




































Evans 2022 Proof


Educational Renaissance Vol. 11 (2022)

Par t ner ing in Pr incipal Preparat ion Program  Redesign 
t o Develop a Cont ext -Specif ic Theory of  Act ion

St acy Legget t , PhD. Western Kentucky University

     email: stacy.leggett@wku.edu

Marguer it a Desander , PhD. Western Kentucky University

     email: marquerita.desander@wku.edu

Sam  Evans, PhD. Western Kentucky University

     email: Sam.Evans@wku.edu

Feature Article

We know that "principals, through their actions, 
can be powerful multipliers of effective teaching 
and leadership practices in schools. And those 
practices can contribute much to the success of 
the nation's students" (Manna, 2015, p. 7). We also 
know by directly impacting the classroom 
conditions, school conditions, and the teachers in 
their building, principals indirectly influence 
student achievement (Seashore Louis et al., 2010). 
Principals develop instructional and 
organizational capacity by providing content- 
focused, job-embedded, collaborative, sustained 
teacher professional development based on 
principles of adult learning theory. They can 
further develop capacity through coaching, expert 

support, and dialogue focused on feedback and 
reflection (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). 
Principals must lead their organizations to 
improve learning environments, climate, and 
culture where needed, and they should ensure 
robust multi-tiered systems of support to address 
students' needs (Darling-Hammond & 
Cook-Harvey, 2018; Seashore Louis et al., 2010). 
The challenge for principal preparation programs 
is how to best develop the necessary knowledge 
and skills in principal aspirants to meet these 
demands.

For two decades, the Wallace Foundation 
Educational Leadership unit focused philanthropic 

Abst ract  

Research findings have identified the importance of university/district partnerships in the preparation 
of principals along with points of dissatisfaction of traditional preparation programs outcomes. While 
change had and was occurring in some programs, impactful change in the quality of programs and 
program completers must involve all stakeholders including partnering districts and state agencies in 
the redesign of preparation programs. This paper examines the local and state context as 
foundational to the redesign process and the engagement of one university?s use of Wallace 
Foundation funds to engage area school districts and the state Professional Standards Board in the 
re-envisioning of its principal preparation program.

Keywords: Partnerships, Principal preparation, Program redesign

mailto:stacy.leggett@wku.edu
mailto:marquerita.desander@wku.edu
mailto:Sam.Evans@wku.edu


LEGGETT, DESANDER, & EVANS| PARTNERING IN PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAM REDESIGN

efforts on the relationship between effective 
principals and student success. As part of this 
work, the Wallace Foundation launched a series of 
initiatives, notably the Principal Supervisor 
Initiative (PSI) and the Principal Pipeline Initiative 
(PPI) ? both focusing on district-level development 
of school leaders and ensuing positive impacts 
(Gates et al., 2019; Goldring et al., 2020). Their 
investment in principal pathways led to significant 
findings relevant to principal effect on student 
achievement. The focus on the development of 
school leaders through the PSI and PPI allowed 
the Wallace Foundation to engage others in 
research around principal preparation programs 
(P3s). 

One theme emerging from this research was the 
importance of university-district partnerships in 
preparing principals and these relationships' 
inconsistent existence and quality. The report also 
surfaced that most superintendents believed 
policies requiring university-district partnerships 
were the most powerful state lever for improving 
P3s. Another theme was district leader 
dissatisfaction with traditional P3 models, which 
they perceived as often failing to connect theory 
and practice. In a survey disseminated by the 
American Association of School Administrators 
(AASA), 80% of superintendents responded, 
"improvement of principal preparation is 
necessary" (Wallace Foundation, 2016, p. 6). When 
superintendents ranked the preparedness of 
principal aspirants around 15 job responsibilit ies, 
four of the lowest-rated areas were among the 
most critical: "instructional leadership, team 
building, problem solving/decision making, and 
relationships/collaboration" (Wallace Foundation, 
2016, p. 7). Some university P3s went through 
significant transformation in recent years, but 96% 
of respondents reported planned changes over 
the next two years, and over half planned 
moderate to significant changes (Wallace 
Foundation, 2016). These findings, coupled with 
district leader dissatisfaction regarding program 
quality and their beliefs that policies requiring 
universities to collaborate with districts were the 
most valuable lever to improve principal 

preparation, reinforced the importance of 
partnerships.

