RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1.0: Place responsibility for coordination of K–12
professional personnel development activities in the Governor’s Office
through the Office of the Secretary for Education. Despite significant new
initiatives and substantial new funding, the state does not have a visible and
clearly identified structure in place that provides for the effective
coordination of professional personnel development programs. Currently, there
are several state agencies with major responsibility for development of the
professional education workforce. Despite a significant investment of state
funds in this area however, the state does not have a clearly identified
structure in place that provides for the effective coordination of
programs.
Though responsibility for program implementation resides, and should continue to reside, with these different entities, there is clearly a need for greater coordination of these disparate programs at the state level. The PPD workgroup believes this responsibility should reside with the Secretary for Education, who is the Governor’s principal policy advisor on education matters. In order to implement this new role, the Office of the Secretary for Education should establish an advisory body with representatives from all segments of the education policy community to facilitate dialogue and build a common frame of reference for a concerted course of action. This advisory body would monitor the professional personnel development needs of the state including program effectiveness, possible program consolidation and the feasibility of new initiatives.
By coordination, the PPD workgroup does not mean for the Office of the
Secretary for Education to micro-manage nor add a new layer of management that
would be meddlesome to other state entities and confusing to the field. Rather,
the intent is to insure that the state has the best possible return on its
investment and that the Governor and the Legislature receive a comprehensive
understanding of the nature and extent of the state’s commitment, and
effectiveness in, professional personnel services throughout the state. Nothing
in this recommendation is meant to alter the functioning of other state
education agencies. For example, implementation and administrative
responsibilities remain with the SPI and the CDE for many programs; and policy
responsibilities remain with the State Board of Education (SBE). Similarly, the
CCTC remains as an independent standards and regulatory board for professional
educators.
Recommendation 2.0: Create an independent entity that is
responsible for collecting data related to teaching and school administration,
and evaluating programs and initiatives. Though many data collection
activities exist or are underway (e.g. CBEDS, CSIS), state policy suffers from a
lack of comprehensive data on a range of topics, including:
The PPD working group believes strongly that the link between teacher quality
and student achievement is crucial and needs careful attention. However, it is
important that student achievement be considered from a number of perspectives.
State examinations (i.e. STAR both SAT-9 and standards-based, the High School
Exit Exam) are certainly important indicators but should not be the only factors
considered when defining student achievement. Essay writing, science and math
problems not limited to a multiple choice format ought to be incorporated in
student achievement assessments whenever possible. And, the state needs to move
to complete development of other indicators of student and school success that
are already called for in state law (e.g. attendance and high school graduation
rates).
California can no longer afford to create programs and have little
idea whether they are working, especially concerning teacher recruitment,
preparation and professional development, which have generated substantial new
state resources and initiatives in recent years. Evaluation of education
programs must become a systematic endeavor. The state has a vital interest in
knowing the effect of its investment on narrowing the achievement gap and
improving student learning. This need is so central to the state’s
education mission that a scatter-shot, haphazard approach to data collection is
no longer acceptable. In recent years, both the Stanford Research Institute,
International (SRI) and the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning
(CFTL) have made efforts to collect data from multiple sources in order to track
teacher attrition and mobility. They encountered significant roadblocks, the
most critical having to do with the lack of a common identifier that enables the
tracking of teachers and administrators. SRI and CFTL recently recommended ways
to use teacher and administrator Social Security numbers as a unique identifier
and maintain confidentiality. According to SRI, such practice is common in
other states, and there are mechanisms that can be employed to ensure
confidentiality.
Recommendation 2.1: The state should use a unique,
but confidential, identifier in collecting teacher data. The PPD workgroup
recommends that adequate safeguards be put in place to allow the Social Security
number to be confidentially used as a unique identifier by all agencies
collecting data regarding teachers. The PPD workgroup further recommends that
the independent data collection entity recommended herein be authorized to
collect and analyze data produced as a result of this
recommendation.
Recommendation 2.2. Require all programs to
include resources for evaluation. The PPD workgroup recommends that every
professional preparation and development program that is funded by the state be
required under law to set aside a percentage of its funds to create a source of
funding to support ongoing program evaluation and research under the direction
of the independent entity recommended herein. Data collected at the program
level should be accessible to the independent state entity and regular reports
should be made available to the Governor, Legislature and policy community.
