1 

Principal Professional Development 

in U.S. Public Schools in 2017–18 

STATS IN BRIEF

November 2020

NCES 2020-045 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

A Publication of the National Center for Education Statistics at IES

AUTHORS: 

Laurie Lewis

Jenna Scott

Westat

PROJECT OFFICER:

Maura Spiegelman

National Center for Education Statistics

Statistics in Brief publications present descriptive 

data in tabular formats to provide useful information 

to a broad audience, including members of the general 

public. They address simple and topical issues and 

questions. They do not investigate more complex 

hypotheses, account for inter-relationships among 

variables, or support causal inferences.

We encourage readers who are interested in more 

complex questions and in-depth analysis to explore 

other National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

resources, including publications, online data tools, and 

public- and restricted-use data sets. See nces.ed.gov and 

references noted in the body of this document for more 

information.

Principal professional learning, 

such as various professional 

development activities and 

coaching or mentoring, enables 

principals to cultivate more effective 

leadership skills and strengthen 

instructional practices (Herman et 

al. 2017). Effective principals are 

important because they play a role 

in higher levels of student 

achievement and lower levels of 

staff turnover (Gates et al. 2019; 

Herman et al. 2017). Many districts 

report that they tie school 

leadership to school improvement in 

their district goals, strategic plans, 

and initiatives (Gates et al. 2020). 

Professional learning opportunities 

are frequently most intensive early 

in a principal’s career or placement 

at a school (Gates et al. 2020; 

Herman et al. 2017). These early 

career opportunities may be 

particularly important, since fewer 

than half of the districts in a recent 

study of principal pipelines reported 

moderate or high satisfaction with 

their pool of principal candidates 

(Gates et al. 2020).

Principal professional development 

includes a wide range of 

administrative and instructional 

topics. Competencies identified by 

principal professional organizations 

and academic research as important 

include instructional leadership, 

building or operations management, 

community relations, school culture 

or climate, resource allocation, and 

human resource management 

(NPBEA 2015; Marzano, Waters, and 

McNulty 2005; Mendels 2012; 

Reeves 2009; The Wallace 

Foundation 2013). 

National surveys show that most 

principals participate in professional 

development (Lavigne et al. 2016; 

Taie and Goldring 2019). Some 

professional development activities 

are associated with stronger 

demonstrations of principals’ 

leadership skills, school culture, and 

student achievement. For example, 

principals who have mentors or 

receive coaching are more effective 

leaders than those who have not 

participated in these forms of 

professional development (Grissom 

and Harrington 2010). Further, 

research shows a positive impact on 

leadership practices or student 

achievement when principals 

participate in activities such as 

learning communities, mentoring, 

or ongoing coaching and 

collaboration (Herman et al. 2017). 

Principals frequently report 

participating in principal networks, 

which is a form of learning 

community, as well as in mentoring 

and coaching (Lavigne et al. 2016; 

Taie and Goldring 2019). However, 

some activities, such as taking 

university courses, are not 

associated with leader effectiveness 

(Grissom and Harrington 2010). Few 

principals report taking university

courses related to their role as

principal (Lavigne et al. 2016; Taie 

and Goldring 2019).

This report was prepared for the National 

Center for Education Statistics under 

contract No. ED-IES-12-D-0005. Mention of 

trade names, commercial products, or 

organizations does not imply endorsement 

by the U.S. Government.
2 

This report uses data from the 2017–

18 National Teacher and Principal 

Survey (NTPS) Public School 

Principal Survey to describe 

professional development topics 

and activities reported by principals. 

Principals who were in the same 

school for 2016–17 and 2017–18 

reported for the 2016–17 school year 

about their participation in 

professional development activities 

to help understand how it might be

affecting principal practices during 

the 2017–18 school year. The data do 

not address the quality of the 

professional development activities 

or their effectiveness in improving 

principals’ leadership practices or 

student learning. Because principals 

were reporting about professional 

development activities undertaken 

as a principal at their current school 

in the previous school year, the 

analyses presented in this report are 

for principals with at least one year 

of experience at their current 

school.1

The purpose of NTPS is to collect 

information that can provide a 

detailed picture of U.S. elementary 

and secondary schools and their 

staff. 

