Bold Bets to Elevate School Leaders

“In a nation deeply divided over the purpose and role of schooling, where student disengagement is rising and persistent learning gaps threaten the country’s global competitiveness, [1] one role sits at the center: the school principal. Principals are the linchpin for innovation, implementation, and student success. But heightened pressures and visibility have contributed to the unsustainability of that role. Our organization, the Aspen Institute’s Education & Society Program (AESP), has been examining ways to improve the principalship for several years. In 2022, we landed on six shifts for doing so that span principal practice and systemic change. [2] State boards of education, in particular, can help drive these shifts in defining and supporting principals. It is consequential work. In their synthesis of studies of principals’ impact, researchers Jason Grissom, Anna Egalite, and Constance Lindsay show how effective principals drive approximately three months of additional learning each year for students; influence the learning, social, and behavioral climate and culture of schools; and can influence teacher performance and student achievement through policy implementation. [3] Effective principals drive approximately three months of additional learning each year for students. There are considerable impediments to doing the job well. Eighty-five percent of principals report experiencing high job-related stress, [4] 48 percent report experiencing burnout, and 28 percent report symptoms of depression. [5] In 2023, 40 percent of school leaders stated they might leave the profession. [6] Such high turnover lowers student achievement and increases teacher turnover. [7] To retain and support strong principals, education leaders will need to think strategically about the structure and sustainability of the role. Six Shifts In Rethinking the Role of the Principal , we identified six transformational shifts needed to fully leverage the principalship. [8] They span two domains: principal practice, focused on how principals lead their buildings, and systems, focused on how district and state policies align principals’ work with evidence-based areas of impact. These shifts are deeply interconnected and mutually reinforcing. There are three shifts in principal practice: champion a learning culture, cultivate a positive school climate, and lead with the community. And there are three shifts in system support: invest in authentic preparation, align the system to advance principal priorities, and support and evaluate core expectations. Five Bold Bets We also identified five state-level interventions to address the principal crisis at its roots. [9] Each of these bold bets tackles a specific systemic barrier: inadequate preparation, policy implementation gaps, operational overload, insufficient data capacity, and outdated licensure. Each stands alone, but each reinforces others. Strong preparation programs feed into performance-based licensure. Operations directors free principals to engage in the work where principals have the most impact, such as deploying data skills to assess and address academic and social challenges at their school. Implementation boards inform how policy lands in schools. These bold bets draw on promising practices and evidence from across national and international contexts. Where specific implementation examples exist, we highlight them, but not exhaustively. Bold bets are rooted in a cumulative body of research and practitioner experience rather than a single-state playbook. Although their authority differs from state to state, state boards influence the principal pipeline at every stage: licensure, preparation program approval, professional learning, evaluation frameworks, and system alignment. Thus, state board members have a true opportunity to mandate, advocate, or create the strong partnerships necessary to ensure that students attend schools with positive school culture, strong academic outcomes, and dynamic leadership. They can marshal whatever authority they possess to make or champion policy and to convene stakeholders and ask questions. Although their authority differs from state to state, state boards influence the principal pipeline at every stage. 1 . Reimagining Principal Preparation through a “ West Point Model .” Traditional principal preparation operates on a pay-as-you-go model: Candidates juggle evening coursework with full-time teaching, complete superficial internships, and graduate with debt and minimal authentic leadership experience. Traditional principal preparation operates on a pay-as-you-go model. The West Point model flips this script. Modeled on how the premier US military leadership academy selects, immerses, and mentors future leaders, such principal preparation programs recruit high-potential candidates, particularly diverse candidates from high-need schools facing financial barriers. The candidates receive full funding in exchange for three- to five-year service commitments to high-need schools. Preparation centers on intensive clinical practice: at least 500 hours of authentic leadership work under expert mentor principals. Teacher residencies with intensive, practice-based preparation produce educators who stay longer and perform better, so there is reason to believe principal residencies could be similarly effective. [10] To ensure equitable access and support workforce diversity, states could designate historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), minority-serving institutions (MSIs), or tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) as flagship institutions or partners. To bring this model to fruition, state boards can do the following: establish program approval standards requiring a minimum 500 clinical hours, authentic district partnerships, demonstrated competency in leadership standards, and performance-based candidate assessment; champion state funding for principal scholarships tied to high-need placements; convene representatives from universities, districts, and regional agencies to co-design residency programs; and ask, What data exists on program outcomes? Which programs produce principals who stay in high-need schools? To move toward implementation, state boards can do the following: Review current principal preparation program approval standards. Do they specify minimum clinical hours or just seat time? Direct staff at the state education agency to draft revised standards incorporating elements of the West Point model. Identify two to three universities willing to pilot the model. Consider geographic diversity and include at least one HBCU, HSI, MSI, or TCU if available in your state. Calculate the cost of preparing principals through this model and compare it to the state’s principal turnover costs. Even substantial preparation investment often pales in comparison to ongoing turnover costs. Present this cost-benefit analysis to the legislature, emphasizing that even modest retention improvements can justify the investment. Create regional cohorts where candidates from multiple small districts prepare together. Partner with regional education service agencies to coordinate clinical placements. Consider hybrid models where candidates continue teaching part-time while engaging in leadership practice. 