The Every Student Succeeds Act,State Efforts to Improve Access to Effective Educators,and the Importance of School Leadership

Abstract

Purpose: Our primary purpose is to examine the degree to which state equity plans identify the distribution of principals and principal turnover as factors influencing three leadership mechanisms that affect student access to effective teachers—namely, hiring of teachers, building instructional capacity of teachers, and managing teacher turnover. Research Design: This study relies on document analyses of 52 plans (50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico) submitted by states in 2015 to the U.S. Department of Education. These plans included the identification of root causes of the inequitable access to educators within a state as well as proposed solutions to address the inequitable access. Findings: We found that, while 27% of states mentioned the distribution of principals and 48% of states mentioned principal turnover, less than 10% of states connected these two factors to access to effective teachers for each of the three mechanisms. Furthermore, only three states mentioned that principal turnover is associated with teacher turnover and three states discussed that teacher turnover is heavily influenced by the school working conditions created in large part by the principal. Moreover, we found the U.S. Department of Education and most states did not present data on either the inequitable distribution of principals or principal turnover. Finally, we determined that states frequently mention solutions to improving access to effective educators that are unsupported by research under the Every Student Succeeds Act rules of evidence.

Keywords

equity access to educators principal turnover distribution of principals state policy

Introduction

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires states to staff each classroom with an effective teacher and each school with an effective leader. This requirement is based on decades of research that consistently finds that, of all factors located within a school, teachers have the strongest influence on student outcomes (e.g., Engel, Jacob, & Curran, 2014; Louis et al., 2010; Rockoff, 2004) and principals have the second strongest influence (Coelli & Green, 2012; Dhuey & Smith, 2014; Louis et al., 2010; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010). Prior to ESSA, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE) used similar research to support adoption of initiatives such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Race to the Top, and NCLB waivers that required states to staff every classroom with a highly qualified or effective teacher (Partee, 2014).

Despite these policy efforts, researchers continue to find schools with greater concentrations of students living in poverty,¹ students of color,² and lower performing students are more likely to have less qualified and less effective teachers (Béteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2012; Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005b; Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2006; Goldhaber, Lavery, & Theobald, 2015; Isenberg et al., 2013; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013). More specifically, these “high-need” schools tend to employ greater percentages of less qualified teachers as defined by both input measures such as licensure exam scores, years of experience, degree level, competitiveness of teacher preparation program as well as output measures such as value-added scores (Bétille et al., 2012; Boyd et al., 2005b; Clotfelter et al., 2006; Goldhaber et al., 2015; Isenberg et al., 2013; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013). Such inequities have serious consequences for student outcomes in high-need schools. For example, Isenberg et al. (2013) found differences in the distribution of teachers across schools in 29 diverse districts explained two percentile points of the achievement gap between students living in poverty and their more economically advantaged peers.

Similarly, researchers have also found school leaders are not distributed equitably across schools (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2009; Clotfelter et al., 2006; Gates, Ringel, Santibañez, & Chung, 2003; Loeb, Kalogrides, & Horng, 2010; Papa, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2002). For example, Clotfelter et al. (2006) concluded, “The inequities with respect to the distribution of teacher and principal qualifications are large in North Carolina and that they clearly work to the disadvantage of the students in the high-poverty schools” (pp. 1372-1373). Furthermore, as with teachers, the inequitable distribution of principals across schools is affected both by, “the initial match of principals to schools but is compounded by differential attrition and the systematic transfer of more qualified principals to higher-achieving, lower-poverty, and higher-proportion-White schools” (Loeb et al., 2010, p. 205).

The primary purpose of this study is to examine the degree to which state equity plans identify the distribution of principals and principal turnover as factors influencing three leadership mechanisms that affect student access to effective teachers—namely, the hiring of teachers, building instructional capacity of teachers, and managing teacher turnover. For building the instructional capacity of teachers, we examine five specific strategies—instructional leadership, teacher evaluations, principal evaluations, principal professional learning, and the improvement of principal preparation programs (PPP). For each of these five strategies, we examine the degree to which state plans identified how the distribution of principals and principal turnover influences the ability of the strategy to increase access to effective teachers.

In the remainder of this article, we briefly summarize the requirements and opportunities created by the passage of ESSA followed by a description of directions provided to states to complete their equity plans, including a review of the root cause process. Subsequently, we examine the literature on the equitable access to educators with a particular focus on how school leaders and leadership behaviors influence access to effective teachers. After describing our data sources and methods, we then present our findings with respect to the aforementioned three mechanisms. We end our study with conclusions and recommendations.

ESSA Requirements and Opportunities

ESSA includes both old and new regulations about ensuring access to effective educators, as well as opportunities for states to create new policies and strategies. This section describes the regulations most relevant to this study: requirements about the inequitable distribution of teachers, flexibility in policy development, funding opportunities, and the requirement of research evidence to support state plans.

Regulations About the Inequitable Distribution of Teachers

While ESSA no longer contains the Highly Qualified Teacher provision from NCLB, it does include a number of provisions related to the equitable distribution of teachers. First, states must collect and publicly report the distribution of inexperienced, out-of-field, and ineffective teachers across schools with various populations of students—particularly students living in poverty and students of color. Second, states must involve various stakeholders groups in the identification of root causes and the proposed solutions that address the identified root causes. Third, states must develop and publish their plans to ameliorate any identified inequities in the distribution of teachers.

Flexibility in Policy Development

Relative to NCLB and other recent federal programs, ESSA provides greater flexibility in creating specific state policies, particularly with respect to school accountability systems, identification of the lowest performing schools, interventions that address the lowest performing schools, and educator evaluations (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2016). Particularly pertinent to this study are two changes that affect the distribution of principals and principal turnover. First, while prior federal policies focused on the removal of principals of low-performing schools as part of school turnaround efforts (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2013), ESSA allows states to develop their own policies regarding the leadership of such schools. Second, ESSA grants greater flexibility in designing principal evaluations that can potentially influence the decisions of individuals about the schools they choose to lead (Fuller, Hollingworth, & Liu, 2015).

Funding Opportunities

States can expend ESSA funds in a number of different ways, four of which are relevant to this study. First, states can spend Title II funds to improve PPPs (Herman et al., 2016). Theoretically, expending such funds could improve the overall effectiveness of the graduates if such programs increase the supply of effective leaders. This, in turn, could decrease the degree of inequity in the distribution of effective leaders (Fuller, Reynolds, & O’Doherty, 2016). Second, through Title I school improvement efforts, states can either replace or improve school leadership in schools identified as being in need of improvement (Herman et al., 2016). Third, under Title II, Part A (Supporting Effective Instruction), states can target funds on efforts to improve the quality of school leaders as well as “efforts to improve the recruitment, preparation, placement, support, and retention of effective principals or other school leaders in high-need schools” (Herman et al., 2016, p. 4). Fourth, states can expend funds to provide professional development (PD) to school leaders and target additional funds to leaders in high-need schools (Herman et al., 2016). In short, ESSA provides funds that states and local educational agencies can use to target the improvement of school leaders in a number of ways and specifically target leaders in high-need schools.

