WILLIAM R. JOHNSTON, CHRISTOPHER J. YOUNG

Principal and Teacher Preparation to Support the Needs of Diverse StudentsNational Findings from the American Educator Panels

A bundant research suggests that principals and teachers are critical to student outcomes. Principals’ work as school leaders has been found to affect school improvement efforts as well as instructional quality among their staff, which in turn influence student learn-ing and achievement (Branch, Hanushek, and Rivkin, 2013; Grissom and Loeb, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2004; Seashore Louis et al., 2010). The quality of teachers’ instruction

has been found to be the most important in-school factor predicting student outcomes (Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff, 2014; Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain, 2005; Rockoff, 2004).

Research Report

C O R P O R A T I O N

2

The National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) standards outline eight spec-ifications of a high-quality educational leadership preparation program. These standards cover a wide range of knowledge and skills, including the capac-ity to use data, as well as equity, inclusiveness, and cultural responsiveness. The eighth NELP standard specifically outlines the need for a high-quality internship that allows future school leaders to apply the knowledge and skills required in the first seven standards. (For a complete list of the NELP stan-dards, see National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2018.)

The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) standards set a similar national benchmark for high-quality teacher preparation pro-grams to ensure that candidates develop similar sets of knowledge and skills, including data use in assess-ments and personalized learning for diverse students.1 In addition, CAEP’s Standard 2 outlines requirement for clinical practice and mentorship (for a full list of the CAEP standards, see CAEP, undated).

Despite established national standards and abundant rhetoric around the need to develop a well-prepared teaching force, the causal evidence on

Given the heavy influence of principals and teachers on shaping student outcomes, we must consider the extent to which educators in the United States are receiving adequate preparation in their pre-service training programs. It is particularly import-ant to understand the quality of preservice training for principals, as they have been found to receive limited mentorship or on-the-job support once they begin their work in schools (Johnston, Kaufman, and Thompson, 2016).

Abbreviations

AEP American Educator PanelsASLP American School Leader PanelATP American Teacher PanelBMGF Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationCAEP Council for the Accreditation of

Educator PreparationMLI Measurement, Learning, and

ImprovementNELP National Educational Leadership

PreparationOLS ordinary least squaresSASS Schools and Staffing Survey

KEY FINDINGS ■ Principals and teachers generally felt that their preparation programs were effective and that they

left training feeling prepared to lead a school or teach in a classroom.

■ More than 80 percent of educators agreed that the individuals providing training, the feedback they received during training, and their coursework and learning experiences were relevant and effective.

■ Principals and teachers who had greater amounts of field experience during their preservice training were more likely to agree that their preparation programs were effective than were peers who had less field experience.

■ Just more than 60 percent of principals and teachers agreed that their preservice programs pre-pared them to support black, Latino, and low-income students.

■ White principals and teachers had lower rates of agreement that their preservice training pre-pared them to work with black, Latino, and low-income students compared with their nonwhite peers.

■ White principals reported lower levels of preparedness to support black, Latino, and low-income students when they began working as a principal compared with their nonwhite peers. However, this gap was only observed among those who felt that their preservice training did not prepare them in this area.

3

States, as the majority of public school students are now racial and ethnic minorities (Maxwell, 2014), while more than 80 percent of U.S. teachers are white (Boser, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

The mismatch between the races of teachers and their students has real consequences for students, as numerous studies have found consistent benefits of racial congruence, including fewer absences and suspensions, lower dropout rates, higher academic achievement, and a higher probability of placement in gifted programming (Goldhaber and Hansen, 2010; Grissom and Redding, 2016; Joshi, Doan, and Springer, 2018). Racial match between teachers and students also leads to positive student perceptions of teachers (Egalite and Kisida, 2017) and signif-icant long-term gains in educational attainment (Gershenson et al., 2017).

As only one in five educators in the United States is a person of color, preparation programs must support all educators’ acquisition of the skills necessary to educate diverse students. However, these programs fall short at preparing principals to lead diverse schools in a culturally responsive manner or even to conduct meaningful conversations on diver-sity in their schools (Khalifa, Gooden, and Davis, 2016; Young, Madsen, and Young, 2010). Similarly, although teachers are motivated to teach in a cultur-ally responsive manner, many felt that their pre- service trainings did an inadequate job of preparing them to do so (Sleeter and Owuor, 2011). A two-stage study, which conducted parallel analyses of teacher preparation programs in 2001 and in 2015, found minimal progress in terms of preparation programs’ training of teachers to support a diversifying student body (Goodwin, 2017).

Although there are numerous studies of educator preparation programs based on analyses of educa-tors at a single site or at a few sites (e.g., Miller and Martin, 2015), minimal research exists based on the perspectives of a nationally representative sample of teachers and principals. The lone exception is the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). This survey asks teachers with five years or less of teaching experience about their sense of preparedness for teaching their subject areas while adhering to state standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). The SASS results suggest some degree of optimism among novice

educator preservice programs’ effectiveness is limited (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016; Goldhaber, Liddle, and Theobald, 2013; Henry et al., 2012; Koedel et al., 2015). Numerous qualitative and survey-based studies suggest that there is substantial room for improvement among preservice training programs. Studies of university-based principal preparation programs—the most common form of preparation—find that these programs provide inadequate prepara-tion for the challenges of school leadership (Bottoms and O’Neill, 2001; Briggs et al., 2013; Davis, 2016; Levine, 2005; Manna, 2015; Miller and Martin, 2015; Wang et al., 2018). Issues include a mismatch between program curricula and the actual job skills required, as well as lack of quality field experience and mentor-ship opportunities (Davis, 2016). Meanwhile, conven-tional preservice teacher programs have been plagued by weak pedagogy and misalignment of coursework and field experiences, leading to variations in teacher effectiveness (Ronfeldt, Schwartz, and Jacob, 2014; Zeichner, 2006).

One aspect of preparation programs that is under little debate is the critical importance of field expe-rience for preparing prospective principals and teach-ers. Field experiences (also referred to as internships or clinical experiences) range from virtually full-time job placements to brief student teaching or shadow-ing experiences. This type of experiential learning is seen as a critical component of quality preservice programs for school leaders and teachers and is a common component of most training programs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2005; Fry, Bottoms, and O’Neill, 2005; Ronfeldt, Schwartz, and Jacob, 2014). However, many states do not prior-itize this intensive clinical experience for principals; only 14 states require that candidates spend at least 300 hours accruing field-based experience (Davis, 2016). For teachers, only 27 states had a minimum requirement for clinical practice of at least ten weeks (Greenberg, Pomerance, and Walsh, 2011).

A key benefit of field experience is that it can provide preservice educators with opportunities to work with students whose educational opportunities, socioeconomic status, and racial and ethnic makeup may differ from their own (Anderson and Stillman, 2013). Bridging cultural divides between educators and students is increasingly important in the United

4

Survey was developed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in consultation with staff at RAND. The survey was designed to generate nation-ally representative data on educator perspectives regarding various aspects of their working con-ditions, including perceptions of their preservice preparation, interventions to support student out-comes, social and emotional learning, and use of data systems.

The 2018 surveys were similar, but not identical, to the 2016 and 2017 iterations of the MLI instru-ments (see Johnston, Akinniranye, and Doss, 2018, and Johnston and Tsai, 2018, for examples of publi-cations using data from previous administrations of the MLI survey). The specific items that we analyze in this survey were newly developed by staff at BMGF (with input from RAND researchers) and aligned to research (e.g., Orr and Barber, 2006; Perez et al., 2011) as a means to inform ongoing efforts to support the preparation of a diverse and effective educator workforce that is able to meet the needs of black, Latino, and low-income students. (See Appendixes A and B for an abridged copy of each of the 2018 survey instruments—one for principals and one for teachers, respectively.)