2 . Launching Principal State Policy Implementation Boards . State boards adopt policies with a sound rationale, but these policies often land on principals’ desks as dense compliance documents disconnected from school realities. Principals waste hours deciphering requirements while policymakers lack feedback on whether policies work as intended. State boards adopt policies with a sound rationale, but these policies often land on principals’ desks as dense compliance documents disconnected from school realities. Principal state policy implementation boards would bridge this gap. Standing advisory bodies of current practitioners plus state agency staff would meet to evaluate policies and legislation on their ability to be implemented through the lens of school leadership, and they would translate state policies into practical implementation guidance before statewide rollout. They could produce toolkits, FAQs, and realistic timelines and then provide ongoing feedback. State boards can do the following: establish implementation boards through resolution or regulation defining purpose, membership composition, selection criteria emphasizing urban/suburban/rural diversity, term lengths, meeting frequency, compensation, and reporting requirements; select diverse practitioner membership and facilitate connections between implementation and state board members; require annual presentations addressing what policies created implementation challenges and what worked well; and use implementation board findings to advocate for regulatory streamlining. Implementation boards should complement rather than duplicate state board functions. State boards set policy direction (the “what”); implementation boards translate policies into practical guidance (the “how”). To move toward implementation, state boards can do the following: Budget for at least one full-time state agency staff member to coordinate meetings, compile feedback, draft guidance documents, and facilitate communication. Consider including staff researchers or policy analysts. Establish clear processes for how implementation board guidance relates to official state guidance. For example, after the state introduces a new policy, the implementation board has 30 days to review it and develops practical guidance over 60 days, the state agency reviews and finalizes the guidance, and there is a combined rollout that includes regulatory requirements and practical tools. Principals should not hail only from the highest performing schools. The board should include principals from struggling schools who understand implementation challenges and from districts of various sizes. State board members can ensure that the work of both boards are integrated by inviting them, at least annually, to state board meetings and to be present at committee meetings where relevant policies are being developed. The [implementation] board should include principals from struggling schools who understand implementation challenges and from districts of various sizes. Success would mean that the time principals spend on policy compliance decreases, principal satisfaction with state guidance increases, and adherence to implementation timelines improves. 3 . Establishing a Mandatory Director of Operations Role . Principals spend 30 to 40 percent of their time on operational tasks with minimal impact on student learning. They have been found to spend only 15 percent of their time on internal relations with students and staff and less than 5 percent on external relations with the community. [11] Yet a principal’s ability to build trust is correlated with increased teacher satisfaction, parental involvement, higher student achievement, and increased likelihood of successful reforms. [12] Principals spend 30 to 40 percent of their time on operational tasks with minimal impact on student learning. Schools above a size threshold would employ directors of school operations to handle facilities, transportation, food service, purchasing, budget execution, scheduling, and compliance. Doing so would create space for principals to focus on instructional leadership, teacher development, culture, family engagement, and student support. By decentralizing logistical decision making, having a director of operations can facilitate a transition toward a distributed leadership model. By delegating operational authority, principals can reclaim the capacity to focus on high-impact levers. This shift not only optimizes the principal’s influence but also creates clear pathways for internal and external leaders to exercise greater institutional ownership. By delegating operational authority, principals can reclaim the capacity to focus on high-impact levers. State boards can do the following to increase the number of schools with such staff: revise principal evaluation frameworks and leadership standards to focus on instructional/cultural leadership, establish competency standards for operations directors, and mandate and advocate for full funding of these positions; make a data-driven case to the legislature for funding formula adjustments; bring together districts, county offices, and regional agencies to design implementation models; ask, What percentage of principal time goes to noninstructional tasks? How do rural districts currently handle operations? and calculate the investment required for operations directors across eligible schools and compare it to principal turnover costs and present the math to the legislature. For example, “We’re spending millions on principal turnover while asking principals to manage boilers instead of developing teachers. Investing in operations directors reduces turnover and improves instruction.” In rural districts, the solution may look somewhat