Although the 2017–18 NTPS collected 

data from both public and private 

schools, this report focuses on the 

types of professional development 

activities public school principals 

are participating in and the topics 

covered during professional 

development.

All comparisons of estimates were 

tested for statistical significance 

using the Student’s t statistic, and all 

differences cited are statistically 

significant at the p < .05 level. No 

adjustments for multiple 

comparisons were made.

1 Eighty-four percent of principals reported at least one 

year of experience at their current school.
3 

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. How prevalent among public school principals is participation in different professional development

activities, and how does the prevalence of various activities vary with school characteristics and

principal experience?

2. How prevalent among public school principals is participation in professional development in

various topics, and how does this prevalence vary with school characteristics and principal

experience?

Key Findings

• In 2017–18, most public school principals (95 percent) with at least one year of experience at their current school

reported participating in professional development during the prior school year (data not shown; see table 1 at

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020045). The most prevalent type of professional

development activity reported by these principals was participating in workshops or conferences in which they

were not a presenter (94 percent), and the least prevalent activity was taking university courses related to their

role as principal (19 percent; FIGURE 1). For activities likely to have been part of district-sponsored professional

development activities, 67 percent reported visits to other schools designed to improve their own work as

principal, and 52 percent reported participating in mentoring and/or peer observation and coaching of principals.

• Professional development activities that are likely to have been part of district-sponsored professional

development showed considerable variation by the community type of the school. Principals in city schools more

often reported participating in visits to other schools designed to improve their own work as principal than did

principals in suburban, town, or rural schools (78 percent compared with 59 to 69 percent). Principals in city

schools also more often reported participating in mentoring and/or peer observation and coaching of principals

than schools located in other types of communities (59 percent compared with 45 to 51 percent; FIGURE 2).

• Over 80 percent of public school principals who participated in professional development did so in supporting

effective instruction (92 percent), analyzing and interpreting student achievement data (86 percent), and safety or

school climate (85 percent; FIGURE 4). School improvement planning was studied by 77 percent of these

principals, 65 percent learned about school management and policy, 54 percent learned about social services for

students, and 49 percent studied human resource management.

• Topics related to planning and management were more prevalent among public school principals in city schools

than in suburban, town, or rural schools. Those in city schools more often reported learning about school

improvement planning (83 percent compared with 74 to 77 percent), school management and policy (72 percent

compared with 62 to 64 percent), and human resource management (60 percent compared with 40 to 50 percent)

than did principals in schools located in other types of communities (FIGURE 5). In addition, professional

development related to providing social services for students was more common for principals of city schools than

for principals of town or rural schools (60 percent compared with 51 and 47 percent, respectively).
4 

1 How prevalent among public school principals is participation 

in different professional development activities, and how does 

the prevalence of various activities vary with school 

characteristics and principal experience?

In 2017–18, most (95 percent) public 

school principals with at least one

year of experience at their current 

school reported participating in 

professional development during

the prior school year (data not

shown; see table 1 at 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsi

nfo.asp?pubid=2020045). Among

these principals, the most prevalent 

type of professional development 

activity was participating in 

workshops or conferences in which

they were not a presenter 

(94 percent), followed by 

participating in a principal network2

(77 percent; FIGURE 1). Both of

these are activities that a principal 

can participate in on his/her own.

The next most prevalent 

professional development activities 

are those likely to have been part of 

district-sponsored professional

development such as visits to other 

schools designed to improve their 

own work as principal or

participating in mentoring and/or

peer observation and coaching of

principals. Participation in 

workshops, conferences, or training

in which they were a presenter was 

reported by 48 percent of principals.

