Executive Summary: 2025 Minnesota Principals Survey (MnPS)
Published March 31, 2026
Acknowledgements | Authors | How to cite this report | Download a PDF of this report
Main MnPS 2025 page | Explore 2025 data via Tableau
Key takeaways
Taken together, these themes highlight the increasing complexity of school leadership and the competing demands on leaders' time and capacity:
- School leaders (still) don't have time for instructional leadership.
- Student mental health remains a top challenge.
- Disruptive behavior is interfering with learning, compromising safety in "extreme" cases.
- Chronic absenteeism is attributed to mental health, student/family beliefs.
- Leaders face challenges partnering with parents and caregivers.
- The READ Act is burdensome—but impactful.
- Principals feel that schools are "doing more with less."
- ...and yet, they continue to find satisfaction in their jobs.
In this report, we use "principals" and "school leaders" interchangeably, and include assistant and associate principals when using these terms.
Introduction
Over 2,400 school leaders in Minnesota were invited to take the third biennial Minnesota Principals Survey (MnPS) in November 2025. The MnPS seeks to elevate the voices of Minnesota principals, assistant principals, and charter school leaders in state and local decisions bearing on PreK-12 education. The survey was originally developed in 2021 by researchers at the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI) at the University of Minnesota in collaboration with a diverse group of educators and partners. It has now been administered three times, in 2021, 2023, and 2025.
The 2025 MnPS included questions on the following topics:
- Career Information
- Job Satisfaction
- Preparation and Licensure
- Professional Development
- Working Conditions
- Leadership Self-Efficacy and Needed Supports
- Culturally Responsive School Leadership
- Impact of Recent Legislation
- Perceptions of Local Support
- Challenges & Successes with Student Behavior
- Chronic Absenteeism
Individuals working as a principal, assistant or associate principal, director, co-director, or in some other school-level leadership role in a Minnesota publicly-funded elementary, middle, and/or secondary school are eligible to take the MnPS. In 2025, 1,130 of 2,461 eligible school leaders (46%) took the 2025 MnPS, representing an increase in response rates from 2021 (34%) and 2023 (41%) (see Figure 1).
Among 2025 respondents:
- 49% were from Greater Minnesota and 51% were from the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area.
- 49% worked in elementary schools, 47% worked in secondary schools, and 2% worked in other kinds of schools (e.g., K-12 schools).
- 93% worked in district schools and 7% worked in charter schools.
- 68% were principals, directors, or co-directors; 29% were assistant or associate principals; and 3% had other school-level leadership roles.
- 89% were White, 10% were Black, Indigenous, or people of color (BIPOC), and 2% preferred not to disclose their racial/ethnic identity.
Note: School-level information was unknown for 2% of respondents; as such, percentages may not add to 100% for all school-level variables.
Figures 1 and 2. MnPS response rates, by year and by Minnesota Service Cooperative / region
School leaders (still) don't have time for instructional leadership
Both closed- and open-ended survey responses tell a consistent story across all three MnPS administrations: school leaders in Minnesota are overwhelmed by what they cite as increasing demands of the job—from fulfilling new legislative requirements, to supporting students with complex mental health needs, to finding qualified candidates for open positions. This results in very limited time for instructional leadership—what many leaders think of as their "primary responsibility."
As was the case in both 2021 and 2023, principals continue to report spending far less time than they would like on instructional tasks (e.g., curriculum, instruction, assessment, educator professional development) and far more of their time on internal administrative tasks (e.g., human resource/personnel issues, scheduling, regulations, reports, budget) (see Figure 3). Yet, the majority of principals (71%) agree that their primary role as an administrator is to be an instructional leader. Interestingly, this percentage has fallen in recent years, from 79% in 2021 and 77% in 2023, suggesting that fewer school leaders are viewing themselves as instructional leaders.
School leaders report engaging in the development of culturally responsive teachers less frequently, with only 39% doing so on a monthly or more frequent basis in 2025, compared to 41% in 2023 and 50% in 2021 (see Figure 4). In addition to administrative tasks, student behavior takes up a lot of leaders' time: on average, principals report spending an average of 43% of their workday—or 26 minutes out of every hour—responding to challenging student behavior.