different: regional operations directors serving three to five small schools, employed by county office or multidistrict cooperatives; shared services, where small districts pool resources to jointly hire operations directors; hybrid positions, where an operations director splits time between school-level support and district-level facilities and business management; parttime arrangements for schools with 200 to 400 students; or enhanced county office support for schools under 200 students. State boards can facilitate implementation by defining the position scope clearly. Thus, principals supervise instructional staff, evaluate teachers and offer feedback, build school culture and handle student discipline, engage families, and partner with communities. Operations directors handle facilities management, compliance reporting and data submission, budget execution, transportation and food service coordination, and master scheduling logistics. State boards can also clarify whether operations directors need educator licenses or whether business administration degrees, facilities management certifications, or public administration experience suffices. 4 . Fostering Data-Driven Leadership — Data Camp for Principals . Principals drown in data but starve for insights. State accountability and district systems generate reams of data, yet many principals lack the training to harness data’s full potential. [13] As a result, data systems remain unused, inequities are invisible, and principals make decisions based on instinct rather than evidence. Principals drown in data but starve for insights. A data camp for principals would provide intensive professional learning. Principals would attend to learn to use state and local data systems effectively, identify inequities by focusing on disaggregated data analysis, and translate insights into instructional improvements. Unlike one-off workshops, data camps would include hands-on practice with principals’ actual school data. Follow-up support through data coaches or regional networks would help principals apply their learning throughout the year. While principals are the primary audience, their fluency sets the data culture for the whole building. This model is strengthened by the inclusion of data coaches and master teachers who can deepen application at the classroom level and sustain momentum between camps. A tiered approach, where principals build the vision and data coaches and master teachers support implementation, maximizes the impact of this investment. State boards can do the following: include data literacy as an explicit competency in leadership standards and evaluation frameworks and require preparation programs to demonstrate that candidates can access, analyze, and use disaggregated data; advocate for user-friendly state data systems with real-time access to disaggregated data; partner with universities, regional agencies, and principal associations to design/deliver data camps; and ask, What data do principals access and how quickly? What prevents effective data use? States can do the following to guide implementation: Assess state data systems honestly. Are they user-friendly? Can principals access student data in real time, or do they wait weeks? If systems are ineffective, a data camp will not help. State boards can push the state education agency to improve data system usability as a first step. Partner with universities (expertise in data analysis), regional service agencies (logistics capacity), and principal associations (credibility and member engagement). These partners can share costs and leverage different strengths. Ensure data camps address both technical skills (navigating state data systems, creating data visualizations, using spreadsheet tools, understanding key statistical concepts) and interpretive judgment (asking good questions of data, avoiding common misinterpretations, identifying actionable patterns, translating findings into improvement plans). Center data camps on identifying opportunity gaps, analyzing resource allocation equity, examining discipline disparities by race and disability, and investigating advanced course access patterns. Have principals work with their actual school data during data camp. They should leave with analyses they can use immediately and comfortably access their data systems. Build follow-up, including data coaches who visit schools monthly, regional networks that meet quarterly, and virtual office hours where principals can ask data questions. 5 . Transforming Principal Licensure . Traditional principal licensure requires master’s degrees and written examinations, and it includes poorly defined internships. Meanwhile, performance on the licensure tests has not been correlated to effective school leadership outcomes. [14] Moreover, candidates of color are less likely to pass these exams, sustaining inequities in the profession. Performance on the licensure tests has not been correlated to effective school leadership outcomes. Performance-based licensure would shift this pattern. Instead of credit hours, candidates would demonstrate competencies through portfolios including data analysis, evidence of leading professional learning communities, teacher evaluation with feedback examples, and community engagement plans. Authentic clinical practice (at least 500 hours under mentor principals) would replace brief internships. Trained assessors using rubrics aligned to leadership standards evaluate portfolios through authentic assessments. Massachusetts pioneered this approach through its Performance Assessment for Leaders. [15] Standardization among candidates may emerge as a concern. However, well-designed performance-based systems, with trained assessors, calibrated rubrics, and clearly defined competency thresholds, can uphold or exceed the rigor of traditional written exams while better assessing the actual work of leading a school. States may choose to pilot performance assessment as a complement to or eventual replacement of existing requirements, depending on their context and readiness. States may choose to pilot performance assessment as a complement to or eventual replacement of existing requirements. State boards can do the following: adopt performance-based licensure through regulatory revision, specify competencies that must be demonstrated, establish portfolio components aligned to leadership standards, and set clinical practice requirements; make a research-based case that performance assessment better ensures quality than written