Recommendation 2.3. The data collection entity should be
independent. The PPD workgroup believes that if this new entity is to be
credible it needs to have a high level of independence. The PPD workgroup
believes that if this new entity is to be as independent as possible, careful
attention needs to be given to appointing authorities and length of terms. There
should be multiple appointing authorities (with no appointing authority
approaching a majority of appointments) and appointees should have extended
terms similar to those enjoyed by the UC and CSU Regents and Trustees,
respectively.
Recommendation 3.0. Forge voluntary regional partnerships to provide
program coordination, evaluation, monitoring and intervention at the local
level. Historically, the state, through the California Department of
Education, has provided help to local education agencies (LEAs) in implementing
programs. However, from an LEA perspective, given the size and complexity of
California, the state can seem distant, and at times, local agencies may not
know where to turn for assistance.
The PPD working group believes that there is an important regional role for program coordination and technical assistance. We believe that there are four key tasks that a regional partnership should perform: (1) program coordination and technical assistance; (2) monitoring; (3) evaluation; and (4) intervention.
The structure of a regional system of support for local education agencies could be accomplished using as a model current initiatives such as the Professional Development Consortia and the California Technology Assistance Project, which subdivide the state into as many as eleven regions to provide assistance customized to local needs. The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program is also an example of how a regional network can support the effective implementation of a program. In the last several years, the state Legislature broadly expanded BTSA, providing sufficient funding for every new teacher with a preliminary credential to participate. In response, the California Department of Education and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) established a regional network with six locations throughout the state to help districts create their local BTSA programs.
We also believe that there are lessons to be learned from the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT). Although a state rather than a regional body, FCMAT was originally formed to provide help to school districts on fiscal matters after several districts went bankrupt in the late eighties and nineties. It has since grown, at the direction of the state Legislature, to also provide assistance to districts in areas such as facilities, personnel and curriculum. To the extent FCMAT is effective, it seems three operations it performs are key: (1) it can provide objective evaluations of a district’s particular situation; (2) it can monitor the district’s progress in meeting stated goals; and (3) it can provide help in meeting those goals. This kind of focused attention could, through a regional entity, help local education agencies better develop teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development programs and services. In other words, we are not advocating FCMAT become a regionalized agency, but that regional partnerships should employ the FCMAT approach to district evaluation and possible intervention.
To ensure a sufficient supply of K–12 teachers and administrators with
the qualifications necessary to promote student learning the PPD workgroup
recommends the following:
Recommendation 4.0: The state should require that all teachers are adequately prepared prior to assuming responsibility for a classroom. California has embraced multiple routes into teaching since the 1960’s, when internships were first launched. In a state the size of California, it is clear that one size does not fit all. The diversity of needs within the state has been the basis for allowing multiple approaches to learning to teach for close to forty years. With the advent of class size reduction in 1997, the need for teachers grew precipitously, outstripping the supply in many cases. This important innovation in our public education system precipitated the expansion of alternative routes into teaching, including:
These alternative routes into teaching exist in dynamic tension with the move towards standards-based programs. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing is responsible for setting standards for educator preparation, and has made a conscious policy decision, based on statutory mandates, to ensure that all routes into teaching are held to the same high standards. The CCTC has recently completed a comprehensive overhaul of its standards to align them with the State Board adopted academic content standards for students. All routes into teaching, pursuant to statutory and policy directives, will be required to transition to these new standards by the end of 2003. The PPD workgroup endorses a standards based system that supports multiple pathways into teaching.
Recommendation 4.1: The state needs to pay greater attention to the proliferation of emergency permits teachers in recent years. A significant number of teachers enter the profession on an emergency permit, which is based not on standards but on district needs. Currently, there are nearly 35,000 teachers on emergency permits.[13] The impact of emergency permit teachers on student achievement has not been well-documented, and the state should, as part of its overall data-collection activities, conduct systematic studies about the effectiveness of all classroom personnel, including emergency permit holders, pre-interns, interns, new teachers, and veteran teachers. Research in this area should also examine issues related to comparable district resources available for teacher compensation and whether some districts may be intentionally hiring emergency permit teachers over fully qualified credential holders in order to cut personnel costs.