The least prevalent professional 

development activity was taking

university course(s) related to their 

role as principal.

2 Participating in a principal network includes a group of 

principals organized within school systems, by an outside 

agency, or through the internet. 

FIGURE 1. Among public school principals with at least 1 year of experience at 

their current school and who participated in professional development 

during the last school year, percentage participating in various kinds of 

professional development: 2017–18 

 

1Participating in a principal network includes a group of principals organized within school

systems, by an outside agency, or through the internet.

NOTE: Percentages are from table 3; see 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020045. Percentages are among 

those principals who indicated that, during the last school year (2016–17), they participated 

in any professional development activities as a principal at their current school. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Principal Data File,” 2017–18.
5 

FIGURE 2. Among public school principals with at least 1 year of experience 

at their current school and who participated in professional development 

during the last school year, percentage participating in activities often 

requiring school district coordination, by community type: 2017–18 

 

NOTE: Percentages are from table 3; see 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020045. Percentages are among 

those principals who indicated that, during the last school year (2016–17), they participated 

in any professional development activities as a principal at their current school. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Principal Data File,” 2017–18.

Participation rates in most types of

professional development activities 

varied little by principal experience 

or school characteristics (data not

shown; see table 3 at 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsi

nfo.asp?pubid=2020045). However,

public school principal experiences 

with professional development 

activities that often need direct 

district coordination or support

varied considerably by the type of 

community in which the school was

located. A higher percentage 

(78 percent) of city school principals 

visited other schools to improve

their own work than principals

serving in suburban, town, or rural

schools (FIGURE 2). Likewise, city 

school principals reported

participating in mentoring and/or

peer observation and coaching of

principals at a higher rate than

principals in suburban, town, and

rural schools.

Research indicates that principals 

who have mentors or receive

coaching are more effective leaders 

(Grissom and Harrington 2010), and

principals may be more likely to 

benefit from this type of assistance 

early in their careers (Herman et al. 

2017; Gates et al. 2020). Reported

engagement in mentoring and/or

peer observation and coaching of

principals did vary among public

school principals in 2017–18 by years 

of experience. Principals with 1 or 2 

years of experience more often 

reported participating in these

activities than did more experienced 

principals (FIGURE 3).

FIGURE 3. Among public school principals with at least 1 year of experience 

at their current school and who participated in professional development 

during the last school year, percentage participating in mentoring and/or 

peer observation and coaching of principals, by principal total years of 

experience: 2017–18 

 

NOTE: Percentages are from table 3; see 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020045. Percentages are among 

those principals who indicated that, during the last school year (2016–17), they participated 

in any professional development activities as a principal at their current school. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Principal Data File,” 2017–18.
6 

2 How prevalent among public school principals is 

participation in professional development in various topics, 

and how does this prevalence vary with school 

characteristics and principal experience?

The most prevalent professional 

development topic reported by 

public school principals was

learning about supporting effective 

instruction (92 percent; FIGURE 4). 

Many principals also reported 

learning about analyzing and 

interpreting student achievement 

data and safety or school climate. 

About three-quarters of principals 

participated in professional 

development on the use of 

technology to support instruction, 

student motivation and engagement, 

and school improvement planning. 

About two-thirds of principals 

received training in school 

management and policy, and about 

half reported participating in 

professional development in social 

services for students, and human 

resource management. 

FIGURE 4. Among public school principals with at least 1 year of experience 

at their current school and who participated in professional development 

during the last school year, percentage participating in professional 

development in various topics: 2017–18 

 

NOTE: Percentages are from table 4; see 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020045. Percentages are among those 

principals who indicated that, during the last school year (2016–17), they participated in any

professional development activities as a principal at their current school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Principal Data File,” 2017–18.
7 

FIGURE 5. Among public school principals with at least 1 year of experience 

at their current school and who participated in professional development 

during the last school year, percentage participating in professional 

development in various management topics and social service provision for 

students, by community type: 2017–18 

 

NOTE: Percentages are from table 4; see 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020045. Percentages are among 

those principals who indicated that, during the last school year (2016–17), they participated 

in any professional development activities as a principal at their current school. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Principal Data File,” 2017–18.