Requirement of Research Evidence

Importantly, ESSA also requires states to substantiate that proposed strategies, policies, and activities are research-based prior to the expenditure of federal funds (Herman et al., 2016). Therefore, if a state proposes to expend funds on principal PD, then it would be incumbent on the state to identify research that concludes principal PD is associated with some positive outcome.

States must provide research evidence from one of four tiers. According to Herman et al. (2016), these tiers include the following: Tier I, strong evidence based on research using experimental designs; Tier II, moderate evidence based on research using quasi-experimental methods; Tier III, promising evidence based on research that is correlational in nature; and Tier IV, a logical rationale based on research and the existence of current research/evaluation efforts on the strategy or activity. The actual evidentiary requirements and the sections of ESSA to which they apply are often intricate and difficult to understand (Herman et al., 2016). For the purposes of this article, the most relevant aspects of the requirement about evidence is that any strategies or activities included in the School Improvement section of ESSA must include evidence from Tiers I through III while some, but not all, programs and components of programs require at least some evidence from any tier, including Tier IV.

ESSA, then, relates to the inequitable distribution of educators in multiple ways. First, ESSA requires states to generate, analyze, and report data on the inequitable distribution of teachers. Second, ESSA provides funding that states and districts can use to prepare, recruit, retain school leaders as well as provide mentoring, coaching, and PD to principals. Importantly, ESSA specifically includes school leaders in the text of the law, underscoring the importance of addressing leadership issues. Finally, ESSA requires states and districts to, in some cases, provide research-based evidence that supports the expenditures of funds. The information in this study would assist states and districts in all three of these areas.

Review of the Literature on Access to Effective Educators

Research on the root causes of inequitable access to effective teachers reveals highly diverse yet interconnected barriers, constraints, and preferences. We focus on three mechanisms through which the inequitable distribution of teachers arises: hiring of teachers, teacher capacity building efforts, and managing teacher turnover. A variety of root causes influence these three mechanisms, including the personal preferences of individuals for employment in particular settings, the behaviors of principals, and school contextual factors that influence the behavior of principals. Furthermore, district structural factors influence the behavior of principals with respect to teachers employed in their schools as well as with respect to decisions about their own employment status, including the school in which they choose to work.

In Figure 1, we present a simple theoretical conceptualization of the relationships between and among root causes (e.g., school contextual factors, district processes, principal behaviors, teacher behaviors), a particular mechanism, and the outcome of the inequitable distribution of teachers. We posit that many of the root causes, school contexts, and district processes are highly interrelated and the influence exerted by these factors is likely bidirectional. Furthermore, our simplified figure does not fully capture the myriad and complex array of different factors that likely influence each mechanism. Finally, we note that one valid criticism of Figure 1 is the factors preceding the teacher root causes could also be a mechanism for which there are root causes. We choose to focus only on the root causes that are associated with our three mechanisms that we identify through gray shading in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Theoretical conceptualization of relationship between root causes, mechanism, and distribution of teachers.

Mechanism 1: Hiring of Teachers

High-need schools tend to hire less experienced and less qualified teachers (Donaldson, 2013; Papay & Kraft, 2016). Numerous factors influence this outcome, including the personal preferences of teachers (Cannata, 2010; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010), differences in the characteristics of schools (Grissom, 2011; Ladd, 2011), differences in the characteristics of students (Boyd et al., 2005a; Engel et al., 2014), and wage differentials (Brewer, 1996). In addition, recent research suggests differences in the hiring autonomy granted to principals (DeArmond, Gross, & Goldhaber, 2010; Donaldson, 2013) and in human capital management systems (DeArmond et al., 2010; Donaldson, 2013; Youngs, Pogodzinski, & Galey, 2015) also influence the inequitable distribution of teachers. Finally, as we discuss below, the distribution of principals and principal turnover also affect the distribution of teachers across schools.

Inequitable distribution of principals

High-need schools tend to employ less experienced and less effective principals and these principals tend to have greater difficulty in recruiting and retaining well-qualified and effective teachers (Baker & Cooper, 2005; Grissom, 2011; Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson, 2010; Loeb et al., 2010; Loeb, Kalogrides, & Béteille, 2012). These principals are less effective at hiring for multiple reasons, including a lack of experience in hiring, inadequate skill sets to be effective at hiring teachers, and insufficient personal connections with district staff to circumvent any bureaucratic impediments (Donaldson, 2013; Harris et al., 2010; Papay & Kraft, 2016).

Moreover, the relatively low number of applicants to high-need schools combined with a high number of vacancies due to high turnover rates in the same schools makes the job of hiring effective teachers in high-need schools even more difficult (DeArmond et al., 2010). Given that principals in high-need schools may already face greater time demands than principals in other schools because of more challenging conditions (Ingle, Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011), principals in high-need schools likely have less time than principals in low-need schools to devote to teacher recruitment and hiring.

Principal turnover

High-need schools also generally have greater principal turnover (Béteille et al., 2012; Clotfelter et al., 2006; Grissom, 2011; Miller, 2010) that disadvantages such schools with respect to teacher hiring in two interrelated ways. First, principal turnover tends to result in greater teacher turnover (Béteille et al., 2012; Miller, 2010) making the hiring of effective teachers more time consuming and difficult (DeArmond et al., 2010; Engel et al., 2014; Harris et al., 2010). Second, newly hired principals are often appointed relatively late in the hiring season (DeArmond & Denice, 2014; Doyle & Locke, 2014) and, thus, are often unable to effectively participate in the recruitment and selection of teachers early in the hiring season which, in turn, leads to the hiring of less effective teachers (DeArmond et al., 2010).

District processes

Many districts employ human capital management strategies that hinder the hiring of experienced and effective teachers in high-need schools (DeArmond et al., 2010; Donaldson, 2013; Harris et al., 2010; Liu & Johnson, 2006). For example, districts often have procedures that force high-need schools to wait until the end of the hiring season to select their teachers, leaving high-need schools with vacancies as the school year starts (Liu & Johnson, 2006). In addition, large districts often employ heavily bureaucratic and centralized hiring procedures that impede hiring for all schools, but especially for high-need schools (DeArmond et al., 2010; Donaldson, 2013; Harris et al., 2010).

Mechanism 2: Building Teacher Instructional Capacity

The ability of schools to improve teacher effectiveness also influences the distribution of teacher effectiveness (Donaldson, 2013). Indeed, effective principals improve the effectiveness of the teachers they already have at their school (Louis et al., 2010). While the manner in which principals improve teacher capacity is not entirely understood, research suggests principals enact instructional leadership practices in which teachers receive useful feedback about their classroom practices and assistance in improving those practices (Robinson et al., 2008, Seashore-Louis et al., 2010).

Inequitable distribution of principals

Less experienced principals tend to be less effective in all facets of their job (Seashore-Louis et al., 2010) and, thus, less effective in improving student outcomes (Béteille et al., 2012; Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2012; Clark, Martorell, & Rockoff, 2009; Coelli & Green, 2012). The positive relationship between principal experience and effectiveness is consistent with research on the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness (Ladd & Sorensen, 2016; Papay & Kraft, 2015) as well as the relationship between leadership experience and effectiveness in other fields (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014).

