Said a veteran principal, “I’m still here because I love kids, and I believe it’s our moral obligation to do right by
them. That’s what keeps me coming to work.”
Based on this research, the Harold K.L. Castle Foundation has added a three-year, $2.1 million principal pipeline
initiative to its existing portfolio of investments focused on supporting sitting principals. This Initiative for New
School Leaders is intended to help the next generation of school leaders be as effective as any in the nation.
For details, visit www.castlefoundation.org.
There is no doubt that good people work hard every day for our keiki in our schools. Hawaii’s yawning
achievement and preparation gaps show us that we must do more. It is our hope that by understanding the full
continuum of the leadership pipeline in Hawaii, we can celebrate our strengths and address our weaknesses,
so that our efforts at developing quality leaders for Hawaii’s schools are focused, successful, and positively
impact student achievement.
H. Mitchell D’Olier
President & CEO
Harold K. L. Castle Foundation
Executive Summary
This study was designed to help the Harold K.L. Castle Foundation to better understand Hawaii’s principal
pipeline. With this knowledge, we aim to improve the effectiveness of our school leadership grantmaking.
The intent was to capture the voices of Complex Area Superintendents (CAS), whom we consider
to be the primary, but not sole, drivers of principal placement and support. To supplement those voices,
we also interviewed a cross-section of sitting principals. Thirteen of 15 CAS responded to our survey. Fifty
principals were interviewed. We asked for clear statements of need: What do our principals need to be
successful at raising student achievement and facilitating school growth? What barriers inhibit their ability
to be effective leaders? What do CAS need to support their principals and develop the next generation
of leaders?
We found that:
u 50% of responding CAS were concerned about the diversity and quality of principal candidates
u 58% indicated that the nature of the principalship makes it difficult to attract quality candidates
u 25% of a CAS’s time, on average, is spent coaching principals
u 50% of CAS felt HIDOE’s preparation programs were strong
u 50% felt that HIDOE training was not rigorous and comprehensive enough
u 67% of CAS highlighted the importance of mentorship in their own development
u 73% of CAS recommended allowing certified principals from the mainland to apply for openings
While the number of school leaders eligible to retire, i.e., of retirement age, (see below) appears
alarming, the count has remained more or less constant for years. There is no tangible indication that a
mass exodus is imminent, just a lingering fear, the prospect of budget cutting legislation and the desire to
be prepared for a worst case scenario. The survey data indicates that overall, CAS were unsure whether a
principal retirement crisis is at hand or not. Twenty percent of respondents said, “no.” Another 20% said,
“yes and no.” The rest were either unsure or conditional in their responses, e.g., “Crisis may be with certificated
vice principals,” “depends on retirement benefits.”
1
Some thought that potential realignments of benefits might cause a preponderance of retirement-eligible
principals to retire in the next two years. CAS felt that solving any potential leadership crisis meant striking a
balance between attracting the right individuals, providing rigorous pre-service training, and adequate
resource and personnel support to sitting principals, all while ensuring that principals are recognized for their
contributions and that the commitment demanded by the job is acknowledged.
Due to the ever-mounting responsibilities of the principalship, sitting principals and CAS report that they are
finding it difficult to recruit the most promising individuals into administrative positions. Principals also
noted that in recent years the vice principals they have worked with have spent significantly less time than
their predecessors in the classroom and in teacher leadership roles prior to entering administration.
These individuals also seem to spend less time as vice principals before taking on principalships.
On average, principals said that they spend less than 25% of their time on instructional leadership, though they
consistently identified it as being the most important and most difficult aspect of their job. Correspondingly,
sitting principals emphasized the need for leadership candidates to develop a solid understanding of curriculum
and instructional practices prior to entering an administrative training program. In addition to curriculum
knowledge, principals asserted that underlying values and beliefs needed to be at the center of any
selection process.
While many principals spoke highly of the training offered through PDERI’s New Principal’s Academy, they felt
additional support was needed for transitioning vice principals and that there would be benefit in additional
mentoring and opportunities to dialogue with colleagues.
Despite ongoing exploration into distributive leadership models and shifts at the school level toward
collaborative leadership, principals still felt a sense of professional isolation. They affirmed that the move to
data-driven decision making is important. Somewhat surprisingly, they commented that they exist in
environments that are almost too “data-rich,” which makes it difficult to determine which data are truly
necessary to drive change. Whether this is a matter of too much data or a reflection of the urgent need for
better data fluency and analytical capacity on the part of school leadership remains a lingering question.
As for their opinion on relations between the field and DOE headquarters, principals thought that they received
an inordinate number of compliance-related requests from the district. Principals unanimously agreed that
communication between schools and the Department is often inefficient.
While some challenges differ from school to school, many are consistent across grade levels, communities
and leadership experience. In the end, principals said that what sustains them are their core values and their
commitment to students.
In thinking about what we heard and reflecting on ways the Foundation might augment its existing
investments in school leadership to best respond to the voices in the field, we identified four clusters of
grantmaking opportunities that we will pursue in conjunction with HIDOE and other local organizations
over the next 3 years. This Initiative for New School Leaders represents a new $2.1 million investment in
Hawaii’s principal pipeline.
2
Grant Cluster #1: Multiple Pathways to Principalship and Tailored Continuing Education
Our research indicates a need for greater diversity and better preparation among leadership candidates.
New grants will fund the creation of multiple pathways to certification for aspiring principals through
partnerships with some of the finest principal leadership programs in the nation. Grantmaking will begin in
earnest when Hawaii statutes and regulations clearly allow certification of principals trained through these new
pathways. Multimedia case studies will provide ongoing training to aspiring and current principals, focusing on
instructional leadership.
Grant Cluster #2: Training to Improve Recruitment and Coaching of Future Principals
CAS are the primary drivers of principal placement, selection, and coaching. Our research shows that few CAS
receive any coaching themselves on these key tasks. New grants will improve CAS’s ability to nurture talent and
recruit great principals. Grants will improve CAS’s and principals’ access to human resource and legal expertise,
effective mentoring, and support to help them coach and evaluate principals and teachers, respectively.
Grant Cluster #3: Professional Learning Communities for Second Tier Leadership
Our research reveals the need to improve instructional leadership competency by vice principals and other
second-tier school leaders before they become principals. As professional learning communities are already
established among many principals and are spreading throughout the state, grants will help establish effective
professional learning communities among vice principals, curriculum coordinators and teacher leaders across a
complex. Mentoring for vice principals will be strengthened.
Grant Cluster #4: Data to Show Whether Leadership and Student Learning Are Improving
Our research identifies the need to find data tools that help CAS and principals know whether they and their
teachers are doing the right things to improve learning. Grants will introduce a set of best-in-breed assessments,
including the VAL-Ed evaluation tool for principals.
We recognize that there are many more opportunities to strengthen the leadership pipeline than those falling
under the heading of our four investment clusters. We understand that this study may be used to inform other
initiatives. The Foundation looks forward to partnering with additional stakeholders to grow the quality and
diversity of Hawaii’s school leaders. These assessments will also help the Foundation to determine whether its
investments in leadership are having the desired impact on the achievement and preparation gaps.
Current State of School Leadership
Based on CAS Survey & Principal Interviews
Recruitment and
Selection
Training and
Certification
Support and
Retention
Culture
• Lack of rigor in screening
& selection process
• Lack of selectivity in
graduation & certification
• Wide variance of support
among CAS
• Lack of shared vision
for leadership
• Lack of diversity in
candidate pool
• One size fits all model
of training
• Culture of professional
isolation
• Dearth of pre-service
leadership training
• Lack of cohesive systems
at the school level
• Insufficient time &
competency in data
fluency and instructional
leadership
• Candidates w/ insufficient
skills & experiences
• Insufficient support for
newly hired principals
• Immature retention
programs
• Lack of communication
among stakeholders
• Unsustainable
principalship
3
• Immature retention
programs
• Shifting views on
educational outcomes
Good Leadership & Student Achievement
the 21st century. Employers from every sector report
Realistic or not, school leaders are increasingly
that many high school graduates do not have the basic
expected to improve student achievement, to do so
skills necessary to perform well in the workplace3.
rapidly and strategically, and to maintain their
Community colleges and universities report
impact over time. These are no small tasks. Limits on
unacceptably high remediation rates for public high
funding and resources, legal compliance issues,
school graduates. Simply put, by the time they reach
resistance to change, years of negative school
the age of 18, many of our 9th graders are not college,
culture, and lack of control over critical aspects of
career or even citizenship ready. We refer to this as
educational leadership such as school staffing, all
our “preparation gap.”
stand as barriers to progress. In short, the
principalship is becoming less and less manageable; a
Hawaii consistently ranks below the national average
deeply troubling truth given that mounting research
in student achievement4 and has been near the bottom
shows that, next to teachers, principal leadership has
of national public education rankings for too long. The
the highest correlation and most dramatic impact
1
implementation of Furlough Fridays
on student achievement . It is
has resulted in an increasingly
conjecture on our part, but one
“Learning to be an instructional
negative perception of the public
might imagine that since principals
leader
once
you’re
a
principal
is
school system and a call to
indirectly impact every teacher and
student in their school, a principal’s
really hard. You don’t have time eliminate an elected school board.
ability to influence may prove even
and you might not have the
Many have suggested that we have
more significant than
unique challenges in Hawaii, that
credibility you need to have an
is currently estimated.
impact on curriculum from the our economically disadvantaged,
special education and English
The Harold K.L. Castle Foundation,
very
beginning,”
language learner populations are
which has invested approximately
disproportionately high. While our
$1.7 million to improve public
- Elementary School Principal
poverty levels and single parent
school principal leadership since
families are high, they are not high
20002, is concerned with two
enough to account for ourunderachievement.
metrics: the achievement and preparation gaps. The
According to the National Center for Education
achievement gap refers to the differnce in
Statistics5, Hawaii’s student population
achievement between students of low socio-economic
demographics are not significantly different from
status and their peers of moderate and high income.
the rest of the nation.
In Hawaii that difference, which represents as much as
a 20 percentage point difference on nationally-normed
tests, has not narrowed significantly in over a decade
except in specific high-performing schools such as
Campbell High School. This has become a major
impetus for re-envisioning of public education.
In our research, Complex Area Superintendents and
principals consistently called for the building of a
school leadership pipeline that recruits exceptional
individuals, trained in ways shown to have a significant
impact on student achievement, into principalships
across the state. These school leaders have no time
for excuses as they work to help teachers achieve
mastery of their profession, thereby ensuring that
every student has the opportunity to learn.