The AEP consists of the American School Leader Panel (ASLP) and the American Teacher Panel (ATP). At the time of this survey, the ASLP included 12,954 principals, with 3,529 completing at least 10 percent of the survey (for a response rate of 27 percent) and 3,299 completing the entire 30-minute survey (for a completion rate of 25 percent).2 The ATP consisted of 28,954 teachers at the time of the survey, with 15,719 completing at least 10 percent of the survey (for a response rate of 54 percent) and 15,258 completing the entire instrument (for a completion rate of 53 per-cent). The lower response rate for principals may be the result of a variety of factors, including limited availability for noncritical commitments (such as voluntary surveys), particularly during the end of the school year, when the MLI was administered. It is also important to note that response rates for large-scale surveys have been in decline in general, with national educator survey response rates often hover-ing around 39 percent (Cook, Heath, and Thompson, 2000) and response rates for large-scale surveys of principals often falling as low as 15 percent (Jacob

teachers concerning their preservice training pro-grams, as a majority of respondents said that they felt “well prepared” or “very well prepared” in each of the topics mentioned: teaching the subject matter (81 percent), using a variety of instructional mate-rials (67 percent), using computers for instruction (66 percent), assessing students (66 percent), differen-tiating instruction (58 percent), and using data from student assessments (54 percent). However, the SASS results do not provide insight into educators’ sense of preparedness to support the needs of an increasingly diverse student body.

In this report, we examine the perspective of a nationally representative sample of principals and teachers through the RAND American Educator Panels (AEP) to assess the extent to which they felt prepared by their preservice training programs. We explore four specific research questions:

1. To what extent are educators satisfied with various aspects of their preservice training programs, and how prepared did they feel when beginning their work in schools?

2. To what extent do perceptions of preparation vary based on the amount of field experience educators had as a part of their preservice training?

3. How prepared to support an increasingly diverse student body do educators report being, and how does this perception vary based on educators’ race?

4. For principals, to what extent is their self- reported preparedness to work with non-white and low-income students when they started working as school leaders associated with their preservice training’s focus on this aspect of school leadership, and how does the association differ for white and nonwhite respondents?

Data and Methods

Sample and Data

Data are drawn from the spring 2018 administration of the Measurement, Learning, and Improvement (MLI) Survey to members of the AEP. The MLI

5

Weights were designed to ensure that the weighted sample does not under- or overrepresent certain types of principals or teachers. One main weight was created to ensure that the sample was nationally representative, and a series of 80 replicate weights were calculated to produce the margin of error associated with an estimate. The main weight was calculated by modeling response probabilities of principals or teachers across a wide variety of educator characteristics. This main weight was then calibrated so that the weighted sample matches the known national principal and teacher populations across these characteristics. Characteristics that factored into this process include descriptors at the individual level (e.g., gender, professional experience) and school level (e.g., school size, grade level, urba-nicity, socioeconomic status).4

Our analysis focused on two sets of questions in the principal and teacher surveys (see Appendixes A and B for abridged survey instruments). The first set of questions were asked of both principals and teachers and consisted of a set of statements about their preservice training programs, about which educators were asked to rate their level of agreement (strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, and strongly agree). The second set of ques-tions was asked just of principals and consisted of different aspects of school system management, for which they were asked “How well prepared did you feel when beginning work as a principal to support each of the following aspects of the school system?” Response options included “completely unprepared,” “mostly unprepared,” “mostly prepared,” and “com-pletely prepared.” For the most part, we present results using the full four-category response scale and conduct statistical analysis using the same. However, at times we discuss results in terms of educators’ “agreement” or “preparation” for ease of interpreta-tion. In these cases, we are combining responses of “somewhat” and “strongly” agree, or “somewhat” or “completely” prepared, depending on the question being discussed.

For Research Question 1, our primary estima-tion strategy consisted of weighted tabulations of the relevant survey responses among the full sample of principals or teachers.

and Jacob, 2012). Although our response rate is con-sistent with these trends, we use weights to attempt to account for potential bias due to nonselection into the panel and nonresponse for this particular survey.3

To facilitate the comparison of responses of prin-cipals and teachers from schools with different demo-graphic profiles, the survey data were merged with the 2015–2016 school- and district-level files from the National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data, which was the most current version of the data available when weights were generated and analyses were conducted. Table 1 provides details of the principal and teacher participants, along with characteristics of their respective school contexts.

As Table 1 indicates, white and nonwhite prin-cipals and teachers worked in dramatically dif-ferent schools. White educators (both principals and teachers) tended to work in larger schools, had more white students and fewer nonwhite students, had lower percentages of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, were more likely to be in rural or town locations and in school districts with fewer English-language learners, and were slightly more likely to have special education students, compared with nonwhite educators. White educators also had more years of experience in their current roles and were slightly more likely to be female, compared with nonwhite educators.

Methods

Our analysis consists of a series of weighted estima-tion techniques designed to produce nationally rep-resentative distributions of individual survey items and test for differences across important respondent subgroups, particularly between white and nonwhite principals and teachers. Sampling weights were gen-erated and applied to ensure that the proportionate representation of teacher demographics matched the most recently available national data, while adjust-ing for potential bias due to survey nonresponse. Weighting for the AEP involved modeling selection probabilities (i.e., what is the chance that this indi-vidual was recruited to join the panel?) and response probabilities (i.e., given that they were selected, what is the probability that they agreed to join the panel and responded to this survey?).

6

semester,” “less than one full school year but more than one full semester,” and “full school year or more.” To reconcile these differences, we first col-lapsed the teacher options down to four intuitive categories (no field service, one semester or less, more than one semester, and one year or more) and then we relied on traditional university academic calendars to place principals into these groups using the following decision rules: zero weeks = no field

For Research Question 2, we used a measure of field service duration that was asked differently across the two surveys. Principals were asked to report the approximate number of weeks they were given “to practice what you were learning about lead-ership in a school setting.” Teachers, however, were given a series of categorical response options that included “no practice opportunities in a classroom setting,” “less than one semester,” “approximately one

TABLE 1

Weighted Principal, Teacher, and School Demographics

Principals Teachers

Full Sample White Nonwhite

Full Sample White Nonwhite

Number in sample 3,297 2,665 632 15,253 13,183 2,070

School characteristics

Elementary school 59.0% 58.5% 61.0% 3.7% 3.6% 3.9%

Middle school 18.6% 18.2% 20.3% 19.7% 19.6% 20.3%

High school 18.0% 18.7% 14.8% 27.4% 28.1% 23.8%

Other types of schools 4.3% 4.4% 3.6% 3.7% 3.6% 23.8%

Total enrollment 563.586 553.276 626.871* 840.095 832.797 891.178*

Asian 3.927% 4.000% 4.090% 4.861% 4.733% 5.613%*

Black 14.327% 9.322% 33.850%*** 15.236% 12.897% 26.620%***

Hispanic 22.692% 19.237% 36.932%*** 24.321% 21.294% 39.402%***

White 53.625% 61.69% 21.334%*** 50.443% 56.003% 22.663%***

Other 5.438% 5.761% 3.794%*** 5.139% 5.071% 5.698%

Free or reduced-price lunch 53.893% 49.758% 70.352%*** 52.245% 49.349% 66.547%***