PSI and PPI outcomes paved the way for the next 
Wallace Foundation initiative, the University 
Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI), which 
launched in 2016. The UPPI challenged and 
supported universities in collaborating with 
exemplary P3 partners and local district 
leadership to transform P3s to meet the unique 
needs of the university's service area or region. 
The nature of the local context (rural, urban, 
suburban, town) influenced partnership selection 
and development. The UPPI-supported 
partnership between each university and its state 
agency reviewed program accreditation and 
principal licensure policies. These state 
stakeholders also engaged with universities as 
partners in program redesign (Wang et al., 2018). 
State stakeholders provided a valuable 
perspective to P3s in understanding the complex 
problems of equity and school improvement as 
presented in state and local contexts.

The UPPI was the next step to understand the 
importance of quality P3s and effectuate 
meaningful change by developing a triumvirate 
partnership among the state education agency, 
the local education district, and the university that 
serves the needs of both. In 2016, the Wallace 
Foundation selected Western Kentucky University 
(WKU) as one of seven universities to take part in 
this $47 million initiative to develop models 
nationwide for exemplary P3s. The premise for 
the initiative was simple: Principal preparation 
requires partnerships and stakeholder input to 
create programs that reflect evidence of best 
practices for preparing principal candidates. Work 
completed in siloes would not adequately meet 
the challenge.

This article chronicles two concurrent work 
streams in Kentucky resulting from the UPPI: the 
policy context, which included the statewide work, 
and the program redesign occurring at WKU. Bryk 
and colleagues (2015) described the first principle 
of improvement science as "make the work 
problem-specific and user-centered" (p. 21). WKU, 

18



LEGGETT, DESANDER, & EVANS| PARTNERING IN PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAM REDESIGN

supported by program partner Urban University 
(UU, pseudonym) sought to redesign our program 
by applying improvement science principles. We 
also sought to embed these principles within the 
program to substantiate continuous 
improvement. The UU cycle of inquiry model and 
previous redesign experiences influenced the 
process as they facilitated our effort. The first step 
of UU's model, "Identify root cause problems" 
(Cosner et al., 2015, p. 21), led us to collect and 
review multiple data sources to understand 
program strengths and opportunities for 
improvement. Data collection and analysis 
supported problem identification. After 
understanding root cause problems, we surfaced 
our beliefs and constructed our theory of action. 
This work reflected the first organizational 
principle of P3 redesign: "program philosophy as a 
clearly articulated theory of action" (University 
Council for Educational Administration, 2012, p. 2). 

The Spectrum for Understanding and Evaluating 
Public Engagement (International Association for 
Public Participation, 2014) offered a framework to 
describe the partners' engagement. The spectrum 
includes five levels providing the public with 
increasing impact on decisions: inform, consult, 
involve, collaborate, and empower. This article 
considered WKU's partner engagement in the 
initial redesign phases through the lens of the 
framework's first four levels. Our goals at each 
level of engagement were to:

- Inform, we sought to provide partners with 
information about our program's strengths, 
problems of practice, and viable solutions;

- Consult, we sought to understand our 
problems of practice and context better 
through the unique perspectives of our 
partners and garner their feedback before 
making final decisions;

- Involve, we sought to engage partners 
directly in our work. This participation 
might be attending UPPI Professional 
Learning Communities alongside us or 
providing input on the design of clinical 
experiences;

- Collaborate, we sought to work with 
partners to develop and identify solutions.

In working with our partners, we created a 
program to serve our principal aspirants, districts, 
and, subsequently, P12 students by better 
reflecting the work of the principal.

Underst anding t he Policy Cont ext  of  Kent ucky

An underlying principle in this work was the 
importance of context, both state and local, in 
redesigning our program. While WKU participated 
in the Wallace Foundation UPPI work, RAND 
Corporation concurrently engaged in research to 
learn lessons from the collective efforts of the 
seven UPPI programs. This project elevated the 
work of state entities in transforming P3s as the 
seven UPPI programs engaged with the state 
agencies responsible for approving and 
monitoring programs. Gates and colleagues (2020) 
also noted the informal influence of political 
officials, boards, and nonstate entities in this 
relationship. Their work identified the following 
levers for states to improve P3s: principal 
standards, program recruitment, licensure, 
evaluation, professional development 
requirements, and data systems to inform 
improvement (Gates et al., 2020; Grissom et al., 
2019; Manna, 2015). All states in the study 
engaged in setting standards, encouraging the use 
of those standards, establishing prerequisites to 
P3s, and determining licensure pathways and 
requirements (Gates et al., 2020). 