But the achievement gap is just part of the equation.
Even those schools that consistently turn out students
who meet or exceed performance benchmarks do
not truly prepare their graduates for the challenges of
1
2
Marzano et al, McRel 2007
See Appendix E for a list of relevant grants.
www.p20hawaii.org/sites/default/files/P20_Careerstudy_summary.pdf
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/
Ibid
3
4
5
4
Methodology
Data Collection
We collected our data using a variety of
methods including research, guided interviews,
open-ended conversations, and written surveys.
After researching national leadership development
literature, we designed a series of questions to
garner information from complex area
superintendents regarding the state of the
leadership pipeline in Hawaii. We posted these
questions to an online forum and asked all
complex area superintendents to respond.
Ronald Heck, clearance from UH’s Institutional
Review Board, and permission from the Department
of Education’s Systems Accountability Office (SAO).
In November of 2009, with the support and
backing of then Superintendent Patricia
Hamamoto, we asked the state’s 15 CAS to
complete our survey. Thirteen of the 15 responded.
We presented a summary of the survey findings at
the December 2009 HI-DOE Leadership Meeting.
Interviews
As the primary purpose of our conversations with
CAS was to clarify and refine our understanding
of the leadership pipeline, these interviews were
largely unstructured. They occurred in person and
over the phone, and included discussion of general
and complex-specific leadership needs, suggestions
for grantmaking, and recommendations for
additional interview subjects.
After analyzing survey results, we engaged eight of
the 15 CAS in follow-up conversations on the
leadership pipeline to provide further insight and
clarification. We asked them to recommend
principals who could comment on the state of the
leadership pipeline. We then designed a series of
interview questions specifically for principals and
conducted 50 interviews.
At the recommendation of CAS, we reached out
to principals across the state to get a more
comprehensive picture of the pipeline. Following
the analysis of the CAS survey and subsequent CAS
interviews, we developed a series of structured and
unstructured questions for sitting principals.
We examined CAS responses alongside principal
responses, looking for gaps, points of convergence,
and general trends. From there, we engaged in
further conversations with key constituents in
the Department of Education and in external
organizations with a stake in public leadership
development to flesh out and better understand
the data.
We asked sitting principals to recount their personal
experiences with recruitment, selection, training,
certification, placement, and support and to
comment on historical strengths and gaps.
We encouraged them to share their impressions of
the current leadership pipeline. We also requested
that principals explicitly convey any professional
needs they had, either personally or for their school,
and any suggestions they had as to how those needs
might be met by the HIDOE or by a third party.
Survey
The CAS survey included 70 questions, grouped
according to the four sections of the leadership
pipeline, which we characterized as recruitment
and selection; training; placement and certification;
and support and retention. The questions included
a variety of structured and open-ended responses.
We vetted our questions with the Professional
Development, Education and Research Institute
(PDERI), the state’s teacher and school leader
training and support division, and three CAS to
ensure relevance and validity.
We field tested our interview protocol and
questions with three CAS and five sitting principals.
Interviews were conducted during the fall and
winter of 2009 by Alice Chen, a consultant retained
by the Foundation for this project. Each interview
lasted approximately an hour and a half.
We secured sponsorship for the survey from
University of Hawaii College of Education Professor
5
The interview protocol was thoroughly explained to
each principal. All participants were assured of
confidentiality; all findings would be reported
anonymously without designation of school
or complex.
The following tables summarize the demographics
of our sample:
TABLE 1: Principals by Recommendation
Participant Selection
Due to the anonymous nature of the survey, it is
not possible to discern which 13 of the 15 CAS
responded to the survey. However, we assumed
that our sample comprises individuals from all
islands and demographics. Informal, follow up
interviews were conducted with eight complex area
superintendents from O’ahu, Hawai’i Island, and
Kaua’i, each of whom had expressed an interest
in engaging in further conversations on leadership
development.
CAS Recommended
Previous Participation
with the Foundation
37
13
TABLE 2: Principals by Region
In our interviews, we asked CAS to recommend
principal interviewees and to include a variety of
ages, experience levels, income demographics,
achievement scores, and grade levels where
possible. None were charter school principals.
The research team interviewed 50 of the state’s
288 sitting principals. Additionally, we interviewed
several principals who had previously participated in
programs through the Foundation’s grantees.
The principals who comprised our interview sample
represented the major islands, with the majority
coming from O’ahu. The sample included a wide
cross section of grade and achievement levels.
O‘ahu
Honolulu
O‘ahu
Windward
O‘ahu
Leeward
O‘ahu
Central
21
10
7
4
Hawaii
Island
Maui
County
Kaua‘i
3
2
7
TABLE 3: Principals by Level
Elem
School
Mid
School
High
School
Multi
level
Special
31
9
8
1
1
TABLE 4: Principals by Title I Demographic 6
Title I
Non-Title I
39
11
TABLE 5: Principals by Achievement
Schools with large concentrations of low-income students receive
supplemental funds. Low-income is determined by number of
students enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program. For a
school to qualify for Title 1, at least 35% of students must enroll in
the free and reduced lunch program.
GoodStanding,
Unconditional
School
Improve Yr. 1
Corrective
Action
Planning for
Restructuring
21
3
2
4
GoodStanding,
Pending
School
Improve Yr. 2
Restructuring
10
1
13
6
6
Profile of CAS and Principals
The thirteen CAS who responded to the online
survey represented a wide cross-section of
teaching and administrative experience. All served as
principals of Hawaii-based schools for a minimum of
three years prior to becoming CAS. Their experience
as CAS ranged from two months to 11 years, with
eight having spent two years or less on the job.
Document Collection
State training materials, the 2007-8 teachers’
contract, state laws and regulations, and complex
policies were gathered and used to provide a
context for the information provided by CAS and
principals. These documents were also used to
guide additional informal conversations with key
figures in state education.
The principals interviewed ranged in age from
early thirties to late sixties, with the majority of
principals falling between the ages of 45 and 55.
All principals had some form of school-based
experience, primarily as classroom teachers prior
to entering administration. Two had been
counselors, and one a band director. The school
based experience of principals ranged from 3 years
to 27 years, with the majority of individuals having
spent between 10 and 15 years as teachers or
counselors prior to entering administration.
Analysis
We analyzed the data from the CAS survey,
summarized key themes, and presented these to
CAS at the December 2009 Leadership Meeting.
We solicited feedback on the data results and
summary and encouraged further dialogue and
discussion.
Following the completion of the principal
interviews, we analyzed and summarized this data
and considered it in relation to information
gathered from CAS. We analyzed the major themes
of the principal interviews in conjunction with the
major themes of the CAS surveys. Where we found
discrepancies, we sought clarification to ensure an
accurate and holistic picture of the leadership
pipeline. We then conducted additional research
into leadership development and consulted with
external constituents in order to round out our
understanding of Hawaii’s leadership needs.
All 50 principals we interviewed had held some
form of leadership role at their school prior to
applying for an administrative training program.
All principals had served as vice principals, on average
for three to five years, with a few individuals having
served as many as 10 and as little as one year in the
position. Half of the principals interviewed had been
principals at more than one school. On average, the
individuals interviewed had spent between five and
eight years as principals, with a couple of individuals
having spent upwards of 15 years, and a couple
having spent less than a year in the principalship.
Thirty percent of all of the principals interviewed
had held district level positions with the HIDOE.
Principals had participated in a wide range of
administrative training programs (Table 6).
Limitations of the Study
The Foundation acknowledges the limitations of our
study and the potential perceived lack of rigor
in allowing CAS to guide the selection of our
principal sample. Our decision to rely on CAS
recommendations was a deliberate one, consciously
built into the study design from the outset and
informed by our desired outcomes. The goal of this
study was to characterize the leadership pipeline in
Hawaii and to determine what areas of need exist
across the continuum of principal development
and support. As CAS are the primary drivers of
TABLE 6: Principals by Training Program7
7
EMTP
SAT
ACE
CAPSL
Cohort
5
6
16
6
17
EMTP – Educational Management Training Program
SAT P – School Administration Training Program
ACE – Administrator Certification for Excellence
CAPSL – Cohort School Leadership Program
7
principal selection, placement, and support and the
individuals most familiar with the leadership
pipeline, the Foundation was particularly interested
in capturing their voices. To this end, we developed
a rigorous survey for CAS informed by national
research on school leadership development.
Principal interviews were conducted primarily to
enhance and clarify what we heard from CAS,
rather than to make a definitive statement about
the collective voice of sitting principals.
know what I didn’t know, so I thought I was ready.
I didn’t have the ability to see beyond where I was,
even though I believed I could.”
The Foundation also acknowledges that this study
does not include the voices of vice principals. As
vice principals exist in an intermediate stage of the
pipeline, neither just entering it nor fully trained
through it, we felt that they might not possess the
perspective necessary to speak authoritatively to
its overall quality. When we asked sitting principals
whether, as vice principals, they had felt ready to
take on the principalship, 90% of them indicated
that while they thought they were ready, they
realized almost immediately upon taking the
job that they had been naïve regarding their
preparation. Said one principal, “As a VP, I didn’t
CAS and principal comments regarding
vice principal and principal training indicated
several gaps in the preparatory programs.
However, in speaking with members of PDER,
as well as individuals at the University of Hawaii
College of Education, the Foundation found that
many of these criticisms had been previously
heard and that extensive changes to the leadership
training programs have been and continue to be
made. The results of these changes are not visible
in our study because the individuals who
experienced them have not yet become sitting
principals.
Nevertheless, while this perspective informed
our decision not to speak extensively with
vice principals, several of the key findings of this
study indicate that future conversations with
vice principals will be critical to further fleshing out
our understanding of the leadership pipeline.
In short, this CAS felt that
the nature of the principalship,
with its increasing
responsibilities and time
commitment, make it a difficult
job to recruit for and a difficult
position to sustain.
8
General Findings
In this study, we looked at principal recruitment,
selection, training, certification, placement and
support mechanisms. We asked CAS and sitting
principals to identify strengths and weaknesses in
the pipeline. We asked for suggestions from both
parties on how they felt the pipeline could be grown
and improved. We also asked for clear statements
of need. What do our current principals need to
be successful at raising student achievement and
facilitating growth at a school level? What barriers
exist that inhibit their ability to be effective school
leaders? What do CAS need to better support their
sitting principals and to grow and develop the next
generation of school leaders?