City school 25.9% 20.5% 47.7%*** 28.7% 25.3% 45.1%***

Suburban school 32.8% 32.8% 32.8% 39.6% 40.2% 36.1%***

Town school 13.1% 14.6% 7.0%*** 11.4% 12.0% 8.2%**

Rural school 28.2% 32.0% 12.5%*** 20.4% 22.4% 10.6%***

English-language learners (district-level)

8.881% 7.557% 13.671%*** 9.186% 8.215% 13.929%***

Special education (district-level)

13.652% 13.833% 12.868%** 13.490% 13.706% 12.373%***

Educator characteristics

Total years in role 6.827 7.029 6.013*** 14.045 14.248 13.039***

Female 51.4% 48.7% 62.2%*** 76.5% 76.6% 76.3%

NOTES: Sample sizes are based on respondents who completed the full survey and also had demographic data available for their schools. Asterisks indicate significant differences among white and nonwhite principals and teachers, according to weighted chi-square tests (for categorical variables) or regressions (for continuous variables). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

7

extent to which having field experience as a com-ponent of their preparation relates to perceptions of program quality and preparedness upon entering the profession. Third, we focus on educators’ perspectives on their preparation to work with low-income stu-dents and students of color, with a focus on differ-ences between white and nonwhite educators. Fourth, we investigate the association between principals’ sense of preparedness to work with nonwhite and low-income students when they began their work as school leaders and their satisfaction with their preserve training in this particular area. We conclude with a discussion of our findings’ implications for policy and practice. It is important to note that all analyses and the corresponding results presented in this report are correlational and should not be inter-preted as causal.

Results

Analysis of the AEP data revealed several key find-ings regarding principal and teacher perceptions of their preservice preparation experiences. First, we found that a majority of principals and teachers had a generally positive perception regarding the caliber of their preparation programs. In particular, they felt that the individuals who provided their training were effective, that they could see the connection between what they were learning in classes and what they were experiencing in schools, and that the feed-back they were receiving was helping improve their leadership or instructional practice. We found lower rates of agreement regarding statements concerning training to use data and support a diverse student body. Second, we found that that educators who had greater amounts of field experience during their preservice training were more likely to agree that their preparation programs were effective. Finally, we found that preparation to support black, Latino, and low-income students was among the lowest-rated areas for preservice preparation, and white educators consistently reported being less prepared than their nonwhite peers in this area. We discuss these find-ings in detail in the following sections, focusing on each of our four research questions in turn.

service; one to 16 weeks = one semester or less; 16 to 31 weeks = more than one semester; 31 weeks or more = one year or more.

We focused on the bivariate association between survey responses and amount of field experience, and we primarily rely on weighted crosstabs with a corre-sponding chi-square test of distributional differences. To confirm the direction of the association that is apparent upon visual inspection of weighted crosstab results, we also estimated weighted ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models in which the depen-dent variable was the four-category survey response (coded as 1 through 4), which is predicted by an ordered categorical measure of the field experience variable (also coded as 1 through 4) as the indepen-dent variable.5

For Research Question 3, we took a similar two-step approach. We first estimated weighted crosstabs of the four-category survey responses and educator race (operationalized as white and nonwhite). We then estimated a series of OLS regression models that included additional individual-level control variables, including field experience duration and total years of experience.

Finally, for Research Question 4, we estimated the relationship between principals’ reported levels of preparedness when beginning their work as school leaders and their response to the first set of questions regarding their preservice program controlling for the duration of their field experience and total years of experience. In our final model, we interacted their response to the survey question about their preservice training to work with low-income and minority stu-dents with their race (a dummy indicator designating whether the principal was white or nonwhite) to understand whether there is a differential association between perceptions of their program and their sense of preparedness when starting their work as school leaders. We included all results from this taxonomy of weighted regressions in Appendix C.

Our findings are summarized in the next section and organized around our four research questions. First, we present general patterns in principal and teacher perspectives about their preservice programs, and we also discuss the extent to which principals reported feeling prepared when they began their work in their current roles. Second, we explore the

8

(84 percent of principals and 90 percent of teachers agreed), that they left their program feeling prepared to lead a school or teach (83 percent of principals and 85 percent of teachers agreed), and that they could see the connection between what they were learning in their coursework and what they were experiencing in their practice (87 percent of principals and 82 percent of teachers). Teachers were slightly more likely to agree with statements regarding feedback and feeling pre-pared upon leaving their training, and principals were more likely to see the connection between coursework and the realities in practice. However, these differences were rather negligible in practical terms, with the vast majority of both samples being in agreement.

Although most educators agreed with general statements about their preparation program, they were less likely to agree with statements regarding data and supporting traditionally disadvantaged students. Specifically, 64 percent of principals and 79 percent of teachers somewhat or strongly agreed that their training programs collected and shared

Educator Perceptions of their Preservice Preparation

Principals and Teachers Generally Responded Positively to Questions About Preservice Programs

We begin by discussing principals’ and teachers’ agreement with a series of statements about their preparation programs. For both groups of educa-tors, we found a strong sense of satisfaction with their preparation experiences in general, as shown in Figure 1 (for principals) and Figure 2 (for teachers). Both sets of educators overwhelmingly agreed with statements about the effectiveness of the individuals providing training, the feedback they received, and the general relevance of their coursework and learning experiences. Specifically, many felt that the individ-uals providing the training were effective (91 per-cent of principals and 90 percent of teachers either “somewhat” or “strongly” agreed), that the feedback they received helped them improve their practice

FIGURE 1

School Leader Agreement with Statements About Their Preservice Preparation Experiences

NOTE: Bars may not total 100 percent because of rounding.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

My training prepared me to use data to continuously improvemy school

My training program collected and shared data with me aboutmy performance

I left my training feeling prepared to lead a school

The feedback I received helped me improve my leadership

I could see the connection between what I was learning in mycoursework and what I was experiencing in my practice

Those who provided my leadership training (e.g., faculty,mentors) were effective

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Percentage

My program prepared me to work with black, Latino, andlow-income students

47

39

38

30

23

24

20

43

48

46

53

41

44

40

8

11

14

15

26

26

30

1

3

2

10

6

10

1

9

and asked them to rate their preparation in terms of “completely unprepared,” “mostly unprepared,” “mostly prepared,” and “completely prepared.”

As illustrated by the two shaded blue sections of the horizontal bars in Figure 3, we found that a major-ity of school leaders reported feeling “completely” or “mostly” prepared to support each of the listed aspects of the school system when beginning their work as principals. School leaders were most likely to feel that their preparation helped them with fostering safety, trust, and agency among students (90 percent completely or mostly prepared) and with supporting a student-centered learning climate (85 percent com-pletely or mostly prepared) second-highest. School leaders felt least prepared to support the needs of stu-dents with high-incidence disabilities (55 percent) and provide social and emotional learning (61 percent). A majority of principals reported being mostly or completely prepared in at least six of the 11 topics in question (74 percent or more), with 6 percent of prin-cipals (not shown) indicating that they felt prepared to support all 11 aspects of school management.6

data about their performance, and 68 percent of principals and 62 percent of teachers agreed that their program prepared them to use data to continuously improve their school or their teaching practice.

Across all seven topics, principals were least likely to agree that they were prepared to work with black, Latino, and low-income students (60 percent), with teachers also showing lower levels of agreement (68 percent).