Knowing the importance of quality P3s and even 
realizing some levers might lead to substantive 
change did not always mean doing. Challenges 
faced by the seven state entities included limited 
personnel and funding at the state level to 
specifically address principal preparation, political 
issues related to the boundary between state and 
local control, and prioritization of other 
educational concerns (Gates et al., 2020). Within 
these levers and challenges, the RAND research 
identified three primary ways states can influence 
principal preparation, "setting direction through 
legislation and funding, shaping the direction 

19



LEGGETT, DESANDER, & EVANS| PARTNERING IN PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAM REDESIGN

more precisely through regulation and oversight, 
and providing resources and services" (Gates et 
al., 2020, p. xiii).

WKU's invitation to join the UPPI was based partly 
on the willingness of the Education Professional 
Standards Board (EPSB) to change policy and 
adopt research-based standards, one of the UPPI 
program selection criteria. Kentucky's statewide 
commitment to preparing school leaders dated 
back to the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA, 
1990). According to O'Day and Smith (1993), KERA 
started a reform movement in Kentucky to 
address the need for developing new policies, 
content standards, authentic assessments, and an 
ambitious curriculum along with changes in 
teacher preparation and reducing regulations 
governing the profession. Those changes 
increased the emphasis on the school leaders' 
roles and preparation.

In 2006, reform efforts associated with school 
principals included separate but aligned 
initiatives. One initiative was related to the 
preparation of school principals. The second set of 
initiatives focused on the roles and responsibilit ies 
of the principal via an amendment to existing 
legislation (16 KAR 3:050). The amendment 
addressed university-district partnership efforts, 
including screening candidates, identifying 
mentors, and the co-construction and delivery of 
courses based on district needs. 

In 2011, Kentucky leadership programs went 
through another redesign which moved principal 
certification to a post-master 's degree program as 
another step toward reform. In 2013, programs 
required aspiring leaders to take 30 additional 
credit hours above a master 's degree to become 
certified. During that period, WKU made 
significant changes to the curriculum and program 
structure, including adopting a curriculum aligned 
to the Interstate School Leaders Licensure 
Consortium standards, a hybrid delivery model, 
and a co-teaching model to partner faculty with 
exemplary practitioners in the field.

The reform initiatives of the early 2000s resulted 

in an overhaul of the preparation of school 
leaders at all 11 universities housing Kentucky's 
school leadership programs. Nevertheless, ten 
years after this reform began, few, if any, of the 
state's P3s were working with districts beyond 
screening candidates for admission and 
identifying and selecting mentors to support 
students. Despite WKU embracing a co-teaching 
course delivery model using practitioner partners, 
there was litt le further interaction with districts for 
co-constructing curriculum based on actual 
problems of practice or understanding contextual 
issues unique to the region and state. Likewise, 
the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher 
Education (now Council for the Accreditation of 
Educator Preparation) accreditation requirements 
did not motivate or facilitate partnership, only 
compliance. Therefore, educational leadership 
programs focused on aligning with standards and 
accreditation requirements, assuming this 
alignment met the needs of the districts served. 

Kentucky has taken a leadership role in preparing 
school leaders, and conditions and policies in the 
state have been supportive of a transformational 
process (Wallace Foundation, 2016). From KERA to 
the present, constituent groups across the 
Commonwealth have developed and 
implemented policies associated with P3s. This 
spirit of stakeholder collaboration has provided a 
solid foundation for the transformation of 
programs across the Commonwealth.

