Foster Leadership

Connecticut receives 1 out of 4 points for broadening its leadership pool. Legislation passed in 2012 authorizes the Commissioner of Education to temporarily waive certification requirements for experienced superintendent candidates from out-of-state. However, the waiver is limited in that such leaders must still take a leadership course during a probationary period.52 The Commissioner needs the authority—without any caveats—to waive certification requirements for all high-quality leadership candidates from out-of-state.

Connecticut has created a program, LEAD CT, to develop urban school leaders from within the existing pipeline; this program focuses specifically on Alliance District leaders.53 This year, LEAD CT has initiated a “Turnaround Principal Program” to coach school leaders in underperforming schools, using research-based strategies.54

Connecticut has also established one alternate route to certification (ARC) program specifically designed to develop urban leadership. Achievement First operates this ARC for future school leaders who commit to working in Hartford, New Haven, or Bridgeport.55 As part of this program, participants are required to spend a year in residency.56 However, this program is limited to a small number of participants each year, and participants must have years of teaching experience.57 Connecticut should increase the number of ARC programs and remove the teaching experience requirement to broaden the leadership pool so that it includes highly qualified individuals from varied professional backgrounds.

Additionally, Connecticut should grant automatic reciprocity for school and district leaders from other states.

3(a) BROADEN THE POOL OF CT SCHOOL AND DISTRICT LEADERS RUBRIC

Connecticut receives 0 out of 4 points for reforming the process of administrator preparation, certification, and support.

Currently, some administrator preparation programs offer urban leadership as an elective,58 but none offer a specialized track for improving urban/turnaround schools.

In addition to offering this specialization, preparation programs should be required to train administrators in meaningful evaluation. All current administrators are required to do graduate work in meaningful evaluations after obtaining their certification,59 but this course of study is not required for administrator candidates as part of their administrator preparation program.

Finally, it is important for administrator preparation programs to prominently feature clinical practice and for their graduates to be provided with mentorship during a residency year before beginning full-time employment.

3(b) REFORM THE PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATOR PREPARATION, CERTIFICATION, AND SUPPORT RUBRIC

Connecticut receives 2 out of 4 points for training existing principals in evaluation and data systems. In the summer of 2013, the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) developed and began to execute a plan to train principals in the new evaluation and support system.60 Beginning this year, every local and regional school board of education will be required to provide biennial training and orientation sessions to evaluators (including principals) and teachers about the new educator evaluation system.61

However, Connecticut still does not have a plan for training principals in the use of a longitudinal data system. Although many districts require their staff to be trained in internal data systems within the district, Connecticut will eventually need to develop a statewide, longitudinal data system. When that happens, Connecticut will need a statewide plan to train all principals in its use.

3(c) EXTENSIVELY TRAIN EXISTING PRINCIPALS IN NEW EVALUATION AND DATA SYSTEMS RUBRIC

Connecticut receives 1 out of 3 points for holding school leaders accountable. Connecticut plans to hold principals accountable for student achievement as part of the new educator evaluation system, but such accountability will be delayed for one year. According to the new Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) guidelines,62 which were approved by the Connecticut State Board of Education (CSBE) on May 7, 2014,63 the state will seek a waiver from the United States Department of Education to separate teacher and principal evaluations from student achievement measures until the 2015-16 school year. Nonetheless, principal evaluations will again be tied to growth in student achievement at that time.

Administrators are required to meet annually with their evaluators in a “goal-setting conference,” during which they must agree on specific measures and performance targets for student learning indicators, teacher effectiveness outcomes, and stakeholder feedback.64 However, a study conducted of the pilot of the new evaluation system in 2013-2014 indicated that most districts had been focusing primarily on teacher evaluation; administrator evaluation had been “implemented in a limited fashion.”65 Therefore, Connecticut still needs to improve its implementation of this component of the evaluation system.

In addition, Connecticut should link principal compensation to a principal’s success in meeting annual goals, and should offer incentives for highly effective principals to work in low-performing schools or districts.

3(d) HOLD SCHOOL LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE RUBRIC

Connecticut receives 0 out of 2 points for removing tenure or collective bargaining from principal and assistant principal roles.

Although Connecticut has made modifications to tenure laws as they impact teachers, Connecticut statute still classifies both principals and assistant principals as teachers, so tenure still applies to them.66 Principals and assistant principals should not have tenure protections or be permitted to collectively bargain.

3(e) REMOVE TENURE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS FROM PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL ROLES RUBRIC

Connecticut receives 1 out of 4 points for letting district leaders run the system. Under existing statute, superintendents have managerial control over school districts.67 However, this autonomy should be accompanied by accountability; they should be required to set public goals on student performance.

Additionally, both the CSBE and local boards of education should be required to undergo training on the role of the board and effective governance policies.

3(f) LET DISTRICT LEADERS RUN THE SYSTEM RUBRIC