Concerns about the effectiveness of traditional preparation programs have yielded a wide-ranging debate about new approaches to recruiting and preparing leaders. The resulting policy debate features two general camps: those who wish to refine and bolster the existing system of preparation and licensure and those who advocate a move away from licensure and the attendant notions of leadership that hold sway today. The proponents of conventional preparation have shown a remarkable willingness to compromise, giving rise to modified training programs and blunting the political appetite for rethinking the gatekeeping arrangements that regulate who can become, approve, or train future school leaders. Ultimately, both innovative programs and for-profit providers will acclimate themselves to the institutional arrangements in place, so the degree of real change depends more on statutory and regulatory change than the emergence of particular new programs.

Weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are recommended for interpreting various toxicological data, but few systematic and transparent procedures exist. A hypothesis-based WoE framework was recently published focusing on the U.S. EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery (ESB) as an example. The framework recommends weighting each experimental endpoint according to its relevance for deciding eight hypotheses addressed by the ESB. Here we present detailed rationale for weighting the ESB endpoints according to three rank ordered categories and an interpretive process for using the rankings to reach WoE determinations. Rank 1 was assigned to in vivo endpoints that characterize the fundamental physiological actions for androgen, estrogen, and thyroid activities. Rank 1 endpoints are specific and sensitive for the hypothesis, interpretable without ancillary data, and rarely confounded by artifacts or nonspecific activity. Rank 2 endpoints are specific and interpretable for the hypothesis but less informative than Rank 1, often due to oversensitivity, inclusion of narrowly context-dependent components of the hormonal system (e.g., in vitro endpoints), or confounding by nonspecific activity. Rank 3 endpoints are relevant for the hypothesis but only corroborative of Ranks 1 and 2 endpoints. Rank 3 includes many apical in vivo endpoints that can be affected by systemic toxicity and nonhormonal activity. Although these relevance weight rankings (W REL ) necessarily involve professional judgment, their a priori derivation enhances transparency and renders WoE determinations amenable to methodological scrutiny according to basic scientific premises, characteristics that cannot be assured by processes in which the rationale for decisions is provided post hoc.

Today, school principals are asked to lead in a new world marked by unprecedented responsibilities, challenges, and managerial opportunities. Are principal preparation programs equipping their students for this new role? This study examines the content of instruction at a stratified sample of the nation's principal preparation programs. The analysis looks at preparation at the programs training the most candidates, the programs regarded as most prestigious, and more typical programs. We surveyed 56 programs and were able to collect 31 sets of syllabi that met the standards permitting systematic coding. The syllabi yielded 2,424 course weeks in the 210 syllabi analyzed. Overall, we found surprising similarities across the various types of programs. Just 2% of course weeks addressed accountability in the context of school management or school improvement. Eleven percent of course weeks made reference to statistics, data, or empirical research in some context. Only 12% of course weeks focused upon norms and values, but within those weeks there was evidence of normative bias in the topic descriptions and assigned readings. The evidence raises questions about whether principal preparation has kept pace with changes in the larger world of schooling.

How do district schools respond to competition from charter schools? To explore this question, we examine four small Arizona school districts which lost from a tenth to a third of enrollment to charter schools in a short time period. Districts lost market share to charter schools because they did not satisfy significant constituencies, thus providing demands for education alternatives. District responses to market pressure depend on overall enrollment trends, the quality of the charter competition, the quality of district leadership, and the size of the district. Districts respond to competition in various ways, including reforming curricula, changing leadership, vilifying charter competitors, and attempting to absorb those competitors. Responses suggest that competition improves schools, but that markets do not work quickly or without friction and must be understood in context.

No abstract