Transform ing Policy in t he Com m onwealt h

EPSB and the Kentucky Department of Education 
(KDE) engaged with WKU in the UPPI work from 
the very beginning. Perhaps even more 
importantly, they facilitated a parallel stream of 
transformative work among the 11 Kentucky P3s 
as WKU faculty and stakeholders engaged in their 
program redesign. The transformation process in 
the Commonwealth of Kentucky included input 
from multiple statewide stakeholder groups and a 
review of all school and district leadership 
regulations and standards. At the beginning of the 
UPPI, Kentucky had five different regulations for 
preparing educational administrators based on 

20



LEGGETT, DESANDER, & EVANS| PARTNERING IN PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAM REDESIGN

the following roles: superintendent, supervisor of 
instruction, director of pupil personnel, director of 
special education, and principal. Stakeholder 
groups included representatives from all higher 
education institutions preparing principals, 
regional educational cooperatives, school 
administration professional associations, 
higher-education agencies, and business and 
industry. EPSB and KDE posed the following 
questions to the stakeholder groups to inform 
their work: 

- What skills do principals need, current and 
future?

- What skills, strategies, and practices do 
principals need?

- What do you see as the current gap 
between practice and what is needed? (E. 
Proffitt, Personal communication, 
September 10, 2018)

EPSB and KDE staff facilitated monthly meetings 
with representatives from each of Kentucky's 
programs and consulted with attending 
stakeholders on the state policies related to the 
preparation of school leaders. At regularly 
scheduled meetings, stakeholders reviewed the 
Kentucky Administrative Regulations for the five 
leadership certificates and provided input (EPSB, 
2018a). After the review process, the UPPI 
Stakeholder Committee on Advanced Educational 
Leadership provided recommendations to EPSB 
(EPSB, 2018a).

Recom m endat ions Subm it t ed t o EPSB

The recommendations developed and submitted 
by the statewide committee appeared in the 
Agenda Book of the EPSB as an action item. These 
recommendations included combining all 
advanced leadership programs under one set of 
regulations, aligning all programs to one set of 
standards, and mandating uniform testing 
requirements for all programs. These 
recommendations eliminated the Kentucky 
Specialty Test requirement, references to 
Dimensions Dispositions of School Leaders 
Document, and the post-master 's degree 

requirement for principal certification. The Board 
accepted the recommendations in December 
2018, 18 months into the initiative (EPSB, 2018b, 
Action Item A). 

Kentucky now required all Advanced Education 
leader programs to align with the Professional 
Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) and all 
individuals seeking certification to meet the 
testing requirement. The structure remained five 
certification areas but became one regulation 
entitled Advanced Educational Leaders. The Rank 
structure that included Rank I and II options and 
was associated with pay increases remained, as 
did the bi-level certification process.

Engaging Partners in Program Redesign to Prepare 
Ready-to-Lead Principal Aspirants

WKU's P3 redesign did not occur due to Kentucky's 
revising regulations of advanced leadership 
programs. Instead, both streams of work occurred 
concurrently. At times, the concurrent nature 
mandated shifts in thinking about the program 
framework. This section describes two phases of 
the redesign conducted by faculty and partners 
that required us to make the work 
problem-specific and user-centered and resulted 
in our program's theory of action. Although 
described in a linear sequence, the work was not 
linear. Also, the shift in Kentucky regulations to 
remove the Rank II requirement expanded our 
thinking to include a master 's degree option for 
the program.

Make the Work Problem-specific and User-centered

The initial phase of redesigning the program 
focused on the first principle of improvement 
science, "make the work problem-specific and 
user-centered" (Bryk et al., 2015, p. 21). Bryk and 
colleagues instructed those teams leading 
improvement to understand how contextual 
factors shape their work. WKU partnered with UU 
to define the work context, establish norms and 
processes, identify goals, and collect data. We 
developed a shared understanding of what data 
were available and relevant. We reviewed data and 
artifacts including student surveys, stakeholder 

21



LEGGETT, DESANDER, & EVANS| PARTNERING IN PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAM REDESIGN

interviews, course documents, standards for 
school leaders, feedback from district and state 
leaders, background readings from UU, artifacts 
from UU's work, and accreditation requirements.

WKU and UU developed a shared understanding 
of our program and state and district context in 
our initial meetings. Understanding the nature 
and influence of state policies, the role of the 
Green River Regional Educational Cooperative 
(GRREC, our regional educational cooperative), 
and how these differed from UU's state and local 
context was essential for their facilitator role. 
Understanding the context of the program helped 
guide decision-making processes and the 
development of strands to align the program 
more tightly. 