Professional development in most 

topic areas varied little by principal 

experience or school characteristics 

(data not shown; see table 4 at 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsi

nfo.asp?pubid=2020045). However,

topics related to planning and

management, as well as social

services for students, were most

prevalent in city schools. Principals

in city schools more often reported

learning about school improvement 

planning (83 percent), school

management and policy

(72 percent), and human resource

management (60 percent) than did 

principals in suburban, town, or

rural schools (FIGURE 5). In

addition, principals in city schools 

reported learning about social

services for students (60 percent) 

more often than did principals in 

town or rural schools.

Considering the same content areas

by the experience of public school 

principals, there is not significant 

variation in training rates in the

subject areas of school improvement 

planning and social services for

students (FIGURE 6). However, the 

least experienced principals 

engaged in professional 

development around school

management and policy (72 percent) 

and human resource management 

(54 percent) at higher rates than 

more experienced principals. 

FIGURE 6. Among public school principals with at least 1 year of experience 

at their current school and who participated in professional development 

during the last school year, percentage participating in professional 

development in various management topics and social service provision for 

students, by principal total years of experience: 2017–18 

 

NOTE: Percentages are from table 4; see 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020045. Percentages are among 

those principals who indicated that, during the last school year (2016–17), they participated 

in any professional development activities as a principal at their current school. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Principal Data File,” 2017–18. 
8 

Technical Notes 

Overview of the NTPS 

The National Teacher and Principal 

Survey (NTPS) is sponsored by the 

National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) of the Institute of 

Education Sciences within the U.S. 

Department of Education and is 

conducted by the U.S. Census 

Bureau. NTPS is a nationally 

representative sample survey of 

public and private K–12 schools, 

principals, and teachers in the 

50 states and the District of 

Columbia. The NTPS was first 

conducted during the 2015–16 school 

year, and 2017–18 is the second NTPS 

collection.

The 2017–18 NTPS consisted of 

questionnaires for six types of 

respondents: public schools, private 

schools, public school principals, 

private school principals, public 

school teachers, and private school 

teachers. For the content of the 

questionnaires, see 

https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/qu

estion1718.asp. The information can 

be linked across teachers, 

principals, and schools by each 

sector (public and private). There is 

a separate data file for each type of 

respondent by sector (public school, 

private school, public school 

principal, private school principal, 

public school teacher, and private 

school teacher). For public schools, 

NTPS was designed to produce 

national, regional, and state 

estimates for elementary and 

secondary schools, principals, and 

teachers, including public charter 

schools and the principals and 

teachers within them.

For additional information on the 

specific NTPS-related topics 

discussed in this Technical Notes 

section, consult the Survey 

3 For more information about CCD, see 

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/. 

Documentation for the 2017–18 

National Teacher and Principal Survey 

(Cox et al. forthcoming) or the User’s 

Manual for the 2017–18 National 

Teacher and Principal Survey Volumes 

1–4 (Goldring et al. 2019), as well as 

the report from the 2017–18 NTPS on 

characteristics of public and private 

school principals (Taie and Goldring 

2019). To access additional general 

information on NTPS or for 

electronic copies of the 

questionnaires, go to the NTPS home 

page 

(https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps). 

Sampling Frames and 

Sample Selection

The starting point for the 2017–18 

NTPS public school sampling frame 

was the 2014–15 Common Core of 

Data (CCD) Nonfiscal School 

Universe data file.3 The sampling 

frame was adjusted from the CCD to 

fit the definition of a school eligible 

for NTPS. To be eligible for NTPS, a 

school was defined as an institution 

or part of an institution that 

provides instruction to students, has 

one or more teachers to provide 

instruction, serves students in one 

or more of grades 1–12 or the 

ungraded equivalent, and is located 

in one or more buildings apart from 

a private home. 