This study was intended to give voice to educational
leaders in the field as a group, to identify their
needs and the barriers they experience en route to
improving student achievement. Not surprisingly,
the data we gathered differed from individual to
individual and from CAS to principals, depending
on individual and group experiences. Nevertheless,
there were many points of convergence.
9
Complex Area Superintendent Findings
Just three of the 11 CAS respondents commented
that instituting a nationwide search for qualified
applicants might enhance the selection pool,
especially for secondary principalships which they
see as requiring significantly greater breadth and
depth of experience than elementary principalships.
However, 73% mentioned that making it easier to
hire certified principals and superintendents from the
Mainland might be beneficial to the overall quality
and diversity of the pool. Overall, CAS seemed to
recognize a need to re-examine the recruitment
process to ensure that individuals with the right skills
and experiences were applying to principalships.
Noted one CAS, the current “recruiting process is not
recruiting the best of the best” and a solid “selection
and mentoring process is not in place.” Nearly half
of the respondents identified that talent recruitment
for leadership positions is not a standardized process
and that it occurs largely at the school site. Much
responsibility lies with principals to locate, prepare,
and recommend candidates, which may have
implications for the overall quality and quantity of
leadership candidates.
Complex Area Superintendents were asked to
reflect on each segment of the leadership pipeline:
recruitment and selection, training, certification and
placement, and support and retention. Key findings
are summarized below.
Recruitment
While half of responding CAS noted that the
overall quantity of applicants for principalship had
remained pretty constant during their tenure, they
expressed concern about the diversity and quality of
principal candidates. Sixty two percent of CAS said
that they receive two - four applications per
principal vacancy, but that the quality and
experience of the applicants varied widely. While
they felt that, ideally, the selection pool would
include a variety of seasoned principals as well
as first-time applicants, 42% noticed a tendency
towards administratively young candidates. Half
of those responding to the question attributed the
dearth of qualified applicants to a lack of rigor in the
selection process and what they perceived as
inadequate training and mentoring. Slightly less
thought that it was primarily a result of the limited
experience base of vice principals. Commented one
CAS, “I recently filled three positions and had
applicants for each, but they were all new to the
type of schools they were applying for... Ideally, the
candidate pool would include seasoned principals.”
During interviews, many CAS expressed concern
over the sustainability of the principalship as it is
currently structured, which, when considered in
conjunction with their observations that the quality
and diversity of the applicant pool is not as robust as
they would like it to be, suggests that consideration
needs to be given to both the job of the principal
itself and the pathways through which it is attained.
Summarized one CAS, “We need to ask, ‘Are the
current certification requirements [aligned to] what
we need from 21st century principals?’ We need to
review, update and change these requirements. The
skill set for the 21st century administrator is not in
coordination with these antiquated HRS
requirements. How do we create 21st century
schools with 20th century leadership?” In short, this
CAS felt that the nature of the principalship, with its
increasing responsibilities and time commitment,
make it a difficult job to recruit for and a difficult
position to sustain.
Forty-two percent of CAS who answered the
question suggested that HIDOE was not recruiting
the best candidates either within or out of state.
A full 58% indicated that the nature of the
principalship, with its ever-increasing list of
responsibilities, make it a difficult position to which
to attract quality candidates. Summarized one CAS,
“The principalship is demanding. Many people
are seeking more ‘balance’ in their lives. The
principalship can easily take over one’s personal
life.” Explained another, “[With the] lack of effective
school based mentoring for aspiring administrators
[and] the unappealing nature of the job…who wants
to be a principal in this environment?”
10
Selection
All CAS were united in their definition of a “highly
effective” principal as a transformational leader,
someone who can build relationships with
personnel and community in order to, as one CAS
wrote, “get results for students,” while effectively
managing resources and operations on a day to
day basis. All 13 responding CAS were also aligned
in their characterization of a “struggling” principal
as an individual lacking focus, problem solving and
communications skills, and ability to create and
maintain efficient systems.
by only one CAS in the self-defined characteristics,
ranked high in the pre-determined category.
While the case can be made that all of the above
skills and experiences are critical to a successful
principalship, and that CAS may have left out certain
characteristics because they were forced to rank
them, what emerges from these apparently
conflicted responses is that there is no consensus
among CAS on what good leadership looks like.
In essence, despite attempts by HIDOE to qualify
and quantify “excellent leadership,” ambiguity still
exists as to what skills, knowledge, experiences,
and priorities make an excellent principal candidate,
When asked to list the top three characteristics they
what aspects of leadership must be selected for
looked for in a principal candidate, independent of
and what aspects can be developed over time
any departmentally mandated
through training. As CAS are the
“lookfors”, all CAS identified
primary drivers of this process,
CAS posed the question of
communication and relationship
this suggests that CAS clarity
whether or not current leadership around vision and recognition
building skills as critical. Ten of
12 listed instructional leadership
may be a key area
candidates were entering
as key while seven of 12 listed
for development.
administrative training
facilitative leadership and
collaborative ability, vision and
Training
programs ready for the
philosophy, problem solving and
CAS posed the question of
responsibilities and requirements
analytical skills at the top of the
whether or not current
of a leadership position.
list.
leadership candidates were
entering administrative training
However, when asked to rank
programs ready for the
the skills and experiences that they looked for in
responsibilities and requirements of a leadership
first time principal candidates from a pre-deterposition. CAS acknowledged that the effectiveness
mined list of characteristics, which included these
of principal screening for leadership candidates
five core elements, CAS ranked
varies widely. Nevertheless, they were concerned
leadership and resource utilization experience,
that candidates might not be entering
influencing and motivating skills, and the ability to
administrative training programs with a high enough
execute school improvement strategies as the top
baseline fluency in curriculum knowledge, data
three most important traits. Least important were
usage, systems thinking, time management and
teaching experience, conflict resolution experience,
prioritization, and relationship building skills.
responsiveness to central office demands, and
Whether the origins of these concerns were tied
money and resource usage. Conflict resolution
to the nature of the selection processes or to an
and curriculum experience, both of which had
overall lack of readiness in candidates was unclear.
ranked high on the self-defined qualifications list,
One CAS suggested that perhaps the CAS
were low in the pre-determined rankings, while
themselves “could use some training on
business related skills and previous leadership
interviewing and selecting the right candidates,”
experience, two qualifications that were mentioned
in order to raise the bar on leadership candidates.
11
CAS were clear, however, that the leadership skills of
candidates need to be developed prior to
acceptance into an administrator training program.
CAS saw initiatives like PDERI’s Teacher Leader
Academy (TLA) as being strong potential vehicles for
this work. Additionally, 46% of the CAS surveyed
felt that partnerships with the Harvard Change
Leadership Group and Academy 218 were the best
professional development opportunities available
to their principals. Explained one CAS, the Change
Leadership process “allows for real time-in-the-field
collegial mentoring. It is an on-going complement
to ‘principal school’ as defined by our current
system.”
as one of PDERI’s strengths. However, 42% of
responding CAS felt that even though PDERI’s
mentoring was good, it was still not as much as
aspiring leaders needed in order to become
successful principals. One CAS felt strongly that
leadership graduates should be given “follow up
support for at least a three year period” after
graduation.
While overall, CAS were divided in their views on
the effectiveness of PDERI’s administrative training
programs, 42% agreed that one of PDERI’s
greatest strengths was its ability to provide
guidance and support to trainees on the structure
and functioning of the HIDOE. Summarized one
CAS, PDERI provides “strong knowledge of how the
HIDOE is designed.” CAS also agreed that to be
effective and sustainable, all training and
professional development provided to potential
principals needed to be personalized,
problem-based, and have a mentoring/coaching
component. Said one CAS, professional
development needs to “model skills for candidates
and give them a variety of experiences with
problem based learning opportunities.”
CAS were also interested in professional
development for aspiring leaders focused on
principals’ problems of practice. One CAS suggested
“problems of practice seminars.” Another
suggested “professional development
[op-portunities] on community relations… [that
teaches individuals] to deal with the onslaught of
complaints that a principal deals with.” Still other
CAS recommended seminars “on how to manage
data, understand what is important, and how to
implement from the data.”
Certification and Placement
Eighty three percent of CAS were united in their
belief that the state’s administrative certification
guidelines, which are based on national criteria, are
rigorous enough that, when met, produce principals
who can effectively lead Hawaii’s schools. Explained
a CAS, “The standards themselves are excellent,
modeled after and benchmarked to national
standards.” Despite feeling that the standards were
rigorous and appropriate, three of the 12
responding CAS questioned whether graduates
of state training programs were actually meeting
the benchmarks. Of the 13 responding CAS, 42%
felt that in order to maintain the integrity of the
standards and ensure that only the most qualified
individuals step into principalships, PDERI needs to
be more selective in who enters their
CAS expressed a range of satisfaction with the
training provided by PDERI, through the
Vice principal and Principal Academies.
Fifty percent felt that the training was strong,
providing a solid combination of theoretical
instruction, practical application, and
one-on-one mentoring. The other 50%
felt that the training was not rigorous and
comprehensive enough. Some CAS thought that
PDERI focused too much on the development of vice
principals, while others thought that they
focused too much on the acquisition of
leadership proficiency at the expense of operations
and management skills. Sixty-seven percent of
CAS highlighted the importance of mentorship
8
Academy 21, formerly Hawaii Change Leadership Project, an off-shoot of the
Harvard Change Leadership Group, is a grantee of the Foundation.
12
administrative training program and who ultimately
graduates from it. Stated one CAS, “We need to
do a better job of simply turning some people
away when they don’t cut it.” Said another,
“Unfortunately, some of the people who [we]
let through are ‘not prepared.’ We are not ‘building
leaders.’”
CAS felt that 15% of his/her principals struggled.
Nine of the 13 CAS felt that 8%-10% of their sitting
principals were really struggling.
When asked to identify areas in which they thought
principals struggled, regardless of their overall
leadership proficiency, just under half of the CAS
mentioned time management, effective
Support and Retention
communication and instructional leadership.
Complex Area Superintendents’ responses indicated
Slightly less identified a weakness in strategic
that the degree and type of support that sitting
decision making. While they felt that sitting
principals receive varies widely among complexes.
principals would benefit from additional training
Some CAS offer targeted tiers of time and support
and support in these areas, CAS stressed the need
for principals based on student achievement scores.
for sustainability in responding to these needs. In
Others provide equal time to all. Some CAS spend
line with their comments on the nature of
significant time engaged in school
pre-service administrative
based mentoring. Others
training, 82% of CAS who
On average, principals said
provide a greater wealth of
answered the question
that they spend less than 25% of expressed that, to be beneficial,
support via phone and email.