WKU P3 faculty used data sources to evaluate the 
program and identify problems of practice. The 
Quality Measures (QM) Baseline Program 
Assessment, a self-assessment conducted by the 
university program and created by the Education 
Development Corporation in 2013, required the 
engagement of state and district partners. The 
process involved program faculty informing 
partners of their self-ratings and evidence of the 
ratings in the following areas: candidate 
admissions, course content, pedagogy and 
andragogy, clinical experiences, performance 
assessments, and graduate outcomes. 
Stakeholders then provided their input on the 
ratings. Our first QM assessment used the 2013 
QM Tool Kit. Each UPPI team participated in this 
process. Wang and colleagues (2018), in their 
evaluation of the UPPI, described "the QM exercise 
as a foundational experience that helped partners 
learn about one another 's organizations and 
perspectives and that facilitated 
relationship-building" (p. xiii).

Positive findings from a data review included a 
strong focus on instructional leadership 
throughout the program, the cohort and hybrid 
format, and authentic partnerships with districts 
and practitioner-instructors. Stakeholders agreed 
on the anchor assessments as the most catalytic 
experiences, but implementation varied. Though a 

program strength, there was a need to update 
these assessments to scaffold learning across the 
program, ensure assessment reliability and 
validity, and calibrate grading and feedback. 

The university and stakeholders agreed on the 
following problems of practice that guided much 
of the work:

- Our program needed a more intentional 
focus on equitable leadership and diversity. 
Assuming the program embedded equity 
throughout meant that only a limited 
number of assignments explicitly 
addressed equity issues.

- We also needed to refocus on 
organizational management. District 
partners perceived the 2013 program as 
developing instructional leaders but 
perhaps neglecting some skills required to 
create effective building managers. When 
asked to prioritize the skills needed to lead 
and manage schools, our partners ranked 
relationship development, strategic 
planning, communications, and fiscal 
management as the most important.

- Finally, faculty sought greater program 
coherence through vertical and horizontal 
alignment with a logical learning 
progression across all semesters.

Develop a Theory of Action

Not only did the work adhere to Bryk et al.'s (2015) 
initial stage of improvement science, procedures 
mostly aligned to the University Council for 
Educational Administration's (2012) curriculum 
mapping guide for P3s. We surfaced our current 
program theory and assumptions. We explored 
National Educational Leadership Preparation 
(NELP) and PSEL standards and identified essential 
learning. Essential learning strands that emerged 
from group activities were instructional leadership, 
equity, and cycles of inquiry. The instructional 
leadership strand would address the question, 
"What will learning look like?" The equity strand 
would address the question, "How will we make 
sure all students succeed?" The cycle of inquiry 

22



LEGGETT, DESANDER, & EVANS| PARTNERING IN PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAM REDESIGN

strand will answer the question, "How will we use 
data to lead continuous improvement?" 
Superintendents were particularly concerned 
about the communication skills of new principals 
leading to a fourth strand, communication, that 
would answer the question, "How will we 
communicate with all stakeholders?" Included in 
this concern were abilit ies to build internal and 
external relationships, but especially the skills 
needed to engage in difficult conversations. The 
program developed from these questions a 
conceptual framework conveying the curricular 
emphasis and intended outcomes (see Figure 1). 

After identifying this vision of what our program 
graduates would know and be able to do, we 
crafted a logic model of where we were currently 
and then updated that to reflect the goals for our 

program (see Figure 2). We were not alone in 
developing logic models. Each UPPI team 
developed a logic model to guide their work that 
included both informing and consulting partners 
(Wang et al., 2018). The envisioning work 
cultivated team building and a greater shared 
understanding of the entire initiative.  