Perhaps the most important effect of having an experienced principal is the impact on teacher turnover. Principal turnover is associated with greater teacher turnover that, in turn, typically has a negative effect on student outcomes (Béteille et al., 2012; Miller, 2013). Principal experience, however, mediates this relationship (Béteille et al., 2012; Miller, 2010). Specifically, Béteille et al. (2012) found that teacher turnover is greater when the incoming principal has little or no prior principal experience than when an incoming principal has more experience as a principal. Furthermore, there is some evidence that more effective principals—who are also typically more experienced—lose fewer effective teachers (Branch et al., 2012) and are more likely to remove ineffective teachers (Portin, Schneider, DeArmond, & Gundlach, 2003). Furthermore, this ability of more experienced principals to retain experienced and effective teachers increases the ability of the school to provide effective mentoring and coaching to novice teachers and, thus, increase their effectiveness more rapidly than in other schools (Kraft & Papay, 2014).

Principal turnover

Principal turnover—especially rapid turnover—makes teacher capacity building incredibly difficult. For example, from their literature review and own empirical work, Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) concluded:

Schools experiencing exceptionally rapid principal turnover, for example, are often reported to suffer from lack of shared purpose, cynicism among staff about principal commitment, and an inability to maintain a school-improvement focus long enough to actually accomplish any meaningful change (p. 166).

Moreover, the rapid turnover of principals that often occurs in high-need schools creates teacher distrust of school leaders and serious resistance to any change efforts instituted by a principal (Fink & Brayman, 2006). Indeed, teachers in such schools often learn to disregard improvement efforts because they are well aware that a new principal is just around the corner (Hargreaves, Moore, Fink, Brayman, & White, 2003). Under such conditions, Fink and Brayman (2006) argue that, “the kind of leadership required for long-term, sustained enhancement of learning for all students will remain cruelly elusive” (p. 86).

District processes

With respect to building teacher capacity through PD, Donaldson (2013) found that, in some districts, central office personnel rather than principals were selecting the PD for teachers, which reduced the efficacy of the teacher PD. Dysfunctional district processes also increase principal turnover that, in turn, negatively affects the building of teacher capacity in a school. Some districts, for example, continue to employ principal rotation strategies that force relatively rapid turnover (Macmillan, 2000; Mascall & Leithwood, 2010).

Mechanism 3: Managing Teacher Turnover

While other factors influence the inequitable distribution of teachers, teacher turnover appears to be the primary mechanism that causes a shortage of well-qualified and effective teachers in a school (Clotfelter et al., 2006; Simon & Johnson, 2015). This is particularly true in high-need schools that can experience annual turnover rates of 20% or greater (Goldring, Taie, & Riddles, 2014; Simon & Johnson, 2015) and 5-year turnover rates that can exceed 50% (Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009). Historically, researchers have focused on student-, teacher-, and school characteristics in explaining high rates of turnover. A growing consensus, however, has emerged that the school organization in general and the leadership of the principal in particular have a strong influence on teacher turnover rates (Kraft, Marinell, & Yee, 2015; Kraft & Papay, 2014; Ladd, 2011; Simon & Johnson, 2015).

Importantly, research has found that teacher turnover negatively affects student outcomes (Hanushek, Rivkin, & Schiman, 2016; Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013). While there continues to be some debate as to whether teacher turnover always has a negative impact on student achievement or only when turnover results in a net loss of effective teachers, Hanushek et al. (2016) found that even when high-need schools have a net loss of ineffective teachers, turnover still has a negative effect on student outcomes.

Inequitable distribution of principals

Even after controlling for teacher and school characteristics, available research has found inexperienced principals are associated with greater teacher turnover relative to a newly hired principals with more experience as a principal (Béteille et al., 2012; Miller, 2010). Importantly, research has also found more experienced and more effective principals are more likely to retain effective teachers (Branch et al., 2012) and remove ineffective teachers (Portin et al., 2003). Thus, experienced and effective principals reduce overall teacher turnover and positively influence the effectiveness of retained teachers.

The positive effect that experienced and effective principals have on the stability of teachers—especially effective teachers—likely stems from the ability of principals to establish positive working conditions for teachers (Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012; Kraft et al., 2015; Kraft & Papay, 2014; Ladd, 2011; Simon & Johnson, 2015). Empirical research, in fact, suggests principal experience and effectiveness strongly and positively influence teacher perceptions of working conditions (Grissom, 2011; Simon & Johnson, 2015).

Principal turnover

Principal turnover is associated with increased teacher turnover (Béteille et al., 2012; Miller, 2010) and is much greater in high-need schools than in other schools (Branch et al., 2009; DeAngelis & White, 2011; Fuller & Young, 2009). For example, Branch et al. (2009) found that high-need schools were 50% less likely than other schools to have the same principal over a 6-year time span. Unfortunately, we do not yet fully understand the underlying reasons why principal turnover appears to cause teacher turnover.

District processes

The decisions—and failure to make decisions—by school districts certainly influence teacher turnover through the distribution of principals and principal turnover (Seashore-Louis et al., 2010). For example, some districts adopt performance targets and accountability systems that deter experienced and effective applicants from applying for positions as principals in high-need schools (Winter & Morgenthal, 2002) and influence principals to leave such schools (Fuller, Hollingworth, & Young, 2015). Furthermore, few states and districts appear to have any concerted, systematic plans that create incentives for individuals to apply to, accept positions in, or remain a leader in high-need schools (Clifford, 2010). Moreover, districts often create working conditions for principals that disproportionately influence leaders of high-need schools to leave their leadership positions (Fuller, Hollingworth, & Young, 2015). Finally, many districts continue the practice of regularly rotating principals, thus intentionally creating greater principal turnover (Macmillan, 2000; Mascall & Leithwood, 2010).

Summary of Three Mechanisms

In sum, research supports the notion that a series of interrelated mechanisms, processes, and contextual factors create an inequitable distribution of teachers. Importantly, the inequitable distribution of principals and greater principal turnover—especially in high-need schools—negatively affects efforts to improve the degree of equity in access to effective teachers.

Data Sources

In July 2014, the USDoE announced the Excellent Educators for All initiative that required each state to create a plan that ensures “poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.”³ To understand the role of leadership for improving access to effective educators in each state plan, we reviewed all of the plans that appear on the USDoE Website.⁴ This included 50 state documents, as well as the submissions from Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. In the Findings section, we refer to 52 state plans.