Notwithstanding the absence of compelling data, policy makers are concerned about the use of emergency permits in some schools and the potential impact this may be having on student learning. Given the large number of emergency permit teachers and the heavy reliance of some districts on these teachers there is no quick fix to solving the emergency permit teacher crisis. However, substantially reducing the use of emergency permits would lessen greatly the likelihood that any student would be unduly disadvantaged by continuous exposure to uncredentialed teachers. The PPD workgroup offers several suggestions for addressing this challenge to the Master Plan Committee.
Option 4.1.1: Set a timeline (five to ten years) to phase out the use of emergency permits. Some argue that “if you build it they will come”, that elimination of the emergency permit would send a clear message to districts that teacher recruitment and retention must become a higher district and state priority. However, others argue that districts need flexibility to allow for the true “emergencies” that arise and create immediate vacancies that cannot be filled immediately with a credentialed teacher. A modified approach would be to identify precisely appropriate uses for emergency permits and set standards that define these uses.
Option 4.1.2: Eliminate the use of emergency permits in decile 1 or decile 2 (lowest performing) schools. California’s lowest performing schools are widely recognized as having some of the most difficult teaching challenges. If emergency permits cannot be eliminated entirely, we could at least limit their use in the schools with the greatest educational challenges.
Option 4.1.3 Replace emergency permits with the Pre-Internship program, requiring that any uncredentialed teachers be hired as pre-interns and supported to complete preparation as soon as possible. Approximately two-thirds of the emergency permit population do not qualify for entry into teacher preparation programs because they have not met subject matter requirements. The Pre-internship program was designed to provide support, intensive training in “emergency pedagogy” and preparation for subject matter examinations to this segment of the emergency permit population. There are currently more than 10,000 pre-interns in the pipeline who will move into internships and become fully credentialed as a result of this program, which the PPD workgroup believes to be preferable to the emergency permit system. In addition, the state should keep from expanding the numbers of teachers on emergency permits by prohibiting the hiring of student teachers prior to completion of professional preparation.
The PPD workgroup does not believe that these options are mutually exclusive. The recommendation itself, to ensure that all teachers are adequately prepared prior to assuming responsibility for a classroom, represents a long-term solution. The options that are provided here could be seen as short term strategies that would enable the state to significantly reduce the numbers of unprepared teachers serving in California classrooms. The PPD workgroup recommends that the Master Plan Committee move forward on all of the options described above.
Recommendation 4.2: The state should increase the capacity of California’s higher education systems to prepare larger numbers of educators for the public schools. If the range of recruitment initiatives are successful in attracting more prospective teachers into preparation programs, then current opportunities for teacher preparation must be expanded. The PPD workgroup recommends that expansion be targeted to regions where there are high numbers of individuals serving on emergency permits or where projected shortages of teachers and administrators are greatest. The workgroup further recommends that expansion of opportunities for preparation focus on increasing access through flexible scheduling and on-line options.
Recommendation 5.0. The state must focus more resources and attention on hard to staff schools. There exist great inequities in the distribution of qualified and experienced teachers and administrators in California and the following recommendations are meant to address this serious inequitable condition.
Recommendation 5.1. The state should set minimal standards for appropriate working conditions in schools. While many factors contribute to teacher success and retention, poor working conditions are cited repeatedly by teachers who have left low performing schools. While there is always a delicate line to draw between state and local responsibilities, we believe state minimal standards concerning school cleanliness, school safety and adequate up-to-date materials are essential if we are to have any chance of reversing the continual loss of talented individuals from some of our most challenging school sites. Once established, the state needs to pay special attention to decile 1 and 2 schools to insure that such schools are meeting these standards and when appropriate, state funding is forthcoming to address deficiencies.
The PPD workgroup recommends that the Finance and Facilities Workgroup consider a recommendation that districts prioritize existing resources for decile one and two schools.
Recommendation 5.2: The state needs to provide additional resources for educators in high poverty schools. Educators tend not to stay in situations where they do not feel they can succeed with students. Children of poverty have special needs and if educators are to succeed with such students they need additional resources. We propose a substantial block grant to high poverty schools that can be used for the following purposes: 1) class size reduction; 2) professional development; 3) professional support staff (e.g. counselors, social workers, nurses); 4) instructional materials; and 5) academic support services (e.g., tutoring, learning support centers, etc.).