"I would like to be an instructional leader. This is getting harder to do when most of my time is spent in meetings, getting coverage for classrooms, underqualified staff, and higher needs for students."
"Being a principal in today's world is significantly different than when I started 16 years ago and the challenges for leaders are enormous. We are supposed to be instructional leaders and we spend a majority of [our] time on significant disciplinary issues and parent complaints that never stop."
"Currently, most of my day is addressing student behavior. I want to be an instructional leader but each year that I serve as an administrator, that goal seems further and further out of reach."
"I worry this role is not sustainable. Navigating such diverse beliefs, expectations, statutes and policy, community expectations, and the political impact at both local and national levels is heavy. The financial impact and shortfalls are crushing districts. I'd love to say I'm an instructional leader more often than I am, but I'm not. I'm busy keeping a building safe, keeping staff culture and morale up while there's strong public opinions. The pressure and demands are real."
Figure 3. How school leaders spend their time relative to ideal, 2025
Figure 4. Percentage of respondents who report engaging in the development of culturally responsive teachers on at least a monthly basis, 2021, 2023, and 2025
Student mental health remains a top challenge
The MnPS asks school leaders to indicate their confidence to effectively carry out 49 different leadership activities "in light of your capabilities and available resources" (see Figure 5). They are then asked to indicate their single greatest challenge among any activities they rated little to no confidence or insufficient confidence. As in 2023, addressing student mental health challenges was the most frequently selected top challenge in 2025.
Furthermore:
- Nearly half (49%) of Minnesota principals report insufficient confidence in their ability to address student mental health challenges.
- Student mental health was the #1 barrier to student attendance reported by school leaders, with nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents selecting this barrier among 15 options (see Figure 9).
- Principals report needing more mental health staff and resources, mental health supports embedded in schools, and family involvement to effectively address the student mental health challenges they witness.
"We are seeing more concerns every year with mental health."
"We need to expand to HIGH HIGH levels of mental health support in schools. If we were more proactive we wouldn't have to be reactive."
"As we continue to monitor student needs and respond to the challenges they face, it has become increasingly evident that we need additional mental health supports."
Figure 5. Leadership activities posing the “single greatest challenge,” 2025
Disruptive behavior is interfering with learning, compromising safety in "extreme" cases
The 2025 MnPS included a topical "insert section" on challenges and successes with student behavior. This topic was agreed upon by the MnPS Advisory Council given the surge in challenging behaviors many school leaders had witnessed in recent years. Importantly, 97% of 2025 respondents agree or somewhat agree that "most students at my school exhibit expected behaviors most of the time"—an indication that challenging behavior is not the norm among Minnesota students.
And yet, as noted above, school leaders are spending nearly half of their time (43%) on student behavior. Below, we summarize several data points regarding challenging behavior, which we define simply as "behavior that does not meet a school's stated expectations for student behavior."
- 80% of respondents agreed that the time they spend responding to challenging student behavior interferes with their ability to carry out other leadership responsibilities, and a majority (60%) agree that challenges with student behavior represent a significant barrier to learning.
- Among 14 types of behaviors derived using the Minnesota Department of Education's Disciplinary Incident Reporting System (DIRS), disruptive, disorderly, or insubordinate conduct interfered most with teaching and learning, with 77% of leaders reporting moderate, significant, or extreme interference (see Figure 6).
- Two-thirds of respondents (68%) agree that challenging student behavior has become more prevalent over the past 3 years.
Respondents had mixed feelings about recent non-exclusionary discipline (NED) and K-3 suspension legislation, which require the use of non-exclusionary practices in response to challenging student behavior (see Figures 7 and 8). Leaders largely understood and even appreciated the intent behind the laws, and noted already practicing NED in their schools. However, many leaders noted their "hands are tied" by NED requirements and specifically the prohibition of K-3 suspension and recess detention. These leaders report insufficient staffing for restorative practices and expressed deep concern about their inability to remove students posing a safety risk and plan appropriate student supports in "extreme" cases.
