UC Berkeley

This dissertation is a qualitative case study of how a large urban school district in California designed and implemented professional development (PD) for principals. Three main questions guided my investigation: What perspectives on the principalship were reflected in the planning processes and resultant activities? What approaches to professional development were reflected in the planning processes and resultant activities? And to what extent did the planning processes and resultant activities indicate a differentiated view of principals' developmental needs? I pay particular attention to how individuals interacted with each other and with ideas as part of design teams, and how the organizational context and institutional environment of the district influenced these teams. I explore in detail three elements of this district's approach: an administrator institute that occurred prior to the start of the school year, the induction and training of new principals, and the ongoing development of high school principals.

The findings can be summarized as follows. The planning of PD activities primarily reflected considerations of the district and only secondarily the developmental needs of principals. The PD planning teams consisted mostly of central office middle managers, who often invoked operational exigencies and fear of compliance failure to influence the content of PD agendas. The PD sessions focused on developing the managerial capabilities of principals, communicating key district messages, and, in some instances, enabling the sharing of information among principals. Central office personnel used the PD sessions as opportunities to enhance their legitimacy within the district, highlighting their commitment to serving principals and mitigating compliance challenges. Consequently, the PD activities mainly consisted of presentations and whole-group discussions focused on technical and compliance issues. The processes used in PD sessions did vary, however, depending on the specific topic, the grade level of the principals, and the department charged with facilitating the session.

This study extends the literature by providing insights into how district central offices conceptualize the principalship, how central offices are influenced as they plan and implement PD for principals, and, more generally, how policy decisions are shaped within a central office. This study challenges districts to carefully attend to the tension between management and instructional leadership and to recognize the diverse array of forces that impact their decisions as they design PD for school leaders.