Leadership for the Future: Enhancing Principal Preparation Through Standards and Innovation

Abstract

This manuscript presents a comprehensive analysis of NC State University’s redesigned principal preparation program, emphasizing its alignment with state and national leadership standards, innovative curriculum, and commitment to practical application. The program’s redesign addresses long-standing criticisms of traditional university-based leadership preparation, such as the disconnect between theory and practice, by incorporating data-driven instructional leadership, equity-focused training, and collaborative community engagement. Additionally, this article explores the role of specialized internships, full-time residencies, and the integration of technology in training future principals. The program’s success is demonstrated by improved principal placement, school outcomes, and teacher retention—particularly in high-need schools. Finally, the manuscript discusses the future of leadership preparation, highlighting the potential of artificial intelligence to further enhance decision-making, personalized professional development, and administrative efficiency, while addressing ethical considerations such as data privacy and equity.

1. Introduction

Over the past several decades, research on effective educational leader preparation and development has garnered increased attention. The development of school leaders is now recognized as “likely the most efficient way to affect student achievement”, with effect sizes equivalent to 2.9 months of learning in math and 2.7 months in reading, which are significant in a traditional nine-month school year [1] (p. 40). Principals are second only to teachers in their impact on student achievement because of their key role in creating a positive school culture, hiring highly qualified personnel, and demonstrating the importance of instructional leadership for school improvement [2]. This acknowledgment underscores the urgent need for sustained and expansive studies to better inform program improvement and create more effective preparation programs. This manuscript reviews the existing literature on high-quality leadership preparation programs as well as critiques of traditional university-based preparation programs. Further, this article addresses these critiques by elaborating on the redesigned educational leader preparation program at NC State University’s principal preparation program, examining its content, approaches, and learning experiences, which have demonstrated significant impacts on principals’ practice and schooling outcomes. We achieve this through a detailed critique of traditional university-based preparation programs, demonstrating the differences between what was and what should be and, in the process, provide suggestions for improving leadership preparation through best practices. Our hope is that replication of best practices becomes the policy norm for state leaders and not, as is often the case, the exception.

2. Background and Historical Context of Leadership Preparation Programs

For decades, university-based principal preparation programs trained nearly all leaders of public schools. Much like the administrative progressives who sought to adopt the business practices of scientific management to create more efficient, effective industrial organizations, school leadership (or rather management) came to be viewed as apolitical, insulated, and the province of professionals—primarily those working in universities who taught aspiring school leaders the science of administration through courses such as organizational theory and behavior, leadership theory, law, and finance/budgeting [3]. At the turn of the 21st century, this monopoly began to be questioned, as critiques of university-based administrator preparation programs mounted [4,5]. Leadership preparation programs were criticized for being too theoretical, abstract, disconnected from practice, and taught either by faculty with little to no experience in leading schools or by retired administrators telling war stories. According to critics, little value was to be found in the university-based principal preparation curriculum, which was not tied to state or national standards and emphasized abstract theory over practice; the haphazard and poorly structured design of the internship received particular scrutiny. Programs were also criticized for their failure to incorporate ethics or social justice into the curriculum, as well as their failure to measure outcomes. A comprehensive review of these critiques may be found in Young and Crow’s Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders [6].

These critiques spurred renewed research on the essential elements of effective leadership preparation. This research has provided valuable insights into the essential components of effective leadership development [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. For example, Orr and Orphanos [11] compared principals who graduated from exemplary leadership preparation programs with a national sample of principals. The authors found that graduates of exemplary programs were more likely to utilize effective leadership practices, which was positively associated with school improvement and effectiveness. The integration of the findings from The Wallace Foundation and other scholarly works further enhances our understanding of how to cultivate and train exemplary educational leaders. In the following section, we highlight how NC State’s principal preparation program addressed criticisms of the traditional methods of administrator preparation, highlighting programmatic reform and change. Extant literature will be integrated into and discussed in the context of the specific subsections that follow.

3. Program Redesign and Innovation: Procedure, Methods, and Stages

3.1. Alignment with Standards

When redesigning the Masters in School Administration (MSA) program, the faculty began the process by aligning the program redesign with state and national standards, specifically the Professional Leadership Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) and the North Carolina Standards for School Executives. Alignment with the standards addresses one of the major critiques of administrator preparation programs. Research has highlighted the importance of aligning these standards to courses and curricula as a key component of effective leadership preparation [14]. Every course syllabus contains a detailed description of how each activity, experience, and course outcome aligns with specific national and state leadership standards.