While the Foundation makes no
any further training or support
their time on instructional
judgments as to the value of one
given to sitting principals needs
leadership, though they
type of support over the other, it
to be personalized,
is clear that there is wide
problem-based, and inclusive of
consistently identified it as
variance of assistance available to
mentoring components. Wrote
being the most important aspect
our sitting principals, which may
one CAS, “I would like to see
of their job.
impact their success.
more hands on/problem based
training (action research) for
Just as support varies widely
leadership training. Perhaps
from complex to complex, so too does the relative
something along the line of leaders working
percentage of sitting principals considered
collaboratively on tough problems with the support
“effective” by their CAS. One CAS deemed only 14%
of trained and successful mentors (not just people
of the sitting principals under his/her jurisdiction,
who went to leadership training, but real coaches
“effective,” while another CAS felt that 85% of
who have themselves successfully led schools and
his/her principals were “effective.” The arithmetic
solved complicated problems effectively).” Another
mean, or average, response was 53%. The CAS who
CAS went further and suggested realigning the
felt that their principals were most effective were
priorities of the principalship: “I would love to see
those who had held the position for the longest.
the work of the principalship redefined so the focus
is on student achievement, effective teaching and
While the percentage of principals that CAS deemed
learning, safety and well being of students and
“struggling” did not show the same breadth of
employees, parents as partners and well informed,
variance, there was still a significant range. At the
self actualized School Community Councils that
low end, one CAS felt that only 5% of his/her sitting
make a difference.”
principals were “struggling.” At the high end, one
13
Overall, half of the CAS were unsure of whether a
principal retirement crisis was at hand or not.
Some principals felt that it had already happened.
Others thought that potential realignments of
benefits might cause a preponderance of eligible
principals to retire in the next two years. Half of the
CAS respondents were concerned that, as sitting
principals retire, relatively young leaders are being
shifted into key leadership positions.
While they acknowledged the many benefits of
young leadership, 40% expressed concern that the
overall quality of principals and vice principals might
decline due to a lack of experience in the candidate
pool. Explained one CAS, “Unfortunately, most
of the new vice principals do not have
extensive experience and knowledge as former
teachers. [T]hey [also] have very little experience as
vice principals before [becoming] principals.
The lack of knowledge and experience is becoming
more and more prevalent.”
In summary, it appeared that CAS felt that
solving any potential leadership crisis means
striking a delicate balance between attracting the
right individuals, providing rigorous preservice
training, and adequate resource and personnel
support to sitting principals, all while ensuring that
principals are recognized and appreciated for their
contributions and compensated in a manner
commensurate with the responsibilities and
commitment required by their job.
14
Principal Interview Findings
Recruitment and Selection
Sitting principals repeatedly emphasized the need
for leadership candidates to develop a solid
understanding of curriculum and instructional
practices prior to entering an administrative
training program. Explained one principal,
“Developing a solid understanding of curriculum
and instructional practice prior to becoming an
administrator allows for several things: It allows the
candidate to experiment with promising practices
in his/her own classroom. This gives him/her
credibility as an instructional leader. It also means
that as a vice principal, the individual can already
become involved in curriculum development at
the school.”
A sample of 50 sitting principals was asked to
reflect on their own experience of the leadership
pipeline as well as their observations of its current
effectiveness.
New Generation of Leaders
Sitting principals made several qualitative
observations regarding their current teachers which,
given that most principal candidates come from
the ranks of teacher leaders, have implications for
the pipeline. They noted that now, more than ever,
young teacher leaders are committed to
maintaining a work/life balance. Due to the
ever-mounting responsibilities of the principalship,
sitting principals find themselves having difficulty
recruiting these individuals into
administrative positions.
Principals identified being an
Overall, principals advocated for
Commented one principal,
a “readiness assessment” to
instructional leader as one of
“I identify potential leaders at my
determine instructional fluency,
the most important and difficult
school soon after they arrive as
rather than setting a minimum
aspects of their job. Because of
teachers. I often have to spend
number of years that administrative this, principals felt that the more
years trying to convince them
candidates needed to spend in
exposure a leadership candidate
to take on leadership roles. It’s
the classroom prior to entering
has to curriculum and instruction
a training program.
not that they aren’t committed
prior to entering administration,
to students and the school, but
the better instructional leader
they see what I go through on a
s/he will be as a principal. “Learning to be an
daily basis as a principal and think, ‘No, that’s not for
instructional leader once you’re a principal is really
me.’“ Said another principal, “Many of the teachers
hard. You don’t have time and you might not have
I think would be great leaders have young families.
the credibility you need to have an impact on
They aren’t willing to sacrifice their home life for the
curriculum from the very beginning,” commented
school the way our generation was.”
one elementary principal who self-identified as
struggling with instructional leadership.
Additionally, principals noted that, overall, the vice
principals they have worked with in recent years have
Principals across all levels also agreed that length
spent significantly less time than their predecessors
of time does not guarantee proficiency. They
in the classroom and in teacher leadership roles prior
suggested that the rigor of a candidate’s
to entering administration. Many principals who
experience and the breadth of his/her exposure is a
track the vice principals they’ve mentored
much better indicator of mastery than the passage
commented that this new generation seems to
of time. One principal noted that “the number of
spend less time as vice principals before taking on
years an individual spends in the classroom does
principalships. Said one, “This up and coming
not necessarily indicate their fluency in curriculum
generation… works at a faster pace than previous
and instruction.” Another pointed out that “Some
ones. They want to move up faster. They expect to
individuals will develop fluency in three to five
move up faster. This isn’t a good or bad thing
years. For others, 10 years won’t be enough time.”
necessarily, but it is what it is.”
15
Overall, principals advocated for a “readiness
assessment” to determine instructional fluency,
rather than setting a minimum number of years that
administrative candidates needed to spend in the
classroom prior to entering a training program.
the quality of the mentor principals across the state
does not always seem to be consistent.” While
principals were concerned about the quality of
mentorship, all of them agreed that mentoring was
a critical component of successful leadership
development. Summarized one veteran principal,
“In all of my years in schools, what’s helped me
grow the most has been the people I’ve had around
me, those who at one point in time knew more than
me and chose to share what they knew so that I
could get better at what I did.”
In addition to curriculum knowledge, principals
asserted that underlying values and beliefs needed
to be at the center of all selection processes. They
felt that student-centeredness and the ability to
relate and communicate with people were two
things that needed to be selected for; without
these two attributes, they felt uncomfortable
recommending candidates. Additionally,
principals saw certain personal characteristics,
including passion, commitment, and intuition as
critical to an individual’s success in the principalship.
Said one principal, “If a candidate doesn’t have
some of these basic human characteristics, I can’t
recommend him to a training program because I
know in my heart that he will be a disservice to his
school.”
Overall, principals felt that additional support
is needed for individuals transitioning from vice
principalships to principalships. While they spoke
highly of the training offered through PDERI’s New
Principal’s Academy, they felt that all principals, but
particularly young ones, would benefit from
additional mentoring and opportunities to dialogue
with colleagues. Commented one elementary
principal who’d been on the job for two years,
“I appreciated the seminars and mentoring offered
through the New Principals’ Academy because they
were very relevant to being a principal, but now that
I’m out of the program, I’m pretty much on my own.
I still have questions, and I reach out when I can,
but it’s difficult to create a professional
development plan for myself when I’m still so new.”
Like CAS, principals stressed the importance of
focused professional development. “More support
is good,” said one principal, “but it has to be the
right kind. It needs to be regular, consistent, and
relevant to my school. Otherwise, I simply don’t
have time for it.”
Leadership Training and Support
Principals commented that, regardless of the
training program in which they participated, the
on-the-job training portion was a critical aspect of
their leadership development. Principals who had
strong on-the-job mentors when they were vice
principals and who were exposed to a breadth and
depth of leadership experiences, felt they were
well prepared. Principals whose mentors did not
take an active role in their development or who did
not involve them in a wide range of school-based
experiences felt that they were at a disadvantage.
Commented one principal, “I had many colleagues
in my training program who had great mentors for
their OJT [(On the Job Training)]. I also had many
who did not. I was lucky to have a great mentor, but
my experience with my own training group and with
trainees I’ve mentored has shown me that the
quality of a person’s on the job training really
depends on the mentor principal. Unfortunately,
Organizational Culture and Community
Principals had much to say regarding the
organizational and professional culture in which
they work. Many expressed that, despite their
efforts to develop collaborative leadership teams
at their schools sites, they still felt a sense of
professional isolation. One veteran principal of 20
years explained, “For a long time, it was expected
16
that we principals, as the ultimate authorities,
would make decisions for our schools by ourselves,
based on our knowledge and experience. Now, it’s
expected that we engage others in the process.
It’s actually quite difficult to do this, to foster
collaboration, because it requires breaking down
years of isolation, not just between principal and
staff, but among staff as well. Ironically, whenever
you try to facilitate collaboration, you risk
becoming more isolated yourself.” In this vein,
principal comments suggested that their ability to
build capacity at a school level, effectively foster
collaborative engagement, and facilitate change
varies greatly from individual to individual.
Principal comments also suggested that the
relationships they have with their CAS and therefore
the effectiveness of the support they receive
varies widely.
unanimously agreed that communication between
schools and the Department is often “inefficient
and/or nonexistent.” Said one principal, “I am
frustrated when I am asked by several different
individuals from several different departments in
the DOE for the same information that I submitted
in one of the required reports. This happens over
and over again and takes my attention away from
school-based issues.”
In the end, principals said that what sustains them
amidst their ever-growing assemblage of
responsibilities, are their core values and their
commitment to students. Said a principal,
“Everyone deserves an opportunity to learn.
I believe that I’m here to make sure that
that happens.”
When asked what the most important
professional development experiences were, over
85% of principals mentioned some form of
one-on-one mentoring. Recounted one principal,
“The relationships I’ve built with mentors and
colleagues over the years have been critical to
both my success as a principal and my sanity as an
individual. I’ve learned so much from hearing what
others do, through sharing what I do and asking
questions to the right people at the right time.”
A wealth of similar statements suggest that
mentoring is a critical component of developing
leaders, transforming culture, building capacity,
and facilitating change.
