Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This case study examined the perspectives of educational leadership faculty regarding the Principal Fellows legislation and its influences on the principal preparation landscape in North Carolina. This qualitative inquiry drew from semi-structured interviews with principal preparation program faculty and coordinators. Relatedly, documents relevant to the Principal Fellows legislation and its implementation were collected to confirm and clarify, enabling triangulation in this study. Data analysis proceeded inductively, allowing insights to emerge from the data free from theoretical influences. Four key themes reflected how participants perceived the influences of the policy on preparation programs: (a) centering attention to high-need schools, (b) incentivizing the adoption of evidence-based practices, (c) expanding programs’ capacity through funding, and (d) learning from other programs. The paper concludes with recommendations for policymakers to consider as they seek to improve the quality of principal preparation programs across their states.

Keywords

principal preparation educational leadership equity state funding policy faculty perspectives

The growing recognition of the impact of principals on student outcomes (see Leithwood et al., 2004; Grissom et al., 2021) has supported policy attention to how school leaders are prepared (Jackson, 2025a; Manna, 2015; Orr, 2011). Given states’ legislative and regulatory authority over principal licensure and certification processes, it should come as no surprise that policymakers exert significant influence over the operations of principal preparation programs (Herrington & Wills, 2005). However, despite having an array of policy levers at their disposal, scholars have found that these are used poorly to improve the quality of school leaders (see Anderson & Reynolds, 2015; Briggs et al., 2013). Further compounding these findings, policymakers’ involvement in principal preparation through redesign and restructuring mandates is often not received favorably by faculty working across these programs. A critical concern underlying this finding is the disregard of policy efforts for preparation programs’ capacity, with faculty bemoaning the lack of resources to support their compliance (e.g., Browne-Ferrigno, 2011; Kochan & Reames, 2013; Young, 2013).

Unlike previous policies that have adopted top-down, redesign and restructuring mandates to improve principal preparation, North Carolina’s Senate Bill 227 serves as an innovative case to understand the conditions under which educational leadership faculty might be more amenable to the involvement of policymakers. Senate Bill 227 (referred to throughout as the Principal Fellows Policy) is a competitive, merit-based grant program that awards state funds to preparation programs that embrace the policy’s priorities to improve the quality of school leadership across the state. This article answers the following research question: How do educational leadership faculty perceive the impact of the Principal Fellows legislation on the principal preparation landscape in North Carolina?

North Carolina Case Context

Policymakers in North Carolina have long wielded significant influence over principal preparation programs. Fusarelli et al. (2019) recalled a state mandate that required all preparation programs to close their operations and submit updated program plans for approval from the General Assembly in 1992, a decision later reversed due to its impact on the supply of school leaders across the state. In 1993, the General Assembly established the North Carolina Principal Fellows Program (NCPFP). This competitive, merit-based scholarship program funded aspiring school leaders’ completion of master’s degrees in school administration at state-approved universities (Bastian & Fuller, 2015; Fusarelli et al., 2019).

Thereafter, policymakers enacted several initiatives to improve the quality of principals across the state and strengthen the principal pipeline. Among these, mandates for preparation programs to ensure alignment with national and professional standards for educational leadership and leadership preparation (North Carolina General Assembly [NCGA], 2007; Phillips, 2013a) and the creation of three Regional Leadership Academies (RLAs) from the federal Race to the Top [RtTT] initiative have been impactful (Brown, 2016). As alternative licensure programs, the three leadership academies adopted innovative and nontraditional approaches, including full-time residency, coaching and mentoring support, and more targeted recruitment and selective admission practices. Brown’s (2015, 2016) independent evaluation of the three academies found attentiveness to preparing school leaders for high-needs schools, which was accomplished through partnerships with high-need school districts. Sadly, two of the three academies were forced to close their doors once federal funding expired.

Despite these efforts, the Business for Educational Success and Transformation in NC (BEST NC) (2018), a coalition of business leaders across the state, found that “principal preparation statewide was inadequate for the significant demands of the job, particularly in high-need and struggling schools” (p. 1). This finding was influential to the state’s efforts to redefine and improve principal preparation across North Carolina and subsequently led to the establishment of the Transforming Principal Preparation Program (TP3) in 2015 (BESTNC, 2018). The program awarded competitive grants to six preparation programs that implemented innovative and evidence-based strategies in their preparation of principals for high-need, low-performing schools. As an example, funded programs enacted strategic and targeted recruitment strategies to attract strong teachers for principal preparation. Likewise, these programs also facilitated the preparation of school leaders through rigorous coursework and field experiences.

The Wallace Foundation has also had a noticeable impact on the preparation landscape in North Carolina with its University Principal Preparation (UPPI) and Equity-Centered Pipeline Initiatives. The UPPI funded the redesign of one program in the state, North Carolina State University, expanding its capacity to leverage partnerships with districts and state agencies (Herman et al., 2022).

The New Principal Fellows Policy

As of 2015, the state funded two separate principal preparation initiatives, the NCPFP and the TP3, which invited several criticisms. While both programs were intended to address the demand for school leaders across the state, the TP3 prioritized principal preparation for leadership across high-needs, low performing schools, unlike the NCPFP’s focus on general recruitment of principal candidates (BESTNC, 2018). In overcoming the above shortcomings, a proposal was made to merge the two programs and their respective funding in 2019 through Senate Bill 227.

Senate Bill 227 is a competitive, merit-based grant program that awards state funds to preparation programs to improve the quality of school leadership across high-needs schools. The merger took effect in July 2021 and combines the scholarship component of the former NCPFP with the research-informed program features and high-need, low-performing school priorities of the TP3, and is expected to facilitate greater oversight and quality control over principal preparation across the state (Granados, 2021; NCGA, 2019). The policy is implemented by the North Carolina Principal Fellows program (NCPFP) and governed by a Commission of 15 stakeholders. Through open requests for proposals, entities offering principal preparation across the state are invited to apply for funding up to $750,000 per year to support their tuition-free preparation of aspiring school leaders.

Literature Review

The current study is grounded in two bodies of literature. First, to situate the Principal Fellows legislation, this review narrows in on how state legislators have influenced the operations of principal preparation programs. Then, I engage with the mechanism undergirding the Principal Fellows legislation by drawing parallels to similar funding policies.

