On the Path to Leadership: California’s Administrator Induction Programs

School administrators play a critical role in a school’s success, and leaders’ access to effective preparation, early-career induction, and ongoing professional support influences school, teacher, and student outcomes. A key area of leadership development is early-career induction, which typically is designed to build on the experience of administrator preparation and address the specific needs of newly credentialed administrators. The state of California, acknowledging the importance of learning for administrators, updated and substantially revised its state standards that guide induction for newly credentialed administrators, including school administrators (e.g., principals, assistant principals), as well as district and other non-school administrators (e.g., directors of professional development, truancy officers, coordinators for nontraditional education settings).

California has a two-tiered credential structure for education administrators. The first tier is the Preliminary Administrative Services Credential. An individual who has completed all requirements for a preliminary credential but does not have an offer of employment in an administrative position may apply for a Certificate of Eligibility, which does not expire. Once an individual secures an administrative position, the holder of a Certificate of Eligibility may apply for the Preliminary Administrative Services Credential. The second tier is the Clear Administrative Services Credential. To receive the Clear Administrative Services Credential, individuals must successfully complete a 2-year induction program.

The state’s 2-year induction model focuses on job-embedded, individualized support that includes: (1) coaching with a trained coach for at least 40 hours per year, (2) personalized professional development for at least 20 hours per year, and (3) multiple assessments that capture competency toward the practices outlined in the state’s professional standards for administrators. These assessments include an initial assessment to inform a participant’s individual induction plan, benchmark assessments to measure progress over the course of the program, and a summative assessment to demonstrate that participants have completed program requirements and to support programs in recommending participants for the clear credential.

This report explores the landscape of new administrator induction in California using statewide survey data and case studies of administrator induction programs. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC), which accredits and oversees all administrator induction programs, conducts a program completer survey asking about administrators’ experiences with their induction programs and overall preparedness when they apply for their clear credential. This report analyzes 4 years of survey data from 6,812 administrators who completed induction between September 2017 and August 2021. It also draws on qualitative data from six case studies of administrator induction programs that were highly rated on the program completer surveys to highlight exemplary structures and practices. These case studies draw on interviews and focus groups with key program staff, coaches, and current and former program participants, as well as observations and documents. Together, these data sources informed an in-depth analysis of induction program design, implementation, and effects, along with implications for state policy.

Key Findings

1. Induction program administration, structures, and financial supports vary across the state of California. From 2017–18 to 2020–21, 40% of all California administrators completing induction attended a program run by a county office of education, 12% by a district, 30% by an institution for higher education, and the remaining 18% by the statewide professional organization, the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA). Although all induction programs must follow the CTC’s standards of quality and effectiveness, there is considerable variation across programs. For example, some programs hire and train their own coaches, often relying on retired school leaders, which can help create a trusting relationship with an experienced coach outside of a participant’s district. Other programs ask participants to choose their own coaches, who are typically practicing administrators within a participant’s district, which allows the coach to know the participant’s working context intimately. Likewise, some programs have structured, required professional development activities that are led by program staff, have a predetermined curriculum and schedule, and are organized so that smaller groups of program participants learn together. In other programs, participants, with support from their coaches, identify their own professional development experiences, which can, in some cases, include experiences offered by the program. Program differences may reflect useful adaptation but also indicate that not all induction participants get the same type and intensity of supports.
    
2. The frequency of coaching also varies across programs and is significantly related to administrators’ reports of program effectiveness. While over half (52%) of program completers received coaching field support once per week or more, 32% received field support twice per month, 13% received field support only once per month, and 3% received field support less than once per month. These differences matter, as there is a positive relationship between the frequency of field support from coaches and ratings of program effectiveness. Given the program standards requiring 40 hours per year, program completers reporting that they receive coaching field support once per month or less may not be getting the required level of support. Among administrator induction programs with at least five program completers reporting on their field support, there were three programs in which more than one third of completers reported such infrequent coaching.
    
3. Induction is well regarded by program completers and positively influences their sense of their knowledge, skills, and professional growth, as well as their resilience. Over 90% of California administrators on the statewide survey rated their induction program as effective or very effective at developing the knowledge and skills needed to become an education leader, which may reflect California’s high program standards. Across every leadership skill aligned with the California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSEL), at least 85% of survey respondents reported being well or very well prepared for that leadership skill. In the case study programs, induction program staff, coaches, and participants reported three primary impacts of induction. One, newly credentialed administrators’ leadership knowledge and skills improved because of their work with their coaches or through other professional development activities. A commonly cited improvement was in administrators’ ability to reflect on their decisions in a purposeful, critical, and nuanced way. Administrators also learned how to take a broader perspective rather than getting lost in details and how to handle challenging situations. Two, participants attributed their resilience to the personal support provided by their coaches and, in the case of programs that create small cohorts of administrators working together, fellow administrators in their program. Three, participants reported that induction advanced their professional growth and their careers through networking and support. For example, their experiences in induction gave them the tools, language, and confidence to apply for principal positions and a framework to think about their leadership in a more systematic way so they could articulate their vision and goals. Regular coaching, in particular, was seen as an important avenue for supporting new administrators.
    