In addition to professional isolation, principals saw
several other organizational barriers to their
success. Many were frustrated by their lack of
authority in selecting and dismissing school staff.
Others were frustrated by the lack of resources
and support at their disposal to effectively aid and
develop struggling teachers or to counsel them out.
Principals affirmed that the push for data-driven
decision making was important. Somewhat
surprisingly, they noted that they exist in
environments that are almost too “data-rich,” which
makes it difficult to determine which data are most
necessary to drive change.
Principals felt hindered by what one principal
deemed a “compliance driven culture” that
emphasizes reports and tasks that “seem to be
passed onto [principals] with no clear rationale that
is connected to student achievement.” She clarified
by stating, “The number of small, ridiculous
requests I receive from the state and district
increase by the day. Just yesterday, I was asked to
check the PH of my school’s well. To do this, I had
to cancel my classroom observations.” Principals
Challenges and Opportunities
While some challenges differ from school to school,
many of the challenges that principals face are
consistent across grade levels, communities, and
relative levels of leadership experience. Principals
identified that instructional leadership, resource
acquisition and utilization, culture building,
collaboration, and facilitating change are some of
the most challenging issues that they face.
17
On average, principals said that they spend less
than 25% of their time on instructional leadership,
though they consistently identified it as being the
most important aspect of their job. When asked
what prevents them from dedicating more time to
instructional leadership, principals identified
administrative, facilities, and budget related
responsibilities as key factors. Said one elementary
principal who did not have a vice principal at her
school, “If my school was staffed like a secondary
school, with vice principals to take care of
administrative and facilities related concerns, the
time I’d spend being an instructional leader would
increase by 100%. If this happened, I still wouldn’t
be spending enough time in classrooms and with
curriculum, but it would be much better.” Whether
this is really an indication of under staffing or rather
a reflection on inefficient business processes
and inadequately trained and supported staff is
not clear.
counseling out underperforming individuals.
They also thought that they received an
inordinate number of compliance related requests
from the district and expressed a desire to have
these requests reduced and/or mediated at some
level. Many principals felt ill-prepared to lead
their schools in areas like finance and data, and
consistently articulated a desire to have a school
based “expert” to whom they can delegate these
responsibilities. Additionally, a majority of
principals, including those who considered
themselves data fluent, were interested in further
training and support centered on the creation and
implementation of truly data-driven school plans.
One principal articulated an often-mentioned
concern: “Creating the plan is one thing.
We principals exist in such a data-rich environment
that it’s easy to use data to make a statement about
what’s going on at your school. What’s hard is
drilling down into that data to figure out what the
root cause is and then locating strategies that are
aligned to that cause and which will really address
the articulated gaps.”
Principals explicitly asked for additional support
in improving teacher performance and
…solving any potential leadership
crisis means striking a delicate
balance between attracting the right
individuals, providing rigorous
pre-service training, and adequate
resource and personnel support to
sitting principals, all while ensuring
that principals are recognized for
their contributions
and commitment.
18
Conclusion
One Size Doesn’t Fit All
The wide variety of Hawaii’s schools — big and
small, rural and urban, struggling and
thriving — necessitates a diverse leadership pool.
Our state is blessed with a multiplicity of caring
individuals who are committed to teaching Hawaii’s
keiki. Each of these aspiring leaders requires a
training program and support system that is tailored
to meet their unique needs as emerging
administrators. While certain aspects of leadership
should surely be emphasized across all programs,
it is critical that we offer a variety of ways to gain
those leadership skills.
Nearly 10 years ago, when the Foundation
embarked on its mission to close the achievement
and preparation gaps in Hawaii’s public schools, we
acknowledged the quixotic nature of our
commitment. We recognized that we could play
only a catalytic role at best, due to the mismatch
between the resources at our disposal and the
magnitude and complexity of the challenge.
We realized that we would be unable to address all
of the elements necessary for transformation, let
alone drive the agenda. The more complex we
understood the challenge to be, the more critical it
became for the Foundation to identify and
implement a narrowly focused grantmaking
strategy. Thus, our focus on improving the
effectiveness of present and future principals.
Coaching and Mentoring Are Critical
National best practices indicate, and our research
supports, that good coaching and mentoring
provide a critical opportunity for feedback between
experienced and aspiring professionals.
One-on-one interaction provides aspiring teacher
leaders with a safe space to drill down into their
leadership practice, isolate areas of weakness and
work through them with the guidance and
encouragement of an “expert.” The personal
relationships that are created through coaching and
mentoring encourage young leaders to share the
challenges they face and to work collaboratively
with those they respect to solve them.
Additionally, coaching and mentoring create a
network of support that all leaders can draw upon
regardless of where they are in their career path.
While the Foundation continues to make
investments in systems change when appropriate
opportunities arise, we have come to believe that
change must also be driven from within and that the
agenda must emanate, in large part, from principals.
The theory behind our grant-making remains that,
if we can capture the imagination and passion of
a critical mass of our most effective principals, we
can influence student achievement while building a
momentum that will drive statewide reform.
Our research and conversations with Complex
Area Superintendents and 50 principals suggest that
the job of the principal may require considerable
recharacterization if we are to get the new
principals that are needed to lead the effort to
eliminate the achievement and preparation gaps.
From our research, the following key themes
emerged:
Additional Emphasis on Second Tier
As initiatives are undertaken to increase the
autonomy of schools and school leaders, more and
more responsibilities are falling into the laps of our
principals, increasing their workload and
decreasing the amount of time they can easily
spend on instructional leadership. Add to this the
demanding nature of the principalship, the younger
generation’s emphasis on work/life balance, and the
result is leaders spending less and less time in
high-level positions. To ensure that quality
19
instructional leadership occurs at the school level
and to reduce the trauma that schools face during
principal succession and transition, it is critical that
we more effectively develop and involve second tier
leaders in key processes at the school and district
level, especially instructional leadership. Creating a
support network for second tier leaders,
emphasizing professional development that focuses
on curriculum, budgeting, and strategic thinking,
and providing opportunities for these individuals to
participate and hone their leadership skills is key to
building the capacity of schools and students.
When we drill down into the support structure for
CAS, we find that, while informally resources are
available to them, a cohesive professional
development plan with appropriate mentoring and
assessment is absent. Thus, to ensure that our
principals receive the resources and coaching they
need to impact student achievement, it becomes
critical that we develop those who provide this
support. By increasing the amount and focus of
CAS training we can concomitantly enhance the
level of support our principals receive and forge a
more unified and meaningful relationship between
principal and CAS.
Uniform Support for Sitting Principals
Our research indicates that, while we have some
exceptionally high caliber individuals currently
supporting our principals as Complex Area
Superintendents, the frequency, focus, and means
of their support varies widely. Principals run the
gamut from viewing their CAS as mentors and
co-investigators in solving problems of practice to
seeing them as well intentioned bureaucrats who, in
carrying out mandates, inadvertently add
additional work to their already full schedules.
To truly transform Hawaii’s educational system,
we must ensure that quality school leadership is the
norm. This in turn requires that the leadership
pipeline is seamless and cohesive, one that recruits
the best candidates for principalship, trains them
using the best practices, certifies them using the
best standards, and sustains them as school
leaders in the best way possible, so that they can
have the greatest impact on student achievement.
Our children and our state deserve nothing less.
20
Strengthening Hawaii’s
Principal Pipeline:
Appendices
Appendix A - Complex Area Superintendent Survey Questions
Appendix B - Principal Interview Questions
Appendix C - References
Appendix D - Recommended Readings
Appendix E - Harold K.L. Castle Foundation Investments in Principal Leadership
Appendix F - Professional Development Education and Research Institute (PDERI) Documents
Appendix A – Complex Area Superintendent Survey Questions
General
Q# Question
G1
How long have you served as a CAS?
G2
How many principals are under your direction as CAS?
Principal Recruitment
Q# Question
PR 1 Describe the background, qualifications, and personality of your average principal candidate.
PR 2
When recommending a principal candidate, what are the top five qualifications, experiences,
and skills that you look for?
PR 3
In your experience, what average number of applicants for each principals opening have you deemed a strong
fit for that particular school, both in terms of qualifications and attributes?
PR 4 Is this average number of “strong fit” applicants increasing, decreasing, or staying the same over time?
PR 5
To what extent do you feel your district is currently experiencing some degree of shortage in qualified
applicants for the principal position?
PR 6
If you do feel that your district is currently experiencing some degree of shortage in qualified applicants for the
principal position, to what factors do you attribute this shortage?
PR 7
Of the principal applicants that you have recommended for hiring, roughly what percentage has been approved
by the State Superintendent?
PR 8
Of those principal applicants NOT approved by the State Superintendent, what were the three primary reasons
for the decision?
PR 9
Approximately, how many times have you decided to non-select from a pool of applicants for a principal vacancy?
PR 10 Over time, have your decisions to non-select increased, decreased, or stayed the same in frequency?
PR 11 If you have decided to non-select from a pool of applicants, what factors caused you to do so?
PR 12
Currently the State of Hawaii’s Revised Statues, Section 302A-605 requires all principals and vice principals
to meet the DOE’s certification requirements in the State of Hawai’i. What might be some ways legislation could
be changed?
PR 13
The Castle Foundation is interested in placing its dollars where they can be the most effective. In thinking
about the principal recruitment process here in Hawai’i, what specific initiatives would you suggest that the
Foundation fund in order to support recruitment efforts? What three additional resources, programs,
studies etc. would you like as a CAS to aid and support the selection and hiring of principals?
PR 14 What would be the impact of out of state recruitmentf or principal candidates?
PR 15
What are your thoughts on the current principal recruitment process within the DOE? What do you see as the
strengths of the recruitment process? The weaknesses?
PR 16
If you had to make recommendations for changes to the current principal recruitment pipeline,
what would they be?
Appendix A: Complex Area Superintendent Survey Questions
The below questions were submitted to the State’s 15 complex area superintendents via an online survey.
Thirteen responded.
Principal Training
Q# Question
PT 1 What traits, characteristics, skills, accomplishments, performance factors, etc. do you take into consideration
when evaluating a principal’s effectiveness?
PT 2 How often do you assess the performance of each principal?
PT 3 How do you personally define a “highly effective principal”?
PT 4 What percentage of your current principals do you deem “highly effective,” according to your definition?
PT 5 How do you personally define a “struggling” principal?
PT 6 What percentage of your current principals do you deem as “struggling”?
PT 7 What is your “minimum standard of effectiveness” for a principal?