The 2017–18 NTPS universe of public 

schools is confined to the 50 states 

plus the District of Columbia and 

excludes the other jurisdictions, 

Department of Defense overseas 

schools, and CCD schools that do 

not offer teacher-provided 

classroom instruction in grades 1–12 

or the ungraded equivalent. Since 

CCD and NTPS differ in scope and 

their definition of a school, some 

records were deleted, added, or 

modified to provide better coverage 

and a more efficient sample design 

for NTPS. For a detailed list of frame 

modifications, see the Survey 

Documentation for the 2017–18 

National Teacher and Principal 

Survey (Cox et al. forthcoming). 

After deleting, collapsing, and 

adding school records, the 2017–18

NTPS public school sampling frame 

consisted of about 86,800 

traditional public schools and 6,800 

public charter schools.

NTPS uses a systematic, probability 

proportionate to size sample, where 

size is defined to be the square root 

of the number of full-timeequivalent teachers in the school. 

Schools were oversampled based on 

school grade level, state, poverty 

status, enrollment, collapsed 

urbanicity, and charter status. These 

sampling procedures resulted in a 

total public school sample of about 

10,580 schools (about 9,180 

traditional public schools and 1,400 

public charter schools). The 

principal or school head of each 

sampled school was selected. 

Data Collection and Unit 

Response Rates

In 2017–18, NTPS employed a 

combined mail-based and internet 

survey approach, with subsequent 

telephone and in-person follow-up. 

The web was the primary mode of 

data collection for all questionnaire 

types for the 2017–18 NTPS. Paper 

questionnaires were introduced in 

the later mailings. Data collection 

began in September 2017 and ended 

in August 2018.

Unit response rates. The responses 

were weighted to produce national 

estimates. The weights were 

designed to reflect the probabilities 

of selection and were adjusted for 

differential nonresponse. The unit 
9 

response rate indicates 

the percentage of sampled cases that 

met the definition of a complete 

interview. The weighted NTPS unit 

response rate was produced by 

dividing the weighted number of 

respondents who completed 

questionnaires by the weighted 

number of eligible sampled cases, 

using the initial base weight (the 

inverse of the probability of 

selection).4 The weighted response 

rate using the initial base weight was 

70.2 percent for public school 

principals.

Unit nonresponse bias analysis.

Because the NCES Statistical 

Standards (4-4) require analysis of 

nonresponse bias for any survey 

stage with a base-weighted response 

rate less than 85 percent, the NTPS 

principal files were evaluated for 

potential bias. For further 

information on unit response rates 

and nonresponse bias analysis, see 

the Survey Documentation for the 

2017–18 National Teacher and 

Principal Survey (Cox et al. 

forthcoming).

Variables Used and Item 

Response Rates

The variables from the survey used 

in this Statistics in Brief are listed in 

the text box below, along with the 

variable names used in the data file 

and the weighted item response 

rates. The analysis variables (with 

variable names) are defined after the 

text box. For additional information 

about the variables, see the User’s 

Manual for the 2017–18 National 

Teacher and Principal Survey 

Volumes 1–4 (Goldring et al. 2019).

Principals reported in 2017–18 for 

the previous school year (2016–17) 

about their participation in 

professional development activities 

while a principal at their current 

school to help understand how it 

might be affecting principal 

practices during the 2017–18 school 

year. Because principals were 

reporting about professional 

development activities undertaken 

as a principal at their current school 

in the previous school year, the 

analyses presented in this report are 

for principals with at least one year 

of experience at their current 

school.

Definitions of analysis variables.

This report focuses on national 

estimates and bivariate relationships 

between the analysis variables and 

questionnaire variables. The 

following variables were used for 

analysis in this report.