State Policy Influences on Principal Preparation Programs

Despite principal preparation programs historically enjoying much autonomy and freedom (Doolittle, 2013), states have considerable influence over their operations (Crow et al., 2012; Fusarelli & Cooper, 2010). Policymakers have come to recognize the critical role played by principal preparation programs in mediating school leaders’ readiness to lead and sustain school improvement efforts. Because principal preparation programs serve gate-keeping roles over the principal pipeline, reform initiatives over the past two decades have focused attention on this area (Jackson, 2025b; Orr, 2011). Concomitant with this recognition are state mandates for principal preparation programs to redesign and restructure their programs (see Doolittle, 2013; Mountford & Acker-Hocevar, 2013; Phillips, 2013a).

State leaders are key actors who shape the quality of principals through their influence over principal preparation programs (Anderson & Reynolds, 2015; Briggs et al., 2013; Browne-Ferrigno, 2011). As an example, a collection of articles published in the Journal of Research on Leadership Education examined the efforts of principal preparation programs across five states in response to state redesign and restructuring mandates (Phillips, 2013b), though these are limited to the perspectives of faculty within individual universities. For example, Mountford and Acker-Hocevar (2013) examined how faculty at one university in Florida responded to state-mandated curriculum changes and associated leadership standards. Despite faculty participants’ outrage at the top-down mandate and limited time to ensure alignment, programs were forced to comply with the mandate, since “[f]ailure to comply with the new law. . . meant losing state program approval, thus the ability to recommend educational program graduates to the state board of education for school administrative licensure” (p. 226). In another study, Doolittle (2013) offers insight into the experiences and challenges encountered by faculty at Rowan University in response to a state mandated policy. In 2004, New Jersey Department of Education mandated all 17 leadership preparation providers to undergo a “critical friends review” and alignment with the state’s adoption of the Interstate Leadership Licensure Consortium standards before being eligible to recommend candidates for administrative licensure and supervisory certificate. Situated within narratives of confusion, fragility, and unintended consequences, the article highlighted the lack of clarity between the intent and implementation of the mandate, fragile relationship between university faculty and the state, and the destabilization of existing providers and program quality (Doolittle, 2013). Browne-Ferrigno (2013), Kochan and Reames (2013), and Phillips (2013a) have extended similar discussions relevant to Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina, respectively.

While state involvement in principal preparation is generally geared toward improving the quality of school leadership, this has not always been received favorably by faculty (Reyes-Guerra & Lochmiller, 2016). Phillips (2013a) highlighted the experiences of faculty at one North Carolina-based principal preparation program in response to state-mandated redesign. She noted that faculty bemoaned the lack of clarity provided by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) to guide their program’s redesign efforts. Likewise, Browne-Ferrigno (2011) examined the perspectives of faculty toward an unfunded policy mandate for preparation programs to establish partnerships with school districts in Kentucky. The majority of professors in her study, 70.5%, reported concerns about the redesign mandate. Although the cost to facilitate mandated redesign was identified as a significant concern, faculty were unhappy with policymakers dictating how they should deliver their programs. Overall, these findings suggest that state legislators “lack a nuanced understanding of the inner workings of higher education institutions. . . [causing principal preparation programs at different IHEs to be] treated as single entities, without acknowledging the very real differences that exist in mission, structure, resources, and outcomes” (Fusarelli et al., 2019, pp. 121-122; also, Doolittle, 2013).

Policy Levers

Scholars have identified several policy levers that states have used to exercise legislative and regulative authority over the operations of principal preparation programs, though these are poorly leveraged. These areas include approving principal preparation programs, determining leadership standards, recruiting school leaders, certification and licensure, monitoring principal outcome data, and funding. Gates et al. (2020) highlight three mechanisms through which state legislators can act on the named levers: “setting direction through legislation and funding, shaping the direction more precisely through regulation and oversight, and providing resources and services” (p. xiii).

Empirical studies have found that states predominantly leverage these influences over preparation programs through leadership standards. Gates and colleagues reported on the outcomes of the Wallace Foundation-funded initiative, the UPPI, which provided resources to universities, partner districts, and state agencies to support the redesign of preparation programs across seven states (Gates et al., 2020). Their study found that leadership standards, and program approval and oversight were the dominant levers used across these states. Similarly, Anderson and Reynolds’ (2015) national study of principal preparation policies assessed the level of state involvement across different approval and certification requirements. Although states varied in how they regulated principal preparation programs, all 50 states had policies that addressed leadership standards, with preparation program oversight being the second most popular policy across states.

Competitive Grants and Institutional Changes

Several parallels can be drawn between the Principal Fellows legislation and others at the federal level. The federal government’s primary avenue for influencing preparation programs is through incentivizing program-level reform and the adoption of federal priorities in exchange for federal dollars (Manna & Ray, 2011; McGuinn, 2011). Dating as far back as 2002, the federal government has used competitive grants such as the School Leadership Grant and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs to induce the adoption of innovative and evidence-based approaches in leadership development and preparation (Jackson & Sondah, 2025). For example, studies of successful and innovative preparation programs often attribute credit to federal initiatives for expanding their capacity, which in turn influence their program effectiveness, and consequently positive graduate outcomes (see Browne-Ferrigno, 2011; Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012; Fusarelli et al., 2019).

Instead of the seldom-used sticks of sanctions, competitive grant programs have incentivized alignment with, and or the adoption of the federal government’s priorities (McGuinn, 2011). In 2007, for example, the economic recession created a policy window for the federal government to shape educational reform. Through four billion dollars earmarked to stimulate systemic education reform under the RtTT initiative, states were invited to apply for their share of the funding by demonstrating their alignment with the administration’s four priorities. One of the priorities centered on recruiting and developing effective principals, across high-needs schools, creating an avenue for states to invest in principal preparation (Jackson & Sondah, 2025). Three states extended plans to invest in principal preparation—Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Reyes-Guerra and Lochmiller (2016) reported how Florida’s RtTT effort to strengthen principal preparation programs resulted in the establishment of partnerships among preparation programs and school districts. Though not a requirement of the federal legislation, participants unanimously acknowledged benefits from these relationships, with noted impact on “program content, learning experiences, and operating norms” (p. 288). The TN LEAD grant program in Tennessee funded the preparation of school leaders across eight programs described as embodying innovative approaches (Tennessee State Government, 2013). Under the RtTT implementation in North Carolina, the general assembly authorized the establishment of three RLAs, opening the preparation landscape to alternative certification pathways for developing school leaders. In addition to exemplifying the implementation of evidence-based features, these programs were described as effectively meeting the needs of high-needs schools, one of the policy’s priorities (Brown, 2015).