exams; bring preparation programs, districts, and mentors together to develop common assessment tools and rubrics; and ask, How do current licensure requirements ensure candidates can actually lead effectively? To guide implementation, state boards can do the following: Because performance assessment costs more than traditional written exams, they can reframe the conversation, comparing the costs for performance assessment and principal turnover, which is substantially higher. If performance assessment reduces preparation failures even modestly, it pays for itself immediately through reduced turnover. Ensure there is a budget for an initial multiday training for all new assessors, annual calibration sessions, regular interrater reliability checks, and ongoing support through assessor communities of practice. Consider regional assessment centers, where assessors from multiple programs can collaborate. Consider rural adaptations such as allowing virtual portfolio submission, creating regional scoring centers, providing flexibility in clinical placement, and allowing candidates to complete hours across multiple small schools. Consider extended timelines for rural candidates who might complete clinical practice over longer periods. Convene preparation programs, districts, mentors, and recent licensure completers annually to review what is working and refine the system accordingly. Coherence, Equity, and Partnership These five bold bets form a coherent system. The West Point model produces strong candidates ready to create performance-based licensure portfolios. Data camps build on authentic clinical practice from residencies. Operations directors free principals to focus on instructional leadership, culture, and climate. Implementation boards help principals navigate the policy environment they are prepared to lead in. Equity must anchor all five. State boards should ensure a target on serving high-need schools through preparation funding and service commitments; rural access through regional models, virtual components, and shared services; diversity through selective recruitment and full financial support; and use of disaggregated data through data camps, performance assessments, and program evaluations. State boards cannot implement these five interventions alone. Success requires partnerships with state education agencies, higher education institutions, district superintendents, principal and superintendent associations, regional service agencies, and legislatures. These bold changes require political will and courage. State boards’ unique power lies in convening stakeholders, setting policy direction, asking hard questions that demand evidence, and advocating persistently for principal quality as a state priority. Megan Bennett is senior policy associate and Chelsi Chang is senior practice associate at the Aspen Institute Education and Society Program. Notes [1] Melissa Kay Diliberti, Heather L. Schwartz, and David Grant, “Stress Topped the Reasons Why Public School Teachers Quit, Even as COVID-19 Receded,” research report (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2025); Jill Barshay, “US Students’ Academic Achievement Still Lags That of Their Peers in Many Other Countries,” Hechinger Report , December 5, 2023. [2] Aspen Institute Education & Society Program, “Revolutionizing the Principalship: Bold Bets to Elevate School Leadership,” report (Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, September 2024). [3] Jason A. Grissom, Anna J. Egalite, and Constance A. Lindsay, “How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research,” research report (New York: The Wallace Foundation, February 2021). [4] Compare this to the 35 percent seen in the general working population. [5] Amanda Sullivan, “Principals Report ‘Overwhelming’ Job Stress, Health Challenges,” K-12 Dive , June 29, 2022. [6] Rebecca Ruggirello, “Nearly 40 Percent of School Leaders May Leave The Profession, Survey Finds,” K-12 Dive , May 3, 2023. [7] Brendan Bartanen, Jason A. Grissom, and Laura K. Rogers, “The Impacts of Principal Turnover,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 41, no. 3 (2019): 350–74, https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719855044 . [8] Aspen, “Revolutionizing the Principalship,” report . AESP built on this framework with Redefining the Role of Principal , which offers case studies of districts and states implementing strong practices aligned with the six shifts. Revolutionizing the Principalship: Bold Bets to Elevate School Leadership elevates new interventions with potential for transformative impact. [9] Aspen, “Revolutionizing the Principalship,” report . [10] Linda Darling-Hammond et al., “Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership Development Programs,” executive summary (Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, 2007). [11] Jason A. Grissom, Susanna Loeb, and Hajime Mitani, “Principal Time Management Skills: Explaining Patterns in Principals’ Time Use, Job Stress, and Perceived Effectiveness,” Journal of Educational Administration 53, no. 6 (2015): 773–93, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0117 . [12] James Sebastian, Elizabeth Camburn, and Shanyce L. Campbell, “How Do Principals Influence Student Achievement? Insights from a Comprehensive Review of Two Decades of Research,” in Gene E. Hall, Linda F. Quinn, and Donna M. Gollnick, eds., The Wiley Handbook of Teaching and Learning (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2018), 529–52. [13] National Association of Elementary School Principals, Leading Learning Communities: Standards for What Principals Should Know and Be Able to Do , 2nd ed. (Alexandria, VA: NAESP, 2008). [14] Jason A. Grissom, Hajime Mitani, and Richard S.L. Blissett, “Principal Licensure Exams and Future Job Performance: Evidence from the School Leaders Licensure Assessment,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 39, no. 2 (2017): 248–80, https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716680293 . [15] Margaret Terry Orr and Liz Hollingworth, “Labor Market Impact of the Massachusetts State Licensure Performance Assessment for Leaders,” Journal of Education Administration 61, no. 4 (2023): 362–84, https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2022-0066 ; see also Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Annual Technical Report : 2018–2019 Program Year (2019).

Summary generated from the RSS feed of NASBE. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on www.nasbe.org.