Search

The job of the school principal has become much more complex and demanding over the past several decades. Many university-based principal preparation programs -- which prepare the majority of school principals -- have struggled with how to make the fundamental changes needed to prepare principals for today's schools. This report shares lessons learned from redesigning university principal preparation programs. From 2016 to 2021, seven university principal preparation programs, with their district and state partners, fundamentally reshaped their principal preparation programs under The Wallace Foundation's University Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI). This report describes the methods of and findings from the RAND Corporation's five-year study of UPPI. It is primarily intended as a secondary resource for readers who would like more detail about the study's findings and methods. Key findings are highlighted in the report in brief and three upcoming targeted reports: one for principal preparation programs, one for school districts, and one for state education organizations. [For the report in brief, see ED620468. For Volume 2, see ED609667.]

This report in brief shares findings from the RAND Corporation's five-year study of The Wallace Foundation's University Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI). The job of the school principal has become much more complex and demanding over the past several decades. Many university-based principal preparation programs (PPPs)--which prepare the majority of school principals--have struggled with how to make the fundamental changes needed to prepare principals for today's schools. To test a path forward, The Wallace Foundation provided grants to seven universities and their partners to redesign their PPPs in line with research-supported practices. Key findings, which suggest that significant change around research-based practices is possible, are presented in this report. This report illustrates that it is feasible for universities -- in partnership with high-need districts, state agencies, and with the support of mentor programs that have engaged in successful redesign -- to improve principal preparation programs to reflect the best available evidence. [For the full report, see ED620465.]

The job of the school principal has become much more complex and demanding over the past several decades. Many university-based principal preparation programs--which prepare the majority of school principals--have struggled with how to make the fundamental changes needed to prepare principals for today's schools. To test a path forward, The Wallace Foundation provided grants to seven universities and their partners to redesign their principal preparation programs in line with research-supported practices. This targeted report shares findings from the RAND Corporation's five-year study of The Wallace Foundation's University Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI), with an emphasis on findings for state policymakers. [For "District Partnerships with University Principal Preparation Programs: A Summary of Findings for School District Leaders. RAND Principal Preparation Series. Volume 3, Part 4. Research Report. RR-A413-6," see ED621351.]

The job of the school principal has become much more complex and demanding over the past several decades. Many university-based principal preparation programs--which prepare the majority of school principals--have struggled with how to make the fundamental changes needed to prepare principals for today's schools. To test a path forward, The Wallace Foundation provided grants to seven universities and their partners to redesign their principal preparation programs in line with research-supported practices. This targeted report shares findings from the RAND Corporation's five-year study of The Wallace Foundation's University Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI), with an emphasis on findings for school district leaders. [For "Collaborating on University Principal Preparation Program Redesign: A Summary of Findings for University Principal Preparation Program Providers. RAND Principal Preparation Series. Volume 3, Part 3. Research Report. RR-A413-5," see ED621347.]

The job of the school principal has become much more complex and demanding over the past several decades. Many university-based principal preparation programs--which prepare the majority of school principals--have struggled with how to make the fundamental changes needed to prepare principals for today's schools. To test a path forward, The Wallace Foundation provided grants to seven universities and their partners to redesign their principal preparation programs in line with research-supported practices. This targeted report shares findings from the RAND Corporation's five-year study of The Wallace Foundation's University Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI), with an emphasis on findings for other principal preparation programs. [For "Redesigning University Principal Preparation Programs: A Systemic Approach for Change and Sustainability--Report in Brief. RAND Principal Preparation Series. Volume 3, Part 2. Research Report. RR-A413-4," see ED620468.]

State policymakers, including state leaders, districts, and professional associations, play a role in fostering an environment that supports the development of effective school principals, with the broad policy objective of achieving high principal quality across the state. This report examines how seven states use state policy levers to advance policy change to improve the quality of school principals. These states are all actively engaging in a collaborative initiative focused on principal preparation program redesign. All seven states in the study were part of The Wallace Foundation's University Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI). Launched in 2016, UPPI is supporting seven university-based principal preparation programs to work in collaboration with their district and state partners to redesign and improve the programs to better support the development of effective principals. The UPPI programs and their respective states are: (1) Albany State University (Georgia); (2) Florida Atlantic University (Florida); (3) North Carolina State University (North Carolina); (4) San Diego State University (California); (5) the University of Connecticut (Connecticut); (6) Virginia State University (Virginia); and (7) Western Kentucky University (Kentucky). This report focuses on seven policy levers that states can use to improve school leadership: (1) setting principal standards; (2) recruiting aspiring principals into the profession; (3) licensing new and veteran principals (4) approving and overseeing principal preparation programs; (5) supporting principals' growth with professional development; (6) evaluating principals and (7) using leader tracking systems to support analysis of aspiring and established school leaders' experiences and outcomes. The report concludes with two appendixes. [For Appendix B, see ED609669. For Volume 1, see ED590580.]