A Majority of School Leaders Felt Prepared to Support Various Aspects of Their Schools When They Began Working as Principals

We also asked principals about their sense of prepa-ration when they began their work as school lead-ers, touching on a range of topics related to school management. Specifically, we asked principals “how well prepared did you feel when beginning work as a principal to support each of the following aspects of the school system?” We asked about 11 distinct aspects of school management, listed in Figure 3,

FIGURE 2

Teacher Agreement with Statements About Their Preservice Preparation Experiences

NOTE: Bars may not total 100 percent because of rounding.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

My program prepared me to work with black, Latino, andlow-income students

My training prepared me to use data to continuously improvemy teaching (e.g., practices, materials, plans)

My training program collected and shared data with me aboutmy performance

I left my training feeling prepared to teach in my classroom

The feedback I received helped me improve my practice

I could see the connection between what I was learning in mycoursework and what I was experiencing in student teaching

or internship

The teacher educators (e.g., faculty, supervisor, mentor) whosupported me were effective

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Percentage

62

42

56

47

45

27

33

29

40

34

38

34

35

35

6

13

7

11

14

25

21

7

13

12

3

5

3

4

10

(21 percent), while field experience lasting more than one semester but less than one year was the second- most common amount for teachers (24 percent).

Principals and Teachers with Greater Amounts of Field Experience Were More Likely to Have Positive Perspectives About Their Preservice Programs

We found positive and statistically significant associ-ations between educators’ reports about the perceived caliber of their preservice program and the amount of field experience they had.8 In Figure 4, we pres-ent the percentage of educators who “somewhat” or

Preservice Field Experience and Variation in Perceived Preparation

Our second area of inquiry focused on the extent to which field experience during preservice training was associated with educators’ perceptions of prepa-ration. Approximately 80 percent of principals and more than 95 percent of teachers reported having some form of field experience component, with the modal amount for principals and teachers being somewhere between one week and one semester (45 percent of principals and 42 percent of teachers).7 Field experience that lasted one year or longer was the second-most common amount for principals

FIGURE 3

School Leaders' Reported Preparation to Support Aspects of the School System When Beginning Their Work as Principals

NOTE: Bars may not total 100 percent because of rounding.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Completely prepared Mostly prepared Mostly unprepared Completely unprepared

Percentage

30

26

19

20

17

15

20

15

14

13

12

59

60

56

58

59

52

52

50

48

43

10

13

19

22

23

24

24

28

31

34

37

1

1

3

2

2

2

3

4

4

5

8

Fostering safety, trust, and agency among students

Student-centered learning climate

Distributed leadership shared across administrators andteachers

Strong collaboration between families, communities,employers, and your school to drive student motivation and

performance

Coherent instructional system, including relevant materials,tools, and assessments aligned to high standards

High-performing faculty supported by strong training,professional development, collaboration, and feedback

Continuous improvement driven by data use

Supporting all students’ successful transition from high schoolto postsecondary education

Supporting school equity goals and, in particular, the needs ofblack, Latino, and low-income students

Social and emotional learning

Supporting needs of students with high-incidence disabilities

60

11

that there is minimal discernable difference between more than one semester and one year or more of field experience for these items.

Principals with Greater Amounts of Field Experience Reported Feeling More Prepared to Support Their Schools When Beginning Work

When we shift our attention to principals’ sense of preparation when beginning their work in their cur-rent position, we find a similarly positive association with the amount of field experience they had during their preservice training. As illustrated in Figure 5, we find an almost universally positive association between survey responses regarding perceived prepa-ration and quantity of field work. The only example

“strongly” agreed with each of seven statements about their preservice program, broken out by the amount of field experience they had.9 For example, when we look at the percentage of educators who agreed with the statement “I could see the connection between what I was learning in my coursework and what I was experiencing in my practice/student teaching,” we found that 67 percent of educators who had no field experience agreed with the statement, while 78 per-cent of those with one semester or less agreed, and 89 percent among those with a year or more of field experience agreed.

Figure 4 also shows that for three of the state-ments there appeared to be a leveling off or even a decline when comparing responses of educators with more than one semester with those with one year or more of field experience. This pattern may suggest

FIGURE 4

Principal and Teacher Agreement with Statements About Preservice Preparation, by Amount of Field Experience During Training Program

NOTE: Chi-square tests of the difference in the distribution of educators’ agreement with statements regarding their prepara-tion program are significant among those with varying amounts of field experience (p < 0.001).

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

No fieldwork

One semesteror less

More thanone semester

One yearor more

Per

cent

age

“som

ewha

t” o

r “s

tron

gly”

agr

ee Those who provided my leadership training/those who supported me (e.g., faculty,mentors) were effective

The feedback I received helped me improvemy leadership/practice

I left my training feeling prepared to lead aschool/teach in my classroom

I could see the connection between what Iwas learning in my coursework and what Iwas experiencing in my practice/studentteaching

My training program collected and shareddata about my performance with me

My program prepared me to work with black, Latino, and low-income students

My training prepared me to use data tocontinuously improve my school/my teaching

12

reported preparation to work with black, Latino, and low-income students was among the lowest of all the topics asked of principals, with only 64 percent of school leaders reporting feeling mostly or completely prepared when they began their work in their current position. In this section, we explore this topic and variation related to educator demographics and the contexts of their work.

White Principals and Teachers Less Likely Than Nonwhite Peers to Agree That Preservice Training Prepared Them to Support Black, Latino, and Low-Income Students

As shown in Figure 6 and Appendix C, Table C.1, we found that white educators (both principals and

that was not statistically significant was principals’ preparation to foster safety, trust, and agency among students, but this is probably because of consistently positive responses among principals with all amounts of practicum experience.

Preparation to Support a Diverse Student Body

As shown earlier in Figures 1 and 2, both principals and teachers had mixed levels of agreement with the statement “my program prepared me to work with black, Latino, and/or low-income students,” with 60 percent of principals and 68 percent of teachers indicating that they somewhat or strongly agreed. In addition, in Figure 3, we showed that principals’

FIGURE 5

Principals’ Reported Preparation When Beginning Work as School Leaders, by Amount of Field Experience During Training Program

NOTE: Chi-square tests of the difference in the distribution of principals’ agreement with statements regarding their prepara-tion program are significant among those with varying amounts of field experience (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001).

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

No fieldwork

One semesteror less

More thanone semester

One yearor more

Per

cent

age

“som

ewha

t” o

r “s

tron

gly”

agr

ee

Fostering safety, trust, and agency amongstudents

Student-centered learning climate**

Distributed leadership shared across administrators and teachers***

Strong collaboration between families, communities, employers, and your school to drive student motivation and performance*

Coherent instructional system, includingrelevant materials, tools, and assessmentsaligned to high standards***

High-performing faculty supported by strongtraining, professional development, collaboration, and feedback***

Continuous improvement driven by data use**

Supporting all students’ successful transitionfrom high school to postsecondary**

Supporting school equity goals and, in particular, the needs of black, Latino, andlow-income students**

Social and emotional learning**

Supporting needs of students with high-incidence disabilities*

13

perceptions of preparation; this negative association endured after controlling for individual covariates.12

Relationship Between Principals’ Preparedness to Support Nonwhite and Low-Income Students When Entering the Profession and Preservice Training in This Area

Our final set of analyses involved the integration of the two sets of survey questions that have thus far been discussed in isolation—(1) principals’ perspec-tives about their preservice programs and (2) school leaders’ sense of preparation when they began their work as principals. Specifically, we asked whether the amount of training to support low-income and minority students during their preservice prepara-tion was associated with their perceived readiness to address school equity goals related to these students when actually beginning their work as school leaders.