Recommendation 5.3: The state should ensure that teacher preparation, induction and ongoing professional development include a focus on teaching in urban settings and teaching children who bring particular challenges to the learning environment. Although not all teaching assignments are in urban or difficult to teach settings, it is increasingly essential that teachers coming into the workforce have the ability to work in challenging circumstances. This need is so pervasive that the PPD workgroup recommends that all phases of the learning to teach continuum include this focus.
Recommendation 5.4: The state should provide grant funding to explore the creation of professional development schools that facilitate partnerships between institutions of higher education and low-performing schools. Professional development schools have been successful in a variety of settings across the country. These schools have as an important central part of their mission the training of new teachers and the involvement of all experienced teachers in this preparation function. This approach represents one way that the state could provide additional resources for low performing schools and at the same time provide high quality training opportunities for teachers at different stages in their development.
Recommendation 6.0: The state, regional entities and local school districts must redesign their professional development activities as well as invest more of their resources in human capital development. At the outset, it is important to note that there is much worthwhile professional development underway in many parts of the state. State sponsored professional development networks such as the California Subject Matter Projects and the Governor's Professional Development Institutes, national, state and regional education reform networks as well as some noteworthy individual school districts are all making important contributions to the development of California’s professional workforce. However, there are systemic problems that undermine the effectiveness of these worthy efforts, the first having to do with the amount of time available for professional development and the ways in which professional development is built into the professional work of teachers. Too often staff development is either an add-on or in-lieu of the regular instructional day. A teacher's work day is largely defined by student contact hours and valuable professional growth that must somehow be "found" outside of the regular work environment.
A related problem is how professional development is defined and implemented. Traditionally, staff development activities have consisted largely of workshops or institutes that do not provide for clinically based or collaborative activities that research has indicated are some of the most powerful types of effective professional development. The PPD workgroup recommends that the state’s investment in professional development include and give priority to the following kinds of activities:
Basic to any effective staff development is the involvement
of both teachers and administrators in planning and implementation. The PPD
workgroup believes that the State’s significant investment in professional
development of the workforce would have a greater impact if it were based on a
clinical approach, where teachers have the opportunity to learn new strategies,
try them out in the classroom, evaluate the outcomes and apply what
they’ve learned to their next teaching situation.
It is important for schools and districts to work together to redefine professional development so that teachers are able to successfully apply what they learn. The professional work of teachers needs to focus on improving standards based instruction. These efforts need to be coordinated across classrooms and schools so that professional development, especially in hard to staff schools, is of sufficient scope and quality to effectively improve instruction.
Finally, the amount of resources devoted to professional development is simply insufficient. More time and more money is necessary if teachers are to be thoroughly familiar with state academic standards and how all students can be assisted to meet these standards. The state has provided important new resources for state-run institutes but has actually reduced the amount of time available for local professional development work. It is our view that more attention needs to be paid to local professional development activities; as long as professional development is viewed by teachers and districts as an external activity, true redesign of professional development work will not be fully achieved.
The PPD workgroup puts forward the following specific recommendations in order to respond to the current reality of professional development activities in California:
Recommendation 6.1: The state should provide ongoing resources for up to ten additional days of staff development for selected school districts throughout the state. In the past, the Legislature has provided a set number of professional development days for all school districts in the state. This has been both costly and has not resulted in the kind of redesign of professional development that is necessary. We propose that roughly ten percent of the districts be eligible on a competitive basis for a permanent ten day professional development augmentation grant. Criteria for grants should emphasize activities that: are related to standards-based reform and are clinically-based; demonstrate a strong commitment to school site professional collaboration, and show promise for local capacity-building. When implemented and if evaluated positively, a second group of school districts could compete for additional ten day professional development augmentations. We believe this incremental and calibrated approach to investments in professional development is a more cost effective and thoughtful approach to professional development reform in California.
