The study examined eight exemplary pre- and in-service principal development programs with evidence of producing strong outcomes. To understand how the programs operate and how they are funded, researchers interviewed program faculty and administrators, participants and graduates, district personnel, and other stakeholders. They reviewed program documents and observed meetings, courses, and workshops.  Researchers also  surveyed program participants and graduates about their preparation, practices, and attitudes, comparing their responses to those of a national random sample of principals. In addition, for each program, they observed graduates in their jobs as principals, interviewed and surveyed the teachers with whom they work, and examined data on school practices and achievement trends.

The programs were chosen both because they provided evidence of strong outcomes in preparing school leaders and because, in combination, they represented a variety of approaches, designs, policy contexts, and partnerships between universities and school districts. Pre-service programs were sponsored by four universities: Bank Street College; Delta State University; the University of Connecticut; and the University of San Diego, working with the San Diego Unified School District. In-service programs were sponsored by the Hartford (Conn.) School District, Jefferson County (Ky.) Public Schools (which included a pre-service component), Region 1 in New York City, and San Diego Unified Schools. In several cases, pre- and in-service programs created a continuum of coherent learning opportunities for school leaders. 

Researchers also conducted policy case studies in the states represented by the program sample — California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Mississippi, and New York; these were augmented by data from three additional states that had enacted innovative leadership policies — Delaware, Georgia, and North Carolina. This provided the researchers with a broader perspective on how state policy and financing structures influence program financing, design, and orientation. In these eight states, the researchers reviewed policy documents and literature and interviewed stakeholders: policymakers and analysts; principals and superintendents; and representatives of professional associations, preparation programs, and professional development programs. The national survey over-sampled principals from these states to allow state-level analyses of principals’ learning experiences, preparedness, practices, and attitudes in relationship to policy contexts. From these analyses, researchers  describe what exemplary leadership development programs do and what they cost; what their outcomes are for principals’ knowledge, skills, and practices; and how policy contexts influence them. They also describe a range of state policy approaches to leadership development, examining evidence about how these approaches shape opportunities for principal learning and school improvement.