Most states require 3–5 years of teaching experience, an advanced degree from an accredited program, and passage of a licensure assessment. Evidence supports a minimal but not a lengthy teaching requirement. However, evidence also suggests that licensure assessments may not predict success and can constrain the pool of leaders of color.
Given state licensure requirements, it is unsurprising that most administrators enter leadership through a master’s-level program. On average, their first administrative role comes approximately three years later and is typically an AP role. Most principals have at least three years of experience as an AP. Time as an AP increasingly characterizes the pathway to the principal’s office, as the number of AP roles has expanded considerably in recent decades, making the AP job an important training ground for future principals.
School leadership labor markets are very local, so most principals are hired from within the school district. The tendency to hire locally creates opportunities for districts to invest in local preservice training opportunities and, increasingly, in larger “pipeline” initiatives that offer better coordination across preservice training, selection, and early-career support. Evidence suggests that pipeline programs can increase student achievement and improve principal selection.
Substantial additional research is needed on principal hiring processes, which are currently poorly understood. Hiring studies focus more on characteristics of principals who are hired, and these studies usually cannot differentiate whether these characteristics result from the characteristics of the labor pool (i.e., who applies) or decisions made by districts regarding who to hire. Beyond degree and experience as an administrator, more effective teachers and APs appear to be more likely to be hired—a positive finding because studies suggest that success in these prior roles predicts success in the principal’s office. Intangible factors such as motivation to make a difference or to work with specific student populations also appear to predict being selected for the role.
“Tapping” or informal encouragement to pursue leadership in general or specific leadership positions appears to be a primary mechanism for identifying future school leaders. Reliance on informal mechanisms makes leader identification non-systematic and subject to in-group bias.
Educators of color are represented in the principalship at roughly the same rate as in teaching. Nevertheless, research has documented disadvantages for people of color along the pathway into the school principalship, including lower rates of licensure examination passage and longer waits in AP roles before being hired into the principal’s office. Women are substantially underrepresented, although the proportion of women in school leadership has grown markedly in recent decades. Historically, women appeared to aspire to become principals at lower rates. In recent years, differences in aspirations are less apparent. Instead, differences in applying or being selected for principal roles may be greater contributors to the lower proportion of women in the principalship.
The vast body of research demonstrating the importance of school leadership for student, teacher, and school outcomes1 indicates that recruiting and hiring high-quality leaders is a key goal for school districts. Building a bench of effective leaders ready to be hired into school leadership roles is an especially important policy objective given high annual rates of exit from the principal role.2
The goal of this chapter is to review the evidence on pathways of aspiring leaders into school leadership and on school leader selection and hiring. We focus specifically on pathways into the school principalship, although we also discuss pathways into the assistant principal (AP) role where relevant. Our review touches briefly on school leader preparation, but we leave in-depth discussion of the evidence on leader preparation to another chapter. Instead, we adopt a local perspective on school leader pathways and selection, considering how future leaders move across job experiences into leadership roles, how districts can structure experiences to help prepare educators for leadership, and what research suggests about effective district selection practices. Given the documented disparities in how women and educators of color access school leadership positions, we also review the evidence on where these disparities arise along the pathway into leadership and the degree to which selection and hiring practices may contribute.
State requirements for administrative licensure create formal structures for pathways into school leadership roles. States’ licensure requirements are not uniform but have some similar elements.3 First, most states require aspiring school leaders to have teaching experience (on average 3–5 years of teaching) or equivalent school-based experience (e.g., experience as a school counselor). Second, most states require prospective leaders to have an advanced degree in educational administration or a similar field from an accredited university preparation program, although many states also have provisions for obtaining licensure through an alternative route. Third, approximately 35 states require candidates to pass a standardized leadership licensure assessment that is aligned with state-adopted leadership standards.
Several studies have investigated the relationship between these licensure requirements and principal effectiveness. Some research suggests that principals who were teachers in the past are more effective at improving test score outcomes4 and that more effective teachers may make more effective principals,5 although time in the teaching role does not predict greater effectiveness.6 These results support minimum teaching experience requirements—perhaps just enough years to reveal whether a teacher is instructionally effective—but argue against lengthier expectations. In short, the typical requirement of 3–5 years appears reasonable.