Recommendation 6.2: The state should provide funding to selected districts to link an increase in staff development days to a like increase in instructional days, especially in low performing schools. Often times staff development occurs at the expense of instructional time and this is viewed by many as an unacceptable trade-off. The state should provide funding for selected schools and school districts to add one week of instruction and one week of professional development time and thereby provide a "win-win" rather than a "zero-sum game" approach to the equally important goals of more time both for student instruction and for teacher professional growth. This approach should have special appeal in low performing schools where often times students need more time to reach standards and teachers need more time and assistance to develop effective teaching strategies for lower performing students. An important benefit to this approach is it may provide a mechanism for moving teachers to a 12 month employment cycle, and thereby make teaching a more financially attractive profession.
Recommendation 6.3: The state should provide grant funding to explore opportunities for embedded professional development at the school site and district level. Embedded professional development occurs during the normal school day and not after school or during vacation time. How to best integrate professional development into the regular school instructional day (rather than at a separate location or time) remains a tremendous challenge to most school districts. The state can help by providing grant funding perhaps beginning with summer school and inter-sessions where time constraints are not as restrictive as during the regular school year. Also, universities can play an important role in helping design appropriate embedded professional development work as well as provide critical commentary on how such activities are implemented and might be improved.
The PPD working group believes no idea or organization has a corner on the
market for strengthening professional development and that all of the above
recommendations have merit and are worthy initiatives.
Recommendation
7.0: The state must redouble its efforts to diversify the educational
workforce. In both K–12 schools and community colleges, there is rapid
change in the racial and ethnic composition of the student enrollment. This
rapid change in the demography of the state’s population is most
pronounced at the lower grades, but ultimately this change works its way into
the postsecondary level. Additionally, the high rates of immigration in
California (both documented and undocumented) results in many adults seeking
English as a Second Language instruction in adult schools and at community
colleges. Students in K–12, community colleges and at four-year colleges
need teachers with whom they can identify and relate in order to fully
participate in a quality education. This is true for both underrepresented
students as well as those from the cultural majority. Currently there are
inadequate numbers of racial and ethnic teachers in the workforce or in teacher
preparation and graduate schools. Part of the problem is the lack of appeal of
teaching as a career (low salary, low prestige, long hours, little independence,
little chance of upward mobility without moving out of
teaching).
Although there is a high degree of respect for teaching in
minority communities, there is also an awareness that society undervalues
teaching as a professional career. Thus, if faced with a career choice where the
salary is not lucrative and professional working conditions are substandard, and
recognizing that other professional occupations, often with significantly higher
beginning salaries, actively recruit racial and ethnic minorities to increase
their diversity, the pragmatic decision runs against selecting teaching as a
career.
The PPD workgroup recommends that the state develop and
implement a multi-pronged strategy to encourage a greater number of students
with diverse backgrounds to choose teaching as a career. Such a strategy should
address the following elements.
Recommendation 7.1: Enhance the
role of community colleges in teacher preparation. Many teachers,
particularly teachers who are members of ethnic and racial groups that are
underrepresented in the teaching workforce begin their college experience at the
community college level. The PPD workgroup recommends that the master plan call
for the development of teaching academies at both the high school and community
college levels that focus on recruiting future teachers from underrepresented
groups. There is currently a policy within the California State University
system that limits the number of units in “teacher education” that
can be transferred from a community college to six. The PPD workgroup recommends
that this limit be removed, and that four year teacher preparation institutions
establish strong, well articulated programs with community colleges that allow
for early recruitment and development of a diverse teacher workforce.
Recommendation 7.2: The state should expand outreach efforts to targeted groups. Recruitment efforts should begin with career information and encouragement as early as middle school and continue through high school and admission to college. Existing programs that focus on targeted groups (based on legally allowable factors) should be expanded. For example, the Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) program, which focuses primarily on recruiting targeted groups into careers in math, science and engineering should be expanded to include a focus on careers in teaching.
Recommendation 7.3: The state should expand outreach efforts to “career changers”. Programs like the Paraprofessional Teacher Training Program and the Troops to Teachers Program have been very successful at recruiting and preparing teachers, and typically enroll a high percentage of individuals from racial and ethnic groups that are underrepresented in the teaching profession. Focusing on the older professional, this element of a statewide diversity/recruitment strategy should also target professions that are experiencing downsizing.