teachers) were less likely to agree that their preservice training prepared them to work with black, Latino, and low-income students. We found a gap in per-ceived preparation based on educator race (62 percent of white educators somewhat or strongly agreed, compared with 76 percent of nonwhite educators), with this difference being statistically significant at the p < 0.001 level when estimated using a weighted OLS regression model. This gap remained statistically significant after controlling for the educator’s role (teacher versus principal), amount of field experience, and overall years of experience on the job. We also found a positive association between the amount of field experience and a negative association with overall years of experience.10 Although the finding for field experience is generally consistent with what we reported earlier in our discussion of the second research question, the negative association with years of experience suggests that more-experienced teach-ers recall that their preparation programs did less to prepare them to work with nonwhite and low-income students.11

White Principals Less Likely Than Nonwhite Principals to Report Being Prepared to Support Black, Latino, and Low-Income Students When They Began Working as School Leaders

Shifting from a discussion of educators’ preservice training programs to principals’ sense of prepared-ness when they began working as school leaders, we found that white principals reported feeling less prepared to support black, Latino, and low-income students when they began their work (see Figure 7 and Appendix C, Table C.2). Specifically, we found that approximately 62 percent of white principals reported being “mostly” or “completely” prepared in this area, compared with 76 percent of nonwhite principals (data not shown). This difference was sta-tistically significant when controlling for field experi-ence and years of experience in their current role (see Column D in Appendix C, Table C.2). We also found that greater amounts of field experience had a posi-tive association with more-favorable perceptions of preparation. Furthermore, we found that more years of job experience were associated with less favorable

FIGURE 6

Educator Agreement That Their Training Prepared Them to Support Black, Latino, and Low-Income Students

0

50

40

30

20

10

60

70

80

90

100

Whiteprincipals

Nonwhiteprincipals

Per

centa

ge

Completelyunprepared

Mostlyunprepared

Mostlyprepared

Completelyprepared

NOTE: Bars may not total 100 percent because of rounding. The difference in the distribution of principals’ prepared-ness to support black, Latino, and low-income students was significant among white and nonwhite respondents (p < 0.001).

How prepared did you feel when beginning work as a principal to support school equity goals and, in particular, the needs of black,

Latino, and low-income students?

1223

50

53

34

21

5 3

14

preparation when starting their work is nonexistent among respondents who agreed that their program prepared them in this area; this interaction is statisti-cally significant at the p < 0.001 level.

To briefly summarize the findings, principals and teachers generally felt that the individuals providing training, the feedback they received during their training, and their coursework and learning expe-riences were relevant and related to what they were experiencing during their practicum experiences. Lower rates of principals and teachers agreed that their preservice training prepared them to support the needs of black, Latino, and low-income students. A majority of school leaders felt prepared to support various aspects of their schools when they began their work as principals. Educators who had greater amounts of field experience during their pre- service training were more likely to agree with

In addition, we investigate whether this association differs for white and nonwhite school leaders.

Better Perceptions of Preservice Training to Support a Diverse Student Body Were Associated With Better Perceptions of Readiness to Address School Equity Goals When Beginning Work, Particularly for White School Leaders

As we show in Figure 7 and Column F of Appendix C, Table C.2, we found that differences in reported preparation to support school equity goals among white and nonwhite principals was most prevalent among those whose did not agree that their preparation program prepared them to support the needs of black, Latino, and low-income students (as illustrated by the divergent lines in the bottom left portion of Figure 7). Conversely, the gap in perceived

FIGURE 7

Principal Preparedness to Support Black, Latino, and Low-Income Students When Beginning Work as a School Leader

NOTE: Vertical bars represent 95-percent confidence intervals.

Preservice training to work with black, Latino, and low-income students

Com

ple

tely

unp

rep

ared

Mos

tlyun

pre

par

edM

ostly

pre

par

edC

omp

lete

lyp

rep

ared

Stronglydisagree

Somewhatdisagree

Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

Pre

par

edne

ss t

o su

pp

ort

scho

ol e

qui

ty g

oals

whe

n b

egin

ning

car

eer

White principals

Nonwhite principals

15

students, as several researchers have found such preparation to be lacking (Khalifa et al., 2016). Lower percentages of principals and teachers agreed that their preservice training prepared them to support a diverse student body compared with other topics included in the survey. We also found considerable gaps between white and nonwhite educators regard-ing the extent to which their programs prepared them in this area. These findings are consistent with prior research highlighting the urgent need for preparation programs to address educators’ readiness to support the needs of low-income students and students of color, particularly for white educators (Goodwin, 2017; Sleeter and Owour, 2011).

White educators consistently reported lower levels of preservice training to support low-income and nonwhite students than nonwhite educators did. However, we found that this race-based difference almost disappeared among principals who felt that their preservice training program did a good job of preparing them in this aspect of school leadership. The finding suggests that well-structured preservice programs may make a difference in building white educators’ awareness of equity issues and building their skill sets to support a diversifying student body.

There are four important limitations in our study. The first is that our analysis relies exclusively on educator self-reports of their sense of preparation upon entering their profession, so educators’ ability to accurately recall their level of preparation may come into question, especially if they have worked for years. However, we controlled for educators’ experi-ence level in all analysis of educator-level variation, and we generally found that this did not change our primary findings of differences between white and nonwhite educators. Social desirability bias might also affect self-reporting; respondents might try to cast an overly positive light on aspects of their teach-ing or school leadership practice.

The second limitation is our analysis of the association between perceived preparation and field experience. In our analysis, we solely focus on the reported amount of educators’ field experience. We did not solicit information about other important aspects, such as the quality of the practicum expe-rience, the format or nature of the placement, or the amount of mentorship offered by the supervising

various statements concerning the caliber of their preparation programs. White principals and teachers were less likely than their nonwhite peers to report that their preservice training prepared them to support black, Latino, and low-income students. In addition, white school leaders were less likely than nonwhite principals to report being prepared to support black, Latino, and low-income students when they began working as a principal, and this differ-ence was most pronounced among school leaders who did not agree that their program prepared them in this key area. In the final section, we draw some conclusions and provide implications for policy and practice.

Conclusion

There is abundant evidence that principal and teacher quality are important for supporting student out-comes, yet many preservice training programs are seen as lacking and in need of overhaul (Bottoms and O’Neill, 2001; Briggs et al., 2013; Davis, 2016; Levine, 2005; Manna, 2015). Because the majority of these studies are of educators in specific state or district contexts, it is important to gain a nationally representative perspective of principals and teachers on their preservice training. In particular, we should better understand educators’ sense of preparedness to support a diversifying student body, as more than 80 percent of school leaders and teachers are white—and the majority of public school students are now nonwhite.

This report provides a summary of how princi-pals and teachers in the United States think about the preparation programs in which they were enrolled, and (for principals) how prepared they felt they were when they began working in schools. With the exception of the 2011–2012 SASS (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012), we lack national-level survey data for comparison purposes. However, as in the SASS, a majority of AEP respondents felt that their preservice training did a decent job of preparing them for various aspects of their work as educators in U.S. schools.

We focused on educators’ sense of preparation to support the needs of black, Latino, and low-income

16

preparation programs who are considering ways to best prepare educators to work in U.S. schools. In particular, preparation programs may benefit from a stronger focus on supporting the needs of a diverse student body, in terms of race and ethnicity, social class, and students with high-needs disabilities. These nationally representative findings comport with prior work showing the limited efficacy of preservice training regarding supports for a diversi-fying student body (Khalifa et al., 2016). Preparation programs should continue to anchor field experience in high-quality mentorship experiences and connect this field experience to coursework.

