By supporting the adoption of evidence-based PreK -- 3 policies and practices, The McKnight Foundation's Pathway Schools Initiative seeks to dramatically increase the percentage of proficient third-grade readers in high need schools. To support real-time learning, decisionmaking, and improvement of new practices, programs, and policies, The McKnight Foundation has engaged Pathway Schools Initiative leaders in a developmental evaluation (DE) of highpriority questions of practical interest. DE is a collaborative effort that begins with identification of a question about challenges or new approaches to meeting students', teachers', and other critical stakeholders' needs. DE then supports continuous improvement by gathering data and offering rapid, relevant feedback to the initiative leaders, who develop action plans based on the implications of the findings. The DE team was composed of two to three leaders from each of the participating schools and districts1 and staff members from McKnight, the Urban Education Institute (UEI) at the University of Chicago, SRI International, and Child Trends. This learning brief summarizes the team's first DE question, research methods, findings, and action plans. The team intends to address two to three DE questions each year.

By supporting the adoption of evidence-based PreK -- 3 policies and practices, The McKnight Foundation's Pathway Schools Initiative seeks to dramatically increase the percentage of proficient third-grade readers in high need schools. To support real-time learning, decisionmaking, and improvement of new practices, programs, and policies, The McKnight Foundation has engaged Pathway Schools Initiative leaders in a developmental evaluation (DE) of highpriority questions of practical interest. DE is a collaborative effort that begins with identification of a question about challenges or new approaches to meeting students', teachers', and other critical stakeholders' needs. DE then supports continuous improvement by gathering data and offering rapid, relevant feedback to the initiative leaders, who develop action plans based on the implications of the findings. The DE team was composed of two to three leaders from each of the participating schools and districts1 and staff members from McKnight, the Urban Education Institute (UEI) at the University of Chicago, SRI International, and Child Trends. This learning brief summarizes the team's first DE question, research methods, findings, and action plans. The team intends to address two to three DE questions each year.

What is the state of university-based principal preparation programs? How are these essential training grounds of future school leaders viewed -- by themselves as well as by the school districts that hire their graduates? Do the programs need to improve? If so, by what means?

This publication seeks to help answer those questions by bringing together findings from four reports commissioned by The Wallace Foundation to inform its development of a potential new initiative regarding university-based principal training. In addition to confirming close-to-unanimous agreement among university educators and school superintendents about the important role principals play in advancing student achievement, it finds five themes:

• District leaders are largely dissatisfied with the quality of principal preparation programs, and many universities believe that their programs have room for improvement.
• Strong university-district partnerships are essential to high-quality preparation but are far from universal.
• The course of study at preparation programs does not always reflect principals' real jobs.
• Some university policies and practices can hinder change.
• States have authority to play a role in improving principal preparation, but many are not using this power as effectively as possible.

The publication offers insight into the obstacles that stand in the way of improvement and suggests the need for action in: redesigning principal preparation by building on what we know from research and high-quality programs; establishing stronger connections between universities and districts; and ensuring that state policymakers create structures that encourage the proliferation of high-quality programs.

The good news, according to the report, is that many university programs seem to be open to change -- and they benefit from having a number of strong programs to look to as models.

What is the state of university-based principal preparation programs? How are these essential training grounds of future school leaders viewed -- by themselves as well as by the school districts that hire their graduates? Do the programs need to improve? If so, by what means?

This publication seeks to help answer those questions by bringing together findings from four reports commissioned by The Wallace Foundation to inform its development of a potential new initiative regarding university-based principal training. In addition to confirming close-to-unanimous agreement among university educators and school superintendents about the important role principals play in advancing student achievement, it finds five themes:

• District leaders are largely dissatisfied with the quality of principal preparation programs, and many universities believe that their programs have room for improvement.
• Strong university-district partnerships are essential to high-quality preparation but are far from universal.
• The course of study at preparation programs does not always reflect principals' real jobs.
• Some university policies and practices can hinder change.
• States have authority to play a role in improving principal preparation, but many are not using this power as effectively as possible.

The publication offers insight into the obstacles that stand in the way of improvement and suggests the need for action in: redesigning principal preparation by building on what we know from research and high-quality programs; establishing stronger connections between universities and districts; and ensuring that state policymakers create structures that encourage the proliferation of high-quality programs.

The good news, according to the report, is that many university programs seem to be open to change -- and they benefit from having a number of strong programs to look to as models.