The Study’s Contribution

The study’s contributions are distinguished by its attentiveness to gaps across this body of literature. First, despite states’ ability to leverage funding to influence preparation programs, limited empirical studies exist on how this has been done to date. Further, existing studies have predominantly been conducted within the context of states’ allocation of federal funds from the RtTT competition (e.g., Brown, 2015, 2016; Reyes-Guerra & Lochmiller, 2016) or Title II provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (e.g., Espinoza & Cardichon, 2017; Reid et al., 2020; Young et al., 2017). Thus, the study extends empirical attention to how a state-funded competition has shaped the priorities and structures of principal preparation programs, providing insights that could inspire similar initiatives in other states. Second, and unlike previous studies that explore the perspectives of faculty towards state-mandated reforms (see Browne-Ferrigno, 2011; Phillips, 2013b; Reyes-Guerra & Lochmiller, 2016), the policy under investigation is a competitive, merit-based one that is done through open requests for proposals. Thus, by applying for state funding through the Principal Fellows program, preparation programs have voluntarily opted into the conditions of the policy, allowing this study to add new insights to this body of literature.

Methods

This study adopted a case study design (Merriam, 1998). As a research design, case studies investigate phenomena in their real-life context, and are especially suited when seeking answers to ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. This paper comes from a larger study of equity-oriented principal preparation in North Carolina, which reported the Principal Fellows legislation as a major enabler of these efforts (see Jackson, 2024). As a follow-up, the present study extends these discussions to understand the influences of the Principal Fellows legislation on the principal preparation landscape across the state. Specifically, the following research question is addressed: How do educational leadership faculty perceive the impact of the Principal Fellows legislation on the principal preparation landscape in North Carolina? Because the legislation impacts principal preparation programs in North Carolina, this case study is bound to stakeholders (i.e., faculty, program coordinators, staff) within this context (Merriam, 1998). Importantly, while the legislation only funds eight preparation programs per grant cycle, the desire to understand the influences of the policy on the state’s principal preparation landscape influenced the decision to include the perspectives of faculty from both funded and unfunded programs. As is typical in case study research, this study relied on multiple sources of data (i.e., semi-structured interviews with program faculty and policy documents) to enable triangulation (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995).

North Carolina Principal Preparation Landscape

The principal preparation landscape includes 24 approved programs offering educational leadership training that leads to the acquisition of a principal license through four pathways: master’s degree, add-on licensure for those with a master’s degree in a related field, education specialist degree, and/or doctoral degree (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2024). Programs are somewhat evenly distributed across the state, representing a range of institutional characteristics, with 14 housed within public and state-funded universities, and 18 serving predominantly white student populations. Geographically, most of these programs are situated in urban (15) and suburban (3) locales.

The population of Principal Fellows programs (N = 8) is relatively identical to the distribution of preparation programs across the state, with the exception of private universities being unrepresented in funded programs. 75% of the funded programs are predominantly white institutions, with one Historically Black College and University being selected, and another that serves an equal balance of white and minority students. Like the broader population, most funded programs are in urban and suburban areas.

Data Collection and Analysis

Through purposive sampling, information-rich cases (i.e., principal preparation program stakeholders across the state) were invited to participate in the study by way of email invitation (Creswell, 2007). Fifteen program directors, coordinators, and faculty from 11 principal preparation programs, including five Principal Fellows and six Non-Principal Fellows preparation programs, participated in the study. The sample of participants represented diverse institutional classification (private and public; Carnegie classification), geographic location (rural, urban, suburban), population served (e.g., Minority-Serving Institutions [MSI] and Predominantly White Institutions [PWI]). However, demographic data is not presented to protect the identity of participants and their programs. Data collection began in Spring 2023 and took place over 7 months, concluding in October of that year. Although interviews were the primary source of data used in this study, legislative and implementation documents were collected to provide additional insight and verify interview findings.

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were scheduled and conducted on Zoom with participants to probe their understanding of the new policy and their perceptions of its impact on principal preparation across the state. This flexibility of semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher to probe participants’ responses to (Creswell, 2007). While interviews were scheduled with individual stakeholders, three participants from one program opted to participate jointly. A total of 13 interviews were performed, lasting about an hour on average, and ranging from 45 to 90 min. Each interview was recorded and later transcribed.

Documents

In addition to the interview data, documents relevant to the Principal Fellows policy and its implementation were collected for analysis. The documents collected for analysis came from two sources. As the ultimate source of legislative authority, the state’s General Assembly website was searched to locate the policy, which also pointed to the Principal Fellows Program as the state agency charged with its implementation. The documents retrieved from these sources became part of the data subject to analysis in this study (see Table 1 for document summary). These documents were used to support and confirm the findings from the interviews, enabling triangulation, and in other instances provided greater contextual clarity to enrich the findings presented.

Table 1.

Case Study Data Sources.

Data	Data-description	Source
Interviews (semi-structured)	Zoom 45–90 min	Principal preparation program coordinators, staff, and faculty
Legislative documents (North Carolina State Senate Bill 227, 2019	Legislative bill mandating the merger of the NCPFP and the TP3.	North Carolina General Assembly: https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2019/SB227
Principal fellows program website	Program overview, request for proposals, grant scoring rubric, professional development materials, strategic plan, etc.	Principal fellows program: https://ncpfp.northcarolina.edu/

The analysis was conducted using MaxQDA qualitative software and proceeded in an inductive manner to allow insights to emerge from the data free from theoretical influences. Recognizing that data for this study were retrieved from a larger study, the first stage in the analysis included reading interview transcripts to identify relevant and meaningful data depicting participants' perspectives about the Principal Fellows policy. Then, selected texts were extracted, transferred to a document, and subject to several rounds of reading to facilitate immersion (Nowell et al., 2017) and open coding to identify patterns and emergent themes (Saldaña, 2016). Next, through Glaser and Strauss’ (1976) constant comparative method, the collected documents were analyzed to search for confirming evidence for the emergent themes from the interview data.

To support the trustworthiness of the findings reported in this study, several steps were adopted (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). First, the study included participants from contextually diverse preparation programs, including Principal Fellows and non-Principal Fellows programs, providing balanced perspectives on the influences of the policy. Second, the use of multiple sources of data allowed the researcher to triangulate and subsequently bolster the credibility of the findings reported (Eisner, 2017; Patton, 1990). As an example, when participants shared their narratives regarding the influences of the policy, document sources were analyzed to confirm and clarify. Finally, two experts operating in this context were consulted for feedback regarding the interpretation of these findings and whether these accurately depict the policy’s influences and intention, which informed revisions to this article.

Findings

Four themes illustrate the influences of the Principal Fellows legislation on the state’s principal preparation landscape. These themes are (a) centering attention on high-need schools, (b) incentivizing the adoption of evidence-based practices, (c) expanding programs’ capacity through funding, and (d) learning from other programs. The findings are presented using narratives from both interviews¹ and policy documents to demonstrate the convergence of the sources.

