2021 Minnesota Principals Survey (MnPS)

PDF of full report

Synthesizing 779 responses to a 70-question, comprehensive survey about the principalship along with the feedback of 49 leaders in 9 focus groups into a brief set of recommendations is not simple; however, a lengthy list would not be useful, either. Therefore, our overarching recommendations each address four critical needs communicated through the survey and focus groups by principals: Time, Training, Trust, and Transformation—the four T’s.

Time. Over and over again, principals conveyed time as an issue. In the survey, they told us they spent more time than they would like on administrative tasks and less time than they would like on instructional leadership and family and community engagement. They told us there is not enough time for their own professional growth or engagement in policy influence. In focus groups, they reiterated that daily ‘urgent’ tasks (e.g., finding substitute teachers, responding to mental health crises) take time away from more strategic tasks like teacher coaching and curricular alignment.

Training. Overwhelmingly, principals told us they needed more and better training. On one hand, leaders felt their licensure programs had prepared them well to carry out the management and decisionmaking aspects of their jobs. On the other hand, respondents lacked confidence in instructional leadership—the aspect of their job that nearly 80% said was their primary role— specifically as it relates to culturally responsive instructional practices. They cite feeling obligated to be in their buildings, limited time, and a lack of access to high quality, research based professional development as obstacles to their own growth and improvement as leaders.

Trust. Principals report high levels of job satisfaction and that they feel their work is valued by the staff at their school; however, they also expressed trepidation about leading amidst community division and facilitating conversations about gender identity and race. Principals wanted their supervisors to trust and support them—to ‘have their backs’ when needing to make an unpopular decision or lead an uncomfortable conversation.

Transformation. The role of the principal is immense, and more than half of principals tell us that their workloads are not sustainable. While 90% of leaders tell us they feel that they can be successful leading their schools, to support their sustainability may require transforming key aspects of the principalship. Investments in high-quality, sustained professional development, fundamental restructuring of the use of time and resources, and sustained support will all need to take place. Our recommendations center the transformations that could take place in order to ensure the role of school leader is truly transformational.

Recommendation 1: developmental approach to initial training, internship, and ongoing professional development

Both the MN Principal Survey data and the follow-up focus groups highlight a need for a developmental approach to principals’ initial training and internship experiences and to their ongoing professional development. The vast majority of those entering the principalship have certification and experience in education. However, those experiences and their credentials are varied, giving some more experience in literacy and others more experience in mental health. We argue that candidates’ prior credentialing and experiences should be accounted for in the crafting of their initial training programs, thus allowing for an approach that meets their content and developmental needs. This approach can and should be carried through into the internship experience, which we feel should be significantly broadened as well as into the ongoing professional development experiences of licensed administrators.

Initial Training. Our survey data demonstrates that leaders feel their initial preparation programs solidly prepared them in areas that largely fall into the category of management and decision making while they report feeling less prepared in areas like instructional and culturally responsive school leadership. Licensed Minnesota principals are highly credentialed with a minimum of 60 credits beyond their bachelor’s degree and a demonstration of entry level competency in 86 competencies per Minnesota Administrative Rule 3512.0510. However, 58% of principals reported ‘culturally responsive teaching’ was missing from their administrative licensure coursework. While some licensure programs have made great strides toward including coursework in culturally responsive teaching, we recommend that all licensure programs do so. We recommend that initial licensure should include courses that directly address instructional leadership, especially conceptual frameworks from key content areas like literacy, mathematics, science, and history, in which principals may have had little to no training in pursuing their initial teaching license. Given there are few required courses in curriculum and instruction or instructional leadership in traditional “leadership” MEd programs, including them as part of administrative licensure is crucial. Additionally, candidates should be allowed and encouraged to take content courses that will benefit their own personal development. For example, an elementary teacher steeped in literacy seeking the K-12 principal license should likely not be required to take more coursework in literacy, but rather focus on content specific curriculum they do not have sufficient experience in, like science or special education. Administrative licensure programs could help advise and ensure students are getting content specific courses as they pertain to instructional leadership based on what the candidate’s initial licensure was, what coursework they had in their initial master’s degree and what specific and significant professional development they have engaged in during their career.