North Carolina uses school leader evaluation rubrics developed by McREL “to rate a principal’s performance as either Developing, Proficient, Accomplished, Distinguished, or Not Demonstrated” and NCSU “utilizes this school leader evaluation rubric in assessing student performance” [15] (p. 15). Alignment with standards-based curricula has been identified as a critical component of high-quality leadership preparation programs [16].

3.2. Curriculum Reform and Enhancements: More than Coursework

The program’s faculty, in collaboration with their school district partners, realized that curricular revisions and program enhancements needed to be effectively sequenced and scaffolded to best integrate theory into professional practice. Reflecting state and national standards, the faculty, together with superintendents, principals, and other stakeholders, determined that the curriculum had to be significantly revised and enhanced to meet the contemporary needs of schooling. This change alone reflected the need to work in partnership with, rather than isolation from, school district leaders [17,18]. It required a pooling of community expertise, as opposed to the traditional model of the university as the sole fountain of knowledge. Rather than a dissociated, disconnected series of courses, learning experiences are scaffolded throughout the program, with each semester building upon and integrating the learning from previous semesters. For example, students begin the program with exposure to key leadership theories and practices, including Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and training in crucial conversations. The following semester, students apply those theories and learnings in authentic school settings. In another example, emphasis is placed on creating and sustaining a positive school culture; students in subsequent semesters apply that learning into leading professional learning communities in schools. According to Clement et al., “A model of capacity for redesign of principal preparation programs should strike a balance between the technical and professional aspects of teaching and leadership and the cultural and relational aspects of organizations” [19] (p. 109). Some specific features of our redesign are highlighted below.

• Instructional leadership: A core focus of the curriculum is on developing strong instructional leaders who can drive academic success. This includes comprehensive training in data-driven decision-making, curriculum development, and effective teaching strategies. Research has highlighted that principals who are well-versed in instructional leadership positively influence teachers’ performance and student outcomes [20,21,22,23,24,25,26].
• Community engagement: Aspiring principals are trained to engage effectively with their communities, fostering partnerships that support students’ success and well-being. This aspect of the curriculum is essential for creating schools that are not only academically successful but also inclusive and supportive of all students, particularly given that poor students and their families, as well as minority groups, often feel disconnected or marginalized [27].
• Culturally responsive leadership: Training includes strategies for fostering equity and inclusivity within schools, preparing leaders to address the diverse needs of their student populations. Principals trained in culturally responsive leadership are better equipped to create inclusive school environments that support all students.
• Equity audits: Aspiring principals conduct equity audits to identify and address disparities within their schools, promoting a culture of inclusivity and fairness. These audits help leaders develop strategies to ensure that all students have access to high-quality educational opportunities [28]. An explicit commitment to equity has been identified as a key component of high-quality preparation programs [14]. A detailed discussion of the process of effectively incorporating equity into program redesign may be found in Leggett et al.’s review of the principal preparation program at Western Kentucky University [14]. Equity audits provide students with the opportunity to analyze educational problems through the case method, which more effectively integrates theory and practice oriented toward school improvement [29].

After aligning the curriculum with the new standards, the program’s faculty determined that it was insufficient and chose to supplement it with specialized training and professional development, including those provided by our district partners. The program strikes a balance between theoretical knowledge and practical application, ensuring that aspiring principals are well-prepared to handle real-world challenges [30]. The program includes community-based projects that enable aspiring principals to develop skills in community engagement and partnership building, which has been identified as “a key aspect of school leadership” [31] (p. 196). These projects help future leaders understand the importance of community involvement in education. Specialized training and professional development include “Crucial Conversations, Understanding by Design, and Restorative Discipline, among others” [15] (p. 16).