Principals reported a number of ways in which they had been successful in encouraging expected behavior, including clear, consistent expectations and consequences; PBIS and positive behavior reinforcement; building relationships with students; and behavioral health support and staffing (e.g., social workers, behavior interventionists).
"There are times a student can't be in [a] learning environment because of their behavior and its impact on other students. However, I do not have employee capacity to ensure the kids stay in school AND be provided with restorative options for rebuilding relationships."
"The intent of the K-3 suspension law is good, but it's creating very unsafe situations! Many general education students have extreme behaviors, and we must keep returning them to class."
"Requiring schools to at least attempt some non-exclusionary practices prior to suspension is a net benefit for everyone."
"I am at a K-2 school. So this legislation affects our entire school. Before the legislation came into effect, we rarely had suspensions [and] only when absolutely necessary. Now it feels like our hands are tied, and we have no choice when we come upon a situation where it would be better to have the student go home and come back fresh the next day. Now, this student has to continue throughout the day while we have multiple staff members working with the student."
"[NED legislation] didn't have a significant impact on our work, as our practices were mostly in compliance with the legislation. We did review our practices with a critical lens and we have become a more restorative focused system."
Figure 6. Rank of behaviors most interfering with teaching and learning, 2025
Figures 7 and 8. Impact of non-exclusionary discipline (NED) and K-3 suspension legislation on educators and students, 2025
Chronic absenteeism is attributed to mental health, student/family beliefs
73% of school leaders say that chronic absenteeism interferes moderately, significantly, or extremely with teaching and learning at their schools, second only to disruptive, disorderly, and insubordinate conduct on a list of 14 challenging behaviors. Given recent efforts to understand and address rising rates of absenteeism in Minnesota schools, we asked school leaders to identify the top barriers to attendance they have observed.
- Student mental health was the number one barrier to attendance, with 64% of principals selecting this barrier from a list of 15 (see Figure 9).
- The second most commonly reported barrier was parents/guardians not being concerned about their children missing school (56%).
- Students not wanting to be at school was the third (45%).
- Parent/guardian mental health ranked fourth (45%).
Principals who selected students not wanting to be at school as a barrier were then asked to rank 6 reasons why students don't want to be at school. The most common first choice reason was not seeing value in going to school, with 60% of first choice votes, followed by academic struggles, with only 14% of first choice votes (see Figure 10).
Addressing chronic absenteeism was the second most-cited "greatest challenge" among MnPS respondents out of 49 leadership activities. Principals who selected chronic absenteeism as a "greatest challenge" wanted to know what best practices other schools are using to promote attendance. They also sought engaged partnerships with families and stronger involvement from external partners (e.g., the county) to meet families' needs, including enforcement of truancy laws when appropriate.
"This is out of my control. I would love to get more families involved in getting students to school, but I don't have that power to wake kids up and get them to school."
"[We need] real action at the county level when it comes to truancy. Court has to mean something to students and families."
"[We need to] understand disengagement/school avoidance from a family's perspective. Students are less willing to come and 'do' school. With all the resources and county partnerships we have, there's an apathy and disengagement from students or families that we are struggling to connect with."
"To be honest, I have no idea [what we need]. No one seems to have any suggestions or their answer is 'build relationships'. Our kids are equal opportunity truants: kids who love us, kids who don't... it doesn't matter. There seems to be no teeth or repercussions for students or families if they do not attend after 12 years old."
Figure 9. Barriers to attendance for Minnesota students, 2025
Figure 10. Why don’t students want to be at school? Principal perceptions, 2025
Leaders face challenges partnering with parents and caregivers
A persistent theme emerged in analyzing principals' responses to open-ended survey questions: they are struggling to partner effectively with parents and caregivers. School leaders cited difficulties building trusting and influential relationships with students' families when seeking to promote attendance, address student mental health challenges, and respond to challenging student behavior—all of which posed significant challenges to school leaders.
Specific data points pertaining to parents and caregivers included the following:
- Fewer than half (48%) of principals reported having sufficient confidence in engaging families in school-level decision-making.