PT 8
In your experience, how long does it take, on average, for a new principal to reach your minimum standard
of effectiveness?
PT 9
In your opinion, how long, after entering a new school, does it take for a principal to develop a cohesive
vision for that school that can be acted upon? Please explain.
PT 10 In an average week, what percentage of your time do you spend coaching principals?
PT 11 Of the time you spend coaching principals, what percentage is spent with principals who are struggling?
PT 12 Describe what your “coaching” looks like?
PT 13
Please rank the following principal ATTRIBUTES in order of importance from 1 to 5, (with 1 being the most
important): ability execute a school improvement strategy, ability to motivate staff and hold them
accountable for results, ability to minimize conflict at the school level (among teachers and parents),
responsiveness to central office demands, ability to use money effectively to further improvement goals.
PT 14
Please rank the following principal EXPERIENCES in order of importance from 1 to 5, (with 1 being the most
important): conflict resolution: managing competing interests, leadership: experience leading professional
colleagues, resource utilization: using resources effectively and efficiently, teaching experience, curriculum
experience.
PT 15
In what ways do you find the School Community Councils to be helpful or unhelpful in improving the
performance of principals?
PT 16
Which of the following leadership training programs did you participate in: Teacher Leader Academy, ACE
Program, New Principals Academy, UH MA in Ed Admin program, CAPE’s Principals’ Leadership Academy,
Hawai’i Change Leadership Initiative, or another program? Check all that apply.
PT 17
If you did not participate in any of the above leadership training programs, please specify what program you
participated in.
PT 18
Which of the following training programs have you attended or worked with graduates of: Teacher Leader
Academy, ACE Program, New Principals Academy, UH MA in Ed Admin program, CAPE’s Principals’
Leadership Academy, Hawai’i Change Leadership Initiative, or another program? Check all that apply.
PT 19
Name the most effective professional development opportunity currently available to your principals.
Why do you consider this program to be the most effective offering?
PT 20
What are the three most effective skills, resources, and/or experiences that brand new principals, recently
graduated from a training program, are coming to the job with?
PT 21
Rate the average ability of the principals currently under your direction to do the following: Secure
quantitative and qualitative, school specific student achievement data on a regular basis; analyze data for
trends and gaps; identify key levers for school improvement based on data; prioritize school improvement
needs based on data; create a school-specific improvement plan based on data; implement a data-driven
school improvement plan; effectively invest school and community stakeholders in a data driven
improvement plan.
Q# Question
Principal Training
PT 22 What aspects of leadership do your best principals excel at?
PT 23 What aspects of leadership do your best principals struggle with?
PT 24 What aspects of leadership do your most struggling principals have trouble with?
PT 25
In thinking about the principal training process here in Hawai’i, what specific initiatives would you suggest
that the Castle Foundation fund in order to support principal training efforts? What three additional
resources, programs, studies etc. would you like to see implemented to support the selection and hiring of
principals who will be effective school leaders?
PT 26 What, in your mind, are the most important experiences required to be a principal?
PT 27 In your mind, what key skills or experiences are principals not coming to the job with?
PT 28
How do you provide your principals with a variety of data, along with training and assistance in using the
data, to improve instruction and student achievement?
PT 29
How do you ensure that principals have access to technical expertise and high-quality professional learning
tailored to their schools’ needs?
PT 30
How do you receive/solicit feedback on principals’ performance from members of the schools’ staff, faculty,
students, parents, and community?
PT 31
What is your view of the following leadership programs that train prospective principals or sitting principals?
(Teacher Leader Academy; ACE Program; New Principals Academy; UH MA in Ed Admin program; CAPE’s
Principals Leadership Academy; Hawaii Change Leadership Initiative)
PT 32
If you participated in the UH Masters in Educational Administration program, what aspects of this program,
if any, would you change?
Q# Question
PCP 1
In your opinion, do you feel that the certification standards set forth by ACE are sufficient enough that,
when met, produce principals who can effectively lead Hawaii’s schools? Please explain.
PCP 2
If you do not feel that the ACE Program is effective in ensuring quality leaders for Hawaii’s schools,
what three aspects of the program you would like to see altered?
Principal Certification and Placement
PCP 3 What do you see as the top three strengths of the ACE Program?
Principal Retention
Q# Question
PRT 1
How do you see past and future legislation surrounding retirement benefits influencing the retirement
decisions of your current principals?
PRT 2 Do you see a principal retirement “crisis” at hand? How do you know?
PRT 3 What percentage of principals in your complex areas do you expect to retire in 2009? 2010? 2011?
PRT 4
In your opinion, how long, after entering a new school, does it take for a principal to develop a cohesive
vision for that school that can be acted upon? Please explain.
PRT 5 In your mind, what is the primary reason that school personnel opt to train for administrative positions?
PRT 6 In your mind, what is the primary reason that vice principals choose NOT to move into principal positions?
PRT 7
In your opinion, what, if any, incentives could be offered to principals who remain in the same school for
upwards of 5 years?
PRT 8 Do you currently have a mentor or coach for yourself?
PRT 9 If so, what is your mentor’s area/s of expertise? In what areas do you seek out his/her mentoring?
PRT 10 On a scale of 1-10, 1 being non-influential and 10 being critically important, how would you rate the
helpfulness of his/her support in accomplishing your key goals as CAS?
PRT 11 If you do not currently have a mentor/coach, do you feel that you would benefit from one?
PRT 12 In what ways do you see the creation of a systematized, complex-wide, mentoring program impacting
principal retention?
PRT 13 What are the top three reasons that you became an administrator and have stayed an administrator?
PRT 14
In thinking about how to retain quality principals here in Hawai’i, what specific initiatives would you
suggest that the Castle Foundation invest in to support this initiative? What additional resources,
programs, studies, etc. would you like to see implemented to support you in retaining successful principals
in your complex?
PRT 15 Describe the relationship you have with your mentor/coach.
PRT 16 Who or what has been the most influential force in your own professional development?
The questions below were asked during interviews with 50 principals across the State.
Interview subsection included elementary, secondary, outer island, experienced,
and recently instated principals.
1. Tell me a little bit about your background and how it was that you got to be principal at ________.
a. Teaching length, type, and level
b. Additional leadership responsibilities prior to becoming an administrator
c. Length and type of vice principal experience
d. Length and type of principal experience
2. What was the structure of the VP training you received?
a. Program
b. Strengths
c. Weaknesses
d. Mentor and network
3. What was the structure of the principal training you received?
a. Program
b. Strengths
c. Weaknesses
d. Mentor and network
4. VP Reflections
a. Based on your VP training and experience, did you feel ready to take on the responsibilities
of a principal? Why/why not?
b. In your opinion, what is the minimum number of years a person needs to remain in a VP
position prior to becoming a principal? If you don’t conceive of “readiness” in terms of
number of years, what skills/responsibilities does the person need to master/be exposed to
prior to becoming a VP?
c. If you could revisit your VP and principal training programs, what, if anything would you
add/detract and why?
5. Leadership Training Mentorship
a. Have you been a mentor principal for any leadership candidates through cohort, ACE, or any
other training program?
b. If so, what, if any differences or trends do you see in the training your mentees received
when compared to the training that you received?
c. What would you identify as the strengths of the current training program?
d. The areas for growth?
Appendix B: Principal Interview Questions:
Appendix B – Principal Interview Questions:
Principal Interview Questions (continued)
6. Skills for Principalship
a. What skills and experiences do you feel are essential to being an excellent principal?
b. What skills and experiences do you think a candidate needs to have developed/had prior to
applying for entrance to a VP training program?
c. In your opinion, are there any traits or aspects of character that have to be selected for in a
leadership candidate in order for them to be successful? If so, what are those traits?
d. What percentage of your staff do you currently feel have the skills, experiences, and traits
necessary to be good leaders?
e. If you don’t see a lot of young leaders with these skills and opportunities, what in your mind
needs to be done to ensure that they get them?
7. Leadership Development at a School Level
a. In what ways do you develop young leaders at your school?
b. Do you find that you are the one encouraging young teacher leaders to become principals, or
do you see these young teacher leaders seeking out administrative opportunities?
c. How do you think we can draw more people into the leadership pipeline?
d. (For young principals: ) Do you feel comfortable recommending ACE candidates at this stage
of your leadership development? Why or why not?
8. Mentoring
a. Do you have a formal mentoring system at your school?
b. If so, in what ways do you see mentoring impacting culture and leadership at your school?
c. Do you have a personal mentor?
d. If so, how often do you meet with him/her, what is the context and framing of your discussions?
e. If not, do you feel that you would benefit from a mentor? Why type of mentor: educational,
leadership, or personal would you benefit most from and why?
9. Generational Leadership
a. (For older principals) Do you see any differences between the leaders of your generation and
this up and coming generation?
b. If so, what are those differences and what are the implications of those differences for
school communities?
10. Collaboration
a. In what ways do you foster collaboration at your school?
b. What, if any, challenges do you face in building a collaborative environment at your school?
c. What measures are you taking to overcome these obstacles?
Principal Interview Questions (continued)
11. Challenges
a. What would you identify as the major challenges facing you as a school leader?
b. What would you identify as the major challenges that will face this next generation of school leaders?
12. Leadership Roles
a. Of all of the many hats that you wear as a principal, which one do you think is most important?
b. What does it look like when you wear that hat?
c. Realistically, how much time do you get to spend wearing that hat?
d. What other hats take up the majority of your time?
e. If you could have any one hat/set of responsibilities removed from you, what would that
hat/set of responsibilities be?
f. How would this change your day/week/month, etc?
13. Data Usage
a. In what ways do you use data at your school?
b. Do you feel that you have been effectively trained to use data?
c. If you were to rate your effectiveness in using data on a scale of 1-10, where would you fall?
d. If you were to rate your staff’s effectiveness in using data, where would they fall?
e. What, if any, aspects of data collection and analysis do you feel you are effective/ineffective at?
f. How would you best like to be supported in using data effectively at your school?
14. Professional Development
a. In thinking about your own growth as a principal, what would you say is the most impacting
piece of professional development that you’ve received?
b. Thinking about where you are now as a principal, what professional development
experiences would you really like to have to improve your practice?
c. Thinking about where your school is now, what professional development experiences
would you like to have to improve your teachers’ practice?
15. If you had $20 million dollars and could use it for any aspect of principal development at any stage of
the leadership pipeline, what three recommendations would you give?