Centering Attention to High-Needs Schools

Based on the data, a defining feature of the Principal Fellows policy is its attention to the preparation of school leaders to meet the demands across high-needs schools. According to the legislation, the Principal Fellows Commission shall prioritize the application of principal preparation programs that demonstrate a focus on, or a record of serving high-need schools. Moreover, as a condition of students’ scholarship loan, after graduation they are expected to seek administrative roles in high-need schools for a period of 2 years to have their loan forgiven. In support of the above, Jerry^NPF described his understanding of the policy as providing

scholarships to candidates who want to get their master's [degree]. . . so they get a scholarship, but they also then become full-time students. And in repayment for that, they must agree to work, I think, for four years as an administrator in a school in North Carolina. I think they are trying to aim them towards at-risk schools, low-performing schools.

Several participants lauded the policy for its emphasis on high-needs schools, describing the challenges across these contexts that warrant a constant supply of effective school leaders. As Michelle^PF reflected,

I like the fact that we are focusing on high needs populations. . . I really do applaud them for looking at our higher needs population and higher need schools because they need help. . . and, hopefully, with our Principal Fellows, they can stay in those high-needs schools and make a difference, because we need them there.

Participants from three non-funded institutions also expressed their aspiration to join the program, with one citing its alignment with their program niche and seeing it as a way to expand her program’s capacity in this regard:

I would like if our university would be a part of that program because we are directly centered in a region that serves high need schools. So they are beneficial if our university was a part of that because we do recruit a lot of students that work in high need schools within our region. (Christine^NPF)

Another participant, Kate^NPF, shared that institutional program changes impeded her program's ability to apply for the most recent funding cycle; however, she expressed her intention to apply in the next round of competition, noting, “I would love to be a part of it.”

Interestingly, and perhaps attributable to the conservative political context of North Carolina, while the legislation makes no mention of equity, interpretations of preparing leaders to meet the needs of high-need schools led to an emphasis on preparing school leaders for equity. Thus, the policy created an imperative for principal preparation programs to engage in equity-oriented preparation practices. As an example, in the first request for proposal under said merger, the Commission clarified its mandate to fund preparation programs that “focus their priorities on the recruitment and selection of marginalized and underrepresented groups” and “implement a principal leadership development program that includes applying equity-driven coaching to the participant’s sphere of influence” (NCPFP/TP3, 2021). Narratives from participants also support this emphasis on preparing diverse school leaders for equity. As Sandra^PF expressed,

So, I'm grateful for the legislation. . . and so we are grateful that more programs, and that the state is seeing the need. . . equity is more of everyone's focus, instead of kind of an optional or volunteer focus. . .

Another participant reflected on their participation in the previous iteration of the policy as a student, noting now a more explicit focus on equity and social justice.

I was the Principal Fellow years ago. . . But I've experienced the principal Fellows Program the way it was originally as a participant, but also as a program director of an MSA program. . . So in those experiences, one of the things I've noticed is that we are explicitly talking about equity, with this merger, in a way that I had not experienced as a student. (Helen^PF)

The implementation of the policy also included a professional development course titled NC's Leadership Competencies: An Equitable Approach in Action, to complement the efforts of funded programs, and initiate these conversations across others, since the training was accessible to students from both funded and unfunded programs. More commonly referred to as an equity module, the professional development course introduced aspiring principals to discussions of inequities and equitable leadership practices, with scaffolded personalized coaching to support their engagement with equity issues in their schools.

Overall, this theme depicts how the Principal Fellows policy has influenced discussions about preparing school leaders to meet the needs of students in high-need schools, creating an imperative for preparation programs’ attention to equity-oriented leadership approaches.

Incentivizing the Adoption of Evidence-Based Preparation Practices

Although minimally addressed by participants, the analyzed documents point to the adoption of evidence-based practices as a requirement for funding selection, which creates an incentive for programs’ alignment with said. To preface these discussions, it is important to note that three of the five Principal Fellows programs represented in this study were previously funded by another state competition—TP3, which required alignment with these elements, and thus these programs were least likely to note institutional impact in this area, with the exception of one participant, who described the program as “paving a path for best practices, best principal preparation” (Sandra^PF).

On the other hand, two participants discussed improvements to institutional structures, such as the internship, and engagement with other features previously beyond their capacity, like providing mentors and coaches to support students during the internship. These efforts were described as supporting the competitiveness of these programs in the grant competition. Take David^PF for instance, who recalled establishing formal partnerships with school districts to support his program's grant application. He underscored the significance of his programs’ alignment with evidence-based practices in the statement, “if you are not applying. . . and playing in this grantsmanship that now comes along with it, you're not gonna have any Personal Fellows.”

The legislation also gives support to these notions, mandating the Commission to prioritize the application of preparation programs that include the following research-based elements:

a) A proactive, aggressive, and intentional recruitment strategy.

b) Rigorous selection criteria based on competencies that are predictive of success as a school leader, including, but not limited to, evidence of significant positive effect on student learning growth in the classroom, at the public school level, professional recommendations, evidence of problem solving and critical thinking skills, achievement drive, and leadership of adults.

c) Alignment to high-quality national standards for school leadership development.

d) Rigorous coursework that effectively links theory with practice through the use of field experiences and problem-based learning.

e) Full-time paid clinical practice of at least 5 months and 750 hr in duration in an authentic setting, including substantial leadership responsibilities, where candidates are evaluated on leadership skills and effect on student outcomes as part of program completion.

f) Multiple opportunities for school leader candidates to be observed and coached by program faculty and staff.

g) Clear expectations for and firm commitment from school leaders who will oversee the clinical practice of candidates.

h) Evaluation of school leader candidates during and at the end of the clinical practice based on the North Carolina School Executive Evaluation Rubric.

i) A process for continuous review and program improvement based on feedback from partnering local school administrative units and data from program completers, including student achievement data.

j) Established relationship and feedback loop with affiliated local school administrative units that is used to inform and improve programmatic elements from year to year based on units' needs (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate Bill 227, 2019, p. 9).

To further encourage the adoption of these elements, the scoring rubric for funding selection delineates a maximum of 124 points awarded across four areas, including 18 points for evidence of program effectiveness and 72 points for the adoption of research-based elements, accounting for a total of 72.6% of the total points awarded (Principal Fellows Scoring Rubric, 2021). Therefore, preparation programs that are more aligned with these elements are more likely to be funded.

