The Impetus for Principal Preparation Reform

The role of an elementary school principal is as critical as it is challenging. Principals arrive at school well before the first bell rings and spend their days doing everything from greeting children as they get off the bus, to meeting with parents, scheduling staff, and managing finances. In recent years, there has been an increased focus on the role of principals as instructional leaders, which can involve choosing curricula and assessments as well as supporting and evaluating teachers.¹ With these responsibilities, principals establish the school culture and determine the quality of staff who interact directly with children. It should come as no surprise that principals have a sizeable impact on student achievement.²

In 2005, Arthur Levine, formerly of Columbia University’s Teachers College, released a damning report on the state of the nation’s principal preparation programs. His review found that they “suffered from curricular disarray, low admissions and graduation standards, weak faculty with no experience in schools, inadequate clinical instruction, inappropriate degree structures, and a lack of research-based elements.”³ In response, the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) convened a commission to review the quality of the state’s principal preparation programs. The commission released School Leader Preparation: A Blueprint for Change in 2006, affirming that Levine’s findings held true in Illinois.⁴ As one Illinois higher education official explained, “Historically, some principal prep programs were cash cows for universities. Many students who enrolled weren’t interested in actually becoming principals; they were interested in moving up the salary scale.”⁵

At the time, state policymakers were concerned with achievement disparities based on a student’s race, ethnicity, and family income. On the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 29 percent of Illinois fourth graders scored “proficient or above” for reading. Disaggregated scores showed that 65 percent of African American students and 56 percent of Latinx students scored “below basic.” There was a 40-point disparity between low-income students and their peers, making Illinois’s reading achievement gap one of the largest in the country.⁶

Stakeholders saw principal preparation as a lever for improving student outcomes. In 2010, the state passed legislation making significant changes to its preparation and licensure policies in an effort to better prepare principals “to be highly effective in leadership roles to improve teaching and learning and increase academic achievement and the development of all students.”⁷ Illinois’s reforms were ambitious, sunsetting all programs and requiring them to reapply for approval from the state board of education (ISBE) under new standards. Programs would now be expected to prepare principals to lead all grade levels and all students—including preschoolers.⁸

This paper explores Illinois’s shift from a general administrative license, called a “Type 75” license, to a “PK–12 Principal Endorsement.” It includes both a history of the reform efforts and a look at how implementation has fared nearly a decade after the legislation was signed into law. It also offers lessons and recommendations for other states looking to ensure principals are equipped to lead pre-K and early grade classrooms.