Moving forward, it will be important for scholars to continue to develop studies of preservice training programs that rely on objective measures of program quality and not just educator self-reports. These programs also should have a large enough geographic scale to account for variation in preparation across programs (e.g., Koedel et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018).

teacher or school leader. In addition, we are unable to account for potential selection bias into preparation programs that have more field experience; aspiring educators who feel more motivated or prepared may be more likely to enter preservice programs that pro-vide greater amounts of field experience.

Our third limitation is that we are not able to make claims about the actual quality of the programs educators attended. We cannot presume that princi-pals and teachers in our sample are actually effective in the areas where they say they were prepared, nor can we presume that they are ineffective in the areas in which they claim their programs prepared them poorly.

Finally, all analyses are purely correlational in this report and do not imply causal relationships.

The findings of this report can be helpful to inform the decisions of policymakers (including credentialing bodies, such as state education agen-cies) and administrators of principal and teacher

17

Appendix A. Abridged Principal Survey Instrument

1. What kind of training did you receive to prepare you to become a principal? (Select all that apply)

• University-based• District- or [charter management organization]–based• Third-party professional development organization• Other (please specify):

2. How long did you work in education before becoming a principal?

3. How well prepared did you feel when beginning work as a principal to support each of the following aspects of the school system?

At My Current School At Any School

0 Years1 Year or

Less2 to 5 Years

More Than 5 Years 0 Years

1 Year or Less

2 to 5 Years

More Than 5 Years

As an assistant principal ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

As a teacher ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Other (please specify)

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Completely Unprepared

Mostly Unprepared

Mostly Prepared

Completely Prepared

Distributed leadership shared across administrators and teachers ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Continuous improvement [Mouseover definition: ongoing efforts to improve outcomes for students and/or efficacy of school systems and processes] driven by data use

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Coherent instructional system, including relevant materials, tools, and assessments aligned to high standards

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

High-performing faculty supported by strong training, professional development, collaboration, and feedback

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Student-centered learning climate ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Fostering safety, trust, and agency among students ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Strong collaboration between families, communities, employers, and your school to drive student motivation and performance

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Supporting school equity goals and, in particular, the needs of black, Latino, and low-income students

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Social and emotional learning ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Supporting needs of students with high-incidence disabilities ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Supporting all students’ successful transition from high school to postsecondary

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

18

4. As part of your leadership preparation, were you given the opportunity to practice what you were learning about leadership in a school setting?

• No, all of my preparation was out-of-school training with no practice in an actual school.• Yes, I had some practice in an actual school before becoming a sitting principal.

5. Approximately how many weeks were you given to practice what you were learning about leadership in a school setting? If less than one week, please write 1.

6. Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about your leadership preparation.13

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Strongly Agree

Don't Remember or

N/A

The feedback I received helped me improve my leadership. ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

My training program collected and shared data with me about my performance.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

Those who provided my leadership training (e.g., faculty, mentors) were effective.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

I could see the connection between what I was learning in my coursework and what I was experiencing in my practice.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

My program prepared me to work with black, Latino, and low-income students.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

I left my training feeling prepared to lead a school. ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

My training prepared me to use data to continuously improve my school.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

19

Appendix B. Abridged Teacher Survey Instrument

1. Did you participate in a teacher preparation program before becoming a classroom teacher? ¨ No¨ Yes

2. Was your teacher preparation through an alternative certification program?¨ No¨ Yes¨ I don’t know

3. What kind of preparation did you primarily receive before becoming a classroom teacher?¨ I went through a university-run teacher preparation program.¨ I went through a nonprofit-run teacher preparation program (not a university).¨ I went through a district- or [charter management organization]–run teacher preparation program.¨ Other (please specify):

4. How much time did your teacher preparation program give you to practice teaching in a classroom setting (e.g., student teaching) prior to becoming a teacher of record?

¨ No practice opportunities in a classroom setting¨ Less than one semester¨ Approximately one semester¨ Less than one full school year but more than one semester¨ Full school year or more in a classroom setting¨ I don’t know

5. How frequently did you receive feedback on the quality of your teaching practice during your teacher prepara-tion program?

¨ Almost never or never¨ Less than once a month¨ Monthly¨ Weekly¨ Daily¨ I don’t know

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

20

6. Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about your teaching prepara-tion program (including practicum/internship).14

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Strongly Agree

I Don't Know or N/A

My program prepared me to successfully implement the instructional materials I use regularly in my classroom. ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

The feedback I received helped me improve my practice. ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

My program collected and shared data with me about my performance.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

The teacher educators (faculty, supervisor, mentor) who supported me were effective.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

I could see the connection between what I was learning in my coursework and what I was experiencing in my student teaching or internship.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

My program prepared me to work with black, Latino, and/or low-income students.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

I left my program feeling prepared to teach in my classroom.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

My program prepared me to use data to continuously improve my teaching (e.g., practices, materials, plans).

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

My program prepared me to successfully adapt my main instructional materials to address students’ needs.

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

21

Appendix C. Weighted Regression Results

TABLE C.1

Weighted Regression Estimates Predicting Principals’ and Teachers’ Agreement That Their Preservice Programs Prepared Them to Support Black, Latino, and Low-Income Students

A B C D

Respondent race

White (versus nonwhite) –0.311*** –0.283

Field experience

No field experience Ref. Ref.

One semester or less 0.170* 0.086*

More than one semester 0.392*** 0.195***

Year or more 0.593*** 0.251***

Job experience –0.012*** –0.010

Teacher 0.206*** 0.126*** 0.284*** 0.212***

Intercept 2.943*** 2.434*** 2.779*** 2.676***

NOTES: Asterisks represent statistically significant results from weighted OLS regression models predicting educator agreement, which is a categorical variable with values between 1 (strongly disagree) and 4 (strongly agree). * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

TABLE C.2

Weighted Regression Estimates Predicting Principals’ Preparation to Support Black, Latino, and Low-Income Students

A B C D E F

Respondent race

White (versus nonwhite) –0.297*** –0.285 –0.286 –0.559

Field experience

No field experience Ref. Ref. Ref.

One semester or less 0.141* 0.120* 0.052 0.017

More than one semester 0.3166** 0.152** 0.114* 0.009

Year or more 0.252*** 0.231*** 0.146*** 0.036

Job experience (years) –0.015*** –0.011** –0.008*** –0.009**

Program preparation 0.433*** 0.318***

Program preparation * white 0.150*

Intercept 2.975*** 2.602*** 2.839*** 2.921*** 1.711*** 2.058***

NOTES: Asterisks represent statistically significant results of weighted OLS regression models predicting principals’ reported preparation, which is a categorical variable coded between 1 (completely unprepared) and 4 (completely prepared). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

22

23

educator role. Results for specific subsamples are available upon request. 10 See Model D in Appendix C, Table C.1, which includes all three individual experience measures.11 We also tested for interactions between educator race and the field experience and job experience variables, along with the indicator of whether the educator was a teacher or principal, with none of the results being statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.12 We also tested for interactions between principal race and the field experience and job experience variables, with none of the results being statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level. Full results are available upon request. 13 The sequence of questions within each matrix was randomized.14 The sequence of questions within each matrix was randomized.