The competition fostered by the policy was not perceived favorably by one participant from a non-funded program, who felt his program was disadvantaged by its institutional context. According to Eric^NPF, the Principal Fellows grants are awarded to larger, state schools, with whom his program could not compete due to resource differences. A similar sentiment regarding the competition fostered by the policy was also expressed by one faculty member from a funded program. While lauding the policy for creating a space where preparation programs can learn from each other, Sandra^PF noted the dilemma associated with participating in the program's network, “It makes it a little bit difficult though, when you're asked to talk and share your resources, your ideas, etcetera, and then you're all competing for millions of dollars”. She later spoke of the need for program faculty to move beyond the competition created by the policy in the sake of improving the quality of school leadership across the state.

Expanding Programs’ Capacity Through Funding

The findings revealed that the funding provided through the policy was the most impactful on the principal preparation landscape, enabling preparation programs’ adoption of innovative and evidence-based practices. Participants identified four ways that the funding received, and the lack thereof for unfunded programs, influenced their programs’ operations: tuition-free principal preparation, full-time, paid internship, mentorship and coaching, and innovations.

Tuition-Free Principal Preparation

Offered as a scholarship loan, funding from this legislation was described as enabling the tuition-free preparation of school leaders, providing an opportunity for individuals who might not be able to afford the costs associated with pursuing a master’s degree. In addition to offsetting tuition, the legislation covers the costs associated with students' enrollment, including fees, textbooks, and other costs related to students’ professional learning. As Kelly^PF shared,

the Principal Fellows is completely through the grant, it's paid for, so they [students] are not having to pay tuition. So that's a great incentive for students who may not be able to traditionaliy afford to pay for their own master's degree.

Narratives from the program’s request for proposals also confirmed these arguments. According to the NCPFP (2021) request for proposal,

Grantees will be required to develop budgets that hold potential participants harmless, meaning the applicants will allocate funds to ensure that a participant is not charged for books, tuition, fees, etc. (NCPFP, 2021, p. 14)

Full-Time Internship

Another impact of the funding extends to aspiring principals’ completion of full-time, paid internships during their second year of study without losing their teaching position. During the year-long internship, students continue to “receive a salary equivalent to what he or she was earning in his or her current position” (NCPFP, 2021, p. 14), allowing them to leave their teaching position to serve as an administrative intern for one school year.

To illuminate the significance of policy's funding provision, Connie^NPF provides insight into the reality of principal preparation across the state by comparing the typical student attending her non-funded program and how his/her experience contrasts with that of their peers in Principal Fellows preparation programs. According to her, students in Principal Fellows programs

have some options that we don't have, and the one I think is the most meaningful is that, one could sort of take a leave of absence without having to forgo their salary in order to do the coursework, as opposed to the way that we offer courses. So, all of our students are full-time, working professionals, who are taking the coursework and doing internships in addition to, and on top of their full-time careers, as opposed to there being any release time for them to be able to do internships. . .

She later reflected on how the state’s internship requirements for students’ completion of 350 hours created challenges for programs not in receipt of funding, since they are unable to “offset salaries and offer release time for internship opportunities.” Stated differently, students’ completion of full-time internships, made possible through the legislation, greatly exceeded the state’s minimum requirements, suggesting superior internship experiences across Principal Fellows preparation programs.

Mentoring and Coaching

Participants from Principal Fellows programs spoke extensively about their professional support for students through mentorship and coaching. For instance, Michelle^PF described the personal challenges from students as influencing dropout considerations. In response, she noted the development of a mentor-mentee program, an initiative, according to her, that “has paid off dividends.” She discussed how pairing students with a mentor during their first year resulted in zero withdrawal or dropouts from the program’s current cohort, leveraging these kinds of support to ensure students’ retention and successful entry into the principal pipeline:

They have a mentor in their first year while taking courses. . . and they meet monthly with that person. And it's support on how do I maneuver through courses? How do I manage my time, because a lot of times, we want to work with them when they're in the internship, but we need to work with them and retain them so they can get to the internship. . . and we pay them [mentors] as well and that's something that we use some of those grant dollars to do that. And we've been able to maintain all 17 of our grant students that are now interning. . .

Other participants also shared that they have used grant funds to provide similar support for their students, seeing coaching as enabling programs to provide holistic support for students’ leadership development:

So, they not only have their course instructors, but they have coaches as well who don't actually teach any classes, but are there for moral, social, emotional support, professional support. . .. So, when they're struggling with something that’s in their school or in their district, or they're struggling with something with coursework, they have a coach that they can reach out to who can support them. (Kelly^PF)

Two participants also discussed extending coaching support to their students up to 18 months after their graduation and into their employment as school administrators, with one participant describing this as allowing his program to help graduates navigate professional spaces and “close any gaps that may have arisen because either we missed it or they’re in a different kind of context” (Carl^PF).

Innovation

The data also reveal that the funding embodies an opportunity for programs to adopt innovative approaches to support their preparation of school leaders. As noted by Kate^NPF, while all programs are expected to abide by specific parameters such as the internship requirements, Principal Fellows programs are “able to put in a little bit of their special sauce. . . And so, they can do some things ever so slightly different.” In support of this argument, participants have shared different examples of innovative practices used to support their programs, including taking students to educational leadership conferences (e.g., University Council for Educational Leadership), Civil Rights Museums, and other professional learning spaces. An example, one participant shared contracting the services of the Integrated Comprehensive System (ICS) for Equity to expose students to systems-level equity issues.

Learning From Other Programs

As part of the policy’s implementation, the Commission has invested and engaged extensively in providing professional development to support preparation programs. While principal preparation programs have historically operated in complete isolation from each other, several participants spoke about developing professional networks, which presented opportunities to learn from other programs. Participants from across both funded and unfunded programs discussed benefits to their programs because of participating in the Professional Learning Networks (PLNs). According to Sandra^PF,

we’ve been able to share different [resources], whether it's curriculum or textbooks or about our change project that we have our interns do with other programs. And we’ve also been able to now learn from other programs.

These professional networks have extensively centered equity, with one participant acknowledging more transparency. Helen^PF discussed a greater focus on equity than the previous iteration of policy:

So we attended some of the professional learning opportunities within the network, I do believe with the merger, the activities were more transparent. I felt like I learned a lot more about what the statewide program was offering in terms of those professional learning opportunities, and I've observed and participated in a lot more intentionality around equity than I did before the merger.