Recommendation 8.0: The state should establish a career ladder for teachers that enables exceptional teachers to stay in the classroom. Research shows that teachers are the single most important factor in student learning. Students who have access to highly qualified teachers achieve at a higher rate regardless of other factors. In order to attract individuals to the profession, teacher salaries should be competitive with other professions for both new and experienced teachers. In addition, there is a need for the creation of a school culture where teachers assume leadership roles in school decision-making, where collaboration occurs on a regular basis, and professional development is ongoing, and where new teachers are supported. This type of school environment leads to improved student learning and instructional practices. Recent statewide initiatives that support and financially reward National Board Certification are now in place in California. But there are very few opportunities for exceptional teachers, even those with National Board Certification, to assume leadership roles in the public schools without leaving the classroom. The current status of accomplished veteran teachers must change to accommodate additional roles and responsibilities associated with providing professional development to others such as mentoring, coaching, supervising student teachers, serving as professional growth advisors, and serving as adjunct faculty in higher education.
The PPD workgroup believes that it is both timely and important to develop and implement new structures that would allow highly qualified, veteran teachers, to serve in advanced roles as instructional leaders within schools. The expertise of teachers can make or break a school, and we must find ways of capturing, focusing and rewarding the expertise of teachers within this most important setting.
Recommendation 8.1: The state should provide incentive funding to school districts so that they may create career ladders, subject to local collective bargaining, that reward teachers for demonstrated knowledge, expertise and effective practice. Though it may take some time to fully implement career ladders throughout the public school system, the PPD workgroup’s goal is that every child be taught by a highly qualified teacher or a teacher who is effectively mentored and supervised by a highly qualified teacher. Achieving this goal would require the creation of a systematic organizational structure that encourages all teachers to become highly qualified.
Option 8.1.1: Career ladders could include a differentiated staffing system at school sites that would encourage teachers interested in promotion to become “highly qualified”. The PPD workgroup believes that a differentiated staffing system that included higher levels of compensation for higher levels of work could encourage the transfer of exceptional teachers to hard to staff schools by creating promotional opportunities at those schools. A differentiated staffing plan would create various teacher responsibilities which would ensure that every teacher not identified or certified as highly qualified would be mentored and supervised by a teacher who was recognized as highly qualified. Education regulations which reserve certain duties for administrators (such as evaluation of teachers) could be changed under this system to allow teachers to take on some of those responsibilities. This differentiated staffing model could be the basis for establishing a new salary schedule, subject to collective bargaining, that rewards demonstrated knowledge, expertise and effective practice.
Option 8.1.2: The Legislature could create an advanced teaching credential that recognizes exceptional teaching and authorizes advanced services in instructional leadership within schools. Such a credential would serve as a mid-range certification of advanced competence, where the basic teaching credential certifies initial competence, and National Board Certification is the highest level of recognition for teaching excellence. A new credential could be the basis for establishing a differentiated staffing structure, as outlined in option 8.1.1 above. While some would argue that a new credential would needlessly complicate staffing decisions at a school site, others would argue that differentiated staffing that is coupled with differentiated compensation would require a new credential structure. An advanced teaching credential, under this scenario, would not be a required step on the “ladder” toward National Board Certification. Both designations of competence would be independently available to exceptional teachers, but unlike National Board Certification, the credential would carry an added authorization to provide advanced services in school settings. Such a credential could be based on completion of coursework, demonstration of competence, recommendations from administrators or other exceptional teachers, or a combination of factors.
Recommendation 8.2: The state should promote the idea that becoming a skilled teacher is, as with mastery of any profession, a long-term, developmental process. Too often in California, our efforts to improve the teaching corps are "episodic" events, largely unrelated to one another: a nine-month credential program, help (for some) in their first year on the job; and professional development classes (often, of a "one-shot" nature, and few and far between). Rather, California and its educational institutions must view teacher professionalism as a set of interrelated and sequential events. These events begin with an introduction to the profession (even for high school students who can be helped by their counselors to see teaching as a desirable career choice), pre-preparation (e.g., through Community College programs or K–12 internship programs based at four-year campuses), recruitment, pre-service credential programs, induction and initial support (e.g., BTSA), ongoing professional development, and advanced academic training (e.g., for the MA degree). In order for this "pathway" model of teacher professional development to succeed, all segments of the higher education community will need to work together to allow students to build upon experiences they have had, or work they have completed. This may mean producing programs and requirements at one institution that are partially "embedded" in the program of a partner institution. Similarly, ongoing professional development must be carefully aligned with the constantly shifting needs of the profession. We are recommending, therefore, the creation, within California, of a structure and sensibility that supports a continuous process for the identification, development, and enhancement of teachers.