Internship. Currently those seeking principal licensure must complete a 320 hour internship with 240 of those hours being completed at the elementary, middle, or high school level and the remaining 80 hours between the other levels. These hours are traditionally completed while the candidate holds a full-time job. This means the candidate and their mentor are left trying to craft experiences that are not truly part of the candidate’s day-to-day experience. We recommend that the administrative internship should be a paid internship where the candidate is immersed in the day-to-day work in a full-time manner. Given the overwhelming feedback from practicing principals is that they do not have enough time for instructional leadership and also considering that the “urgent” is often prioritized over the important, the position of administrative intern would not only provide a genuine and deep learning opportunity for the licensure candidate, but also benefit the school and district as a support to the principal. In addition to the added support the intern could provide, this could also serve as a ‘grow your own’ leadership program for the district. The RAND Corporation has found that Principal Pipelines are “feasible, affordable and effective” (Gates, Baird, Master, & Chavez-Herrerias, 2019). This more extensive internship would allow future principals a few added advantages over the current internship model often used:

• Interns would be able to be placed with effective, experienced leaders they could learn from, not necessarily the principal of the school in which they currently work.
• Interns would be engaged in the day to day operations of a school for an entire school year, allowing them to experience important administrative tasks that are cyclical, like staffing and scheduling, professional development and evaluation of staff, community engagement, budgeting, curriculum development, initiative implementation and monitoring, and the school improvement process.
• A year-long internship would allow for candidates to also work with their mentoring principal to identify their strengths and opportunities for improvement as a leader so that as they transition into their first administrative role, they could have a clear understanding of the professional development, support, and opportunities they will need as they grow.
   

Ongoing Professional Development. The ongoing professional development of a licensed principal—in theory—should be guided by the annual principal development and evaluation plan outlined in Minnesota Statutes 123B.147 subd. 3. Among other requirements,1 the principal’s evaluation must “be consistent with a principal’s job description, a district’s long-term plans and goals, and the principal’s own professional multiyear growth plans and goals” (emphasis ours). In alignment to this requirement, the Minnesota Department of Education has developed resources to support a growth-focus evaluation and professional development through their Principal Leadership Support work. However, over a third (35%) of respondents to the MnPS did not feel that their performance evaluations helped them grow in their leadership practice (Pekel et al., 2022). We suspect this may reflect a lack of alignment between principals’ evaluations and the kinds of professional development they regularly have access to. In fact, principals also told us that the type of professional development they most often engage in, presentations as scheduled school or district meetings, is the kind of PD they deemed least useful. Focus group participants described more useful PD opportunities as those that allowed them to discuss the specific challenges they faced—such as networking opportunities with other educational leaders—in the context of a “culture of adult learning.” We recommend that the ongoing professional development that principals engage in should be based on their developmental needs as determined in collaboration with their supervisor as a result of the formal evaluation process. Much like our recommendation in initial licensure, we believe that leaders should be engaging in professional development for growth, versus a one-size fits all approach.

1. Statutory requirements for principal evaluation in Minnesota now include new language following the 2023 legislative session: “The evaluation must:... (2) support and improve a principal’s culturally responsive leadership practices that create inclusive and respectful teaching and learning environments for all students, families, and employees” (Laws of Minnesota, 2023,). Such a requirement lends itself to more personalized, developmental approaches to principal learning and improvement, not one-size-fits-all training experiences.