Four of six participants from unfunded programs reported participation in the state-wide PLNs. As a result of their participation, two noted planned changes to align with what they’ve learned. For example, Jerry^NPF discussed how his participation made him recognize a disparity in his program’s course requirements for add-on licensure students. He explained,

So, it's absolutely possible for you to. . . take the required courses, two of which are internships, get your principal license, and not have had these two classes [referring to the main courses that address diversity and equity]. And it really didn't resonate with me until I sat in those professional developments and had conversation about the importance of these, then we realized, here's a big gap in our program, so we are going to look at all of our courses, and see if we can address the diversity and equity issues in some of the other classes so that our license add-on students are exposed to it and have a chance to talk about it.

Another participant shared participating in two of the four professional development trainings, including one where the topic was diversity and equity. In addition to making changes to curricula content to include these concepts, Shane^NPF explained, “we've started to talk about that. And that's actually on our agenda to really dive into over the next year.”

In summary, the networks created through statewide professional development were equally beneficial to faculty from both types of preparation programs, who shared learning from the practices across other universities, which influenced revisions to their programs.

Discussion

This study explored how faculty perceived the influences of the Principal Fellows legislation on the principal preparation landscape in North Carolina. Findings from semi-structured interviews and policy documents revealed four key influences. First, the legislation’s emphasis on meeting the needs of high-need schools created an imperative for preparation programs’ attention to diversifying the principal pipeline and principals’ equity-oriented leadership responsibilities. Second, the merit-based, competitive nature of the policy incentivized the adoption of evidence-based practices across preparation programs, especially since the successful implementation of the policy was also contingent on these elements. Next, the funding provided through the legislation expanded preparation programs’ capacity to embrace innovative practices, supporting their ability to offer high-quality principal preparation experiences (i.e., full-time internship, mentoring, and coaching). Finally, although principal preparation programs have long operated independently of each other, another key finding from this study points to the development of professional networks among faculty. Taken together, these findings add new insights to the intersection of research on state policies and principal preparation, and could be of interest to policymakers looking to improve principal preparation programs across their states.

Implications for Policy

Unlike previous studies that have reported faculty outrage and disapproval at policymakers’ involvement in the operations of principal preparation programs (Browne-Ferrigno, 2011; Doolittle, 2013; Phillips, 2013a; Reyes-Guerra & Lochmiller, 2016), participants in this study were generally enthusiastic about and supportive of the legislation and its efforts to improve the principal preparation landscape. To understand the divergent attitudes of preparation program faculty to state policies, this study questions how the Principal Fellows policy differs from other policy attempts to improve principal preparation programs. I engage with previous criticisms of policymakers’ involvement in principal preparation to frame these discussions. In so doing, these discussions will offer recommendations for how policymakers can shape improvements across principal preparation programs in ways that are welcomed by faculty.

Recommendation #1: Preparation Policies Should Facilitate Program Buy-In

Most studies documenting negative experiences and perceptions of principal preparation program faculty towards state policies are in response to those that mandate redesign and restructuring. In addition to the lack of support often associated with these mandates, the use of “sticks” (or consequences) associated with programs' inability or unwillingness to comply have led to distrust among faculty toward state policies (Doolittle, 2013; Mountford & Acker-Hocevar, 2013). Another concern about these mandates is rooted in the disregard for contextual differences across preparation programs (Browne-Ferrigno, 2011; Fusarelli et al., 2019). In contrast, the Principal Fellows policy operated as an open competition, where preparation programs opted into the conditions of the policy by virtue of their application; thus, faculty were not forced into compliance. Furthermore, programs were not told how to implement their activities, but rather to demonstrate how their planned activities were aligned with evidence-based practices, with innovative practices being highly encouraged. While it is no surprise that faculty from funded programs were generally positive towards the legislation, these sentiments were also echoed by four faculty from non-funded programs (e.g., Christine and Kate), all of whom expressed interest in participating in the program, suggesting benefits when state legislators rely more on incentives (carrots) and buy-in, rather than sanctions to shape improvement.

Recommendation #2: Policies Must Champion the Adoption of Evidence-Based Practices Across Preparation Programs

Policymakers’ involvement in principal preparation is often described as limiting programs’ ability to offer rigorous preparation experiences, uninformed by data, and disconnected from best practices (Browne-Ferrigno, 2013; Doolittle, 2013). These arguments suggest a lack of expertise on the part of policymakers, which often erodes the credibility of these efforts (Fusarelli et al., 2019). In contrast, the Principal Fellow policy incentivizes alignment with features associated with positive student learning and outcomes. For example, in addition to the full-time, paid internship, the policy motivates the adoption of rigorous coursework that bridges theory and leadership practice, coaching and mentorship opportunities, and district university partnerships, proactively responding to enduring criticisms of traditional principal preparation programs. Faculty from both types of programs seemed unbothered by these requirements, with one participant touting the policy as paving a path for best principal preparation practices. This finding is supported by Gates et al. (2022), who noted positive associations between state policies requiring evidence-based practices and stakeholder receptiveness. Because principal preparation program faculty are often experts in this area, it may explain why policies that champion the adoption of evidence-based practices are associated with more positive attitudes among these individuals.

Recommendation #3: Principal Preparation Policies Should Be Attentive to the Capacity of Stakeholders to Support Their Implementation

Although previous state policies mandate the adoption of some evidence-based practices, such as partnership with districts (see Browne-Ferrigno, 2011; Reyes-Guerra & Lochmiller, 2016), these top-down mandates often lack the financial support needed to support preparation programs' compliance (Browne-Ferrigno, 2011; Kochan & Reames, 2013). Moreover, despite ongoing criticisms of preparation programs' shortcomings, arguments about their capacity are often visibly absent from these discussions. Except for a few studies (e.g., Clement et al., 2022), limited research provides insights into different factors influencing preparation programs’ capacity to meet policy demands, failing to acknowledge the exorbitant costs associated with high-quality principal preparation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Young, 2013). The findings suggest that policymakers behind the Principal Fellows policy were mindful of their “ask” of preparation programs, and in exchange, offered financial support and information to support the successful implementation of the legislation. Based on the findings reported in the article, this funding was described as the most impactful aspect of the legislation since it motivated preparation programs and their faculty to undertake ambitious and innovative programmatic changes. Further, the funding provided for aspiring principals through forgivable scholarship loans appeared to have shifted programs’ emphasis from revenue generation, associated with non-selective recruitment, to that of high-quality principal preparation, where programs could adopt rigorous recruitment and selection procedures. As noted by Gates et al. (2020), “[c]oupling mandates with resources and information to help develop that capacity. . . can increase the odds of success for a state mandate” (Gates et al., 2020, xxi).