Evidence for licensure requirements is less positive. We leave review of the evidence on preservice preparation to another chapter. However, note that a simple requirement of completing an approved preparation program is unlikely to meet state goals of ensuring some baseline of leadership effectiveness given the documented wide variation in preparation programs and their graduates’ outcomes, even within a given state.7 Evidence on the role of licensure assessments also raises concerns about requiring them. A study of the most commonly required assessment, the School Leaders Licensure Assessment, using Tennessee data showed not only that scores failed to predict principals’ future effectiveness but that minimum score requirements kept potential leaders of color—who scored systematically lower—out of the school leader labor pool.8 Alternatives to standardized assessments, such as portfolio-based performance assessments, offer potential to better measure leader candidates’ capacities and have shown minimal score gaps across candidates from different racial and ethnic groups.9
Unsurprisingly given the preceding discussion of licensure requirements, research shows that obtaining a master’s degree is the most common initial step along the pathway into school leadership.10 The master’s degree is the highest degree obtained for about 60% of school principals, with the other 40% going on to obtain education specialist or doctoral degrees.11
Typically, the move from degree program to a leadership role is not immediate. On average, it takes graduates 5–6 years from completion of their program to obtain a principal position, although it generally takes only half that time to move into an AP role.12
Indeed, serving as an AP is increasingly a step along the pathway to becoming a principal. The fraction of public school principals with AP experience rose from 50% to 77% between 1988 and 2016,13 paralleling pronounced growth nationwide in the number of AP roles in schools.14 Studies find that AP is the most common prior position for leaders hired as principals.15 High leadership ratings in the AP role are a strong predictor of high ratings as an early-career principal, and serving as an AP in a high-growth school or under a successful principal also appears to increase future principal effectiveness, highlighting the AP role as an important training ground for future principals.16 Still, pathways through other roles remain common in many areas; in Oregon, for example, non-trivial numbers of principals are hired from teaching, school support, and central office positions, among other roles.17
Most school leaders are “homegrown”—that is, districts hire leaders from within the ranks of current employees at very high rates.18 A tendency to select leaders from a highly localized labor pool creates opportunities for school districts to offer localized training and development opportunities for future leaders in the district. Some of these opportunities are partnerships with universities or other partners that help candidates meet state licensure requirements, while others are supplemental, taking the form of additional local training for already-licensed leaders. The former group includes residency training models, such as those implemented in New York City and Chicago, that make a year-long apprenticeship under a current principal in a local school a main component of preparation.19 The latter group includes local aspiring principal academies or other training aimed at aspiring leaders facilitated by the district or a partner.20
Increasingly, school districts are building out their investment in training for local future leaders into more comprehensive “pipeline” programs that formalize pathways into school leadership in the district. Pipeline programs increase coordination of human capital activities related to school leaders by connecting local preservice training to selective hiring and support once the leader transitions into the job. For example, six urban districts supported by the Wallace Foundation’s Principal Pipeline Initiative redesigned their systems to articulate standards that drove preservice preparation and hiring criteria, offered new training for high-potential APs, and made principal hiring more data-driven, among other changes.21 The results were promising; principals coming through district pipelines saw substantially higher achievement in their schools and were less likely to turn over.22
Research on principal selection is limited. As a recent review article noted, almost no systematic scholarly attention has been paid to the processes school districts use to hire school principals.23 Instead, research in this area tends to focus on the characteristics of principals who are hired. This research has identified some useful patterns. However, because studies typically do not have access to finer-grained data from principal selection processes, they are unable to differentiate the degree to which patterns arise from differences in who applies for principal jobs versus which applicants are chosen from the available pool. One study using Illinois data comes closest to this differentiation, employing surveys of a sample of administrative certificate earners to separate application and job offer information (though failing to differentiate principal roles from AP or other administrative roles).24 Still, gaining a better understanding of principal hiring and selection dynamics and the outcomes they produce is a major need for the field.
