This study investigated how state credentialing agencies are responding to the professional development needs of principals. It analyzed documents from 10 state agencies. The study found: 1) State agencies are not providing professional development for principals past initial certification, despite changes in the principal's role. 2) No agencies designed professional development to address the plurality of the principal's roles in management, instruction, and other areas. 3) While most states require ongoing professional development, no agencies ensure it addresses contemporary needs of principals.

1. Deborah Powers
1
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR THE PLURALITY OF THE ROLE OF THE
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL: A QUALITATIVE STUDY TO INVESTIGATE THE RESPONSIVENESS
OF STATE CREDENTIALING AGENCIES
Ensuring that principals are equipped with the professional tools necessary to navigate the
changes inherent to the modern era of reform is fundamental to their success. It falls logically to the
gate keeper of the profession, the state credentialing agencies, to ensure that principals possess both
the skills and knowledge to successfully lead their schools. The intent of this study was to investigate
the response of state credentialing agencies to the contemporary professional development needs of
principals. Organized around three generative questions, this study was qualitative in design and
employed an interpretive methodology based on the tenets of grounded theory. The three generative
questions are as follows:
1. What trends exist to demonstrate how state credentialing agencies are responding to the
contemporary professional development needs of principals?
2. How are state credentialing agencies paying attention to the plurality of the role of the
principal through the professional development experiences?
3. How are state credentialing agencies ensuring their responsiveness to the contemporary
professional development needs of principals?
The modern day principal can trace his or her professional roots to 1635 when the first
documented public school in America opened in Boston, Massachusetts under the leadership of a
headmaster (Cubberley, 1919). From that point forward the role of the education leader has changed
as public education has endeavored to meet the ever-changing needs of society. The modern era of
reform marked by the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 ushered in renewed efforts to make
substantive changes to schools. Legislative actions across the nation aimed at mitigating the
shortcomings illustrated in A Nation at Risk brought with them changes to the principalship.
Moving the responsibilities of a principal from only a manager of programs and personnel to both a
manager and a leader of instruction aimed at improving student achievement, the 1980s saw great
shifts in the expectations for principals by parents and by central office staff. With the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as No Child Left Behind, in
2001, an environment of accountability permeated the education landscape.

2. Deborah Powers
2
Schools were to be held accountable for the success of every student. The leaders of those
schools, the principals, shouldered the ultimate responsibility and the ultimate accountability for the
success of the school in meeting the needs of every student. The role of the principal with regard to
NCLB shifted again “from the traditional one—focused on discipline, working with parents and staff,
record keeping, special education, and accountability, among other diverse roles—to that of, first and
foremost, an instructional leader with a vision for reform” (Janc & Appelbaum, 2004, p. 2).
To keep pace with these role changes, principals must be supported through professional
development experiences designed to provide them with the tools and knowledge they need to meet
the contemporary demands of their changing roles. As the gatekeepers of the profession,
credentialing agencies seem the natural entity to ensure that qualified people populate America’s
schools as principals and it falls upon the credentialing agencies to therefore certify that not only
those new to the profession have the knowledge and skills they need to be successful, but that
experienced principals acquire new knowledge and skills to meet the changing demands of their
work.
This investigation followed the iterative processes to determine emergent theory relative to
the professional development support that state credentialing agencies provide principals. A ten state
sample was derived through a stratified random sampling technique and included Alaska, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin. An
electronic and print document portfolio was developed for each of the ten states in the study
comprised of extant text documents. Documents included state policy related to the principalship,
credentialing information from each of the ten states including both initial and renewal requirements
as mandated by regulation or statute, and principal performance standards. Professional development
offerings designed for principals by state credentialing agencies were also collected.
Coding of each document yielded a complex, interwoven system of principal requirements
but little in the way of professional development designed to address the multitude of professional
requirements. It was through this process that a duality of the role of the principal between
management and supervisor of teaching and learning evolved in keeping with contemporary, popular
educational administration literature. However, an examination of the principal performance
indicators of each performance standard revealed an even more complex plurality of the role of
principal as evidenced in the following figure.

3. Deborah Powers
3
Management of the
Organization
48%
Management of
Performance
34%
Management of
Resources
7%
Leadership for
Diversity of Learning
4%
Leadership for
Instruction
3%
Leadership for
Curriculum
2%
Leadership for
Assessment
2%
The Plurality of the Role of Principal as Reflected by Performance Standard Indicators
The plurality of the role of the principal as indicated by the coding of 719 principal performance indicators from the
ten states comprising the study sample.
Findings
Generative Question One
What trends exist to demonstrate how state credentialing agencies are responding to the
contemporary professional development needs of principals?
The first generative question failed to find professional development trends originating at the
state credentialing agencies for any of the ten states in the study past initial certification or the
renewal of a credential. State policy has not kept pace with the demands of the contemporary
professional development needs of principals.
Generative Question Two

4. Deborah Powers
4
How are state credentialing agencies paying attention to the plurality of the role of the
principal through professional development?
No evidence exists that state credentialing agencies in any of the ten states comprising the
study sample have designed or offered professional development experiences to expressly address
factors associated with the duality or the plurality of the role of the principal.
Generative Question Three
How are state credentialing agencies ensuring their responsiveness to the contemporary
professional development needs of principals?
While nine of ten states in the study sample have policies in place requiring professional
development for principals, none of the ten states in the study sample prescribe professional
development activities for principals past that of compliance activities such as evaluation of
staff or emergency medical updates. State credentialing agencies have been unresponsive to
the contemporary professional development needs of principals.
Emergent Themes
Through the course of this investigation, three distinct themes emerged from the data. The
first theme was the derivation of the plurality of the contemporary role of the principalship, Initially,
the investigation uncovered a duality in the role of the principalship, but a more focused investigation
revealed a greater depth of plurality than originally anticipated with three dimensions of management
and four dimensions of teaching and learning substantiated through the coding process.
A second theme to emerge over the course of this investigation was the lack of state policy
supporting principal professional development. There was evidence that professional development
experiences, including additional graduate level coursework, were required for licensure renewal in
nine of the ten states, however, no policy existed to ensure that principals are equipped with the
knowledge and skills they need to meet the contemporary demands of the role of principal.
The third and final theme to emerge from this investigation is that while the popular
education press espouses the most important role of the principal as that of instructional leader,
principal performance standards and indicators do not support that position.
Of the 719 total principal performance indicators, only 75, or 11%, were coded as related to teaching
and learning while 644 indicators, or 89%, were coded as related to management. State policy in the
form of principal performance standards and indicators does not establish primacy of the role of
principal as a leader of instruction.