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

While this study offers early insights regarding the impact of the Principal Fellows policy on the principal preparation landscape in North Carolina, these reflect the perspectives of educational leadership faculty. Consequently, additional research is needed to evaluate the policy’s actual impact. Scholars studying leadership preparation, and those with interests in program evaluation could pick up where this study left off. Researchers should extend additional empirical attention to how the policy has impacted practices across preparation programs. And although in theory, some of the findings suggest evidence of impact, differing institutional structures and capacity across the sample before the policy, undermine generalization. To clarify, other initiatives discussed earlier (e.g., RtTT, TP3, UPPI) have already spurred significant improvements across the state’s principal preparation landscape, each building on the features of the prior. Thus, for several programs, their alignment with evidence-based practices pre-dates the Principal Fellows policy. With this limitation in mind, researchers should ask, what specific changes have preparation programs made as a result of applying for the competition, and after receiving funding? These studies might provide evidence to support the extent to which the legislation incentivizes the adoption of evidence-based practices, which could provide support for the findings reported in this article.

Another line of research might track graduates’ entry into the school leadership pipeline over time to understand the effects of their preparation programs. Although measures of graduates’ impact on students’ experiences and outcomes are desired, Grissom et al.’s (2019) study reminds us of methodological concerns that impede valid and reliable conclusions in this area. The field, however, has coalesced around graduates’ career outcomes (e.g., time to employment, job retention) and leadership knowledge as evidence of preparation programs’ effectiveness (Orr & Barber, 2006; Orr, 2011; Orr & Orphanos, 2011). Given the extensive investment to improve the capacity of, and rigor across, especially funded preparation programs, research must also answer the question of whether this investment has paid off. Simply put, are graduates from funded programs better prepared to lead high-needs schools? Though it might be too early to provide answers to this question, given the age of the policy and the time it takes for students' ascension to principal, this is an area for future research to explore.

Conclusion

The findings from this study elucidate the multifaceted ways in which North Carolina’s Principal Fellows policy has shaped the state’s principal preparation landscape. By centering high-need schools, incentivizing evidence-based practices, expanding preparation program capacity through funding, and fostering statewide professional development and networks, the policy represents a significant departure from the often criticized top-down, unfunded mandates that have historically characterized policymakers’ involvement in principal preparation. Unlike prior state initiatives that have drawn resistance from faculty, the Principal Fellows policy has been met with broad support, even among faculty from unfunded programs. This shift can largely be attributed to the policy’s competitive, opt-in nature, its alignment with evidence-based practices, and attentiveness to preparation programs’ capacity.

A key contribution of this study is its illumination of how an ostensibly neutral policy, one that does not explicitly reference equity, has created an imperative for equity-oriented leadership preparation and could be beneficial in states experiencing hostile climates toward diversity, equity, and inclusion. By centering attention to the demands of high-needs schools, the legislation has implicitly inspired programs to adopt and embrace equity-oriented preparation practices. As faculty members in this study highlighted, the policy's implementation has not only signaled attention to the diversification of the principal pipeline but has also legitimized discussions of equity in spaces that may not have historically emphasized such perspectives.

Finally, this study also advances policy discourse by demonstrating that state-level interventions in principal preparation need not be adversarial. Despite previous research framing state policies as prescriptive and mandate imposing, the Principal Fellows policy illustrates how an incentive-driven approach, grounded in capacity-building rather than punitive compliance, can engender faculty support and encourage the adoption of evidence-based practices (Gates et al., 2020). Importantly, this study underscores that financial investment is not merely a supplementary benefit of this legislation, but a prerequisite of high-quality principal preparation reform (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Young, 2013). To conclude, this study echoes the argument of Fusarelli and Fusarelli (2023), who, in their description of the Principal Fellows policy, noted that a “state-funded competitive process that requires programs to adopt certain research-based best practices sends a clear signal that leadership development is critical” (p. 12).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Open access for this article was made possible by the Open Access Publication Program from the Anne Spencer Daves College of Education, Health and Human Sciences at Florida State University. The results, information and opinions expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views or position of our institution. All errors are my own.

ORCID iD

Mario M. Jackson

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Mario M. Jackson is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership at Florida State University. His research focuses on principal preparation, crisis leadership, and the intersection of these strands with equity and social justice.

References

Anderson

Reynolds

(2015). The state of state policies for principal preparation program approval and candidate licensure. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(3), 193–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115614292

Bastian

K. C.

Fuller

S. C.

(2015). The North Carolina principal fellows program: A comprehensive evaluation. Education Policy Initiative at Carolina.

Briggs

Cheney

G. R.

Davis

Moll

K. A.

(2013). Operating in the dark: What outdated state policies and data gaps mean for effective school leadership. George W. Bush Institute, Education Reform Initiative.

Brown

K. M.

(2015). Preparing turnaround principals via Race-to-the-Top Initiative: Lessons learned from Regional Leadership Academies. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(26), 62–86.

Brown

K. M.

(2016). “ Racing to the Top” to prepare turnaround principals in North Carolina: Homegrown Regional Leadership Academies. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 27, 101–144.

Browne-Ferrigno

(2011). Mandated university-district partnerships for principal preparation: Professors’ perspectives on required program redesign. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461102100505

Browne-Ferrigno

(2013). Mandated preparation program redesign: Kentucky case. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 168–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113490934

Business for Educational Success and Transformation in North Carolina. (BEST NC) (2018). Transforming principal preparation in North Carolina [Policy Brief]. https://www.bestnc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Transforming-Principal-Preparation-FINAL.pdf

Clement

Thornton

M. E.

Doiron

Young

M. D.

Eddy-Spicer

Perrone

Player

(2022). Program capacity for redesign in educational leadership preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 17(1), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775120947460

10.

Creswell

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing between five approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE.

11.

Crow

G. M.

Arnold

N. W.

Witherspoon

Reed

C. J.

Shoho

A. R.

(2012). The complexity of leveraging university program change. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7, 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775112455877

12.

Darling-Hammond

LaPointe

Meyerson

Orr

M. T.

Cohen

(2007). Preparing leaders for a changing world. Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

13.

Davis

Darling-Hammond

(2012). Innovative principal preparation programs: What works and how we know. Planning and Changing, 43(1/2), 25–45.

14.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2008). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Sage.

15.

Doolittle

(2013). Seeking clarity in New Jersey for leadership preparation program design: Confusion, fragility, and unintended consequences. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 230–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113492319

16.

Eisner

E. W.

(2017). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Teachers College Press.

17.

Espinoza

Cardichon

(2017). Investing in effective school leadership: How states are taking advantage of opportunities under ESSA [Policy brief]. Learning Policy Institute.

18.

Fusarelli

B. C.

Cooper

B. S.

(2010). The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools. State University of New York Press.

19.