Appendix C – References
Appendix C – References
• STATE TRAINING MATERIALS
o PDERI Principal Leadership “Lookfors”
o PDERI “ACE Program Certification Tracks”
o PDERI “Pathways to Leadership: Professional Development Opportunities”
o PDERI “ACE Program Leadership Performance Rubric”
o PDERI “Profile of an Effective School Leader”
(Available in Appendix F)
• CONTRACTS
o 2007-8 HSTA Teacher Contract
• STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO EDUCATION
o The Constitution of the State of Hawaii, Article X, Education, Public Education
(Available at http://hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart10.html)
o Act 51: Reinventing Education Act of 2004
(Available at http://reach.k12.hi.us/Act51SB3238amended1.pdf)
o 2009 Hawaii Revised Statutes pertaining to education (as amended)
n §26-12 Department of education; organization and functions
n §302A-605 Principals and vice principals
n §302A-621 Salary; deputy superintendent, assistant superintendents,
complex area superintendents
n §302A-623 Salary ranges, educational officers
n §302A-625 Educational officers’ salary schedules
n §302A-631 Educational officers with special assignments; principals and vice principals
at special needs schools
n §302A-638 Evaluation of teachers and educational officers
n §302A-701 Incentive packages for quality teachers, principals, and vice principals
n §302A-703 Educational officers, salary incentives
n §302A-705 Hawaii principals academy
n §302A-1103 Principal; authority and responsibility
n §302A-1124 Mandate to initiate school community councils
(Available at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol05_Ch0261-0319/HRS0302A/)
• HAWAII BOARD OF EDUCATION POLICIES
o 1100 Series-Department of Education
n 1110-4 Collective Bargaining
o 1500 Series – District Superintendents
n 500-1 Policies of the District Superintendents Organization Chart
n 500-9 Establishment of School Districts
n 500-10 Functions of District Offices
o 1700 Series-Principals
n 1700-1 Establishment of Schools
n 1710-1 School Year for Principals
n 1710-2 School Year for Vice Principals
n 1710-3 School Calendar
n 1710-4 School Visitations by Non-School Personnel
n 1710-5 Solicitations by Department Personnel and Students
n 1710-6 Solicitations by Non-Department Personnel
n 1710-7 Sale of Merchandise
n 1710-7.2 Use of Industrial and Commercial School Equipment
n 1710-8 Cooperation with Law Enforcement Agencies
n 1710-9 Bomb Threats
n 1710-10 Community Sponsored Activities
n 1710-11 Collecting PTA Dues and Assessments
n 1710-12 Recruitment & Testing of Students by Private Schools and Other Agencies
n 1710-13 Closing of Schools in the Event of Disaster and/or Other Emergencies
n 1710-14 Emergency Care for Sick or Injured Students
(Available at http://lilinote.k12.hi.us/STATE/BOE/POL1.NSF?OpenDatabase&Start=1&Count=30&Collapse=1)
• RELATED DOCUMENTS
o 3-Point Consulting. (2007). Hawaii career ready study. Honolulu, HI.
(Available for download from http://www.p20hawaii.org/sites/default/files/P20_Careerready_full.pdf)
o The Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards. Washington, D.C.
(Available at http://doe.k12.hi.us/reports/employmentreports/employmentreport07-08_nocover.pdf)
o Hawaii Department of Education. (2009). 2008-2009 annual department of education employment report. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Department of Education Systems Accountability Office.
(Available at http://doe.k12.hi.us/reports/employmentreports/employmentreport08-09_nocover.pdf)
o Hawaii Department of Education. (2005). Fact sheet: 12 month principals. Honolulu, HI.
(Available at http://doe.k12.hi.us/principal/factsheet_12monthprincipals.htm)
o Hawaii Department of Education. (2010). Superintendent’s annual report on Hawaii public
education 2009. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Department of Education Systems Accountability Office.
(Available at http://arch.k12.hi.us/state/superintendent_report/annual_report.html)
o U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
State Profiles. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Education Sciences.
(Available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/)
o Hawaii Department of Education. (2008). 2007-2008 annual department of education
employment report. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Department of Education Systems Accountability Office.
Appendix D - Recommended Readings
Appendix D – Recommended Readings
• American Institutes for Research & Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2008). The autonomy gap.
Washington, D.C.: Adamowski, A., & Bowles Therriault, S., & Cavanna, A..
• MCREL. (2007). The balanced leadership framework. Denver, CO; Waters, T. & Cameron, G.
• RAND Education. (2009). Improving school leadership. Santa Monica, CA: Armstrong, J., & C.
Augustine, C., & Constant, L., & Dembowsky, J., & Gonzalez, G., & Ikemoto, G., et al.
• University of Minnesota. (2009). How does leadership affect student achievement?.
Minneapolis, MN: Dretzke, B., & Seashore Louis, K., & Wahlstrom, K..
• Wagner, Tony. (2008). The Global Achievement Gap. New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Wagner, T., & Kegan, R., Lahey, L., & Lemons, R. & Garnier, J., & Helsing, D., et al. (2006).
Change leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Wallace Foundation. (2003). Beyond the pipeline. New York, NY: Mitgang, Lee.
• Wallace Foundation & The Learning Science Institute at Vanderbilt University. (2006). A framework
for the assessment of learning-centered leadership. Nashville, TN: Cravens, X., & Elliot, S., &
Goldring, E., Murphy, J., & Porter, A.
• Waters, T., & Marzano, R., & McNulty, B.. (2003). Balanced leadership (a working paper), from
www.mcrel.org/PDF/LeadershipOrganizationDevelopment/5031RR_BalancedLeadership.pdf.
80,000
20,000
350,000
253,725
475,000
300,000
200,000
For the Principals Leadership Academy
For the attendance of eight education professionals at the Change
Leadership Group’s ‘Learning Lab’ at the Harvard Graduate School
of Education
For a partnership with the Change Leadership Group to prepare public
school leaders in Hawaii for the task of reinventing education (Design Phase)
For a partnership with the Change Leadership Group to prepare public
school leaders in Hawaii for the task of reinventing
education (Demonstration Phase)
For the Principals Leadership Academy of Collaborative Action for
Public Education
For expansion and deepening of the Hawaii Change Leaders
Project to create transformational leadership in Hawaii’s public schools
For Academy 21; Leadership for 21st Century Education
Collaborative Action for Public Education
Hawaii Association of Independent Schools
Hawaii Education Council
Hawaii Education Council
Hawaii Education Council
Hawaii Education Council
Hawaii Education Council
10/2003
2/2004
5/2005
6/2006
12/2007
7/2008
6/2009
TOTAL $1,698,725
112,500
Principals Leadership Academy, an RFP presented to HCF, as a
project to be funded collaboratively, and overseen by HCF
Collaborative Action for Public Education
20,000
Granted
6/2000
Seed money to solicit matching grants from foundations toward the
‘Collaborative Action for Public Education’ Specifically for the Strategic
Communications Initiative.
Project Title
Hawaii Business Roundtable
Organization
6/2000
Approved
Appendix E – Foundation Investments in Principal Leadership
Appendix F – Professional Development Education Research Institute (PDERI) Documents
Appendix F – PDERI Documents
ACE Candidate Look-­Fors The ACE candidate “look-­‐fors” provides the DOE with distinct characteristics that are being sought when screening candidates for administration. Embedded in these characteristics are the following general dispositions: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.
2.
Deep commitment to student learning Optimism and enthusiasm Open-­‐mindedness and humility Courage and willingness to take risks Confidence and decisiveness Tolerance for ambiguity Creativity and flexibility Perseverance Willingness to work hard Lifelong learner Has Demonstrated: Initiative in coaching other educators to raise student achievement. 4.
Implementation of innovative strategies in his/her instructional practices that challenge all students through rigorous, standards-­‐based teaching. Use of good communication, human relations, and organizational skills. Ability to motivate others. 6.
Leadership in providing professional development for other educators. 3.
5.
Leadership in positions held in the school and/or Department. 7.