States play a role in fostering an environment that develops and supports effective school leaders. Prior research has highlighted opportunities to enhance state involvement in supporting school leadership through a range of policy levers, especially by promoting improvements to principal preparation (Manna, 2015; Davis, 2016). The Wallace Foundation launched the University Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI) in July 2016. The four-year, $48.5 million initiative supports seven universities, their district and state partners, and mentor programs to redesign the universities' principal preparation programs according to evidence-based practices. State partners to the seven universities committed to reviewing their policies that affect university-based principal preparation and work with stakeholders to consider policy change. RAND Corporation researchers are analyzing the implementation of UPPI and changes to the design and delivery of preparation programs. RAND's first report on UPPI (Wang et al., 2018) documented findings from the first year of UPPI implementation. This document is an appendix to "Using State-Level Policy Levers to Promote Principal Quality: Lessons from Seven States Partnering with Principal Preparation Programs and Districts. RAND Principal Preparation Series. Volume 2. Research Report. RR-A413-1" (see ED609667) that examines the role of state policy efforts to improve the principalship. In that report, the authors focus on cross-site themes distilled from an in-depth look at how each state partner uses state policy levers described by Manna (2015). This appendix contains state-specific profiles about the use of policy levers for each of the seven UPPI states. Leaders from each of the seven states provided fact checks and, in some cases, corrections, where appropriate.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 injected $7 billion into two of the Obama administration's signature competitive education grant programs: Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grants (SIG). While RTT focused on state policies and SIG focused on school practices, both programs promoted related policies and practices, including an emphasis on turning around the nation's lowest-performing schools. Despite the sizable investment in both of these programs, comprehensive evidence on their implementation and impact has been limited to date. This report focuses on two implementation questions: (1) Do states and schools that received grants actually use the policies and practices promoted by these two programs? (2) Does their usage of these policies and practices differ from states and schools that did not receive grants? Answers to these questions provide context for interpreting impact findings that will be presented in a future report. The second volume of this report details our SIG findings, which are based on spring 2012 surveys of approximately 470 schools in 60 districts and 22 states. Key findings include: (1) Schools implementing a SIG-funded model reported using more practices promoted by SIG than schools not implementing such models in all four areas examined: comprehensive instructional reforms, teacher and principal effectiveness, learning time and community-oriented schools, and operational flexibility and support; (2) Across all schools, usage of practices promoted by SIG was highest in the comprehensive instructional reforms area (90 percent of practices examined) and lowest in the operational flexibility and support area (46 percent of practices examined); and (3) There were no differences between schools implementing a SIG-funded model and schools not implementing one in usage of ELL-focused practices promoted by SIG. Schools with higher percentages of ELLs used more ELL-focused practices than schools with lower percentages of ELLs, but there were no differences in usage between schools with higher and lower ELL/non-ELL achievement gaps. Five appendices are included: (1) Additional Figures Based on School Surveys; (2) District-Reported Practices Aligned with the SIG Application Criteria; (3) Detailed Findings from Interviews and Surveys; (4) Survey Questions Aligned with SIG Practices; and (5) Additional Information about English Language Learner-Focused Analyses for the SIG Component of the Evaluation.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 injected $7 billion into two of the Obama administration's signature competitive education grant programs: Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grants (SIG). While RTT focused on state policies and SIG focused on school practices, both programs promoted related policies and practices, including an emphasis on turning around the nation's lowest-performing schools. Despite the sizable investment in both of these programs, comprehensive evidence on their implementation and impact has been limited to date. This report focuses on two implementation questions: (1) Do states and schools that received grants actually use the policies and practices promoted by these two programs? (2) Does their usage of these policies and practices differ from states and schools that did not receive grants? Answers to these questions provide context for interpreting impact findings that will be presented in a future report. The first volume of this report details our RTT findings, which are based on spring 2012 interviews with 49 states and the District of Columbia. Key findings include: (1) Early (Round 1 and 2) RTT states reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than non-RTT states in five of the six major areas examined: state capacity, standards and assessments, data systems, teachers and leaders, and charter schools (school turnaround was the exception). Later (Round 3) RTT states reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than non-RTT states in just one area: teachers and leaders; (2) Across all states, usage of policies and practices promoted by RTT was highest in the state capacity and data systems areas (66 and 68 percent of policies and practices examined) and lowest in the teachers and leaders area (24 percent or policies and practices examined); and (3) There were no differences between RTT and non-RTT states in usage of English Language Learner (ELL)-focused policies and practices promoted by RTT. States with higher percentages of ELLs used more ELL-focused policies and practices than states with lower percentages of ELLs, but there were no differences in usage between states with higher and lower ELL/non-ELL achievement gaps. Four appendices include: (1) Additional Figures Based on State Interviews; (2) Detailed Findings from State Interviews; (3) Interview Questions Aligned with RTT Policies and Practices; and (4) Additional Information about English Language Learner-Focused Analysis for the RTT Component of the Evaluation. [For the executive summary, see ED559918.]