Variable label

Variable 

name

Response 

rate

Professional development participation, any activities A2700 99.2

Professional development evaluation consideration A2703 98.5

Professional development, university courses A2704 98.3

Professional development, visit other schools A2705 98.2

Professional development, coaching of principals A2706 98.3

Professional development, principal network A2707 98.3

Professional development, workshops, conferences or training as a presenter A2708 98.4

Professional development, other workshops A2709 98.3

Professional development participation–analyzing/interpreting student achievement data A2710 98.4

Professional development participation–human resource management A2711 98.1

Professional development participation–student motivation and engagement A2712 98.2

Professional development participation–technology instructional support A2713 98.2

Professional development participation–management and policy A2714 97.7

Professional development participation–improvement planning A2715 98.2

Professional development participation–student social services A2716 97.8

Professional development participation–safety/school climate A2717 98.2

Professional development participation–effective instructional support A2718 98.4

Total years of experience as a school principal A0104 99.7

Years of experience at the current school A0105 99.9

4 For the formula used to calculate the unit response rate,

see 2012 Revision of NCES Statistical Standards: Final (NCES

2014-097), 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014

097.
10

Urban-centric school locale code 

(URBANS12): Taken from the Public 

School Data Files, URBANS12 is a 

created variable collapsed from the 

12 category urban-centric school 

locale code (SLOCP12) which was 

updated to incorporate Census 

population and geography 

information and recoded into four 

categories, as follows: 

• City: includes city, large; city,

midsize; city, small.

• Suburban: includes suburb,

large; suburb, midsize; suburb,

small.

• Town: includes town, fringe;

town, distant; town, remote.

• Rural: includes rural, fringe;

rural, distant; rural, remote.

Total years of experience as a 

school principal (A0104): 

Taken from the public school 

principal questionnaire, A0104 is 

a continuous variable recoded as 

a categorical variable into three 

categories: 1 or 2 years, 

3 to 9 years, and 10 years or more.

Sources of Error in 

Estimates

A survey estimate is subject to two 

types of errors: nonsampling and 

sampling. Nonsampling errors are 

attributed to many sources, 

including definitional difficulties, the 

inability or unwillingness of 

respondents to provide correct 

information, differences in the 

interpretation of questions, an 

inability to recall information, errors 

made in collection (e.g., in recording 

or coding the data), errors made in 

processing the data, and errors 

made in estimating values for 

missing data. Quality control and 

edit procedures were used to reduce 

errors made by respondents, 

coders, and interviewers. In 

contrast, sampling errors result 

from the collection of data from a 

sample of the population rather 

than the full target population, and 

estimates of the magnitude of 

sampling error for NTPS data can be 

derived or calculated. Because of 

both types of errors, the survey 

estimates may differ from the values 

that would be obtained from the 

target population using the same 

questionnaire, instructions, and 

field representatives. 

Statistical Procedures

Comparisons of estimates in the text 

have been tested for statistical 

significance using the Student’s t

statistic to ensure that the 

differences are larger than those 

that might be expected due to 

sampling variation. All statements 

cited in the text are statistically 

significant at the p < .05 significance 

level (indicating that there is less 

than a 5 percent chance that the 

difference occurred by chance), 

using two-tailed statistical tests. 

Student’s t values were computed to

test the difference between 

estimates with the following 

formula:

2

2

2

1

21

sese

EE

t

+

− =

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to 

be compared and se1 and se2 are their 

corresponding standard errors. The 

threshold for determining 

significance at the 95 percent level 

for all comparisons in this report 

was t = 1.96. The standard errors of 

the estimates for difference 

subpopulations can vary 

considerably and should be taken 

into account when drawing 

conclusions about the estimates 

being compared. No adjustments for 

multiple comparisons were made in 

the analyses presented in this 

report.
11

References 

Cox, S., Gilary, A., Simon, D., and 

Thomas, T. (forthcoming). Survey 

Documentation for the 2017–18 

National Teacher and Principal 

Survey. U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education 

Statistics.