Ability to successfully collaborate with peers and the school community in ways that support school improvement and/or teaching/learning issues. 8. Use of a variety of information (student achievement data, work samples, research) to make informed decisions to improve practice. 9. Ability to articulate and implement a vision or ideas in a committee or focus group; has worked to do it with timelines. 10. Commitment to continuous improvement and ability to stay with a project over time. 11. Participation in activities beyond the normal school hours for the benefit of the students and the school. 12. Ability to serve as a problem-­‐solver who knows how to work with others for the benefit of students and the school. Revised 11/08 Evidence Principal Recommendation Complex Principal Discussion Reflective Essay in Teacher Leadership Portfolio Principal Recommendation Complex Principal Discussion Principal Recommendation Complex Principal Discussion Resume Principal Recommendation Reflective Essay in Teacher Leadership Portfolio Resume Reflective Essay in Teacher Leadership Portfolio Principal Recommendation Complex Principal Discussion Principal Recommendation Complex Principal Discussion Principal Recommendation Complex Principal Discussion Principal Recommendation Reflective Essay in Teacher Leadership Portfolio Resume Principal Recommendation Complex Principal Discussion Principal Recommendation Complex Principal Discussion 1 yr 1 yr 1 yr Yes TA-­‐VP/OJT 2 yrs No Leadership Institute I Temporary School Administrator Certificate (TSAC) Initial School Administrator Initial School Administrator Initial School Administrator Certificate (Temporary)* Certificate (Temporary)* Certificate (Temporary)* (ISAC-­‐T) (ISAC-­‐T) (ISAC-­‐T) Yes TA-­‐VP/OJT 2 yrs Yes Leadership Institute I Temporary School Administrator Certificate (TSAC) Three Years of Teaching (Tenured) in DOE Assignment as TA-­‐VP by Principal; Subsequent Application by TA-­‐VP to ACE Program by Three Years of Teaching (Tenured) in DOE Assignment as TA-­‐VP by Principal; Subsequent Application by TA-­‐VP to ACE Program by ACE I (TA-­VP ALTERNATIVE) 2 yrs Initial School Administrator Certificate (Temporary)* (ISAC-­‐T) Yes Three Years of Teaching & Two Years of Licensed Admin Experience of Master’s Degree in Ed Admin Leadership Institute I Temporary School Administrator Certificate (TSAC) Admin License or Master’s Degree in Ed Admin With Experience (2 yrs of FT, No Experience licensed, school 2 yrs of TA/VP administrative OJT employment) 2 yr. OJT to Retro Probation DOE Application/Interview ACE III (ALTERNATIVE FOR LICENSED AND EXPERIENCED ADMIN OR MASTER’S DEGREE IN ED ADMIN) CERTIFICATE (AFTER PROBATION) Professional School Professional School Initial School Administrator Professional School Administrator Administrator Certificate* Administrator Certificate* Certificate (Temporary)* Certificate* (PSAC) (PSAC) (ISAC-­‐T) (PSAC) *If coursework is not completed, the certificate will be the Initial School Administrator Certificate (Temporary) (ISAC-­T) SEMINARS YEARS OF PROBATION CERTIFICATE (AFTER OJT/TA-­VP) Yes OJT 1 yr MENTORING/ OJT/TA-­VP MONTHLY WORKSHOP/ SUPPORT GROUPS Yes Leadership Institute I Temporary School Administrator Certificate (TSAC) Four Years of Teaching (Tenured) in DOE State Level Screening ACE (REGULAR) COURSEWORK CERTIFICATE (PRIOR TO OJT/TA-­VP) ELIGIBILITY (MINIMUM REQUIREMENT) ORIENTATION/TRAINING SCREENING PROGRAM ACE II (TA-­VP ALTERNATIVE VP CERT ONLY) ACE PROGRAM CERTIFICATION TRACKS ACE Program Leadership Performance Rubric
1 Novice Communication (flexibility) Can develop and communicate options to consider about the work and be willing to acknowledge and demonstrate respect and empathy for diverse perspectives. Interpersonal Skills (interdependence) Know the benefit of participating in, contributing to, and valuing professional relationships; willing to create and change Relationships to benefit work. Analyses (consciousness) Know what and how I’m thinking about my work in this moment and willing to be aware of my actions and their effects. Problem Solving (efficacy) Knowing that I have the capacity to make a difference through my work, and being willing to take responsibility to do so. Decision Making (efficacy) Knowing that I have the capacity to make a difference through my work, and being willing to take responsibility to do so. Technical Content (craftsmanship) Knowing that I can continually perfect my work, and willing to work towards accuracy and excellence, and pursue ongoing learning. Little or no evidence; inconsistent, and/or inappropriate Little or no evidence; inconsistent, and/or inappropriate Little or no evidence; inconsistent, and/or inappropriate Little or no evidence; inconsistent, and/or inappropriate Little or no evidence; inconsistent, and/or inappropriate Little or no evidence; inconsistent, and/or inappropriate 2 Basic Participates in discussion by sharing thoughts and ideas Is an engaged participant; openly receives feedback Shows interest through body language and eye contact States conclusions without much investigation and/or forethought Expresses ideas cleanly Responds positively to others; is sensitive to group and individual feelings and ideas Participates in attainment of group goals, objectives Works well with others by honoring ground rules Considers background information and generates/collects data Has systematic methods or creates maps/visuals for analyzing a problem Breaks down a problem by defining, clarifying and focusing Makes statements that are clearly related to the problem Identifies the issue(s) in a definitive problem statement Gathers and analyzes relevant data Generates several workable options for solving the problem Selects and details a solution Facilitates consensus Demonstrates a lack of complacency with the status quo Shares knowledge and experience Applies decision making process, using one’s own judgment Is aware of Department’s expectations, policies, rules, regulations. Identifies the applicability of policy(ies), procedures, regulations, operations to the situation/problem Listens seeks to
Uses fee
on new
Observe
adjusts Allows before r
conclus
Probes,
another
Exhibits
contrib
Identifi
facilitat
Models and hel
Examin
applicab
Organiz
causes a
Address
variety Acknow
beliefs a
Recogn
issues r
Determ
situatio
Looks fo
explicit
Conside
“downs
Present
and acc
Selects effects o
Able to experie
The dec
for the c
Directly
Departm
procedu
address
ge m ns, 3 Operational/Competent Listens well and builds on others thinking/views; seeks to understand how others are thinking Uses feedback to effectively modify decisions based on new information Observes verbal and non-­‐verbal cues and self-­‐
adjusts behavior Allows others’ viewpoints to clarify understanding before reaching conclusion, resists rushing to conclusion Probes, clarifies or poses questions that extend another’s or one’s idea(s) Exhibits regard for the well-­‐being, comfort, and contribution of others 4 Effective Listens with intent, putting aside value judgments/ prejudices to attend to another person’s ideas and thoughts; asks questions to clarify thinking for self and others Guides dialogue towards quality solutions based on feedback and new information Matches gestures, posture and tone of voice with the group in order to build rapport Collaboratively resolves issues with rationale and justifications Delivers ideas and concerns convincingly; is assertive in a positive manner and reflects a sense of purpose Encourages/ensures others contribute to the task Identifies changes or modifications necessary to facilitate group improvement Refines the process by clarifying roles, addressing interaction patterns, and identifying expectations Examines complex information and determines the applicability of relevant data Organizes complex information and identifies causes and problem relationships Addresses probable causes and problems from a variety of perspectives/points of view Acknowledges differences in opinions and/or beliefs and seeds understanding Recognizes that the problem is connected to other issues rather than being discrete Determines important elements of problem situation Looks for multiple levels of solutions; makes explicit the complexity of issues Considers and reflects on implications of “downstream” consequences Presents actions that are effective, well-­‐researched and acceptable to all involved Selects a course of action/solution and weighs the effects of decisions Able to apply relevant pieces of knowledge and experiences to the current situation The decision making process includes consideration for the complexity of problems(s) Uses strategic questioning strategies to help group determine critical elements of the situation Relates analyses for group meaning and clarity Models attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors which value and help others Directly links technical knowledge (laws, Department policies, expectations, procedures, operations) and expertise in addressing the situation/problem/decision Uses appropriate humor (or other strategies) to relieve group tension and increase productivity Determines when problems and relationships are sufficiently defined and brings closure to the process Asks questions to stimulate group thinking for mutual understanding Identifies possible “root causes” of the present problem Aligns, interprets and synthesizes the appropriate data to deepen understanding of the problem Shifts to a larger perspective by noting broader relationships, patterns, and interactions Reflects a strong philosophical base in explaining the resolutions/solution Represents and reflects group involvement (contributions, consensus, concerns) in decisions Shows risk taking and creatively works within parameters of the system Applies insights/experiences to realities of the present and those anticipated in the future Includes appropriate role group/persons in the decision making process; decision is comprehensive and addresses many facets of the problem Collaboratively makes meaning of the Department’s and external expectations, policies and mandates within the context of the school Appropriately utilizes the Department’s policies, procedures, structures and discretionary power of the administrator to support teaching/learning PROFILE OF AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADER
The effective school leader is committed, responsible, competent, caring, and unwavering in the
effort to have students reach high standards. A sense of both moral and professional commitment
enables the effective school leader to promote a shared vision of service to students and to focus on
the success of every learner as the desired result.
Human relationships and capacity-building within students, teachers and the wider school community
are at the heart of the school leader’s work. School leaders promote a school culture focused on
professionalism, where school staff are committed to systematically improve their practices and
student learning.
The effective school leader holds school professionals accountable for data-driven school and
instructional improvements to attain the state performance standards.
The effective school leader is responsible for the following professional expectations
and responsibilities:
STANDARD 1 PROVIDES LEADERSHIP IN SCHOOL AND INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT
Develops, communicates and implements a shared vision for achieving standards.
Advocates high expectations for teaching and learning results.
Pursues school improvement and demonstrates commitment to attain higher levels of student achievement and performance.
Utilizes multiple assessment tools and strategies to support the achievement of the
performance standards by every student.
Fosters teachers’ reflections on practice, monitors performance, and provides feedback
for adjustment of instruction to meet student needs.
Promotes professional growth of faculty and staff.
Incorporates best practice and research-based strategies for school and
instructional improvement.
Evaluates current school programs in terms of identified instructional goals
and objectives.
PROFILE OF AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADER
STANDARD 2 PROMOTES A POSITIVE CLIMATE FOR LEARNING AND AN ATMOSPHERE
OF CARING AND RESPECT FOR ALL STUDENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE
SCHOOL COMMUNITY
Models and promotes trust, enthusiasm, rapport, respect and openness among faculty,
staff, students, and members of the community.
Seeks input from stake holders for improvements in student learning and
social responsibility.
Encourages and establishes open, effective communication.
Utilizes effective strategies in setting performance expectations, planning, decision
making, problem-solving and conflict resolution.
Encourages the development of school/community partnerships.
Recognizes the contributions of school and community members.
STANDARD 3 MAINTAIN HIGH STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONALISM
Demonstrates and promotes high standards of ethics, honesty, and integrity.
Manages problems and implements solutions effectively.
Demonstrates ability to self-assess and to reflect on administrative practices.
Communicates and interacts effectively with supervisors and colleagues.
Pursues professional improvement activities to strengthen own leadership performance.
PROFILE OF AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADER
STANDARD 4 MANAGES THE FULL SCOPE OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
Complies with applicable statutes, federal laws, regulations, procedures, contractual
provisions and other governance parameters.
Attends to all required administrative functions such as supervision and evaluation
of instructions, teachers and staff; maintenance of a well-functioning school plant;
sound fiscal operations and accounting of school property; timely completion of reports.
Secures and uses resources to attain school improvement goals and objectives.
Maintains standards for a safe, orderly, effective learning environment.
Manages available resources for optimum benefit to students.
Notes
THE HAROLD K. L. CASTLE FOUNDATION
Founded in 1962, the Harold K.L. Castle Foundation works to build resources for Hawaii’s future.
We do so by investing in promising initiatives and organizations through grantmaking, using our
convening power, and introducing and spreading new ideas and approaches to help solve some
of Hawaii’s most pressing problems. Specifically, our mission is to:
•
Close the achievement gap in public education so that all of Hawaii’s children, regardless of
their socioeconomic background, have access to and benefit from high-quality education,
from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, that prepares them for a successful future;
•
Restore Hawaii’s near shore marine life populations so that future generations can benefit
and learn from this rich natural resource;
•
Build on the strengths of Windward Oahu communities through investments that support the
region’s rich cultural legacy, its youth and families, and its natural resources.
CREDITS
Mitch D’Olier is the President and CEO of the Foundation.
Alice Chen is a consultant to the Foundation and author of this work.
Matt Lorin is the Foundation’s Program Officer for Education, editor and author.
Thanks also to Professor Ronald Heck of the College of Education
at the University of Hawaii, Manoa without whose assistance the study
could not have been conducted.
natureOffice.com | US-180-537676