Newly hired principals typically have prior administrative experience (e.g., as an AP) and often hold advanced degrees. In a study of Tennessee data, the typical new principal had been an AP for three years, and 43% had obtained an education specialist or doctorate degree.25 Illinois applicants with prior administrative experience and advanced degrees were more likely to receive job offers. Conditional on experience and degree, districts also appear to prefer younger applicants.26
Studies also find that educators chosen to be principals were more effective when they were teachers and when they were APs;27 as already mentioned, these characteristics also appear to predict early-career principal effectiveness. However, newly hired principals selected to lead lower-achieving, higher-poverty schools tend to have lower qualifications and to have been less effective in the AP role.28
Research also documents some intangible factors that appear relevant to leader selection. In Illinois, licensed individuals who reported higher motivation to make a difference were more likely to seek administrative roles, though interestingly, they were less likely to be offered those roles.29 In interviews in two urban systems, researchers similarly found motivations to work with specific student populations (e.g., students of color, English learners) to be a key determinant of where principal applicants sought leadership positions.30
Informal processes grounded in educator relationships also appear to be important for principal selection and to school leadership pathways more generally. Informal “tapping” is consistently identified as a primary mechanism for identifying prospective school leaders.31 Studies find that aspiring principals are often tapped or encouraged to apply for specific principal vacancies.32 They also find that teachers who have been tapped for leadership by their supervisors are more likely to apply for principal positions and successfully secure them than teachers who were not tapped.33 The challenges of relying on tapping for leader identification are its non-systematic nature and its potential for in-group bias regarding who advances along the leadership pathway.34
Several studies have found differences in pathways into the principalship by leader race/ethnicity and gender. To put these studies in context, national estimates show that the race/ethnicity distribution of principals is similar to that of teachers. As of 2020–21, public school principals were approximately 77% white, 10% Black, and 9% Hispanic. That same year, public school teachers were 80% white, 6% Black, and 9% Hispanic.35 That is, relative to teaching, Black educators are somewhat overrepresented in school principal positions, which is important context for interpreting studies that tend to find disadvantages for Black educators on the principal pathway. At the same time, women are much less likely to be public school principals than teachers (56% vs. 77%), though, importantly, there has been substantial progress for women gaining access to the principalship over the last 30 years.36
Studies of data from individual states find barriers for educators of color at different stages along the path to becoming a principal. Licensure is one such stage. Many states require passage of a standardized test such as the School Leaders Licensure Assessment for administrative licensure. A study of Tennessee leaders showed that Black educators were much less likely than their white colleagues to exceed the required cut score, potentially reducing the pool of prospective APs and principals of color.37 Despite the constraints of licensure requirements, however, educators of color, especially Black educators, are more likely than white educators to be hired into AP roles, due in part to the higher prevalence of AP jobs in urban areas, which employ more educators of color.38
One study of Texas data found that, once in AP roles, Black and Hispanic leaders were less likely to be hired as principals or had to wait longer before being hired.39 Another Texas study found that, overall, Black and Hispanic leaders obtaining administrative certification were less likely to become principals than their white colleagues.40 A third highlighted that this lack of access to the principalship is especially true of female educators of color.41 The field needs additional research from other states to examine these patterns, given representation patterns at the national level.
A study in Illinois suggests that these patterns occur despite evidence that people of color are more likely to apply for principal jobs. However, they are less likely to be offered them, and when offered, they are less likely to accept them, suggesting there are added barriers or possible disincentives to taking the positions that are available to them.42
Historically, the underrepresentation of women in the principalship relative to teaching began even before the licensure stage. National data from the late 1980s showed that female teachers were much less likely than men to hold a degree in administration, suggesting that women were less likely to aspire to school leadership.43 By the 2000s, however, women appear to have caught up substantially. For example, in Tennessee, 70% of candidates taking the administrative licensure exam between 2004 and 2014 were women, approaching parity with their fraction in teaching in the state (79%). They were also much more likely to pass than their male colleagues.44