Gates, S.M., Baird, M.D., Master, 

B.K., and Chavez-Herrerias, E.R.

(2019). Principal Pipelines: A

Feasible, Affordable, and Effective

Way for Districts to Improve

Schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND

Corporation. Retrieved from

https://www.rand.org/pubs/rese

arch_reports/RR2666.html.

Gates, S.M., Kaufman, J.H., Doan, S., 

Tuma, A.P., and Kim, D. (2020). 

Taking Stock of Principal 

Pipelines: What Public School 

Districts Report Doing and What 

They Want to Do to Improve 

School Leadership. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation. 

Retrieved from 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/rese

arch_reports/RRA274-1.html. 

Goldring, R., Taie, S., Rizzo, L., and 

Riddles, M. (2019). User’s Manual 

for the 2017–18 National Teacher 

and Principal Survey Volumes 1–4 

(NCES 2019-211 through 2019-

214). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education 

Statistics.

Grissom, J.A. and Harrington, J.R. 

(2010). Investing in 

Administrator Efficacy: An 

Examination of Professional 

Development As a Tool For 

Enhancing Principal 

Effectiveness. American Journal 

of Education, 116(4), 583–612.

Herman, R., Gates, S.M., 

Arifkhanova, A., Barrett, M.K., 

Bega, A., Chavez-Herrerias, E.R., 

Han, E., Harris, M., Migacheva, 

K., Ross, R., Leschitz, J.T., and 

Wrabel, S.L. (2017). School 

Leadership Interventions Under 

the Every Student Succeeds Act: 

Evidence Review: Updated and 

Expanded. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation. Retrieved 

from 

https://www.rand.org/content/d

am/rand/pubs/research_reports/

RR1500/RR1550-3/RAND_RR1550-

3.pdf.

Lavigne, H.J., Shakman, K., Zweig, 

J., and Greller, S.L. (2016). 

Principals’ Time, Tasks, and 

Professional Development: An 

Analysis of Schools and Staffing 

Survey Data. Education 

Development Center, Inc. 

Retrieved from 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/re

gions/northeast/pdf/REL_2017201

.pdf. 

Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., and 

McNulty, B.A. (2005). School 

Leadership That Works: From 

Research to Results. Alexandria, 

VA: Association for Supervision 

and Curriculum Development. 

Mendels, P. (2012, February). The 

Effective Principal. JSD, 33(1): 54–

58. Oxford, OH: Learning

Forward. Retrieved from

http://glisi.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/TheEffective-Principal_JSD.pdf

National Policy Board for 

Educational Administration 

(NPBEA) (2015). Professional 

Standards for Educational 

Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: 

Author. Retrieved from 

http://www.npbea.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/Profess

ional-Standards-for-EducationalLeaders_2015.pdf. 

Reeves, D. (2009). Assessing 

Educational Leadership: 

Evaluating Performance for 

Improved Individual and 

Organizational Results (2nd ed.) 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin 

Press. 

Taie, S., and Goldring, R. (2019). 

Characteristics of Public and 

Private Elementary and Secondary 

School Principals in the United 

States: Results From the 2017–18 

National Teacher and Principal 

Survey First Look (NCES 2019-

141). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education 

Statistics. Retrieved August 23, 

2019, from 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/p

ubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019141. 

The Wallace Foundation. (2013). The 

School Principal as Leader: 

Guiding Schools to Better Teaching 

and Learning. Retrieved from

https://www.wallacefoundation.

org/knowledgecenter/Documents/The-SchoolPrincipal-as-Leader-GuidingSchools-to-Better-Teaching-andLearning-2nd-Ed.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education 

Statistics. (2012). 2012 Revision of 

NCES Statistical Standards: Final

(NCES 2014-097). 

U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: National Center 

for Education Statistics. 

Retrieved June 1, 2019, from 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/p

ubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014097.