The federal School Improvement Grants (SIG) program, to which $3 billion were allocated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), supports schools attempting to turn around a history of low performance. School turnaround also is a focus of Race to the Top (RTT), another ARRA-supported initiative, which involved a roughly $4 billion comprehensive education reform grant competition for states. Given the size of these federal investments, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is conducting a large-scale evaluation of RTT and SIG to better understand the implementation and impacts of these programs. The SIG component, in particular, focuses on a purposive sample of SIG-eligible schools, including: (1) a group of schools that received SIG to implement one of four intervention models specified by the U.S. Department of Education; and (2) a comparison group of schools from the same districts that are not implementing one of these four intervention models with SIG support. Though the results from this evaluation of SIG are not necessarily generalizable to SIG schools nationwide, they are nonetheless important because they add to the limited knowledge base about the implementation and impacts of SIG-funded school turnaround efforts. This brief focuses on the implementation of SIG by examining three interrelated levers for school improvement: (1) school operational authority; (2) state and district support for turnaround; and (3) state monitoring of turnaround efforts. Two appendices present: (1) Race to the Top and School Improvement Grant: Intervention Models as Described by the U.S. Department of Education SIG Guidance (2012); and (2) Table B.1. Characteristics of the State Sample as of 2009-2010 and Table B.2. Characteristics of the District Sample as of 2009-2010. (Contains 33 endnotes, 9 figures, and 4 tables.)

The TALPS study aims to build on the existing research base to develop promising methodologies to identify chronically low-performing and turnaround schools, as well as to identify promising strategies for turning around chronically low-performing schools. By looking specifically at schools identified as turnaround, in comparison to nonturnaround schools, this study may help discern what lessons from prior research apply to turnaround efforts and what unique solutions--and challenges--are associated with turnaround. The TALPS study was composed of Study I and Study II. Study I focused on identifying turnaround schools, as distinct from moderately improving (MI) and not improving (NI) schools. Study I used student-level data from Florida, North Carolina, and Texas, spanning Grades 3 to 8 for the six school years between 2002-03 and 2007-08. The authors focused on student scores on state accountability assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics. They examined both achievement level (at a given grade level) and growth (progress students make as they move from one grade to the next). The Study I identified 1,042 schools as CLP, including TA, MI, and NI schools, which were the population of Study II sample. Study II sought to examine whether particular policies, programs, and practices (PPPs) occurred more often in turnaround (TA) schools than in nonturnaround (moderately improving and not improving) schools. It appears from this study that (1) accountability pressures and support from the district combined with (2) strong instructional leadership, (3) strategic staffing (i.e., strategic recruitment, assignment, and "counseling out" of ineffective staff), (4) intensive professional development, and (5) data use focused on identifying and assisting struggling students are key components of a school's turnaround process. How these components work together and are implemented should be explored further in future real-time, qualitative research efforts. Appended are: (1) References; and (2) Tables and Figures. (Contains 3 exhibits.)