Underrepresentation of women may instead reflect differences in job-seeking and hiring. In Illinois, women reported applying to open principal positions less frequently and were less likely to be offered positions they applied for.45 Texas data show that women have longer pathways into the principalship (i.e., they enter with more years of educational experience), although studies of Texas data reach different conclusions about whether women are more or less likely to be promoted once securing an AP role. Those data do show that women are less likely to be chosen to lead high schools and that promotion differences are intersectional, with female educators of color facing more challenges than white women.46 One study documented that Black women hired into principal roles report encountering gendered racism throughout the process.47
Gender differences in access to leadership roles may result from differences in informal identification processes. Evidence suggests that educators who have been “tapped” (that is, encouraged to pursue leadership) by supervisors are more likely to apply to open principal positions, but women are less likely than men to report such tapping.48
See, for example, Boyd, Donald, Pam Grossman, Marsha Ing, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff. 2011. The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal 48(2): 303–333; Coelli, Michael, and David A. Green. 2012. Leadership effects: School principals and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review 31(1): 92–109; Gordon, Molly F., and Holly Hart. 2022. How strong principals succeed: improving student achievement in high-poverty urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration 60(3): 288–302; Grissom, J. A. 2011. Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? Linking principal effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff environments. Teachers College Record 113(11): 2552–2585; Grissom, Jason A., Anna J. Egalite, and Constance A. Lindsay. 2021. How principals affect students and schools. Wallace Foundation; Grissom, Jason A., Demetra Kalogrides, and Susanna Loeb. 2015. Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37(1): 3–28; Hanushek, Eric A., Andrew J. Morgan, Steven G. Rivkin, Jeffrey C. Schiman, Ayman Shakeel, and Lauren Sartain. 2024. The lasting impacts of middle school principals. NBER Working Paper No. w32642. National Bureau of Economic Research; Ladd, H. F. 2011. Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33(2): 235–261; Sebastian, James, and Elaine Allensworth. 2012. The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(4): 626–663.↩︎
Goldring, Rebecca, and Soheyla Taie. 2018. Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2016-17 Principal Follow-Up Survey. First Look. NCES 2018–066." National Center for Education Statistics.↩︎
Our discussion of state policy requirements in this paragraph relies on Anderson, Erin, and Amy Reynolds. 2015. The state of state policies for principal preparation program approval and candidate licensure. Journal of Research on Leadership Education 10(3): 193–221.↩︎
Liebowitz, David D., and Lorna Porter. 2024. Descriptive evidence on school leaders’ prior professional experiences and instructional effectiveness. Leadership and Policy in Schools 23(2): 409–433.↩︎
Goldhaber, Dan, Kristian Holden, and Bingjie Chen. 2019. Do more effective teachers become more effective principals? National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.↩︎
Grissom, Jason A., David S. Woo, and Brendan Bartanen. 2020. Ready to lead on day one: Predicting novice principal effectiveness with information available at time of hire. Annenberg Institute at Brown University.↩︎
Grissom, Jason A., Hajime Mitani, and David S. Woo. 2019. Principal preparation programs and principal outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly 55(1): 73–115; Ni, Yongmei, Andrea K. Rorrer, Diana Pounder, Michelle Young, and Susan Korach. 2019. Leadership matters: Preparation program quality and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration 57(2): 185–206.↩︎
Grissom, Jason A., Hajime Mitani, and Richard SL Blissett. 2017. Principal licensure exams and future job performance: Evidence from the School Leaders Licensure Assessment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 39(2): 248–280.↩︎
Orr, Margaret Terry, Liz Hollingworth, and Barbara Beaudin. 2020. Performance assessment for school leaders: comparing field trial and implementation results. Journal of Educational Administration 58(1): 38–59.↩︎
Anderson, Erin, Sajjid Budhwani, and Frank Perrone. 2022. State of states: Landscape of university-based pathways to the principalship. Journal of School Leadership 32(2): 103–125.↩︎
Grissom, Egalite, and Lindsay (2021).↩︎
Grissom, Mitani, and Woo (2019); Bastian, Kevin C., and Gary T. Henry. 2015. The apprentice: Pathways to the principalship and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly 51(4): 600–639.↩︎
Grissom, Egalite, and Lindsay (2021).↩︎
Goldring, Ellen, Mollie Rubin, and Mariesa Herrmann. 2021. The role of assistant principals: Evidence and insights for advancing school leadership. The Wallace Foundation.↩︎
See Blanchard, A., L. Sartain, C. Smith and M. F. Gordon. 2023. New principals in Chicago Public Schools: Diversity and their prior experiences. NORC at the University of Chicago; Grissom, Woo, and Bartanen (2020).↩︎
Grissom, Woo, and Bartanen (2020); Bastian and Henry (2015).↩︎
Liebowitz and Porter (2024).↩︎