Other program supplements include full-day visits to highly effective public, charter, private, and parochial schools so aspiring leaders see how other leaders have created high-performing schools (these learning rounds “expose candidates to different ways of leading and doing, encouraging them to think in new ways” [32] (p. 10)); leadership retreats; digital storytelling; conference travel; and a developmental project and a problem of practice, where students work with their mentor principal, executive coach, and cohort director to identify a pressing problem in their school, develop a program or plan to address that problem, then implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention [33]. The cohort model used in the redesign has been identified as an important component of quality preparation programs [16]. This culminating problem of practice (capstone experience) brings together everything the students have learned, led, and experienced to solving a problem of practice that they can take and later implement in their own schools as school leaders.

3.3. Reenvisioning Faculty Roles

The curriculum reforms discussed above required a paradigm shift in how the faculty view their roles and responsibilities. In many university-based preparation programs, teaching is one of many responsibilities and, in many cases, is not the most important one. The pressure on the faculty to “publish or perish” is very real and is often the last piece of advice newly minted PhDs receive from their mentors. The demands placed on faculty pursuing tenure often conflict with the requirements for teaching and service which, in many universities, are less valued. Mayger (2024) commented that “territorial faculty and curriculum development bureaucracy… can be substantial barriers in a field where this work is seldom recognized” [31] (p. 216). As a result, the incentive for faculty to “own” their courses and work in isolation becomes the norm.

However, to fundamentally change how school leaders were prepared, it quickly became clear that changes in faculty roles, or at least priorities, were required. Rather than the stand-alone model of six to eight individual courses plus an internship, which had been the norm in preparation programs for decades, the faculty and their school district partners collectively decided to restructure the curriculum (as discussed above) and shift from individual three-credit courses to program modules that incorporated specialized training, school visits, and professional development, including conference travel, into the revised curriculum.

On an operational level, this required the faculty to work collaboratively to lay out everything in the entire two-year sequence of the curriculum, including the specialized trainings, visits, and conferences, to determine how best to spiral the curriculum experiences in the most effective manner. The faculty meet at a two-day retreat at the beginning of each academic year to review the program in its totality; review feedback and other data provided by students, graduates, and our district partners; and determine whether any improvements or modifications need to be made. This annual cycle of continuous improvement is critical to ensuring that preparation programs meet the leadership demands of a rapidly changing environment. Every program component, including syllabi with their attendant requirements, as well as the scope and sequence of coursework and experiences, is shared, reviewed, and discussed. At various times throughout the program, the faculty meet to ensure that each semester builds upon the previous one, so that the transition from semester to semester, year to year, is seamless. In some instances, the faculty must compress portions of their classes, perhaps teaching more than one day per week or on some weekends, or meeting on different weeks to permit the incorporation of the curriculum enhancements discussed earlier in this article.

This model is quite different from the traditional model of meeting once per week for 3 h for 15 weeks. It also requires the faculty to engage in genuine collaboration and be vulnerable and open to change. Cosner identified a willingness to embrace critical program inquiry and a culture of faculty collaboration as key elements of exemplary preparation programs [34]. This process takes time and patience. The very idea of bringing the faculty together in one room, putting all the course and program requirements (including books, required readings, and assignments) up for everyone to see, critique, and provide feedback, represents a significant change in faculty practice. “How we did things” in the past becomes “how we will collaboratively do things” in the future. This requires hiring faculty with the right dispositions toward the job and a common view of their roles and responsibilities. Cosner reports that a similar process was used in the Ed.D. redesign at the University of Illinois Chicago, which was recognized as an exemplary leadership preparation program by the University Council for Educational Administration [34]. In practice, this means an orientation towards systems thinking, continuous improvement, and a willingness to identify with the work as opposed to the job. For example, graduates of some top-ranked research universities train scholars to elevate theory above practice and to narrowly focus their efforts on grant writing and publishing in top-tier academic journals. Thus, the emphasis on the “job” becomes obtaining tenure, while others who focus on the “work” situate their efforts within the context of how best to develop highly effective school leaders. Research has documented that curricular changes require more than structural adjustments to the curriculum; they require the faculty to develop new ways of working together [35]. Ironically, with increased research on effective leadership preparation in the last decade, faculty who focus on the work have found more receptive academic audiences and more opportunities to publicize their work.