Fusarelli

B. C.

Fusarelli

L. D.

(2023). What do excellent school leader preparation programs look like? Phi Delta Kappan, 105(4), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217231219398

20.

Fusarelli

B. C.

Fusarelli

L. D.

Seaton

VanGorder

A. B.

(2019). Who’s in charge? A state level analysis of leadership preparation. In Danzig

Black

(Eds.), Who controls the preparation of education administrators? (pp. 107–133). Information Age Publishing.

21.

Gates

S. M.

Herman

Wang

E. L.

(2022). State partnerships with University principal preparation programs.

22.

Gates

S. M.

Woo

Xenakis

Wang

E. L.

Herman

Andrew

Todd

(2020). Using state-level policy levers to promote principal quality. RAND Corporation.

23.

Glaser

B. L.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.

24.

Granados

(2021, March 24). Transforming principal preparation program poised for the future. EdNC. https://www.ednc.org/2021-03-24-transforming-principal-preparation-program-poised-for-the-future/

25.

Grissom

J. A.

Egalite

A. J.

Lindsay

C. A.

(2021). How principals affect students and schools. Wallace Foundation.

26.

Grissom

J. A.

Mitani

Woo

D. S.

(2019). Principal preparation programs and principal outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(1), 73–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18785865

27.

Herman

Woo

Wang

E. L.

Gates

S. M.

Berglund

Schweig

Andrew

Todd

(2022). Redesigning university principal preparation programs. A systemic approach for change and sustainability. RAND.

28.

Herrington

C. D.

Wills

B. K.

(2005). Decertifying the principalship: The politics of administrator preparation in Florida. Educational Policy, 19(1), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804271715

29.

Jackson

M. M.

(2024). Preparing principals to lead for equity: A three-paper dissertation examining the intersection of principal preparation and equity-oriented school leadership [Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University]. https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.20/45226

30.

Jackson

M. M.

(2025a). Are aspiring principals prepared to lead for equity? An exploratory analysis of the principal fellows typology in North Carolina. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 20(2), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751241276432

31.

Jackson

(2025b). Diversifying the Principal Pipeline Amid Ant-DEI Legislations: Recommendations for Principal Preparation Programs. Journal of School Leadership, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846251382330

32.

Jackson

M. M.

Sondah

(2025). Politicizing the Department of Education in the war against DEI: Theorizing implications for principal preparation programs. Education Sciences, 15(10), 1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101270.

33.

Kochan

Reames

E. H.

(2013). Experiencing educational leadership preparation program redesign in Alabama: One university’s perspective. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113491946

34.

Leithwood

Seashore

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Wallace Foundation.

35.

Manna

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

36.

Manna

Ryan

L. L.

(2011). Competitive grants and educational federalism: President Obama’s race to the top program in theory and practice. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41(3), 522–546. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjr021

37.

McGuinn

(2011). Stimulating reform: Race to the top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811425911

38.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.

39.

Mountford

Acker-Hocevar

M. A.

(2013). Florida’s mandated educational leadership program redesign: The William Cecil Golden touch. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 212–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113491261

40.

North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA). (2007). An act directing the State Board of Education to adopt new standards for school administrator preparation programs. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/PDF/H536v0.pdf

41.

North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA). (2019). SL 2019-60/ Senate Bill 227: An act to maintain administration for current grant recipients of the existing transforming principal prep program and phase in administration by the new principal fellows and TP3 commission. https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2019/Bills/Senate/PDF/S227v6.pdf

42.

North Carolina Principal Fellows Program. (NCPFP/TP3) (2021). Grants request for proposal. Retrieved January 9, 2024, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b6Vlapz4FVZk213_BfFabzraJYWQpb7n/view (accessed)

43.

Nowell

L. S.

Norris

J. M.

White

D. E.

Moules

N. J.

(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

44.

Orr

M. T.

(2011). Pipeline to preparation to advancement: Graduates’ experiences in, through, and beyond leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 114–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010378612

45.

Orr

M. T.

Barber

M. E.

(2006). Collaborative leadership preparation: A comparative study of partnership and conventional programs and practices. Journal of School Leadership, 16(6), 709–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460601600603

46.

Orr

M. T.

Orphanos

(2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 18–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010378610

47.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage.

48.

Phillips

J. C.

(2013a). Revisioning a school administrator preparation program: A North Carolina case study. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113491412

49.

Phillips

J. C.

(2013b). State-mandated principal preparation program redesign: Impetus for reform or invitation to chaos? Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113491412

50.

Reid

D. B.

Galey-Horn

Kim

(2020). How states use ESSA to support principal preparation, development, and quality. In Youngs

Kim

Mavrogordato

(Eds.), Exploring principal development and teacher outcomes: How principals can strengthen instruction, teacher retention, and student achievement (pp. 207–220). Routledge.

51.

Reyes-Guerra

Lochmiller

C. R.

(2016). Faculty perceptions of race to the top policy influence on a university-based preparation program partnership. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 11(3), 272–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115590688

52.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

53.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

54.

Tennessee State Government. (2013, May 6). Tennessee invests $4 million in race to the top funds to develop school leaders [Press Release]. https://www.tn.gov/news/2013/5/6/tennessee-invests-4-million-in-race-to-the-top-funds-to-develop-school-lead.html

55.

Young

M. D.

(2013). Is state-mandated redesign an effective and sustainable solution? Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8(2), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113491260

56.

Young

M. D.

Winn

K. M.

Reedy

M. A.

(2017). The every student succeeds act: Strengthening the focus on educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 705–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17735871

Incentivizing Changes in Principal Preparation: Lessons from North Carolina Principal Fellows Policy

Abstract

Keywords

North Carolina Case Context

The New Principal Fellows Policy

Literature Review

State Policy Influences on Principal Preparation Programs

Policy Levers

Competitive Grants and Institutional Changes

The Study’s Contribution

Methods

North Carolina Principal Preparation Landscape

Data Collection and Analysis

Interviews

Documents

Findings

Centering Attention to High-Needs Schools

Incentivizing the Adoption of Evidence-Based Preparation Practices

Expanding Programs’ Capacity Through Funding

Tuition-Free Principal Preparation

Full-Time Internship

Mentoring and Coaching

Innovation

Learning From Other Programs

Discussion

Implications for Policy

Recommendation #1: Preparation Policies Should Facilitate Program Buy-In

Recommendation #2: Policies Must Champion the Adoption of Evidence-Based Practices Across Preparation Programs

Recommendation #3: Principal Preparation Policies Should Be Attentive to the Capacity of Stakeholders to Support Their Implementation

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Notes

Author Biography

References