Recommendation 9.0: Local school districts and higher education institutions should develop partnerships to recruit, prepare and train quality principals. It is well-known that the principalship is an extremely complex and difficult job in today’s schools, and that California may soon be facing a severe shortage of qualified principals. However, creating outstanding administrative leaders for California’s K–12 schools should be regarded as a long-term, developmental process requiring a coordinated effort among all stakeholders. School districts and higher education institutions must work closely together to identify and recruit promising leadership candidates and adequately prepare them with meaningful field-based training.
The PPD workgroup recommends that local school districts, institutions of higher education, and other entities who provide administrative leadership preparation should collaborate in partnerships to facilitate:
In particular, educational entities in the state should examine the feasibility of developing programs for principals and other administrative leaders in which the requirements of one institution are partially embedded in the requirements of partner institutions. Of equal importance, advanced professional development must be carefully aligned with the constantly shifting needs of the profession.
We believe that a new privately funded pilot program that incorporates the three elements listed above in partnerships between five CSU campuses and local school districts holds much promise.[14] This initiative will direct CSU faculty in collaboration with school district personnel to develop and implement an outcomes-based curriculum for potential administrators using current standards. An evaluation component will systematically measure the program’s effects on individual administrators and their schools and districts.
Recommendation 9.1: The CCTC should overhaul the existing administrative credential structure consistent with AB 75. To improve school administration, the Governor sponsored legislation in 2001, Ch 697/01 (AB 75, Steinberg), that would create a new professional development system for existing and incoming administrators. A specific provision of this bill calls for the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to allow administrators in training to apply participation in this program toward the requirements for earning an administrative credential. Preparation to serve as a school administrator should include maximum field based training and mentoring, and be based on the California Professional Standards for Educational Leadership.
Hard to staff schools tend to be low achieving, impacted by socio-economic issues, have a history of failure and have a great deal of turnover in staff at all levels. The work of leadership in these schools is complex, multifaceted and requires strong administrative and instructional skills. Many new administrators are not sufficiently prepared to do what is necessary to improve student achievement. Leaders at these schools are not given adequate support by the district to be able learn specific skills or to devote sufficient time and resources to significantly improving the instructional programs. Most of these schools are faced with a revolving door of newly credentialed or uncredentialed teachers. Most administrative training programs and school organization models are inadequate in preparing a newly assigned principal to be able to initiate and sustain an effective program to improve student achievement and reverse the established pattern of failure that exists at these schools.
Recommendation 9.2: The preparation of administrators should connect closely to a sub-set of schools. The preparation might take place in the school setting and in seminars and demonstrations where candidates are given opportunities to practice and apply sound instructional leadership models. It may be that the system of administrator credentialing needs to be revised so that there is an intern administrative program for specific types of schools.
Recommendation 9.3: Provide more resources such as additional staff and
professional development to principals in low-performing schools. Like
teachers, principals in low-performing schools need additional resources to be
effective. The PPD workgroup recommends that funds be provided on a competitive
basis to low-performing schools to try different administrative models. We also
recommend that the state explore alternative administrative structures such as
co-principalships, where the principal focuses on instructional leadership, and
the co-principal focuses on other managerial tasks such as plant management and
student discipline. Finally, we recommend that the highest priority for
additional support go to the least experienced principals in low performing
schools.
Recommendation 9.4: Raise principal salaries. Adequate
compensation is needed to support administrative positions in low-performing,
hard to staff schools so that it is advantageous to remain as a site
instructional leader or school principal-manager over a longer period of time
based on success with the work.
| Table of Contents | |||
| Summary | Introduction | K-12 | Responses |
| Recommendations | Colleges | References | Members |