Given the time-intensive nature of the endeavor, redesigning educational leadership preparation requires building program capacity [18]; it cannot be achieved with only a few faculty. Due, in large measure, to the success of the project director/program coordinator in securing grant funding from philanthropic foundations, state, and federal government agencies, the program described in this article was able, over a decade, to develop the program’s capacity to engage in extensive redesign, with six tenure track faculty, three clinical faculty, an associate project director, five cohort directors, several executive coaches, several school district partners, and a handful of adjunct faculty delivering specialized training and professional development. The external funding, coupled with growing student enrollment and more student credit hours (SCHs), has supported growth in faculty lines and capacity.

3.4. Redesigning the Internship and Field Experiences

Some of the sharpest criticisms of preparation programs has been the haphazard nature of the internship field experience, despite the fact that the internship is generally regarded as the most crucial, beneficial element of leadership preparation [8,11,30,36,37]. For decades, students clocked internship hours before, during free periods, and after school, often checking off lists of activities to complete. Since teachers aspiring to become school leaders cannot afford to quit their jobs to pursue a full-time internship, this situation was unavoidable unless the state government allocated financial resources to support a full-time residency (some states, in fact, provided this but only on a very small scale). North Carolina has become a leader in committing funds to provide full-time 10-month internships permitting fellows to engage in the work actual assistant principals undertake via the granting of a provisional administrative license [38]. This provisional license permits the intern (or resident) to work as an assistant principal under the supervision of an expert principal mentor and executive coach [39]; this is similar to how newly minted doctors serve as interns and residents for a period of three years under the supervision of the chief resident and the attending physician [20,40]. Residents receive a salary equivalent to that of an assistant principal. In return for the “scholarship loan,” the aspiring leaders agree to serve in a leadership position in a high-needs school for a minimum of three years (otherwise, the loan must be repaid). The financial support of the state legislature permits residents to engage in internships and field experiences that allow them to apply their learning in real-world settings, bridging the gap between theory and practice. These hands-on experiences are vital for developing the practical skills needed to successfully lead schools by providing authentic opportunities to “learn by leading in authentic settings” and to “develop strong interpersonal relationships, diagnose student learning needs, recognize effective teaching, model reflective practice, and master leadership skills that support school improvement efforts” [20] (p. 11). Research has documented the link between authentic learning experiences and improved professional practice [41]. Job-embedded active learning has been identified as essential to leaders’ growth as systems-focused equity leaders [42]. For example, the culminating project of the internship is a year-long data-driven analysis of a problem of practice in the resident intern’s school, which is presented to the principal, executive coach, cohort director, and faculty and shared with other residents. Applied data-driven problems of practice have been identified as key elements of effective leadership preparation and reform [43].

During their internship residency, it is not uncommon for residents to be placed in charge of covering the school when the principal and assistant principal(s) are absent. This experience has been found to be “especially formative for candidates, as they not only felt the full weight of responsibility, but also learned how to rely on other school staff for support and guidance” [44] (p. 223). This results in an enriched, turbocharged residency (rather than mere shadowing) in which residents can merge seamlessly into positions as assistant principals upon completion of their internship. Unfortunately, few university-based leadership preparation programs are able to offer such enriched internships due to the high cost of this reform element. Sustainability concerns are often at the forefront of efforts to engage in extensive program redesign and requires a shared commitment of funding and time from philanthropic foundations, state, and federal agencies, as well as university and district partners [18]. As Cosner notes, financial resources are critical to support the work of program redesign and continuous improvement [34].

3.5. Integration of Technology

Recognizing the increasing role of technology in education, the program integrates various digital tools and platforms into its training programs. Future principals are taught to leverage technology to enhance learning and improve administrative efficiency.

• Digital literacy: Training includes the use of AI and data analytics to inform decision-making and personalize learning experiences for students and staff. As the use of technology in education grows, it is crucial for school leaders to be proficient in digital tools that can support teaching and learning.
• Virtual professional development: The program offers virtual professional development opportunities, providing continuous learning and support. This flexibility allows principals to engage in professional growth activities without being constrained by geographic limitations.