Notes1 Standard 1 requires candidates to meet the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Model Core Teaching Standards that outline specific skills and knowledge (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013). 2 Respondents who answered less than 10 percent of the survey were not assigned a weight and have been excluded from the analysis.3 A preliminary analysis of nonresponse bias was conducted by gender, years of experience, and grade band. Although there were nominal differences between genders and grade bands, there was a 12-percent difference between novice teachers, as teachers with zero to six years of experience had a 57-percent completion rate, while those with 20 years or more had a 46-percent comple-tion rate. As we explain in the Methods section, the weighting strategy is intended to account for these types of differences in response probabilities. 4 Eighty replicate weights were calculated by removing 1/80th of the sample and repeating the process used to determine main weights on the remaining set of respondents. Replicate weights were used in calculating jackknife standard errors in all esti-mates. 5 For the multivariate analyses conducted for Research Ques-tions 2 and 3, we also considered including school-level predic-tors such as demographic composition or urbanicity. However, we opted to exclude these because of potential selection bias, as educators’ sense of preparation is likely to influence their job selection process. 6 Although we are unable to directly attribute this sense of prepa-ration when beginning their work as principals to their actual preservice programs, the consistently positive results suggest an alignment between perceived caliber of their preservice program and principals’ sense of preparation. For example, the one domain that is addressed in both sets of questions relates to principals’ preparation to work with black, Latino, and low- income students. We found a positive association between the first question about their preparation program and the second question regarding their preparation when beginning their work as principals (weighted correlation = 0.536). We elaborate on this topic in our discussion of our fourth research question.7 In the survey, field experience for principals was described as “the opportunity to practice what you were learning about lead-ership in a school setting.” For teachers, it was described as “time to practice teaching in a classroom setting (e.g., student teaching) prior to becoming teacher of record.” 8 The means presented in Figure 4 are based on a weighted crosstab of survey response and amount of field experience, and chi-square tests of distributional differences all suggest statis-tically significant differences at the p < 0.001 level. To confirm the positive association that is apparent upon visual inspection of Figure 4, we also estimated weighted OLS regression models using a categorical measure of field experience as a predictor, with all regression results returning positive and statistically significant coefficients at the p < 0.001 level. The same can be said for each of the seven statements illustrated in Figure 4. 9 We present results for principals and teachers combined because we found no notable differences in the associations based on

24

25

Davis, Jacquelyn, Improving University Principal Preparation Programs: Five Themes from the Field, New York: The Wallace Foundation, 2016. As of April 15, 2019: https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/improving-university-principal-preparation-programs.aspx

Davis, Stephen, Linda Darling-Hammond, Michelle LaPointe, and Debra Meyerson, School Leadership Study: Developing Successful Principals, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, 2005. As of April 15, 2019: https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/publications/244

Egalite, Anna J., and Brian Kisida, “The Effects of Teacher Match on Students’ Academic Perceptions and Attitudes,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2017, pp. 59–81.

Fry, Betty, Gene Bottoms, and Kathy O’Neill, The Principal Internship: How Can We Get It Right? Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board, 2005. As of May 21, 2019: https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/principal-internship-get-it-right.aspx

Gershenson, Seth, Cassandra M. D. Hart, Constance A. Lindsay, and Nicholas W. Papageorge, The Long-Run Impacts of Same-Race Teachers, Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics, 2017. As of January 20, 2019: http://ftp.iza.org/dp10630.pdf

Goldhaber, Dan, and Michael Hansen, “Race, Gender, and Teacher Testing: How Informative a Tool Is Teacher Licensure Testing?” American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2010, pp. 218–251.

Goldhaber, Dan, Stephanie Liddle, and Roddy Theobald, “The Gateway to the Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs Based on Student Achievement,” Economics of Education Review, Vol. 34, 2013, pp. 29–44.

Goodwin, A. Lin, “Who Is in the Classroom Now? Teacher Preparation and the Education of Immigrant Children,” Educational Studies, Vol. 53, No. 5, 2017, pp. 433–449.

Greenberg, Julie, Laura Pomerance, and Kate Walsh, Student Teaching in the United States, Washington, D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2011. As of April 15, 2019: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521916.pdf

Grissom, Jason A., and Susanna Loeb, “Triangulating Principal Effectiveness: How Perspectives of Parents, Teachers, and Assistant Principals Identify the Central Importance of Managerial Skills,” American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 48, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1091–1123.

Grissom, Jason A., and Christopher Redding, “Discretion and Disproportionality: Explaining the Underrepresentation of High-Achieving Students of Color in Gifted Programs,” AERA Open, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2016, pp. 1–25.

Henry, Gary T., David C. Kershaw, Rebecca A. Zulli, and Adrienne A. Smith, “Incorporating Teacher Effectiveness Into Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation,” Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 63, No. 5, 2012, pp. 335–355.

Jacob, Robin T., and Brian Jacob, “Prenotification, Incentives, and Survey Modality: An Experimental Test of Methods to Increase Survey Response Rates of School Principals,” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2012, pp. 401–418.

Johnston, William R., Goke Akinniranye, and Christopher Joseph Doss, How Much Influence Do Teachers Have in Their Schools? It Depends on Whom You Ask, Santa Monica, Calif.:

ReferencesAnderson, Lauren M., and Jamy A. Stillman, “Student Teaching’s Contribution to Preservice Teacher Development: A Review of Research Focused on the Preparation of Teachers for Urban and High-Needs Contexts,” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 83, No. 1, 2013, pp. 3–69.

Boser, Ulrich, Teacher Diversity Revisited: A New State-by-State Analysis, Washington D.C.: Center for American Progress, 2014. As of January 22, 2019: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED564608

Bottoms, Gene, and Kathy O’Neill, Preparing a New Breed of School Principals: It’s Time for Action, Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board, 2001. As of January 21, 2019: https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/preparing-a-new-breed-of-school-principals.aspx

Branch, Gregory F., Eric A. Hanushek, and Steven G. Rivkin, “School Leaders Matter: Measuring the Impact of Effective Principals,” Education Next, Winter 2013. As of January 8, 2019: https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_20131_branch.pdf

Briggs, Kerri, Gretchen Rhines Cheney, Jacquelyn Davis, and Kerry Ann Moll, Operating in the Dark: What Outdated State Policies and Data Gaps Mean for Effective School Leadership, Dallas: The George W. Bush Institute, 2013, pp. 62–69. As of April 15, 2019: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED560209

CAEP—See Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, “Introduction: The CAEP Standards,” webpage, undated. As of February 21, 2019: http://www.ncate.org/standards/introduction

Council of Chief State School Officers, InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.0: A Resource for Ongoing Teacher Development, Washington, D.C., 2013. As of April 17, 2019: https://ccsso.org/resource-library/intasc-model-core-teaching-standards-and-learning-progressions-teachers-10

Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, and Jonah E. Rockoff, “Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood,” American Economic Review, Vol. 104, No. 9, 2014, pp. 2633–2679.

Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, Rebecca Stern, Juan Gabriel Sánchez, Andrew F. Miller, Elizabeth Stringer Keefe, M. Beatriz Fernández, Wen-Chia Chang, Molly Cummings Carney, Stephani Burton, and Megina Baker, Holding Teacher Preparation Accountable: A Review of Claims and Evidence, Boulder, Colo.: National Education Policy Center, 2016. As of January 20, 2019: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/teacher-prep

Cook, Colleen, Fred Heath, and Russel L. Thompson, “A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-Based Surveys,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 60, No. 6, 2000, pp. 821–836.