4. Induction works especially well when coordinated with administrators’ existing professional supports and tailored to their roles. Induction programs run by school districts are well positioned to integrate induction into the broader set of supports available for newly credentialed administrators, and completers from district-run induction programs were the most likely to rate their programs as very effective on the statewide survey. For programs run by other types of organizations, intentional partnerships between districts and induction programs facilitate integrated induction experiences for participants. With strong partnerships in place, induction staff and coaches bolstered districts’ efforts to support their newly credentialed administrators. In addition, administrators who attended the same institution for both their preparation and induction programs often benefited from a more seamless learning experience and had opportunities to develop long-term relationships with program staff and coaches working across both programs. Because induction serves administrators in a wide range of roles, programs can struggle to serve participants working in nontraditional or non–school administrator roles. Also, since many participants complete induction while still serving as assistant principals, there may be a need for additional support when they are promoted to the principalship.
    
5. Funding challenges affect administrators, coaches, and programs. There is no dedicated state funding for California’s administrator induction programs. The advertised cost for induction programs ranged from $0 to $10,000 for the 2-year program, and the actual cost paid by participating administrators depended on whether their districts or other external organizations paid some or all of the cost. Coach compensation also emerged as a challenge in many programs. At one extreme, coaches are full- or part-time employees with salary and benefits; at the other extreme, they receive no compensation whatsoever. Many programs fall in between, with coach stipends ranging from $2,000 to $7,500 per participant for 2 years, though in some programs coaches must pay for their own training or travel costs. At the programmatic level, program coordinators often have to make difficult decisions about program capacity given costs and coaching caseloads. For example, some programs want to increase compensation for their coaches but are hesitant to pass those costs on to participants. Districts that fund some or all of participants’ programs typically use federal Title II funds and, more recently, Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds.

Policy Recommendations

While California administrators overwhelmingly value their induction experiences, the implementation of the state’s program standards varies across programs, as do the nature and degree of coaching supports. To strengthen induction support for all California administrators, we offer the following policy recommendations based on our analyses.

Induction as Part of a Continuum of Learning

Induction may be most effective when it is clearly integrated into a coherent system of professional learning. The following recommendations support a tighter connection between induction and other learning opportunities and supports for California’s prospective and new administrators.

• Districts and other professional development providers can integrate induction more clearly into a continuum of supports for new administrators.
• Districts or the state can provide additional support, especially coaching, for early-career principals who have already completed their induction.
• Induction programs can use California Administrator Performance Assessment (CalAPA) results to inform coaching.

Induction Tailored to Administrators’ Needs

The following set of recommendations focuses on how the state and induction programs can better meet the varying needs of newly credentialed administrators and help newly credentialed administrators make the best choice about which induction program to enroll in.

• The CTC can provide additional information to newly credentialed administrators about the variation in program structures and costs.
• The CTC and induction programs can strengthen coaching by ensuring all coaches are trained and all participants receive consistent coaching.
• Induction programs not run by districts can pursue program–district partnerships to reflect local priorities.
• Programs can articulate a distinction between principal and other administrator induction programming.

Funding as a Lever to Increase Accessibility

Finally, we offer recommendations related to the funding of induction.

• The state and districts can identify ways to bolster funding so costs are not shouldered by participants and coaches.
• The state can consider revisions to the California State Teachers’ Retirement System to make it easier for retired administrators to be coaches in programs run by LEAs without affecting their retirement benefits.

California has made great strides in supporting newly credentialed administrators with well-designed induction and professional standards and should continue to invest in the development of school administrators and and strengthen programs so that all newly credentialed administrators are set up for success.

---

On the Path to Leadership: California’s Administrator Induction Programs by Marjorie E. Wechsler, Susan Kemper Patrick, Charlie Thompson, and Stephanie Levin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This research was supported by the Stuart Foundation. Core operating support for LPI is provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Heising-Simons Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Raikes Foundation, Sandler Foundation, Skyline Foundation, and MacKenzie Scott. We are grateful to them for their generous support. The ideas voiced here are those of the authors and not those of our funders.