4. Impact on Principals’ Practice and School Outcomes

NC State’s redesigned leadership preparation program has shown significant positive impacts on principals’ placement, practice, and school outcomes. Approximately 90% of graduates are employed as assistant principals within one year of program completion [15]. Improved school climates have been documented, with a 25% reduction in disciplinary incidents and a 30% increase in student attendance. This, in turn, promotes a positive school climate which is essential for creating an environment where students feel safe, supported, and ready to learn. Additionally, schools led by program graduates report teacher retention rates 20% higher than the state average, reflecting improved job satisfaction and professional growth opportunities. Effective leadership is a critical factor in retaining high-quality teachers, which, in turn, supports sustained student achievement. Well-trained school leaders are also more likely to remain in the profession, reducing principal turnover, which research has demonstrated to have multiple adverse impacts on teachers and students, particularly in high-poverty schools, which Grissom et al. (2021) identified as “an important, largely unrecognized issue for educational equity” [1] (p. 52). On the back end, reducing teacher and leader turnover represents significant savings for school systems and for states which struggle to retain high-qualified teachers. Grissom et al. (2021) concluded that “it is difficult to envision an investment with a higher ceiling on its potential return than a successful effort to improve principal leadership” [1] (p. 3).

According to data from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, schools with NC State-trained principals have seen a 15% increase in standardized test scores in reading and math over a three-year period (see also [45]; 83% of program graduates serving as “first-year principals [essentially novice principals] met or exceeded growth in high-need, Title I schools versus only 75 percent of experienced principals across all schools in the state reaching the same level of performance” [15] (p. 26). More recent data indicate sustained success. Between 2018 and 2024, 89% of NCSU academy-trained principals met or exceeded student growth expectations compared with only 74% of all principals in NC. This success is significant, given the difficulty of meeting or exceeding growth in high-need, high-poverty Title I schools. Unsurprisingly, schools led by principals who proactively work to reduce disciplinary incidents, keep children in school, make students want to attend school by creating a positive school climate where students feel safe and supported, and avoid the pitfalls of constant teacher churn tend to achieve higher test scores and improved schooling outcomes.

5. Looking Toward the Future: Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Leadership Preparation Programs and Practice

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, promises to further transform principal preparation programs. AI can enhance various aspects of educational leadership, making it a critical area for future development. Some specific examples are discussed below.

5.1. AI-Enhanced Learning Tools

Nationally recognized leadership preparation programs incorporate a variety of interactive learning tools and pedagogical strategies, such as digital cases and digital and clinical simulations, into their programs [46]. These tools and strategies give students the opportunity to apply their learning to real-life scenarios in a variety of contexts. While beneficial, traditional case studies are static and vary greatly in context and nuance. They also force students to engage the problem in a linear manner. Digital cases, on the other hand, present students with nonlinear data that are unstructured and not sequenced, forcing students to make choices along the way, with each choice following a different decision tree. This allows students to learn from their decisions and to see how different decision points affect outcomes. Clinical simulations such as those developed by Dotger have proven beneficial because they place the student in the role of the leader in realistic scenarios likely to be encountered once students attain positions as assistant principals and principals [47].

One challenge presented by such cases and simulations is that they are labor-intensive to create or expensive to buy, which limits their use in leadership preparation programs. Recent advances in generative AI, however, significantly reduce the learning curve and labor necessary to create complex, interactive learning scenarios as well as dramatically reduce the cost, which will encourage more widespread utilization of these tools. Furthermore, generative AI affords innovative educators the opportunity to create interactive learning modules using audio and video inputs to place students in realistic scenarios in virtual schools. Much like how medical schools utilize virtual reality to teach students how to complete complex surgeries, virtual reality augmented by generative AI has the potential to create truly interactive, immersive learning and to advance leadership preparation light years beyond the recent practice of static case studies.

5.2. AI-Enhanced Decision-Making

Through predictive analytics, AI can help principals more accurately predict student outcomes and identify at-risk students, enabling proactive interventions. By analyzing data trends, principals can implement strategies to support students before issues become critical. AI systems can provide real-time data and analytics, supporting more informed decision-making. This immediate access to data allows principals to respond quickly to emerging challenges and opportunities.

5.3. Personalized Professional Development

AI can also be used to personalize professional development through adaptive learning. AI can create personalized learning paths for principals, tailoring professional development to individual needs. This customization ensures that each leader receives the training and support they need to succeed, including virtual coaching. AI-powered virtual coaching platforms can offer continuous support and feedback, enhancing the professional growth of school leaders. These platforms can provide just-in-time advice and resources, helping principals address challenges as they arise.