Darling-Hammond, Linda, Michelle LaPointe, Debra Meyerson, Margaret Terry Orr, and Carol Cohen, Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership Development Programs, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, Stanford Education Leadership Institute, 2007. As of March 13, 2019: https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Preparing-School-Leaders.pdf

26

Orr, Margaret Terry, and Margaret E. Barber, “Collaborative Leadership Preparation: A Comparative Study of Partnership and Conventional Programs and Practices,” Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 16, 2016, pp. 709–739.

Perez, Lynne G., Cynthia L. Uline, Joseph F. Johnson, Jr., Cheryl James-Ward, and Margaret R. Basom, “Foregrounding Fieldwork in Leadership Preparation: The Transformative Capacity of Authentic Inquiry,” Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2011, pp. 217–257.

Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain, “Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,” Econometrica, Vol. 73, No. 2, 2005, pp. 417–458.

Rockoff, Jonah E., “The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data,” American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, 2004, pp. 247–252.

Ronfeldt, Matthew, Nathaniel Schwartz, and Brian A. Jacob, “Does Preservice Preparation Matter? Examining an Old Question in New Ways,” Teachers College Record, Vol. 116, No. 10, October 2014, pp. 1–46.

Seashore Louis, Karen, Kenneth Leithwood, Kyla L. Wahlstrom, and Stephen E. Anderson, Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning, St. Paul, Minn.: The Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota, 2010. As of April 19, 2019: https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/140885/Learning-from-Leadership_Final-Research-Report_July-2010.pdf?sequence=1%26isAllowed=y

Sleeter, Christine E., and Jenipher Owuor, “Research on the Impact of Teacher Preparation to Teach Diverse Students: The Research We Have and the Research We Need,” Action in Teacher Education, Vol. 33, No. 5–6, 2011, pp. 524–536.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, The State of Racial Diversity in the Educator Workforce, Washington, D.C., 2016. As of January 22, 2019: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf

Wang, Elaine Lin, Susan M. Gates, Rebecca Herman, Monica Mean, Rachel Perera, Tiffany Tsai, Katie Whipkey, and Megan Andrew, Launching a Redesign of University Principal Preparation Programs: Partners Collaborate for Change, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2612-WF, 2018. As of January 22, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2612.html

Young, Billy L., Jean Madsen, and Mary Ann Young, “Implementing Diversity Plans: Principals’ Perception of Their Ability To Address Diversity in Their Schools,” NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 94, No. 2, 2010, pp. 135–157.

Zeichner, Ken, “Reflections of a University-Based Teacher Educator on the Future of College- and University-Based Teacher Education,” Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2006, pp. 326–340.

RAND Corporation, RR-2575-BMGF, 2018. As of January 22, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2575.html

Johnston, William R., Julia H. Kaufman, and Lindsey E. Thompson, Support for Instructional Leadership: Supervision, Mentoring, and Professional Development for U.S. School Leaders: Findings from the American School Leader Panel, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1580-1-WF, 2016. As of January 8, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1580-1.html

Johnston, William R., and Tiffany Tsai, The Prevalence of Collaboration Among American Teachers: National Findings from the American Teacher Panel, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2217-BMGF, 2018. As of January 8, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2217.html

Joshi, Ela, Sy Doan, and Matthew G. Springer, “Student-Teacher Race Congruence: New Evidence and Insight From Tennessee,” AERA Open, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2018, pp. 1–25.

Khalifa, Muhammad A., Mark Anthony Gooden, and James Earl Davis, “Culturally Responsive School Leadership: A Synthesis of the Literature,” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 86, No. 4, 2016, pp. 1272–1311.

Koedel, Cory, Eric Parsons, Michael Podgursky, and Mark Ehlert, “Teacher Preparation Programs and Teacher Quality: Are There Real Differences Across Programs?” Education Finance and Policy, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2015, pp. 508–534.

Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom, How Leadership Influences Student Learning, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 2004. As of January 20, 2019: https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf

Levine, Arthur, Educating School Leaders, New York: Teachers College, The Education Schools Project, 2005. As of April 15, 2019: http://edschools.org/pdf/Final313.pdf

Manna, Paul, Developing Excellent School Principals to Advance Teaching and Learning: Considerations for State Policy, New York: The Wallace Foundation, 2015. As of May 17, 2019: https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/developing-excellent-school-principals.aspx

Maxwell, Lesli A., “U.S. School Enrollment Hits Majority-Minority Milestone,” Education Week, August 19, 2014. As of January 20, 2019: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/08/20/01demographics.h34.html

Miller, Catherine M., and Barbara N. Martin, “Principal Preparedness for Leading in Demographically Changing Schools: Where Is the Social Justice Training?” Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2015, pp. 129–151.

National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), Public School Teacher Data File, 2011–2012, data set, 2012. As of March 4, 2019: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables_list.asp#2012

National Policy Board for Educational Administration, National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Standards: Building Level, Reston, Va., August 2018. As of April 15, 2019: http://3fl71l2qoj4l3y6ep2tqpwra.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/ wp-content/uploads/2018/10/NELP-Building-Standards.pdf

27

RR-2990-BMGF

The RAND Corporation is a research

organization that develops solutions

to public policy challenges to help

make communities throughout

the world safer and more secure,

healthier and more prosperous.

RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and

committed to the public interest.

RAND’s publications do not

necessarily reflect the opinions of

its research clients and sponsors.

R® is a registered trademark.

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

International License. All users of the

publication are permitted to copy

and redistribute the material in any

medium or format and transform and

build upon the material, including for

any purpose (including commercial)

without further permission or fees

being required.

For more information on this

publication, visit

www.rand.org/t/RR2990.

Published (2019) by the RAND Corporation.

About This ReportThis research was conducted by RAND Education and Labor, a division of the RAND Corporation that conducts research on early childhood through postsec-ondary education programs, workforce development, and programs and policies affecting workers, entrepreneurship, and financial literacy and decisionmak-ing. Funding to support this work was provided by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which focuses on ensuring that all students graduate from high school prepared for college and have an opportunity to earn a postsecondary degree with labor-market value. For more information, please visit www.gatesfoundation.org.

The authors would like to acknowledge the following people and organizations for their contributions to this work. First, a sincere thanks to Steven Rivkin and Elaine Wang, who reviewed this report and provided critical guidance that has improved our analysis and helped us better articulate key findings and their implications. In addition, we would like to thank The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the funding, ideas, and feedback that have driven this work forward. Thanks also to the RAND American Educator Panels (AEP) research team—including David Grant, Laura Hamilton, Claude Setodji, Jennifer McCombs, Susannah Faxon-Mills, and Courtney Armstrong—as well as the initial sponsors of the AEP: the National Education Association and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Last, we are extremely grateful to the U.S. public school teachers and leaders who have agreed to participate in the American Teacher Panel (ATP) and the American School Leader Panel (ASLP) and take these particular surveys. Their time and willingness to share their experiences are invaluable for this effort and for helping us to understand more about how to better support their hard work in schools.

For more information about the RAND American Educator Panels, please email aep@rand.org or visit www.rand.org/aep. More information about RAND can be found at www.rand.org. Questions about this report should be directed to williamj@rand.org, and questions about RAND Education and Labor should be directed to educationandlabor@rand.org.

About the AuthorsWilliam R. Johnston is an associate policy researcher at the RAND Corporation. His research explores how local, state, and national political and social contexts relate to educational opportunities and outcomes for youth.

Christopher Young is a policy analyst at the RAND Corporation and the project manager for the American Educator Panels. His research focuses on disadvan-taged students’ access to educational opportunities.

www.rand.org

Cover image: Monkey Business/

Adobe Stock

American Educator PanelsC O R P O R A T I O N