Method

To develop the open coding structure for the qualitative analysis of the state equity plans (Yin, 2011), we conducted a comprehensive and detailed review of the literature using scholarly databases and well-regarded journals in the fields of educational leadership and policy. We searched for articles using Google Scholar and SAGE journal search. We focused on peer-reviewed journal articles, particularly those in highly respected journals such as Educational Administration Quarterly and the American Educational Research Association journals. We also selected a few articles from organizations such as RAND and the National Bureau of Economic Research given the high relevance of the articles to our topic and the reputation of both the organizations and selected authors for producing high-quality studies. In addition, we selected a few American Educational Research Association and University Council for Educational Administration conference papers or unpublished working papers from authors who had also authored peer-reviewed articles on the same topic. We initially searched for articles using the following terms: distribution of teachers/educators, access to teachers/educators, assignment of teachers/educators. Based on this initial review, we then searched for articles using the terms teacher attrition/turnover and educator attrition/turnover. For both searches, we also replaced the term educator with administrator, principal, leader, and school leader.

The two primary authors completed this exercise independently and created lists of categories and the third author then reviewed the two lists and research literature. All authors collaboratively agreed on 39 categories relevant to factors associated with, and policies targeting access to, effective teachers and leaders (see the appendix). The first two authors reviewed the same two states by recording whether a state plan mentioned a category, included their state’s quantitative data about that category, cited research about the category, and proposed a solution related to that category. Coding was binary (yes = 1/no = 0) in that each author determined a state either did or did not do the above four actions. The two authors then compared their coding as a check on their interrater reliability. Once interrater reliability was established, each of the first two authors then employed the above coding approach to review 25 state plans. The third author checked the accuracy of the other authors.

We used descriptive statistics to calculate the number and percentage of states that we identified as having completed each of the aforementioned four tasks. We then identified states that mentioned both a particular category (e.g., teacher turnover) and the distribution of principals or both a particular category and principal turnover. Once we identified these states, we reanalyzed the state plans to determine whether the state plans either explicitly or implicitly connected the category to either the distribution of principals or principal turnover.

Findings

We divide our findings into three subsections that parallel our discussion of the three mechanisms that influence school-level teacher effectiveness: hiring of teachers, improving teacher capacity, and retaining teachers. Within each of these sections, we examine the degree to which states made explicit the connections between a specific mechanism and both the distribution of principals and principal turnover.

Findings for Mechanism 1: Hiring of Teachers

Almost 64% of states identified teacher hiring as a root cause or potential solution with the majority of these states referencing human capital management systems. The importance of such efforts was certainly not lost on the authors of the state plans. For example, the Connecticut Department of Education (2015) stated, “Principals in high-poverty and high-minority schools must refine their talent management and human capital strategies to retain teachers, attract top talent and effectively navigate their district’s hiring process” (p. 25). Such strategies may increase access to effective teachers in high-need schools by improving the quality of recruits through early hiring strategies (Donaldson, 2013; Papay & Kraft, 2016), reducing teacher turnover by improving the match between teachers and schools (DeArmond et al., 2010; Donaldson, 2013), and providing greater autonomy to principals to hire their own teachers (Donaldson, 2013; Harris et al., 2010). There is, in fact, “evidence that many school leaders can distinguish highly effective teachers . . . during the hiring process” (Loeb et al., 2012, p. 272) and early hiring increases the quality and retention of effective teachers (Papay & Kraft, 2016). We believe current research in this area would meet Tier I through III evidence standards under ESSA.

Distribution of principals

Almost 27% of states mentioned both improved teacher hiring and the inequitable distribution of principals in their plan. However, only 11.5% of states made any type of actual connection between the distribution of principals and teacher hiring. As noted above, research suggests the inequitable distribution of principals influences the effectiveness of teacher hiring with high-need schools being disadvantaged in the process (Liu & Johnson, 2006), even after efforts to reform district hiring practices (Engel & Cannata, 2015).

Principal turnover

Nearly 39% of states mentioned both improved teacher hiring and principal turnover, but only 5.8% of states actually connected the two issues in any meaningful way. While we could not identify research that directly connects principal turnover with ineffective teacher hiring, our review of the research describes how turnover could affect hiring. Furthermore, schools with greater principal turnover also have greater teacher turnover rates (Béteille et al., 2012) and are most affected by the late hiring of teachers (Papay & Kraft, 2016).

Findings for Mechanism 2: Building Teacher Instructional Capacity

All 52 states mentioned at least one strategy to improve the capacity of teachers to deliver effective instruction and improve student outcomes. Furthermore, states mentioned multiple leadership strategies and behaviors associated with the development of teacher capacity. We focus on five of these strategies—two that are enacted by principals (instructional leadership and teacher evaluations) and three that target the building of teacher capacity through improvements in principal effectiveness (principal evaluations, principal professional learning, and the improvement of PPPs).

Instructional leadership

Kraft and Gilmour (2016) note that instructional leadership is defined in numerous ways, but is generally considered to include, “staff development, curriculum development and coherence, student assessment and analysis, and evaluation and individualized feedback” (p. 716). As such, we include the coaching of teachers as one dimension of instructional leadership although some researchers consider them distinct from one another. Nearly 85% of states mentioned instructional leadership in some capacity and slightly less than 60% included instructional leadership as a solution to address access to effective educators. There appears to be some evidence that improving the instructional leadership abilities of principals should translate to principals becoming more effective at building the capacity of teachers to instruct students (Neumerski, 2013; Robinson et al., 2008). Specific to coaching, there is also evidence that such efforts can improve the instructional ability of teachers and, in turn, improve student outcomes (Allen, Pianta, Gregory, Mikami, & Lun, 2011).

Instructional leadership and distribution of principals

Assuming statewide efforts to improve the instructional leadership of all principals would be successful, such efforts could potentially decrease differences in the quality of principals across schools given that inexperienced principals would likely improve their instructional leadership abilities more rapidly than experienced principals would. However, even in the absence of any principal turnover, such efforts would be unlikely to close completely the gap in the quality of instructional leadership enacted in high-need and other schools. This is particularly true given that high-need schools have greater proportions of inexperienced and ineffective teachers and lower proportions of experienced and effective teachers who can assist in the provision of instructional leadership through teacher leadership positions. In short, even if efforts are successful in improving the instructional leadership of principals in high-need schools, such principals have more teachers in need of effective instructional leadership and fewer experienced teachers to help deliver and support instructional leadership. Thus, in order to improve instructional leadership in high-need schools, states would likely need to provide additional PD and coaching as well as provide funding to hire additional teacher leaders or assistant principals to assist principals of high-need schools with instructional leadership activities.

Instructional leadership and principal turnover

Even if we assume strategies exist to improve the instructional leadership abilities of employed principals, the rapid turnover of principals in high-need schools may obviate any positive impacts of such improvements. This is particularly true if turnover in high-needs schools results in the hiring of less experienced and, thus, less effective principals. While one might argue that increasing the effectiveness of principals to enact instructional leadership might decrease the likelihood of principal turnover, there is no evidence that this would be the case—especially in light of all of the other incentives for principals to leave high-need schools.

