A Framework for Principal Leadership

In mid-April, DPI launched its second round of Educator Effectiveness training in Appleton.  Among other refinements of the emerging system, DPI unveiled its revised Wisconsin Framework for Principal Leadership.   This framework and the aligned four-point rubric articulate the work of principals to a degree never seen before in our state.  And with a common understanding of principal work in hand,  professional discussions around continued learning and growth can occur like never before, in order to deliver on the goal of significantly improving student and school achievement.  

Wisconsin Framework for Principal Leadership

Domain 1:  Effective Educators	Domain 2:  Leadership Actions
1.1          Human Resource Leadership              1.1.1   Recruiting and Selecting              1.1.2   Assignment of Teachers and Instructional Staff 1.1.3   Observation and Evaluation of Teaching 1.1.4    Educator Development and Learning 1.1.5    Distributed Leadership	2.1  Personal Behavior 2.1.1  Professionalism 2.1.2  Time Management and Priority Setting 2.1.3  Use of Feedback for Improvement 2.1.4  Initiative and Persistence
1.2       Instructional Leadership 1.2.3   Mission and Vision 1.2.2   Student Achievement Focus 1.2.3   Staff Collaboration 1.2.4   School-wide Use of Data 1.2.5   Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)	2.2  Intentional & Collaborative School Culture 2.2.1. School Climate 2.2.2  Communication 2.2.3  Conflict Management and Resolution 2.2.4  Consensus Building
	2.3  School Management 2.3.1  Learning Environment Management 2.3.2  Financial Management 2.3.3  Policy Management

            Many of our members are familiar with Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FFT), and thus with its underlying architecture.   The FFT describes teacher work in 4 broad domains of planning, instruction, the classroom environment, and professional responsibilities.  These domains are then broken down into 22 components of teaching work, each of which are then articulated even more granularly into several elements of practice.  This same domain – component – element architecture is the organizational structure of Wisconsin’s emerging Framework for Principal Leadership as well.  Applying this lens to the Wisconsin Framework for principals, we can perceive that principal leadership is expressed in 2 broad domains, which are then delineated into 5 components, each of which is further expressed into 3-5 elements of principal work.  Overall, a total of 21 elements of principal practice comprise the Wisconsin framework.  These are the levels at which feedback is provided in the state’s emerging Educational Effectiveness system. 

            As is the case with the Danielson Framework for Teaching, much of the power for growing professional practice lies in the 4-point rubric tied to the framework.  The framework and rubric allow evidence of the various elements of principal practice to be placed along a developmental continuum that provides a means for principals to identify both where they currently are in their development and where next steps for growth lie.  The rubric length precludes inclusion into this article.  But you can access this rubric as Appendix 2 of the following DPI link:  http://ee.dpi.wi.gov/files/ee/FPtraining/EE%20Principal%20Evaluation%20Process%20Manual-version%201.pdf

            Educator Effectiveness is a promising – and daunting – initiative.  Promising because teacher and principal work impacts student learning like nothing else.  Promising because the emerging framework articulates the challenge, nuance, and sophistication of the principalship better than ever so that principals are better equipped to significantly increase their impact on students.  Promising because, as the most recent state achievement data shows, student achievement in Wisconsin needs to grow tremendously in order to realize the goal of college and career readiness for all.  And yet, that said, Educator Effectiveness is daunting because this initiative will require the establishment of a trusting environment as job one, and that is currently a major challenge in many districts post- Act 10.  Daunting because education leaders will need to quickly build skill and structures to effectively and efficiently collect various pieces of objective evidence (a new approach in most places) as a means to deliver on the fair, valid and reliable system DPI aims to build.  And perhaps most daunting in regard to finding the time and appropriate scope to ensure that the many efforts required of the initiative will fruitfully deliver the desired gains in student achievement. 

            All in all, those involved in the pilots to date speak to the potential upside and promise of this initiative if we can get the scope of evaluation focus and practical means for the work figured out.   It's also important that pilot participants continue providing feedback to DPI about implementation efforts at the local level.  It is clear that this input from the field has already positively impacted the design of Educator Effectiveness and something we expect to further enhance the roll out of this major initiative over time.  Stay tuned.