School principals are charged with complex responsibilities that can include developing a school vision and culture, supporting teacher effectiveness, managing challenges and crises, communicating with the greater community, and more. However, recent research and surveys of school administrators indicate that principal preparation programs do not adequately prepare graduates to cope with school realities. In response to concerns about the state of initial principal preparation, The Wallace Foundation established the University Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI), a four-year effort to redesign seven universities' principal preparation programs according to evidence-based principles and practices. Each university collaborates on the redesign with high-need school districts and a state partner, and is supported by a mentor program. This report focuses on the implementation of UPPI in its first year, from fall 2016 to fall 2017. The authors report on UPPI progress and identify cross-cutting themes in the UPPI implementation effort that can help other university principal preparation programs and their partners undertake their own principal preparation system improvement efforts. Key Findings: (1) UPPI programs began with some evidence-based features and contexts already in place; (2) UPPI partnerships used the first year to develop a vision for the new program and the redesign process. The teams at each site engaged in three primary re-envisioning activities: standards development, program assessment, and logic model development; (3) Each UPPI team focused on redesigning its curriculum and instruction; (4) UPPI leadership teams explored changes to clinical experiences and candidate recruitment and selection; (5) University-based leads--the individuals from each university leading the overall initiative at that site--and actively engaged partners drove the initiative in the first year; (6) UPPI prompted partner states and districts to consider issues and/or undertake activities they may not have otherwise; and (7) UPPI leadership teams developed strategies to mitigate the most pressing challenges, such as turnover and capacity limitations. [For the executive summary to this report "Launching a Redesign of University Principal Preparation Programs: Partners Collaborate for Change. RAND Principal Preparation Series. Volume 1. Executive Summary," see ED590581.]

School principals are charged with complex responsibilities that can include developing a school vision and culture, supporting teacher effectiveness, managing challenges and crises, communicating with the greater community, and more. However, recent research and surveys of school administrators indicate that principal preparation programs do not adequately prepare graduates to cope with school realities. In response to concerns about the state of initial principal preparation, The Wallace Foundation established the University Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI), a four-year effort to redesign seven universities' principal preparation programs according to evidence-based principles and practices. Each university collaborates on the redesign with high-need school districts and a state partner, and is supported by a mentor program. The report summarized in this document focuses on the implementation of UPPI in its first year, from fall 2016 to fall 2017. The authors report on UPPI progress and identify cross-cutting themes in the UPPI implementation effort that can help other university principal preparation programs and their partners undertake their own principal preparation system improvement efforts. Key Findings: (1) UPPI programs began with some evidence-based features and contexts already in place; (2) UPPI partnerships used the first year to develop a vision for the new program and the redesign process. The teams at each site engaged in three primary re-envisioning activities: standards development, program assessment, and logic model development; (3) Each UPPI team focused on redesigning its curriculum and instruction; (4) UPPI leadership teams explored changes to clinical experiences and candidate recruitment and selection; (5) University-based leads--the individuals from each university leading the overall initiative at that site--and actively engaged partners drove the initiative in the first year; (6) UPPI prompted partner states and districts to consider issues and/or undertake activities they may not have otherwise; and (7) UPPI leadership teams developed strategies to mitigate the most pressing challenges, such as turnover and capacity limitations. [For the full report "Launching a Redesign of University Principal Preparation Programs: Partners Collaborate for Change. RAND Principal Preparation Series. Volume 1," see ED590580.]