After identifying problems, surfacing core values, 
and making initial structural decisions, the team 
proceeded with a theory of action. A theory of 
action involves more than a vision statement. 
According to the University Council for Educational 
Administration (2012), P3 theories of action 
should include a clear understanding of the 
following components and their intersection: 
leadership principles, effective andragogy, and 
experiential learning. WKU faculty and UU 
colleagues revisited the core characteristics of a 
logic model to frame our theory of action and 
surface program theory and assumptions about 
preparation and candidate outcomes. Specifically, 
we explored the power and utility of how a logic 
model can quickly communicate program values 
and structure to our partners. UU shared concrete 
examples of their logic models to stimulate our 
thinking. Faculty members from WKU took the 
first steps in developing an organizing framework 
for our program. We developed a theory of action 
and logic model around our vision for the 
program. The external facilitator took information 
from our context and developed a draft theory of 
action of the current program. Each faculty 
member critiqued and refined the document, 
considering numerous theoretical perspectives 
and how the program might bridge the gap from 
theory to practice. The final iteration stated,

The WKU principal preparation program in 
partnership with schools, districts, and state 
agencies prepares and develops school leaders 
for rural and urban districts in Kentucky. The 
program admits qualified post-master 's degree 
applicants into a cohort-based program. 
Applicants are selected based on their 
experiences as effective educators as well as 
their demonstration of equity-driven values 
and norms, student-centered instructional 
leadership, and aspirations to lead schools to 
improve student learning outcomes. The 
program is committed to engaging leadership 
candidates in a range of challenging on-line, 
face-to-face, and site-based performance 
assessments that develop and assess their 
leadership learning capacities through 

23

Figure 1. WKU Program Conceptual Framework

Authors adapted this figure from the WKU program's working 

documents, rubrics, and presentation slides. Faculty used the following 

four overarching themes to develop program coherence: learning 

leader, relationship builder, equity engineer, and innovative problem 

solver. Communication and reflective practice served as encompassing 

themes.



LEGGETT, DESANDER, & EVANS| PARTNERING IN PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAM REDESIGN

required, elective, and personalized 
experiences. Courses are sequenced to ensure 
that students are developing their abilit ies to 
lead people and systems to support 
continuous school improvement and are 
thematically organized to develop candidates' 
proficiency in (a) instructional leadership, (b) 
leading improvement, (c) leading for equity, 
and (d) effective communication. Program 
graduates are prepared to lead schools to 
respond to the cultural, economic, and 
educational challenges of the 21st Century. (S. 
Tozer, personal communication, June 14, 2017) 

The final theory of action that guided our P3 
redesign was organized into inputs, processes, and 
outcomes (see Figure 3).

Final Thought s and Out com es

Our work included engaging partners at three 
levels: our district partners, our state partners, 
and our peer institution partners. The work began 
with the leaders who fostered collaborative 

engagement. Leaders across the UPPI institutions 
facilitated relationships at each stage,

The dedication, enthusiasm, management, and 
team-building skills of these leaders kept the 
initiative on track. There was a strong emphasis 
on building and nurturing relationships among 
partners. Most partners recognized that 
openness, trust, and a culture of collaboration 
within teams were essential when working 
toward change. In part, this was accomplished 
by establishing a common vision. (Wang et al., 
p. xv)

Our partnerships with districts during this 
initiative resulted in collaboration that moved 
beyond superficial feedback to becoming true 
partners in co-constructing a P3 and 
institutionalizing data-driven cycles of inquiry to 
continuously improve our program. District 
partner participation throughout our work 
allowed us to (a) reflect more honestly on our 
program, (b) better understand the 
context-specific role for which we were preparing 
aspirants, and (c) learn with our partners the 

24

This figure is adapted from the UPPI logic model developed by WKU faculty and contained in program working documents and presentations.

Figure 2. WKU UPPI Logic Model



LEGGETT, DESANDER, & EVANS| PARTNERING IN PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAM REDESIGN

theory and practice relevant to effective school 
leadership. Now that we have fully implemented 
the redesigned program, we continue to partner 
with districts in (a) identifying and selecting 
candidates, (b) refining our curriculum and 
ensuring its relevance by co-teaching with 
practitioner partners, and (c) addressing problems 
of practice related to the principal pipeline as they 
arise.

