3.3 Preparing, developing, and credentialing k-12 school leaders:  (Page 7/10)

The Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law helped accelerate reform of state credentialing systems because of the pressure to improve standardized test results. While some states implemented minimal or relaxed administrator certification, other states began a round of state licensure amendments that included expanded continuing education requirements, new or revised professional preparation and practice standards for internships and/or mentoring (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2001). By the fall of 2006, twelve states were classified as, “mandating a two or three-tiered process that requires…provisional or initial certification...another level or two in order to also receive advanced certification” (Illinois Commission on School Leader Preparation, August 2006).

As the trend continued, a few of the advanced certification systems even required performance based evaluations (Alabama, Arizona, Illinois, and Ohio) while eight of the advanced certification states required school leaders to develop a portfolio to qualify for either a continuing or advanced certification. As a final indicator in the trend to create advanced or enhanced state credentialing systems, four states (Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia) instituted an endorsement for teacher leaders as well (IL-SAELP Report, 2006).

Running parallel to the growing legislative support for two-tiered state credentialing systems was another trend: revisiting the ways school leaders were recruited, trained, developed, and sustained or supported over an entire career in K-12 administration. In 1987, the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration (NCEEA) published its recommendations for credentialing systems to address the difference between entry-level preparation for successful performance in the field of educational leadership and post-training of practicing school administrators (IL-SAELP Report, 2006). This led many states to adopt credentialing requirements in two phases or tiers, the second of which was linked to evidence of continued education and (in a few cases) growth in areas of research supported and standards-based practice. These two-tiered or advanced systems spawned a greater interest in state policy initiatives that picked up where the traditional university preparation programs left off, i.e. intentional systems of continuing education coupled with systematic accrual of performance evidence.

To implement these advanced systems of school leader licensure and credentialing, states turned to funding and research partners for help in establishing policies, programs and processes whereby emerging, developing, and practicing school leaders could be engaged in a more intentional and coherent continuum of professional training, development, and application experiences that yielded stronger performance results. In the early 2000’s, the Gates Foundation funded a major initiative for training school leaders to utilize information technologies more effectively in carrying out their leadership roles (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/Education/Grants/Grant-6958.htm). The Broad Foundation initiated a national program to recruit, develop, and place tested school leaders in some of the nation’s most challenged urban school districts.