5.4. Administrative Efficiency

On an administrative level, AI supports the rapid automation of routine tasks, which will lessen the burden of school leaders and allow them more time to spend on the core functions of teaching and learning. AI can automate administrative tasks such as (but not limited to) scheduling, freeing principals to focus on instructional leadership and strategic planning. This efficiency allows school leaders to spend more time on activities that directly impact student learning. AI can also promote equity through resource optimization. AI can help optimize resource allocation, ensuring that schools use their resources effectively. By analyzing data on resource usage, AI can recommend ways to maximize the impact of available funds and materials. This facilitates more transparent accountability and promotes equity throughout the system.

6. Ethical Considerations and Challenges

As we integrate AI into educational leadership, several ethical considerations and challenges must be addressed to ensure its effective and equitable use.

6.1. Data Privacy and Security

Concerns have been raised about protecting student data. Robust measures must be implemented to protect the privacy and security of student data. Ethical AI use mandates transparency and accountability in AI algorithms. Principals need to understand how these algorithms work and ensure they are used ethically and fairly, avoiding biases and ensuring equitable outcomes for all students.

6.2. Equity and Access

AI systems must be designed to minimize bias and ensure equitable access to resources and opportunities for all students and staff. While it is tempting to assume that technology would be unbiased, research on AI and the history of science documents how such bias can occur. Bias in AI can perpetuate existing inequalities, so it is essential to address these issues proactively. The pandemic brought issues of equitable access to technology, including broadband, to the forefront. The pressing need to bridge the digital divide and ensure that all schools, regardless of location or socioeconomic status, have access to AI technologies is essential to avoid widening existing inequities. Access to technology is a critical factor in ensuring that all students benefit from AI advancements.

7. Conclusions

Three overarching themes emerge from this analysis of enhancing principal preparation through standards and innovation. First, improving leadership preparation and development is essential if we are to break the cycle of poor student performance and inequitable student outcomes. Doing what we have always done with respect to leadership preparation and development is insufficient to meet the needs of a rapidly changing educational environment, one which seems to be accelerating post-pandemic. Second, improving leadership preparation requires extensive curricular changes and a shift in the dominant university paradigm of everything needing to fit into standard three-credit Carnegie blocks. Innovation, by definition, is non-standard, which sometimes does not mesh well with university structures; it is often difficult to think outside the box if you have never seen anything other than a box. The curricular reforms discussed in this article suggest ways of achieving that within the broad parameters of university operating procedures. Finally, the integration of AI in school leadership and principal preparation holds tremendous promise for enhancing educational outcomes and improving administrative efficiency. Programs like NC State University’s Educational Leadership Academy are leading the way by incorporating innovative practices and AI technologies to prepare high-quality school leaders. By addressing ethical considerations and ensuring equity, we can fully realize the potential of AI in education and continue to improve the preparation and development of educational leaders. Improving schools through leadership development is a complex, layered process that requires a commitment to doing the right kinds of things rather than the most expedient things. The process is iterative and seldom linear, but leadership development is essential if we are to improve schools rather than individual classrooms and make real progress toward systemic reform.

This manuscript highlights the critical need for sustained and expansive studies to better inform the preparation of educational leaders. Critiques of traditional university-based leadership preparations were discussed and specific examples of how university-based preparation programs address those critiques were provided. The programmatic revisions discussed in this article are consistent and aligned with emerging research on best practices in leadership preparation. Some preparation programs address research-based individual components, but few take a holistic, integrated view of leadership preparation and development as discussed in this article. By sharing comprehensive research and insights into the redesigned educational leader preparation programs at NC State University, we contribute to the ongoing improvement of principal practice and school outcomes.

The future of principal preparation in the USA is poised for significant advancements through the integration of AI, innovative practices, and a continued commitment to equity and excellence in education. As this article demonstrates, reforming and improving principal preparation is possible. Countering some of the conservative critiques discussed earlier, universities can be innovative and nimble organizations when led by forward-thinking faculty and leaders who recognize the importance of effective leadership in schools [48]. Given the uneven and generally poor performance of students in international assessments and the effects of learning loss from the pandemic [49], improving leadership preparation is crucial to improving teaching and learning.