Leadership Development Can’t Be an Afterthought
Jennifer Doede, CMAA
School districts don’t necessarily have a leadership-potential problem; they have an intentional-development problem.
Across education, we recognize promising teachers and emerging leaders. We give them opportunities to lead committees, initiatives, and projects, hoping that experience will prepare them for the next level. At the same time, current administrators are expected to continue growing as leaders while managing the daily demands of running a school.
It’s not that the district doesn’t value leadership. The problem is that leadership development is often not an owned, funded, and protected function of a district. As a result, aspiring leaders are left to manage their own development, whereas active administrators must balance their professional growth against immediate school priorities.
Development Needs an Owner
Intentional leadership development looks different from simply offering another workshop or sending administrators to a conference. It requires a connected approach including identifying future leaders, providing meaningful leadership experiences, offering coaching and feedback, supporting transitions into new roles, and continuing development throughout an administrator’s career. A 2019 RAND Research describes this as a principal pipeline, connecting work involving preparation, hiring and placement, induction, evaluation and support.
Common Approach | Intentional Approach |
Development happens around certification, vacancies, or new appointments. | Development begins before promotion and continues throughout a leader’s career. |
Success is measured by attendance or completed credentials. | Success is measured through readiness, leadership practice, retention, internal mobility and school outcomes. |
The “Additional Duty” Problem
Perhaps the biggest challenge is simple: we cannot call leadership development a priority while treating it as spare-time or part-time work. If an administrator is asked to “lead leadership development” on top of an already full job, we need to answer some important questions to ensure the validity and fidelity of the work.
- What responsibilities will come off their plate?
- What time will be protected?
- What resources will be provided/
- Who will be responsible for measuring progress?
Accountability cannot be established without first building adequate capacity. The key lies in guaranteeing that the role is backed by dedicated time, sufficient resources, clear authority, and quantifiable duties.
Can We Afford Not To?
We must also consider the financial side. A RAND study of six large districts found that comprehensive principal pipelines cost approximately $42 per pupil annually [1], less than 0.5% of district budgets in those districts, and resulted in stronger student outcomes and lower turnover among newly placed principals. The research is specific to those districts and should not be interpreted as a guaranteed result elsewhere, but it provides an important perspective on the potential value of intentional leadership development.
RAND’s 2025 survey found that more than 74% of surveyed districts wanted to provide more professional development for both principals and assistant principals. The challenge is not recognizing the need, but building the capacity and systems to meet it.
Proactive Instead of Reactive
Developing leaders shouldn’t begin when a vacancy appears. Districts can identify aspiring leaders transparently, provide supported leadership assignments, create meaningful coaching opportunities, develop current administrators and regularly examine succession and retention data. The goal is to build a system where educators are intentionally prepared for leadership before the opportunity arrives. If developing people is everyone’s responsibility but no one’s protected work, it will always lose to the next urgent need. It’s not whether districts can afford to invest in leadership development, it’s whether we can afford to leave leadership readiness to chance.
Footnotes:
0 Comments