While the “how” of principal professional development, the approach described above is important, this recommendation addresses the “what.” Survey and focus group data not only highlighted that common, one-size-fits-all trainings were ineffective, but they also highlighted concerningly low self-efficacy in several core dimensions of the principalship, namely instructional leadership, culturally responsive school leadership, and creating psychologically safe and humanizing school environments. We recommend that the Board of School Administrators should, in consultation with practicing principals, adopt specific content area requirements for continuing education units (CEUs) in areas such as these. While there are currently no specific requirements for administrator re-licensure in Minnesota beyond the required 125 Clock Hours, there are for teachers: according to Minnesota Administrative Rule 8710.7200, to renew a Tier 3 or Tier 4 teaching license, with limited exceptions, educators must engage in professional development in five specific areas:

1. Positive behavior intervention strategies
2. Reading preparation
3. Key warning signs of early-onset mental illness in children and adolescents
4. English learners
5. Cultural competency
    

Other states, like Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, require principals to pursue continuing education in specific content areas, much as Minnesota does for teachers. While selection of specific trainings should be left to individual leaders and perhaps their supervisors, we recommend that school leaders be required to earn CEUs for professional development in three broad areas:

Instructional leadership. Survey respondents told us that instructional leadership is the broad domain of leadership in which they feel the least confident, compared to the domains of management and decision making, school improvement, and climate and culture. This is especially problematic given that nearly 80% of survey respondents viewed their primary role as being an instructional leader. Furthermore, many principals shared that their administrative licensure programs did not include coursework in culturally responsive teaching—a critical component of instructional leadership.

Culturally responsive school leadership. Out of 30 leadership domains, survey respondents felt least prepared in supporting instruction that is culturally responsive and leveraging students’ cultural backgrounds as assets for teaching and learning. Additionally, 46% of respondents told us a key experience missing from their internship experience was facilitating conversations about equity. When asked to select the areas in which they would most benefit from additional professional development, principals selected advancing racial equity more than every other topic besides reducing staff burnout.

Creating psychologically safe and humanizing school environments. To create safe and humanizing school environments, leaders must be able to do many things, like facilitate dialogue that supports LGBTQ+ students, ensure racial justice, reduce bullying, address staff burnout, and engage families and communities in decision making, to name just a few. The importance of this work is underscored by the most recent Minnesota Student Survey results, which show that LGBTQ+ youth report being bullied and indicate having had suicidal thoughts at much higher rates than their non-LGBTQ+ peers. It’s clear students and staff need our leaders to have the confidence and skills to create psychologically safe and humanizing school environments, and yet MnPS survey and focus group data suggest that leaders are struggling to do so. In light of the serious—and potentially tragic—consequences of failing to act in response to these challenges, we believe that principals should be required to engage in professional learning in this area as they seek CEUs for relicensure.

How the four T’s are addressed in this recommendation

Time. Professional development takes time, and often requires leaders to be out of their buildings. However, a more strategic approach to development—one that takes leaders’ strengths and areas for growth into consideration, rather than a one-sizefits- all approach—will ensure principals’ PD time is useful to them. Principals who engage in PD experiences that address their areas for growth, specifically, will be well-positioned to improve their leadership practice, leading to better opportunities and outcomes for students. Furthermore, the approaches to professional development leaders cited as the most useful were ones that happened over a longer period of time with a cohort of trusted peers, like doctoral coursework and the Minnesota Principals Academy.

Training. When we asked leaders on the MnPS what they most needed to address their greatest challenges, increasing my knowledge or skills and tools or frameworks were consistently the top two selections, across nearly all areas of leadership (Pekel et al., 2022). Training is clearly needed; however, this training should be developmental and personalized in nature, not “sit-and-get.” Opportunities for conversation, networking, and learning from one another can bolster the effectiveness of training. Additionally, our survey and focus group data tell us that BIPOC leaders may have different needs than White leaders, again pointing to the need for a more personalized approach.