- The percentage of principals who report including the families of marginalized students in school-level decisions on a monthly or more frequent basis fell from a high of 27% in 2021 to 18% in both 2023 and 2025. (see Figure 11)
- Over half (56%) of school leaders chose "parents/ guardians not concerned about children missing school" as a top barrier to attendance.
In open-ended comments, while some leaders indicated having strong support from students' families, many more reported frustration with what they perceived to be a lack of support from parents, especially in contexts related to challenging behavior or absenteeism.
"The community support and parent support for schools is much less than when I started teaching. I think that is really draining for teachers and administrators."
"Social media has made it easy for frustrated parents to speak negatively about school leaders and the leader has no recourse except to ignore."
"I believe we need to have more accountability from families for behavior issues and support. Trust in education and unkind interactions with families has been a huge change in the past couple years."
"We put all of these protocols, procedures and requirements in place for schools yet there's absolutely no responsibility written into the legislation for parents. They need help. They need training and it needs to be required. If you can require it for schools, you should be able to require it for parents. That is where the trouble begins and oftentimes why we can't make any movement to help students."
Figure 11. Percentage of respondents who report including the families of marginalized students in school-level decisions on at least a monthly basis, 2021, 2023, and 2025
The READ Act is burdensome—but impactful
Compared with their views on the impact of non-exclusionary discipline legislation (see Figures 7 and 8, above), school leaders were much more positive about the impact of the READ Act on students and educators. Open-ended comments revealed a range of perceptions. On the positive end, leaders noted benefits to having aligned and consistent training for staff, and had observed educator professional growth. On the negative end, many felt the requirements of the READ Act increased educators' workload and stress and strained schools' already limited resources. Some school leaders complained of "messy" or fragmented implementation at the secondary level. Still others noted it was "too soon to tell" if the policy has had a demonstrable impact on students.
When asked how they would characterize the impact of the READ Act on educators at their school, 78% of respondents replied the impact was somewhat, mostly, or very positive, compared to 19% saying it was somewhat, mostly, or very negative and 3% indicating it had not had an impact. Similarly, when asked about the impact of the READ Act on students, 83% reported positive impacts, compared to 6% reporting negative impacts and 11% reporting no impact (see Figure 12).
"I am seeing teachers both trying to unpack and relearn the approaches to teaching reading while managing their SPED caseload and keep up with district and school initiatives while working through the self realization of the negative impact their previous methods had on students. The students are gaining new skills and pieces are being filled into students' gaps in learning. Teachers are just overwhelmed with all the asks at the moment."
"[The] READ Act has little to no guidance for secondary schools on its requirements, resources available or how to implement intervention in the secondary model."
"Staff are completing the training which has been a huge strain on the system. Hopefully in years to come we will see student outcomes improve as our teachers build these strategies into the instructional day."
"A solid directive on how to teach reading vs. teachers doing what they think is best. Back to phonics instruction and a quality curriculum; getting quality data and looking at that data to inform interventions. It needed to be done!"
Figure 12. Impact of the READ Act on educators and students, 2025
Sense that schools are "doing more with less"
In open-ended comments, numerous school leaders expressed a sense of overwhelm over what they view to be mounting responsibilities without a commensurate influx of resources or personnel. From statewide behavior policies, to filling increasingly hard-to-staff positions, to addressing increasingly complex student mental health challenges—leaders reflected on a wide range of leadership tasks that occupied their time and drained their budgets. Many leaders denounced "unfunded mandates" and loss of local control over decisions impacting their schools. Some principals expressed concern about funding inequity and loss of revenue.
Leaders in charter schools, smaller rural schools, and schools with high special education populations, for example, called for more equitable funding, while others highlighted significant revenue losses due to students enrolling in a Postsecondary Enrollment Option (PSEO) program. Leaders shared that societal shifts, such as increasing costs due to inflation and increasing incidence and severity of mental health challenges, have required schools to shift toward providing students and their families with basic needs like food, clothing, and mental health care. Inadequate pay coupled with increasing responsibilities has led many educators and support professionals to leave public education entirely, according to many principals.
"We continually are called on to do more and more with less. I've been a principal for four years, we have had cuts each of those years and the cuts will continue. It's not sustainable. I am not sure how much longer I can stay in public education."
