Leading the Change

The need to remake the principal supervisor role has gained attention in recent years. Traditionally the role focused on administrative tasks. But principals need more support from their supervisors to improve teaching and learning and carry out an increasingly complex job.

In 2014, six large school districts around the country began major changes to the principal supervisor position. They refocused the role on supporting principals to improve classroom instruction. The Wallace Foundation funded the four-year effort, called the Principal Supervisor Initiative. 

This report compares principal supervision in the six districts with principal supervision in 48 other urban districts. The goal is to show where the initiative succeeded or lagged behind broader trends. The report can also serve as a roadmap for other districts wanting to redesign the principal supervisor role. 

The study finds that the initiative districts had more structures to buttress the reconceived job than other districts. However, supervisor practices across all the districts were similar. That could suggest districts nationwide are taking steps to change the job.

Strengths of Principal Supervisor Initiative Districts

The six districts participating in the initiative made structural changes to support the principal supervisor role. As a result, they showed these strengths compared with other urban districts:

•  Principal supervisors in the six districts oversaw an average of only 13 principals. That gave them more time to work with each principal. Principal supervisors in other urban districts typically oversaw 16.  
• In the six districts, principal supervisors were more likely to oversee a group of schools serving the same grade levels.  They typically supported schools that were all either elementary, middle, or high schools. That allowed them to focus on a narrower set of content standards, curricula, and assessments. Supervisors in other urban districts typically lacked this advantage.
• Principal supervisors in the six districts were far more likely than their counterparts in other districts to report that they had sent instructional support staff to schools. (The difference was 71 percent vs. 41 percent.)
• Principal supervisors in the six districts rated their training more highly. The six districts were also more likely to offer programs for new and aspiring supervisors.
• In the six districts, principal supervisors rated their district’s supervisor evaluation systems more highly. 

Similarities With Other Urban Districts

Districts participating in the Principal Supervisor Initiative had some strengths in common with other urban districts. Researchers thought this was because many urban districts were also redesigning the principal supervisor role.  Principal supervisors in both sets of districts spent about 65 percent of their time working with principals. Half of the time with principals was devoted to instructional leadership. Supervisors in both sets of districts also used similar instructional leadership practices with principals. This included visiting classrooms and analyzing data.

Notably, principal supervisors from both groups of districts shared similar frustrations with their central offices. Overall, only about one third of principal supervisors surveyed agreed that their central office facilitates their work with principals. Strengthening central office support for principal supervisors was the most challenging part of the work for districts.

The six districts participating in the Principal Supervisor Initiative were:

• Baltimore City Public Schools
• Broward County Public Schools, Fla.
• Cleveland Metropolitan School District
• Des Moines Public Schools
• Long Beach Unified School District, Calif. 
• Minneapolis Public Schools