Teacher evaluation

Three-quarters of states mentioned the importance of teacher evaluation to improve the capacity of teachers, while slightly more than 42% included teacher evaluation as a strategy to improve access to effective teachers. While research in this area is limited and new teacher evaluation systems are in their infancy, there are indications such efforts may have positive effects on teacher effectiveness through the improvement of teacher performance (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016) and through both the retention of effective teachers and attrition of less effective teachers (Dee & Wyckoff, 2015). The impact on retention, however, appears to vary across sites; thus, the overall effect is unclear at this time (Robertson-Kraft & Zhang, 2016). Although the research base on teacher evaluation systems is thin, extant research likely meets the Tiers I through III standards under ESSA and certainly the Tier IV standard necessary to expend funds under ESSA. We caution states, however, that the details of such systems are extremely important and the mere existence of a teacher evaluation system does not, in and of itself, improve teaching or increase teacher retention.

Teacher evaluation systems and the distribution of principals

No state connected the distribution of principals with the strategy of improving teacher evaluations. States also did not examine how teacher evaluation systems might differentially affect high-need schools. For example, inexperienced principals in high-need schools are likely to be less effective than more experienced principals in other schools in conducting quality teacher evaluations. Hence, there may be a greater positive effect of new teacher evaluation systems in low-need schools than in high-need schools and, thus, could potentially exacerbate current inequities in the distribution of teachers.

Furthermore, since new teacher evaluation systems often require principals to perform more frequent evaluations with novice teachers (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016) and high-need schools employ greater proportions of novice teachers, we would expect high-need school principals to expend greater amounts of time on evaluations than principals in low-need schools. Since leading high-need schools is already more difficult and time-consuming (Ingle et al., 2011), expecting new teacher evaluation systems to improve teacher effectiveness in high-need schools without other policies that provide greater support to principals in high-need schools is likely to lead to either hastily conducted teacher evaluations or greater principal turnover.

Teacher evaluation systems and principal turnover

No state connected the issue of principal turnover and teacher evaluations. Principal turnover undercuts the positive effects of teacher evaluations in several ways. First, if teacher evaluations improve teacher performance through quality instructional assistance provided by the principal, any change in principals necessarily disrupts this process. While a new principal may endeavor to continue the quality assistance, the odds of this happening are arguably lower than with principal continuity. Second, if teacher evaluations improve school aggregate teacher effectiveness through the removal of ineffective teachers, then a newly hired principal would need to continue the documentation process required to terminate teachers. This assumes that the newly hired principal would accept the prior principal’s determination of poor performance and at least some research suggests this would not necessarily be the case (Cannata et al., 2016).

Principal evaluation

One-half of states mentioned principal evaluation, while almost 35% of states included the continuation or improvement of principal evaluation efforts as a strategy to improve access to effective educators. Over the past decade, all states have adopted new or modified principal evaluation systems, but there are currently no evaluations of how these new evaluation systems influence principal effectiveness, principal retention, or any other outcome associated with principals (Fuller, Hollingworth, & Liu, 2015).

While we could not identify any research that examines the relationship between principal evaluation and either the distribution of principals or principal turnover, research on the relationship between teacher evaluation and the distribution of teachers and teacher turnover suggests several primary mechanisms through which principal evaluation might affect both the distribution and turnover of principals. First, principal evaluation could improve the effectiveness of all principals and, since the inexperienced principals in high-need schools would likely benefit more than experienced principals in other schools, the enactment of principal evaluations could theoretically close the gap in principal effectiveness across schools. Second, if principal evaluation accurately identifies principal effectiveness, then principal evaluations could increase the attrition of ineffective principals and the retention of effective principals. Third, if principal evaluations accurately identify strengths and weaknesses, then states could employ principal evaluations to target principal PD, coaching, and mentoring to meet the needs of principals. In theory, this would hasten the improvement process and reduce the gap in principal effectiveness.

With respect to ESSA evidence requirements, there is clearly no Tier I through Tier III evidence that would support principal evaluation as a strategy to improve access to educators. States might be successful in meeting the Tier IV standard of evidence given the evidence that teacher evaluations appear to have some positive effect on teacher effectiveness and states could build a logical theory of action that explains how principal evaluation would improve principal effectiveness.

Principal evaluation, the distribution of principals, and principal turnover

While 30.7% of states mentioned both principal evaluation and the distribution of principals, no state made a connection between principal evaluation and improving the distribution of principals. Similarly, while 48.1% of states mentioned both principal evaluation and principal turnover, only 3.8% of states directly connected principal evaluation with decreasing principal turnover.

All of the mechanisms through which principal evaluation might influence the distribution of principals or principal turnover hinge on the assumption principal evaluation systems accurately identify principal effectiveness. In their review of all state principal evaluation plans, Fuller, Hollingworth, and Liu (2015) found all states included some measure of school-level student achievement in their principal evaluation system. Multiple recent empirical efforts conclude that measures of principal effectiveness based on school-level student outcomes do not, in fact, yield results that accurately or fairly capture principal effectiveness (Branch et al., 2012; Chiang, Lipscomb, & Gill, 2015; Grissom, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2015). Moreover, these school-level measures of achievement are correlated with student characteristics and, thus, yield biased evaluation results that unfairly label high-need schools, and their principals, as ineffective (Fuller, Hollingworth, & Liu, 2015). Some evidence suggests labelling high-need schools as low performing or failing may increase principal turnover in high-need schools (Fuller & Young, 2012; Winter & Morgenthal, 2002).

Principal professional learning

We define principal professional learning as including principal PD, coaching of principals, and mentoring of principals. Slightly more than 65% of states mentioned some form of principal professional learning as a solution to a root cause. While 46% of states mentioned both principal professional learning and the distribution of principals, only 5.8% made any connection between principal professional learning and the potential impact on the distribution of principals. Similarly, while 48.1% of states mentioned both principal professional learning and principal turnover, only 9.6% made any connection between the two issues. Although there is little empirical evidence that principal PD will improve principal effectiveness or reduce principal turnover, there are some relatively high-quality studies that suggest principal professional learning efforts do hold promise (Jacob, Goddard, Miller, & Goddard, 2015; Lochmiller, 2013). Most pertinent is the finding by Jacob et al. (2015) that principal professional learning was associated with reduced teacher turnover. The same study also identified some other positive outcomes of principal professional learning related to principal practice, but found no impact on student achievement. Similarly, there is very little research on the efficacy of coaching (Huff, Preston, & Goldring, 2013; Lochmiller, 2013), but recent evidence suggests coaching holds promise for improving principal practice (Jacob et al., 2015; Lochmiller, 2013). Thus, we believe extant evidence would allow states to meet the ESSA standards for evidence required to expend funds in this area through the creation of a logical theory of action.

Principal professional learning, the distribution of principals, and principal turnover

About 8% of states documented a connection between the distribution of principals and principal professional learning, although the four states only vaguely alluded to the connection. With respect to principal turnover, about 15% of states included a connection between the principal turnover and principal professional learning although, once again, states were rather imprecise about the exact relationships.

One of the most vexing problems with relying on principal professional learning as a strategy to improve educator capacity is states and districts largely squander the significant fiscal investments required for high quality principal professional learning in high-need schools because of the high principal turnover in such schools. Even if principal professional learning strategies do improve principal practice, there is currently no evidence that such efforts will reduce the high-principal turnover in high-need schools; thus, such efforts may continue to fail to reduce the principal effectiveness gap between high-need and non-high-need schools.