What is the state of university-based principal preparation programs? How are these essential training grounds of future school leaders viewed -- by themselves as well as by the school districts that hire their graduates? Do the programs need to improve? If so, by what means?

This publication seeks to help answer those questions by bringing together findings from four reports commissioned by The Wallace Foundation to inform its development of a potential new initiative regarding university-based principal training. In addition to confirming close-to-unanimous agreement among university educators and school superintendents about the important role principals play in advancing student achievement, it finds five themes:

• District leaders are largely dissatisfied with the quality of principal preparation programs, and many universities believe that their programs have room for improvement.
• Strong university-district partnerships are essential to high-quality preparation but are far from universal.
• The course of study at preparation programs does not always reflect principals' real jobs.
• Some university policies and practices can hinder change.
• States have authority to play a role in improving principal preparation, but many are not using this power as effectively as possible.

The publication offers insight into the obstacles that stand in the way of improvement and suggests the need for action in: redesigning principal preparation by building on what we know from research and high-quality programs; establishing stronger connections between universities and districts; and ensuring that state policymakers create structures that encourage the proliferation of high-quality programs.

The good news, according to the report, is that many university programs seem to be open to change -- and they benefit from having a number of strong programs to look to as models.

Intended for state officials involved in the assessment and approval of university and other programs to train future school principals, this report describes five design principles for effective program evaluation. "While states will undoubtedly want and need to develop systems unique to their context, they could benefit from having guideposts to organize what can be complex work," says the report, which was written jointly by representatives from New Leaders, which helps train school leaders and designs leadership policies and practices for school systems, and the University Council for Educational Administration, a consortium of universities that seeks to promote high-quality education leadership preparation and research. The principles, which emerged from a New Leaders/University Council project to develop a model evaluation system and accompanying of tools, are:

• Structure the review process in a way that is conducive to continuous program improvement.
• Create appropriate systems to hold programs accountable for effective practices and outcomes.
• Provide key stakeholders with accurate and useful information.
• Take a sophisticated and nuanced approach to data collection and use.
• Adhere to characteristics of high-quality program evaluation.

The report also describes how two states, Illinois and Delaware, have approached evaluation, and provides a tool from its model-development work, an assessment that states can use to determine their degree of "readiness" for building a stronger system to evaluate principal preparation programs.

Intended for state officials involved in the assessment and approval of university and other programs to train future school principals, this report describes five design principles for effective program evaluation. "While states will undoubtedly want and need to develop systems unique to their context, they could benefit from having guideposts to organize what can be complex work," says the report, which was written jointly by representatives from New Leaders, which helps train school leaders and designs leadership policies and practices for school systems, and the University Council for Educational Administration, a consortium of universities that seeks to promote high-quality education leadership preparation and research. The principles, which emerged from a New Leaders/University Council project to develop a model evaluation system and accompanying of tools, are:

• Structure the review process in a way that is conducive to continuous program improvement.
• Create appropriate systems to hold programs accountable for effective practices and outcomes.
• Provide key stakeholders with accurate and useful information.
• Take a sophisticated and nuanced approach to data collection and use.
• Adhere to characteristics of high-quality program evaluation.

The report also describes how two states, Illinois and Delaware, have approached evaluation, and provides a tool from its model-development work, an assessment that states can use to determine their degree of "readiness" for building a stronger system to evaluate principal preparation programs.

Intended for state officials involved in the assessment and approval of university and other programs to train future school principals, this report describes five design principles for effective program evaluation. "While states will undoubtedly want and need to develop systems unique to their context, they could benefit from having guideposts to organize what can be complex work," says the report, which was written jointly by representatives from New Leaders, which helps train school leaders and designs leadership policies and practices for school systems, and the University Council for Educational Administration, a consortium of universities that seeks to promote high-quality education leadership preparation and research. The principles, which emerged from a New Leaders/University Council project to develop a model evaluation system and accompanying of tools, are:

• Structure the review process in a way that is conducive to continuous program improvement.
• Create appropriate systems to hold programs accountable for effective practices and outcomes.
• Provide key stakeholders with accurate and useful information.
• Take a sophisticated and nuanced approach to data collection and use.
• Adhere to characteristics of high-quality program evaluation.

The report also describes how two states, Illinois and Delaware, have approached evaluation, and provides a tool from its model-development work, an assessment that states can use to determine their degree of "readiness" for building a stronger system to evaluate principal preparation programs.