Bastian and Henry (2015); Liebowitz and Porter (2024); Blanchard, Sartain, Smith, and Gordon (2023).↩︎
Evidence on the New York and Chicago residency models include the following:
Corcoran, Sean P., Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Meryle Weinstein. 2012. Training your own: The impact of New York City’s aspiring principals program on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 34(2): 232–253; Nguyen, Minh, Steven G. Rivkin, Lauren Sartain, and Jeffrey C. Schiman. 2022. School district investments in general skills: The case of principal residency programs. IZA Journal of Labor Economics 12(1).↩︎
See, for example, Gurley, D. Keith, Linda Anast-May, and H. T. Lee. 2015. Developing instructional leaders through assistant principals’ academy: A partnership for success. Education and Urban Society 47(2): 207–241; Doss, Christopher Joseph, Hannah Acheson-Field, Elizabeth D. Steiner, and Benjamin K. Master. 2020. How Can Assistant Principals Be Trained as Instructional Leaders?: Insights from the PLUS Program. RAND Corporation.↩︎
Turnbull, Brenda J., Leslie M. Anderson, Derek L. Riley, Jaclyn R. MacFarlane, and Daniel K. Aladjem. 2016. The principal pipeline initiative in action. Policy Studies Associates.↩︎
Gates, Susan M., Matthew D. Baird, Benjamin K. Master, and Emilio R. Chavez-Herrerias. Principal pipelines: A feasible, affordable, and effective way for districts to improve schools. Research Report. RR-2666-WF. RAND Corporation.↩︎
Lee, Se Woong, and Xinyi Mao. 2023. Recruitment and selection of principals: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1): 6–29.↩︎
DeAngelis, Karen J., and Nahoko Kawakyu O’Connor. 2012. Examining the pipeline into educational administration: An analysis of applications and job offers. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(3): 468–505.↩︎
Grissom, Jason A., Brendan Bartanen, and Hajime Mitani. 2019. Principal sorting and the distribution of principal quality.↩︎
DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012).↩︎
Liebowitz and Porter (2024); Grissom, Bartanen, and Mitani (2019).↩︎
Grissom, Woo, and Bartanen (2020).↩︎
DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012).↩︎
Gordon, Molly F., Jason A. Grissom, Alyssa Blanchard, Ashley B. Ellison, Mollie Rubin, and Francisco Arturo Santelli. 2024. Applying to lead: A mixed-methods investigation of prospective principals’ job application strategies in two urban districts. Educational Administration Quarterly.↩︎
Myung, Jeannie, Susanna Loeb, and Eileen Horng. 2011. Tapping the principal pipeline: Identifying talent for future school leadership in the absence of formal succession management programs. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(5): 695–727.
Farley‐Ripple, Elizabeth N., Jeffrey A. Raffel, and Jennie Christine Welch. Administrator career paths and decision processes. Journal of Educational Administration 50(6): 788–816.↩︎
Gordon, Grissom, Blanchard, Ellison, Rubin, and Santelli (2024).↩︎
DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012).↩︎
Myung, Loeb, and Horng (2011).↩︎
Source: Taie, Soheyla, and Laurie Lewis. 2022. Characteristics of 2020–21 public and private K–12 school principals in the United States: Results from the National Teacher and Principal Survey first look (NCES 2022-112). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
Taie, Soheyla, and Laurie Lewis. 2022. Characteristics of 2020–21 public and private K–12 school teachers in the United States: Results from the National Teacher and Principal Survey first look-Summary (NCES 2022-113). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.↩︎
See NCES reports and Grissom, Egalite, and Lindsay (2021).↩︎
Grissom, Mitani, and Blissett (2017).↩︎
Goldring, Rubin, and Herrmann (2021).↩︎
Bailes, Lauren P., and Sarah Guthery. 2020. Held down and held back: Systematically delayed principal promotions by race and gender. AERA Open 6(2): 2332858420929298.↩︎
Davis, Bradley W., Mark A. Gooden, and Alex J. Bowers. 2017. Pathways to the principalship: An event history analysis of the careers of teachers with principal certification. American Educational Research Journal 54(2): 207-240.↩︎
Fuller, Edward, Liz Hollingworth, and Brian P. An. 2019. Exploring intersectionality and the employment of school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration 57(2): 134–151.↩︎
DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012).↩︎
Riehl, Carolyn, and Mark A. Byrd. 1997. Gender differences among new recruits to school administration: Cautionary footnotes to an optimistic tale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19(1): 45–64.↩︎
Grissom, Mitani, and Blissett (2017).↩︎
DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012).↩︎
Bailes and Guthery (2020); Fuller, Hollingworth, and An (2019).↩︎
Weiner, Jennie, Whitnee Garrett-Walker, Taylor Strickland, and Laura Burton. 2022. Reifying discrimination on the path to school leadership: Black female principals’ experiences of district hiring/promotion practices. Frontiers in Education 7: 925510.↩︎
DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012); Myung, Loeb, and Horng (2011).↩︎
Grissom, Jason and Molly Gordon (2025). "School Leader Pathways, Selection, and Hiring," in Live Handbook of Education Policy Research, in Douglas Harris (ed.), Association for Education Finance and Policy, viewed 04/11/2025, https://livehandbook.org/k-12-education/workforce-administrators/other/school-leader-pathways-selection-and-hiring/.