Moreover, even if we assume principal professional learning has a positive effect on principal effectiveness, any statewide implementation of such efforts would simply raise the effectiveness of all principals and not substantially close the gap in principal effectiveness between high- and low-need schools unless such efforts actually reduced principal turnover. Indeed, it may be the case that other policies and strategies (resource allocation, salary distribution, and accountability policies) have a much stronger influence on principal turnover. While principal professional learning targeted at high-need schools might close the gap in principal effectiveness between high- and low-need schools, low-need schools would likely be able to afford to fund their own principal professional learning strategies. This would likely dampen the impact of targeted principal professional learning on the gap in effectiveness between high- and low-need schools.

Improvement of PPPs

States have also proposed the improvement of PPPs—either through redesign or through the adoption of accountability systems—as a strategy to improve the effectiveness of school leaders and potentially reduce principal turnover (Mascall & Leithwood, 2010). Some preliminary evidence suggests certain characteristics or approaches of selected PPPs may be associated with improved principal effectiveness as measured by improvements in student outcomes (Herman et al., 2016). The evidence, however, is inconsistent across graduates and schools, thus policy makers should be cautious when making conclusions about results. Tier I through Tier III studies do suggest improved principal preparation results in improved principal efficacy and meet the ESSA standards of evidence (Herman et al., 2016; Fuller, Young, & Baker, 2011).

PPP improvement and the distribution of principals

While about 23% of state plans mentioned both PPP improvement and the distribution of principals, only about 8% of states made a direct connection between PPPs and the distribution of principals and the connections made were vague at best. For example, without citing specific research or data from their own state, the plans implied improved PPPs would lead to better-prepared principals for all schools. This assumes three outcomes. First, graduates of improved PPPs would have relatively equal effectiveness. Second, states could increase the supply of effective principals such that every school could hire and employ an effective principal. Third, PPP graduates would be equally willing to choose to lead high-need schools as other schools. Research suggests states could not meet these three assumptions. For example, even Tier II research by RAND authors (Gates et al., 2014) found a wide range in the effectiveness of graduates from the New Leaders program. Furthermore, available research suggests no state has ever increased the supply of effective principals such that demand for effective leaders was met (Fuller et al., 2016). In addition, Fuller and Hollingworth (2014b) argue that proposed PPP accountability systems such as those mentioned in state plans would create incentives for PPPs to encourage graduates to seek employment in advantaged schools rather than high-need schools. We conclude states did not fully explore or understand the research on PPP improvement efforts and the distribution of principals.

PPP improvement and principal turnover

Nearly 31% of states mentioned both PPP improvement efforts and principal turnover. Fewer than 14% of states, however, made a direct connection between improved PPPs, more effective principals, and principal turnover. Most states argued that better prepared and more effective principals would be less likely to leave their positions. We could not identify any research that directly supports this contention. In fact, one study found that locally developed preservice PPP activities were not associated with differential rates of principal mobility or attrition (McKibben, 2013). Research on teacher effectiveness, however, does suggest that better prepared and more effective teachers are more likely to remain in the profession. Future research may, in fact, identify this same relationship for principals.

Findings for Mechanism 3: Teacher Turnover

Slightly more than 90% of states mentioned teacher turnover as one root cause of the inequitable access to teachers and nearly 31% of states proposed solutions directly addressing teacher turnover. Almost all states, then, correctly identified teacher turnover as a primary cause of the inequitable distribution of teachers. As mentioned previously, there is ample research that concludes teacher turnover is a root cause of the inequitable distribution of teachers across schools. Furthermore, there is sufficient Tier III research that concludes teacher turnover has negative effects on student outcomes. Thus, under the ESSA guidelines for research evidence, states would be able to expend funds on efforts to reduce teacher turnover.

Teacher turnover and the distribution of principals

While nearly 31% of states mentioned teacher turnover and the distribution of principals, only 5.8% of states discussed a connection between teacher turnover and the inequitable distribution of principals. While we could not identify studies that directly examined if the distribution of principals influences teacher turnover, we believe states could point to two strands of research to expend funds on efforts to address the inequitable distribution of principals under Tier IV evidence requirements. First, teacher perceptions of working conditions are strongly related to teacher turnover (Berry, Smylie, & Fuller, 2008; Burkhauser, 2016; Ladd, 2011). Second, inexperienced principals are associated with both negative teacher perceptions of working conditions (Burkhauser, 2016; Shen, Leslie, Spybrook, & Ma, 2012) and greater teacher turnover (Ladd, 2011).

Teacher and principal turnover

While nearly 50% of states mentioned both teacher and principal turnover in their plans, only about 15% of states correctly identified principal turnover as being a factor that influences teacher turnover. Extant empirical research concludes principal turnover is positively associated with teacher turnover (Béteille et al., 2012; Miller, 2010) and has a negative influence on student outcomes (Herman et al., 2016). Thus, we assert research exists under the ESSA rules of evidence to support state expenditures of funds to reduce principal turnover, particularly in high-need schools.

Conclusions

Based on our review of the plans and empirical research, we make several conclusions. First, very few states discussed the inequitable distribution of principals and principal turnover, especially with respect to how they influence access to effective teachers and leaders. Indeed, despite USDoE (2015) directions to address access to leaders and the influence leaders exert on access to teachers, most states ignored these directions. Our study makes abundantly clear that states must address the issues of the distribution of principals and principal turnover if they are going to improve access to effective educators, particularly in high-need schools.

Related to our first conclusion is our second conclusion—only three states mentioned both principal turnover is associated with teacher turnover as well as principal behaviors create the school working conditions that heavily influence teachers’ decisions to stay or leave a school. We contend states must address these two relationships if they are going to improve access to effective educators. Plans that ignore such important school leadership issues are doomed to be less than completely successful given the empirical research discussed in this study.

Third, USDoE and states need to collect and analyze leadership data to understand the distribution of principals and principal turnover. Neither USDoE nor many states could present data that illuminated these issues. In contrast, USDoE provided data on the distribution of teachers to each state to serve as the basis of the plans.

Fourth, states frequently mention solutions to improving access to effective educators that are unsupported by research under the ESSA rules of evidence. For example, 50% of states proposed principal evaluation as a solution to address the inequitable access to effective educators despite the lack of Tier I through Tier III research evidence that establishes principal evaluation will influence such access. Alternatively, we also found states infrequently mentioned research-based solutions to improving access to effective educators. For example, only about 6% of states proposed the adoption of an equitable school finance system to ensure all schools had equitable access to effective educators. Research about the relationship between inequitable access to fiscal resources and the inequitable access to educators is much stronger than for principal PD, coaching of principals, principal pay for performance, or some of the other solutions mentioned by states.

Recommendations

Our first recommendation is for the USDoE to create a grant competition for states to build robust school leader data systems. Because this will take multiple years to develop and implement, we also recommend the Civil Rights data collections require schools to provide information on, at a minimum, the leadership experience of principals and the frequency of leadership turnover at the school level over a 3- and 5-year period.