Trust. Research literature suggests that small groups of leaders engaged in professional learning on an ongoing basis, over time, leads to more trusting spaces where deep learning can take place (Darling-Hammond, Wechsler, Levin, Leung-Gagné, & Tozer, 2022). We also know that a trusting relationship between a principal and their supervisor is paramount to effective professional development. In a recent study, Dr. Peter Olson- Skog (2022) found that Minnesota principals defined a trusting relationship as including the following:

• Time investment—Principals want their supervisors to engage with them regularly, informally, and at their schools, where supervisors could “see them in action” and understand the current realities of their day-to-day work.
• Setting clear expectations—In addition to clearly communicating expectations, principals want supervisors to create a safe space for a dialogue in which principals help shape and clarify the expectations without appearing insubordinate. Principals desire particular clarity around their level of authority in decision-making.
• Collaboration—Principals cite a strong desire to work side-by-side with their supervisors as colleagues, not subordinates, where appropriate. Principals want to cocreate school-related policies, curricula, and improvement plans with their supervisors. They want to co-reflect on new learnings and the success (or lack thereof) of current initiatives with their supervisors. Finally, they want to colead (e.g., a district professional development session).
• Personal knowledge—Principals want their supervisors to know them personally and professionally. They do not need to be friends, but they want their supervisors to know them as a person, not just as an employee.
   

Further, principals recommend dispositions (or character traits) that strengthen the needed trusting relationship. Principals desire supervisors who are caring, vulnerable, and predictable. When supervisors demonstrate care for principals, knowing them personally and professionally, principals are more apt to trust that their supervisor’s expectations are reasonable. When principal supervisors are vulnerable, showing their humanity and acknowledging their mistakes, principals are more likely to do the same. This creates the trust and room for risk-taking needed for authentic collaboration and co-creation. Finally, principals want their supervisors to be predictable and consistent. A lack of predictability and consistency leaves principals guessing how they need to navigate the relationship with their supervisor on a given day. This drains trust, especially when principals guess wrong.

Transformation. A transformation is needed in the way we typically approach principal professional development in Minnesota. Growth and development opportunities should be personalized to meet school leaders’ specific needs, and provide ongoing peer/supervisor reinforcement and support. It’s time to abandon “sit and get” and “one and done” PD, which principals do not find useful. If new learning is introduced, that learning needs to be revisited, coached, and applied in practice. A developmental approach to ongoing learning could also transform many principals’ feelings of isolation in their day to day work through a community of practice.

Recommendation 2: A different school leadership model

Few would dispute that the principalship can be a very challenging job. In our survey, 54% of respondents reported that to some degree, their current workload is not sustainable. In order to ensure that we can continue to recruit and retain school leaders, we argue for a different model for school leadership. The principal matters. This is evident across numerous research studies, and likely anyone reading this report would agree (Grissom, Egalite, & Lindsey, 2021; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2001; Wahlstrom, Seashore Louis, Leithwood, & Anderson, 2010). Because 54% of leaders tell us their workload is not sustainable, that overall they lack the time and confidence to be an instructional leader, and that engagement with and inclusion of families—specifically marginalized families—is something that is not happening on a regular or widespread basis, we propose a different model for school leadership that distributes these essential leadership functions. In their seminal study examining how school leadership impacts student learning, Louis et al. (2010) called for the “substantial redesign” of the principalship (p. 103), including the distribution of leadership between teachers, parents, and district staff. In reference to leaders’ persistent lack of capacity to enact instructional leadership, the study authors conclude that:

In order for principals to devote more time and attention to the improvement of instruction, their jobs will need to be substantially redesigned. In many schools this will require the creation of other support roles with responsibility for managing the important tasks only indirectly related to instruction… Differentiated administrative staffing—with different administrators assigned to managerial and academic roles—is one example of changes that merit exploration. (p. 103)

As urgent “fires” upend principals’ best laid plans, they are not getting to do the things they believe are important, like instructional leadership, engagement with families and community, and their own professional development. The reality is that the job(s) of a principal are far too many for one person.

In response to decades of research as well as our own contemporary data, we recommend moving toward a leadership model in schools that distributes key leadership functions between three primary roles:

• Operations leader
• Instructional leader
• Community leader
   

In this distributed leadership model, the notion of a “head principal” and assistants would not exist. These three roles would share equal authority in the building—albeit in different domains— and work together to lead the school. Actual titles, reporting structures, and job descriptions could be determined at the local level based on local context and organizational culture.