From our peer institutions in this work, we were 
able to adopt and adapt processes and products 
from their work related to improvement, design, 
and cycles of inquiry. We were in a unique position 
through the UPPI to partner with peer institutions 
but engaging with peers encouraged us to slow 
down our work to learn ?fast to implement well? 
(Bryk et al., 2015, p. 7). At a larger scale, our state 
partners formed the policy context in which our 
work is situated and provided understanding of 
our context at the state level. Most programs 
recognize curricular changes are needed to equip 
principal aspirants with the necessary capacity to 
improve K12 student achievement. Most 
superintendents also recognize the need to 
improve principal preparation (Wallace 

Foundation, 2016). We know the principal role is 
important, and research demonstrates that 
principals are second only to the teacher in 
influencing student achievement (Manna, 2015). 
Therefore, we must ask why more programs 
nationally are not engaging with partners to 
improve their practices? The principles guiding our 
work are neither new nor innovative. For almost 
two decades, the keys to success for designing 
effective university-based principal preparation 
programs have been in plain sight (Davis et al., 
2005; Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012), and the 
work of other institutions provides us with 
vicarious learning experiences (Cosner, 2018). 
Programs serve their own unique context which 
impacts the problems of practice and viable 
solutions partners may bring to the table, so the 
redesign process and outcome will differ. 
Nevertheless, the immutable role that partners 
play is in bringing a greater depth of 
understanding as to what future principals should 
know and be able to do and where gaps between 
knowledge and practice occur during those critical 
first years of school leadership.

25

This figure is adapted from the theory of action developed by WKU faculty and contained in program working documents and presentations.

Figure 3. WKU P3 Theory of Action



LEGGETT, DESANDER, & EVANS| PARTNERING IN PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAM REDESIGN

References

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, 
P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's 
schools can get better at getting better. 
Harvard University Press.

Cosner, S. (2018). What makes a leadership 
preparation program exemplary? Journal of 
Research on Leadership Education, 14(1), 
98?115. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775118819661 

Cosner, S., Tozer, S., Zavitkovsky, P., & Whalen, S. P. 
(2015). Cultivating exemplary school leadership 
preparation at a research intensive university. 
Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 
10(1), 11-38. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115569575 

Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. 
(2018). Educating the whole child: Improving 
school climate to support student success. 
Learning Policy Institute. 
https:// learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/
educating-whole-child 

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. 
(2017). Effective teacher professional 
development. Learning Policy Institute. 
https:// learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/
effective-teacher-professional-development-
report 

Davis, S.H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). 
Innovative principal preparation programs: 
What works and how we know. Planning and 
Changing, 43(1/2), 25-45. 
https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ977545.pdf 

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & 
Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: 
Developing successful principals. Stanford 
Educational Leadership Institute. 
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/ files
/publications/school-leadership-study-
developing-successful-principals.pdf 

Education Professional Standards Board. (2018a, 
August 20). Agenda book. 
http://www.epsb.ky.gov/mod/data/view.php?d=

1&advanced=0&paging&page=1 

Education Professional Standards Board. (2018b, 
December 10). Agenda book. 
http://www.epsb.ky.gov/mod/data/view.php?d=
1&advanced=0&paging&page=0 

Gates, S. M., Baird, M. D., Master, B. K., & 
Chavez-Herrerias, E. R. (2019). Principal 
pipelines: A feasible, affordable, and effective 
way for districts to improve schools. RAND 
Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2666

Gates, S. M., Woo, A., Xenakis, L., Wang, W. L., 
Herman, R., Andrew, M., & Todd, I. (2020). Using 
state-level policy levers to promote principal 
quality: Lessons from seven states partnering 
with principal preparation programs and 
districts (RAND Principal Preparation Series 
Volume 2). RAND Corporation. 
https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA413-1

Goldring, E. B., Clark, M. A., Rubin, M., Rogers, L. K., 
Grissom, J. A., Gill, B., Kautz, T., McCullough, M., 
Neel, M., & Burnett, A. (2020). Changing the 
principal supervisor role to better support 
principals: Evidence from the Principal 
Supervisor Initiative. Mathematica/Vanderbilt 
University. 
https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED607073.pdf

Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2019). 
How principals affect students and schools: A 
systematic synthesis of two decades of 
research. The Wallace Foundation. 
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/Documents/How-Principals-Affect-
Students-and-Schools.pdf

International Association for Public Participation 
(IAP2) (2014). IAP2's public participation 
spectrum. 
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource
/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum
_FINAL.pdf.

Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990, HB940.