Second, we recommend states collect data on school leaders. Minimally, states should collect data on the years of leadership experience and school leader employment at the school and district levels. With this data, states could examine the distribution of inexperienced principals as well as principal turnover, attrition, and mobility patterns by school characteristics.

Our third recommendation is that states should avail themselves of the opportunity afforded by ESSA to create new principal evaluation systems and remove school-level measures of student achievement as a component in such systems. Research has shown there is no known statistical method to identify the independent effect of principals on student achievement—including measures of student growth such as value-added measures or student growth percentiles (Chiang et al., 2015; Fuller & Hollingworth, 2014a; Grissom et al., 2015). At the very least, states should dramatically reduce the weights associated with student outcomes contained in current principal evaluation systems.

Fourth, we recommend states invite teachers and leaders to work collaboratively on developing revised teacher and principal evaluation systems based on emerging research on these topics. Stakeholders must have input into the development of plans to ensure participants will embrace the implementation of such systems. This is particularly true for principals given research has consistently shown principals can easily subvert intended state policies.

Finally, we recommend states engage researchers in the development of these state plans. Our review of the listed participants in state plans suggests states that involved researchers developed the most comprehensive and research-based plans. In our estimation, such plans held the most promise for successfully improving access to effective educators.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

A. Pendola

Notes

Author Biographies

Edward J. Fuller is an associate professor at the Pennsylvania State University in the Educational Leadership Program within the Education Policy Studies Department and also serves as the director for the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy Analysis and associate director for Policy at the University Council for Educational Administration.

Liz Hollingworth is an associate professor at the University of Iowa in the Department of Educational Policy and Leadership Studies where she also serves as program coordinator.

Andrew Pendola is a graduate student in the Education Policy Studies Department at the Pennsylvania State University.

References

Allen

J. P.

Pianta

R. C.

Gregory

Mikami

A. Y.

Lun

(2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333, 1034-1037.

Allensworth

Ponisciak

Mazzeo

(2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago public schools (Consortium on Chicago School Research). Retrieved from https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/CCSR_Teacher_Mobility.pdf

Baker

B. D.

Cooper

B. S.

(2005). Do principals with stronger academic backgrounds hire better teachers? Policy implications for improving high-poverty schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 449-479.

Berry

Smylie

Fuller

(2008). Understanding teacher working conditions: A review and look to the future. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality.

Béteille

Kalogrides

Loeb

(2012). Stepping stones: Principal career paths and school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41, 904-919.

Boyd

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2005a). Explaining the short careers of high-achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. American Economic Review, 95, 166-171.

Boyd

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2005b). The draw of home: How teachers’ preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 113-132.

Branch

Hanushek

Rivkin

(2009). Estimating principal effectiveness (Working Paper 32; National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509685

Branch

G. F.

Hanushek

E. A.

Rivkin

S. G.

(2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals (No. w17803). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

10.

Branch

G. F.

Hanushek

E. A.

Rivkin

S. G.

(2013). School leaders matter. Education Next, 13(1). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/school-leaders-matter/

11.

Brewer

D. J.

(1996). Career paths and quit decisions: Evidence from teaching. Journal of Labor Economics, 14, 313-339.

12.

Burkhauser

(2016). How much do school principals matter when it comes to teacher working conditions? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 126-145. doi:10.3102/0162373716668028

13.

Cannata

(2010). Understanding the teacher job search process: Espoused preferences and preferences in use. Teachers College Record, 112, 2889-2934.

14.

Cannata

Rubin

Goldring

Grissom

J. A.

Neumerski

Drake

Schuermann

(2016). Using teacher effectiveness data for information rich hiring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53, 180-222.

15.

Chiang

Lipscomb

Gill

(2015). Is school value added indicative of principal quality? Retrieved from https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiS9-jwhePTAhWMOI8KHTrmCWUQFgglMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.eric.ed.gov%2Ffulltext%2FED566133.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGvf9Se5qTI5nHb9L_TBc_-4UyueQ&sig2=9AcaYSWAQLoKN7psOIp6fw

16.

Clark

Martorell

Rockoff

(2009). School principals and school performance (Working Paper 38). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509693

17.

Clifford

(2010). Hiring quality school leaders: Challenges and emerging practices. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Hiring_Quality_School_Leaders_0.pdf

18.

Clotfelter

Ladd

H. F.

Vigdor

Wheeler

(2006). High-poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. North California Law Review, 85, 1345-1379.

19.

Coelli

Green

D. A.

(2012). Leadership effects: School principals and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 31, 92-109.

20.

Connecticut Department of Education. (2015). State equity plan. Hartford, CT: Author.

21.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2016). Frequently asked questions regarding implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Washington, DC: Author.

22.

Day

D. V.

Fleenor

J. W.

Atwater

L. E.

Sturm

R. E.

McKee

R. A.

(2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 63-82.

23.

DeAngelis

K. J.

White

B. R.

(2011). Principal turnover in Illinois public schools, 2001-2008 (Vol. IERC 2011). Carbondale: Illinois Education Research Council.

24.

DeArmond

Denice

(2014). How do school districts recruit and select principals? Evidence from Washington State. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance and Policy Conference, Denver, CO.

25.

DeArmond

Gross

Goldhaber

(2010). Is it better to be good or lucky? Decentralized teacher selection in 10 elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 322-362.

26.

Dee

T. S.

Wyckoff

(2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34, 267-297.

27.

Dhuey

Smith

(2014). How important are school principals in the production of student achievement? Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 47, 634-663.

28.

Donaldson

M. L.

(2013). Principals’ approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness constraints and opportunities in hiring, assigning, evaluating, and developing teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 838-882.

29.

Doyle

Locke

(2014). Lacking leaders: The challenges of principal recruitment, selection, and placement. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

30.

Engel

Cannata

(2015). Localism and teacher labor markets: How geography and decision making may contribute to inequality. Peabody Journal of Education, 90, 84-92.

31.

Engel

Jacob

Curran

(2014). New evidence on teacher labor supply. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 36-72.

32.

Fink

Brayman

(2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 62-89.

33.

Fuller

E. J.

Hollingworth

(2014a). A bridge too far? Challenges in evaluating principal effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 466-499.

34.

Fuller

E. J.

Hollingworth

(2014b). Evaluating principal-preparation programs based on placement rates. Journal of Research on Leadership Preparation, 11, 237-271.

35.

Fuller

E. J.

Hollingworth

Liu

(2015). Fifty-state review of principal evaluation policies. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10, 164-195.

36.

Fuller

E. J.

Hollingworth

Young

M. D.

(2015). Working conditions and retention of principals in small and mid-sized urban districts. In Sutherland

I. E.

Sanzo

K. L.

Scribner

J. P.

(Eds.), Leading small and mid-sized urban school districts (Vol. 22, pp. 41-64). Bingley, England: Emerald.

37.