"Unfunded mandates and funding that is not equitable are hurting small, non-metro schools."
"I think state initiatives are incredibly expensive to implement and seldom do they have [the] intended outcome. The more the funds can be kept where the rubber meets the road, the better. Schools are continually being asked to do more but seldom are the resources really made available to deliver."
"Teachers and principals are overworked. There is TOO MUCH POLICY and not enough money to provide the resources and human capital to provide students what they need. We are in a mental health/social media crisis.... When budgets get tight; SEL and mental health resources are the first thing to go. It's burning teachers and leaders out at alarming rates."
...and yet, they continue to find satisfaction in their jobs
Despite the long hours and increasing demands experienced by many MnPS respondents, the majority continue to experience satisfaction in their work. In fact, the percentage of school leaders who agree with the statement, "I am generally satisfied with being a leader at this school" has ticked up, from 83% in 2021, to 86% in 2023, to 88% in 2025 (see Figure 13). Furthermore, 89% of school leaders agree with the statement, "I can be successful as a leader at this school." The discrepancy between these findings and the deep frustration expressed by so many leaders in open-ended comments highlights that principals' experience of their work is nuanced, complex, and varied.
"I love that I get to do this work. Read that again...I get to do this work. I know what I signed up for and the energy it takes but it is worth it."
"I have enjoyed my 34 year career to date. I hope to finish with a smile on my face and joy in my heart that I positively impacted my community and have done 'good' for my kiddos, staff and their families."
"I love my job. It is just seemingly more and more impossible these days."
"I love my job because I have amazing teachers and staff.... and students and families. It would be very difficult to come to work everyday without these relationships."
Figure 13. Agreement with “I am generally satisfied with being a leader at this school”
Conclusion and next steps
Overall, findings from the 2025 MnPS reveal that Minnesota school leaders and the schools they lead continue to face many of the same challenges and opportunities they reported encountering in previous administrations of the survey. However, the impacts of major state legislation and societal changes are being felt acutely by leaders and school personnel, who are struggling to keep up with the increasing demands on their time and energy. These findings suggest a strong need to help school leaders address challenges related to student mental health, behavior, and family engagement.
In the coming months, the MnPS team expects to solicit additional input from school leaders through a series of virtual focus groups, which help us to explain survey findings and generate concrete and aligned recommendations for a range of state and local stakeholders.
© 2026 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. This publication is available in alternative formats upon request. Direct such requests to carei@umn.edu.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the following individuals who contributed their time and insights to the development of the 2025 Minnesota Principals Survey as part of the MnPS Advisory Council: Amy Kujawski, Amy LaDue, Angie Charboneau-Folch, Ann Mitchell, Anne Kilzer, Beatriz DeSantiago-Fjelstad, Bob Driver, Chris Streiff Oji, Deb Henton, Elizabeth Deen, Jeremy Kovash, Joey Cinean, John Bjoraker, Julio Cesar, Karen Schaub, Kirk Schneidawind, Matt Shaver, Melissa Schaller, Melissa Sonnek, Michelle Krell, Nasreen Fynewever, Peter Mau, Peter Olson-Skog, Scott Croonquist, Staci Allmaras, Tracy Reimer.
The 2025 Minnesota Principals Survey was made possible with generous funding from The Minneapolis Foundation and the University of Minnesota.
Authors
Sara Kemper PhD, Research Associate, CAREI
Katie Pekel, EdD, Executive Director of Educational Leadership, UMN CEHD
Mengchen Su, PhD, Research Associate, CAREI
Marci Exstad, MSW, Research Coordinator, CAREI
Alex Evenson, MA, Communications and Marketing Manager, OLPD
How to cite this report
Kemper, S., Pekel, K., Su, M., Exsted, M., Evenson, A., (2026). Executive Summary of Findings from the 2025 Minnesota Principals Survey. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.
Contact
Direct questions to Katie Pekel, Project Lead, at kpekel@umn.edu.
Stay informed
If you would like us to notify you via email when new reports and findings related to the Minnesota Principals Survey are released, provide your contact info here. We will not share your information with anyone.