Operational leader. This role would lead the operational systems and work of the school. They would have primary responsibility for things like communication, scheduling, HR functions, budgeting, safety and security, busing, reporting, and sustainability of the building. As an example of the value this kind of role may have for a district, in the 5,000 student district of Acton-Boxborough in Massachusetts, investing in an ‘energy manager’, something the operations leader could do, netted the district $500,000 in annual savings in energy costs (Lieberman, 2023).

Instructional leader. This role would lead the academic systems and work of the school. They would have the primary responsibility for curriculum, instruction, assessment. The instructional leader would work with teachers to determine and execute the academic continuous improvement agenda in the building. Things that likely would fall in this leader’s portfolio would be MTSS, curricular selection, instructional coaching, data analysis, and professional learning related to academics.

Community leader. This role would lead the work that supports a humanizing culture of belonging in the school community. They would have primary responsibility for student and staff wellbeing, engagement of student voice and activism, social and emotional learning (SEL), school climate, and family and community engagement. As the leader who interfaces with organizations and the broader community in which the school is situated, they would champion the desires of the community, bring the ancestral knowledge of community members not only into the school, but also into the curriculum, and could lead resource mapping efforts to better integrate school and community. Ideally, this individual would see themselves—and be seen—as a member of the surrounding school community.

How the four T’s are addressed in this recommendation

Time. By distributing the primary leadership responsibilities in this way, each of the three leaders would have more time to focus on the incredibly important work they are leading. For example, if there is a shortage in staffing, or an eruption of behavior on the playground, the Operations and Community Leaders would be able to tend to these and the Instructional Leader would not be pulled away from a PLC or a classroom observation. Additionally the feeling of obligation to be in the building—a key barrier to to principals’ accessing professional development—could be lessened when there is a team of leaders with equal authority.

Training. With more specialized leadership roles, leaders can pursue more specialized training. It is not that the Instructional Leader is not concerned with the building climate or the SEL curriculum, but they can trust that as a team, the three leaders will have more depth of knowledge in their area, and can leverage their collective knowledge to effectively and collectively lead the building. Additionally, each position could have a clear succession plan with existing school staff members ready to step in at a moment’s notice to fulfill essential responsibilities.

Trust. Staff in the building would have a team of individuals to turn to, so the notion that only one person can make a decision or respond to a crisis could, in turn, foster greater collective efficacy among the staff. If, as suggested, the Community Leader is a member of the community in which the school is situated, this could lead to greater trust in the school among community members and parents.This model certainly requires trust among the three leaders; however,once trust is established, leaders’ feelings of isolation—which so many principals told us they felt as the lone administrator in the building—will diminish.

Transformation. This different model could lead not only to a transformation in the way a building leader does their work, it could also lead to more stability for the school community. Twenty-five percent of principals in our survey told us they plan to stay in their current role two years or less. With a change in leadership can come changes in the direction of the work in a building. With three leaders collectively focused on the same goals, a change in leadership in one role will not disrupt the course of the current efforts. Currently all principals and assistant principals in Minnesota must hold a principal’s license. While we would not argue that licensure is not useful, we might argue that it may not be needed for all leadership roles. For example, the Community Leader may bring critical experience from the community that no licensed administrator may have. We understand and believe that having a licensed principal in the school is needed, that by state statute (Minn. Stat. §121A.10), only a licensed school administrator can suspend a student, but much like those in student support professional roles (e.g., licensed guidance counselors, school social workers, school psychologists) often work collectively to support students and the school, this different leadership model could do the same. Finally, this model could genuinely lead to a disruption of white supremacy culture that is inherently built into the current model where there is one individual in charge. A more collectivist model could arguably be more culturally responsive as it stands to be more inclusive of diverse perspectives. For example, the Community Leader role would have the time and expertise to authentically engage parents and community in ways principals report they just do not have the time to do currently.