Fuller

E. J.

Reynolds

O’Doherty

(2016). Recruitment, selection, and placement of educational leadership students. In Crow

Young

(Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (pp. 77-117). New York, NY: Routledge.

38.

Fuller

E. J.

Young

M. D.

(2009). Tenure and retention of newly hired principals in Texas. Austin: University Council for Educational Administration, Department of Educational Administration, University of Texas at Austin.

39.

Fuller

E. J.

Young

M. D.

(2012, April). A quantitative and qualitative examination of principal turnover. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.

40.

Fuller

Young

Baker

B. D.

(2011). Do principal preparation programs influence student achievement through the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal? An exploratory analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 173-216.

41.

Gates

S. M.

Hamilton

L. S.

Martorell

Burkhauser

Heaton

Pierson

. . . Gu

(2014). Preparing principals to raise student achievement: Implementation and effects of the New Leaders Program in ten districts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

42.

Gates

Ringel

Santibañez

Chung

(2003). Who is leading our schools? An overview of school administrator and their careers. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.

43.

Goldhaber

Lavery

Theobald

(2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44, 293-307.

44.

Goldring

Taie

Riddles

(2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2012-13 Teacher Follow-Up Survey. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014077.pdf

45.

Grissom

J. A.

(2011). Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? Linking principal effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff environments. Teachers College Record, 113, 2552-2585.

46.

Grissom

J. A.

Kalogrides

Loeb

(2015). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 3-28.

47.

Hanushek

E. A.

Rivkin

S. G.

(2010). The quality and distribution of teachers under the No Child Left Behind Act. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 133-150.

48.

Hanushek

E. A.

Rivkin

S. G.

Schiman

J. C.

(2016). Dynamic effects of teacher turnover on the quality of instruction (No. w22472). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

49.

Hargreaves

Moore

Fink

Brayman

White

(2003). Succeeding leaders? A study of principal rotation and succession. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Principals’ Council.

50.

Harris

D. N.

Rutledge

S. A.

Ingle

W. K.

Thompson

C. C.

(2010). Mix and match: What principals really look for when hiring teachers. Education, 5, 228-246.

51.

Herman

Gates

S. M.

Arifkhanova

Bega

Chavez-Herrerias

E. R.

Han

. . .Wrabel

(2016). School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Evidence review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

52.

Huff

Preston

Goldring

(2013). Implementation of a coaching program for school principals evaluating coaches’ strategies and the results. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41, 504-526.

53.

Ingle

Rutledge

Bishop

(2011). Context matters: Principals’ sensemaking of teacher hiring and on-the-job performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 579-610.

54.

Isenberg

Max

Gleason

Potamites

Santillano

Hock

Hansen

(2013). Access to effective teaching for disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

55.

Jacob

Goddard

Kim

Miller

Goddard

(2015). Exploring the causal impact of the McREL Balanced Leadership Program on leadership, principal efficacy, instructional climate, educator turnover, and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 314-332.

56.

Johnson

S. M.

Kraft

M. A.

Papay

J. P.

(2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1-39.

57.

Kalogrides

Loeb

(2013). Different teachers, different peers: The magnitude of student sorting within schools. Educational Researcher, 42, 304-316.

58.

Kraft

M. A.

Gilmour

A. F.

(2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 711-753.

59.

Kraft

M. A.

Marinell

W. H.

Yee

(2015). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1411-1449.

60.

Kraft

M. A.

Papay

J. P.

(2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 476-500.

61.

Ladd

H. F.

(2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions how predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 235-261.

62.

Ladd

H. F.

Sorensen

L. C.

(2016). Returns to teacher experience: Student achievement and motivation in middle school. Education Finance and Policy, 12, 241-279.

63.

Leithwood

Seashore Louis

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

64.

Liu

Johnson

S. M.

(2006). New teachers’ experiences of hiring: Late, rushed, and information-poor. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 324-360.

65.

Lochmiller

C. R.

(2013). Leadership coaching in an induction program for novice principals: A 3-year study. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 9, 59-84.

66.

Loeb

Kalogrides

Béteille

(2012). Effective schools: Teacher hiring, assignment, development, and retention. Education Finance and Policy, 7, 269-304.

67.

Loeb

Kalogrides

Horng

E. L.

(2010). Principal preferences and the uneven distribution of principals across schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 205-229.

68.

Louis

K. S.

Leithwood

Wahlstrom

K. L.

Anderson

S. E.

Michlin

Mascall

(2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf

69.

Macmillan

(2000). Leadership succession, cultures of teaching and educational change. In Bascia

Hargreaves

(Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, leading and the realities of reform (pp. 52-71). London, England: Routledge/Falmer.

70.

Mascall

Leithwood

(2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing principal turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 367-383.

71.

McKibben

(2013). Do local-level principal preparation programs prevent principal turnover? Public Purpose, 11, 69-85.

72.

Miller

(2010). The causes and consequences of principal turnover. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Center for Economic Policy Studies.

73.

Miller

(2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 36, 60-72.

74.

Neumerski

C. M.

(2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review what do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 310-347.

75.

Papa

Lankford

Wyckoff

(2002). The attributes and career paths of principals: Implications for improving policy. Albany, NY: RAND Corporation.

76.

Papay

J. P.

Kraft

M. A.

(2015). Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market: Methodological challenges and new evidence on long-term career improvement. Journal of Public Economics, 130, 105-119.

77.

Papay

J. P.

Kraft

M. A.

(2016). The productivity costs of inefficient hiring practices: Evidence from late teacher hiring. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35, 791-817.

78.

Partee

G. L.

(2014). Attaining equitable distribution of effective teachers in public schools. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

79.

Portin

Schneider

DeArmond

Gundlach

(2003). Making sense of leading schools: A study of the school principalship. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Schools.

80.

Robertson-Kraft

Zhang

R. S.

(2016). Keeping great teachers: A case study on the impact and implementation of a pilot teacher evaluation system. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0895904816637685

81.

Robinson

V. M.

Lloyd

C. A.

Rowe

K. J.

(2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635-674.

82.

Rockoff

J. E.

(2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94, 247-252.

83.

Ronfeldt

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 4-36.

84.

Shen

Leslie

J. M.

Spybrook

J. K.

(2012). Are principal background and school processes related to teacher job satisfaction? A multilevel study using schools and staffing survey 2003-04. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 200-230.

85.

Simon

N. S.

Johnson

S. M.

(2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-36.

86.

Supovitz

Sirinides

May

. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 31-56.

87.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014, November 17). Ensuring equitable access to excellent educators [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/resources.html

88.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). State plans to ensure access to excellent educators: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/equitable/eafaq2015.pdf

89.

Winter

P. A.

Morgenthal

J. R.

(2002). Principal recruitment in a reform environment: Effects of school achievement and school level on applicant attraction to the job. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 319-340.

90.

Yin

R. K.

(2011). Qualitative research from start to finish (1st ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

91.

Youngs

Pogodzinski

Galey

(2015). How labor management relations and human resource policies affect the process of teacher assignment in urban school districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51, 214-246.