School leaders play a vital role in ensuring student achievement (Goldring et al., 2018). In fact, they are second only to classroom instruction (Bartoletti & Connelly, 2013). All too often, however, principals are immersed in administrative duties with little time or training to become true leaders of learning who can shape the success of a school. This article focuses on the need for central offices to create systems and structures that support the ongoing development of principals as learning leaders.

Research shows that in order to maximize the impact on principals as learning leaders, central offices must deliberately and thoughtfully focus on: a) prioritizing the importance of principal mentoring; b) designing systems and structures that allow for and foster principal mentoring; c) training mentors in how to coach and build trust; d) establishing supports for the mental health of principals; and e) ensuring all departments within the district are supporting the work. As a result, principal retention and student achievement will increase.

School principals are charged with immense jobs. They are responsible for hiring and ensuring that their staffs (both certificated and classified) are highly qualified and effective at both the curriculum being presented and the instructional strategies utilized for delivery; building and sustaining a positive school climate; planning and balancing multiple budgets; handling parent concerns and student discipline; staying current on federal and state laws as well as district office mandates; and much, much more (Fullan, 2016). Historically, there was a time when school administrators merely served as plant managers (The Wallace Foundation, 2013), walking the campus each morning to look for hazards, ensuring that the school facilities were in working order, and serving as a liaison between the teachers and the central office. Parents, for the most part, held educators in high regard and trusted schools to teach their children appropriately.

In the early 1990s, the role of the principal began to change. The concept of instructional leadership emerged, tying principals back to the one-room schoolhouse administrative role of “lead teacher.” In this realm, principals were still expected to manage their facilities, but the priority shifted to one of a teacher coach, mentor and staff developer (DuFour, 2002). This required leaders to be visible throughout the site to build relationships with students, staff, and parents, as well as utilize a new set of skills in curriculum, instruction, clinical supervision, and teacher development.

In this new role, principals’ concerns were far more complex than manager-like tasks; they now were responsible for the teaching and learning on their campuses (The Wallace Foundation, 2015). These instructional leaders worked tirelessly to ensure that each student received high quality instruction and that each teacher continued to grow in their abilities to implement research-based instructional strategies (DuFour & Mattos, 2013).

Over the past 25 years, research has transitioned principals from serving as instructional leaders to learning leaders who are focused on learning (vs. teaching) and developing teams of teachers rather than individual practitioners (DuFour, 2002). In this role, effective principals work together with their teacher teams to utilize data and evidence of student learning as the foundation for planning and revising instruction (DuFour & Mattos, 2013). This takes the concept of instructional leadership to the next level, asking administrators to prioritize the collective efforts of their teams rather than focusing on individual staff members to impact instruction (DuFour, 2002).

As time has progressed, however, many additional items have been added to the plates of school leaders (Fullan, 2016), including larger schools with more staff, students and families; increased expectations/standards for student learning; increased levels of accountability from the state, federal government and central office; less support staff; higher demands from the community and parents; more time in meetings; increased numbers of egregious student behaviors; increased social emotional needs of students and staff; and so much more.

These are just some of the reasons being cited for increasing levels of principal job dissatisfaction and turnover (Fullan, 2014). In fact, 75 percent of school principals believe their jobs are too difficult and complex (Fullan, 2016), and some say school leadership is one of the hardest jobs (Rieg & Marcoline, 2008). Afterall, what other jobs require expertise in so many things … leadership theories, instructional strategies, child development, facilities, budgets, fundraising, counseling, liability, special education, state/federal laws, curriculum and more? Add to that the necessity to have superb people skills, and one could argue we are asking for an impossible “jack-of-all trades” (Fullan, 2000). When principals have direct, systematic support from the central office, however, they report much higher levels of satisfaction (Silverman, 2016), less turnover (Gates, et al., 2019), and ultimately, increased student achievement (Goldring et al., 2018).

It is critical that central office leaders prioritize the ongoing development of principals (Bottoms & Schmidt-Davis, 2010). If principals are to serve as learning leaders and truly impact the teaching and learning processes, they must not only be skilled at doing so (which requires ongoing training) but also have the time and support provided from the central office to do so (DuFour & Marzano, 2009). The results of this author’s research concluded that in order to maximize the impact on principals as learning leaders, central offices should deliberately and thoughtfully focus on five concepts.

Many departments within districts operate as silos and lack coherence (Fullan & Quinn, 2016). They support school sites only with regard to each department’s function, not with any central purpose, clarity or focused direction. As a result, only the instructional staff assists sites with the district’s central purpose — teaching and learning. Other departments engage with schools regarding the specific work of their department, absent much interest or relation to teaching and learning. Rather, each department within a district ought to be focused on the same mission and vision. “When central offices participate productively in teaching and learning improvement, everyone in the central office orients their work in meaningful ways toward supporting the development of schools’ capacity for high-quality teaching and expanding students’ opportunities to learn” (Honig et al., 2010). Silverman (2016) shared one superintendent’s view that reiterated the importance of aligning all efforts from the central office: “It starts with me (as superintendent) being in classrooms and working with principals. We structure our work in this organization to clearly define how each central office role impacts the classroom.”

In summary, principals are critical to improving student achievement on their campuses (Marzano et al., 2005), yet many obstacles hamper their abilities to do so. Principals are reporting higher levels of job dissatisfaction than ever before, as well as the inability to focus on the “right” things (Lovely, 2004). Teachers have grown resistant to becoming administrators (Fullan, 2001); “families and communities are dissatisfied with public schools” (Gary & Witherspoon, 2011); and student achievement gaps continue to widen (Hanushek et al., 2019). Acknowledgment of these facts, coupled with the Murphy et al., (2009) study on distributed leadership, where “all change flows through the principal’s office,” require a call to action.

The task of creating systems of support to ensure principals are equipped, retained and able to serve as learning leaders is not an easy one, but it is doable. Fullan and Quinn (2016) have provided a framework; The Wallace Foundation (2013) and the University of Washington’s Center for Educational Leadership (2007; 2016) have provided an enormous quantity of research and implementation resources. Most importantly, the task is one we have a moral and ethical obligation to provide our leaders, and ultimately our teachers and students. There is no excuse not to act.