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) presents a renewed focus on school leadership and acknowledges the importance of school principals to school improvement and effective instruction (Public Law No. 114-95, 2015). The act allows states and districts to use federal funds for activities targeting the quality of school principals and other school leaders. ESSA repeatedly calls for the use of "evidence-based" activities, strategies, and interventions (Public Law No. 114-95, 2015). The RAND Corporation conducted a synthesis of the evidence base on school leadership efforts to inform the use of school leadership activities and interventions under ESSA. This report is intended to help federal, state, and district education policymakers understand and implement efforts to improve school leadership that are consistent with ESSA. Herein, the authors first offer an overview of the ways in which school leadership may affect outcomes of interest and then describe how school leadership is addressed by ESSA funding streams and statutory provisions. The key questions for this topic are: (1) What is the evidence that school leadership matters for school improvement? and (2) What school leadership--improvement activities are supported under ESSA? The authors then describe the ESSA-defined tiers of evidence that such funding streams will require. They compare ESSA evidence tiers with evidence requirements for other federal education programs to identify ambiguities in the ESSA tiers. The key question for this section is: How are the ESSA evidence tiers defined, how does current guidance clarify these tiers, and what further guidance might improve the use of these evidence tiers for education decisionmaking? Next, they provide a brief description of their methodology in reviewing the literature and present findings on improvement activities that could reasonably be interpreted to fit within ESSA's evidence framework, given the statute and guidance. Finally, recommendations are offered to guide education policymakers, practitioners, and thought leaders on the use of research-based practices. A bibliography is included. [This report expands on the version released in January 2017 ("School Leadership Interventions Under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Evidence Review--Updated and Expanded," by Rebecca Herman, Susan M. Gates, Emilio R. Chavez-Herrerias, and Mark Harris) by including information about the interventions reviewed in Appendix D. For earlier (2016) versions of this report, see ED571819 and ED570943.]

The professional development of teachers is a crucial element of the nation's efforts to improve education. In recent years, these efforts have sought to foster high standards for teaching and learning for all of the nation's children, and almost all states have met federal requirements for developing challenging statewide content standards. Such standards seek a fundamental shift in what students learn. However, children's learning will be transformed only if high standards are reflected in teachers' classroom practice. Education reforms will not succeed without teachers who are immersed in the subjects they teach and who know how to foster both basic knowledge and advanced thinking and problem solving among their students. The Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is the federal government's largest investment that is solely focused on developing the knowledge and skills of classroom teachers. This is the second report of the National Evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Part B (State and Local Activities), a multi-year evaluation being conducted by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education's Planning and Evaluation Service. The first report was based on six exploratory case studies of school districts conducted during the first months of the evaluation. This second report describes the current status of the program, based primarily on data from national probability samples of districts, SAHE grantees (i.e., the institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations supported through the SAHE component of the program), and teachers, as well as on data from 10 in-depth case studies in 5 states. Contains 140 references. (Author/WRM)

Elementary school students (n=11) were pretested and then given daily formal instruction for 2 weeks in use of past tense and plural noun forms and then posttested. A significant difference was found between these students and control group in detection and correction of noun plural forms, but not in similar test of past tense forms. (49 references) (Author/CK)

The reauthorization of the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, referred to as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), emphasizes evidence-based initiatives while providing new flexibilities to states and districts with regard to the use of federal funds, including funds to promote effective school leadership. This report describes the opportunities for supporting school leadership under ESSA, discusses the standards of evidence under ESSA, and synthesizes the research base with respect to those standards. The information can guide federal, state, and district education policymakers on the use of research-based school-leadership interventions; help them identify examples of improvement activities that should be allowable under ESSA; and support the rollout of such interventions. This report updates an earlier version and incorporates non-regulatory guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, analysis of tier IV evidence, and reviews of additional studies. The report contains five chapters. Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 2: How Does the Every Student Succeeds Act Support School Leadership Improvement?; Chapter 3: How Does the Every Student Succeeds Act Define Evidence?; Chapter 4: What Is the Evidence of Effects of ESSA-Eligible School Leadership-- Improvement Activities?; and Chapter 5: Recommendations for Using This Review. Appended to the report are: (1) State Exemptions to ESSA Evidence Requirements and (2) Evidence Requirements across Federal Legislation and Policy. Also included are notes and a bibliography. [See the earlier report: "School Leadership Interventions Under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Volume I--A Review of the Evidence Base, Initial Findings", at ED570943.]

The reauthorization of the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, referred to as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), emphasizes evidence-based initiatives while providing new flexibilities to states and districts with regard to the use of federal funds, including funds to promote effective school leadership. This report describes the opportunities for supporting school leadership under ESSA, discusses the standards of evidence under ESSA, and synthesizes the research base with respect to those standards. The information can guide federal, state, and district education policymakers on the use of research-based school-leadership interventions; help them identify examples of improvement activities that should be allowable under ESSA; and support the rollout of such interventions. A second volume will further summarize the evidence and provide tools to help policymakers and practitioners make decisions about school-leadership-improvement activities under ESSA. This report includes notes and a bibliography.