Manna, P. (2015). Developing excellent school 
principals to advance teaching and learning: 
Considerations for state policy. The Wallace 

26

https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775118819661
https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115569575
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ educating-whole-child
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ educating-whole-child
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ effective-teacher-professional-development- report
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ effective-teacher-professional-development- report
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ effective-teacher-professional-development- report
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ977545.pdf
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files /publications/school-leadership-study- developing-successful-principals.pdf 
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files /publications/school-leadership-study- developing-successful-principals.pdf 
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files /publications/school-leadership-study- developing-successful-principals.pdf 
http://www.epsb.ky.gov/mod/data/view.php?d= 1&advanced=0&paging&page=1
http://www.epsb.ky.gov/mod/data/view.php?d= 1&advanced=0&paging&page=1
http://www.epsb.ky.gov/mod/data/view.php?d= 1&advanced=0&paging&page=0
http://www.epsb.ky.gov/mod/data/view.php?d= 1&advanced=0&paging&page=0
https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2666
https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA413-1
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED607073.pdf
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge- center/Documents/How-Principals-Affect- Students-and-Schools.pdf
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge- center/Documents/How-Principals-Affect- Students-and-Schools.pdf
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge- center/Documents/How-Principals-Affect- Students-and-Schools.pdf
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource /resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum _FINAL.pdf
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource /resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum _FINAL.pdf
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource /resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum _FINAL.pdf


LEGGETT, DESANDER, & EVANS| PARTNERING IN PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAM REDESIGN

Foundation. 
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/Documents/Developing-Excellent-School
-Principals.pdf

O'Day, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reform and 
educational opportunity. In S. H. Furhman (Ed.), 
Designing coherent education policy: 
Improving the system (pp. 250-312). 
Jossey-Bass.

Professional Certificate for Instructional 
Leadership ? School Principal, All Grades (16 
KAR 3:050).

Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., 
& Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from 
leadership: Investigating the links to improved 
student learning (Final report of research 
findings). The Wallace Foundation. 
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-
Improved-Student-Learning.pdf 

University Council for Educational Administration 
(2012). Designing purposeful and coherent 
leadership preparation curriculum: A 
curriculum mapping guide. 
http://3fl71l2qoj4l3y6ep2tqpwra.wpengine.net
dna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/
Curriculum-Mapping-Guide-for-Leadership-
Development.pdf

Wallace Foundation (2016). Improving university 
principal preparation programs: Five themes 
from the field. Author. 
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge
-center/pages/improving-university-principal-
preparation-programs.aspx

Wang, E. L., Gates, S. M., Herman, R., Mean, M., 
Perera, R., Tsai, T., Whipkey, K., & Andrew, M. 
(2018). Launching a redesign of university 
principal preparation programs: Partners 
collaborate for change (RAND Corporation 
Principal Preparation Series Volume 1). RAND 
Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2612

27

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge- center/Documents/Developing-Excellent-School -Principals.pdf
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge- center/Documents/Developing-Excellent-School -Principals.pdf
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge- center/Documents/Developing-Excellent-School -Principals.pdf
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge- center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to- Improved-Student-Learning.pdf
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge- center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to- Improved-Student-Learning.pdf
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge- center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to- Improved-Student-Learning.pdf
http://3fl71l2qoj4l3y6ep2tqpwra.wpengine.net dna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ Curriculum-Mapping-Guide-for-Leadership- Development.pdf
http://3fl71l2qoj4l3y6ep2tqpwra.wpengine.net dna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ Curriculum-Mapping-Guide-for-Leadership- Development.pdf
http://3fl71l2qoj4l3y6ep2tqpwra.wpengine.net dna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ Curriculum-Mapping-Guide-for-Leadership- Development.pdf
http://3fl71l2qoj4l3y6ep2tqpwra.wpengine.net dna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ Curriculum-Mapping-Guide-for-Leadership- Development.pdf
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge -center/pages/improving-university-principal- preparation-programs.aspx
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge -center/pages/improving-university-principal- preparation-programs.aspx
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge -center/pages/improving-university-principal- preparation-programs.aspx
https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2612

	Evans 2022 Proof
	Page 1
	Page 2
	Page 3
	Page 4
	Page 5
	Page 6
	Page 7
	Page 8
	Page 9
	Page 10
	Page 11


