North Carolina should allow principal candidates to use portfolios—instead of a test—to prove they’re ready to take on the job, the State Board of Education recommended Thursday.
After hours of debate this week and following months of meetings, the board voted to approve several recommendations to the North Carolina General Assembly that seek to reconcile the differences among what state law says, what state education entities have actually been doing and what state education leaders think the law should say.
Other WRAL Top Stories
Lawmakers will convene for their next long session early next year.
North Carolina public schools employ nearly 3,000 principals. Research suggests principals can make a significant difference in student learning.
For years, North Carolina’s principal licensure practice has been out of step with what’s required in state law.
State law requires principal candidates take a licensure exam and have four years of teaching experience. But for years the state has been allowing principal candidates with no teaching experience and hasn’t administered a licensure exam since 2008.
“About a year ago we realized that our practices on licensure were not aligned with the statute as well as they should have been,” said Allison Schafer, attorney for the board.
The General Assembly passed a bill last year, signed into law by Gov. Roy Cooper, that allowed principals who have received licenses since 2010 — about the time practice fell out of alignment with state law — to have the legal requirements waived, if they did not meet them, allowing them to continue practicing. Lawmakers have extended eligibility twice, allowing the waiver to cover principal candidates through 2024. But changes will need to be made at the state board level or at the General Assembly level — or both — to ensure future principal candidates are meeting the requirements of state law.
“We are now in a position where things like the test that is supposed to be [there] … is not in place,” Schafer said.
Trying to fix the licensure rules has involved numerous stakeholder meetings and contention at the State Board of Education for months, during updates on progress so far.
On Wednesday, board members discussed making changes that were then changed overnight into new suggestions Thursday.
In a rare split vote that featured multiple pauses from board members reluctant to vote, the board decided to urge the North Carolina General Assembly to change its law to allow principals to choose a portfolio review, instead of the pencil-and-paper licensure test. What would be a part of the portfolio review would be determined at a state level.
The recommendation also included keeping the licensure exam — required by state law but not used in North Carolina in more than a decade — as an option, meaning the portfolio would not be required.
Currently, individual colleges require portfolio reviews for principal candidates that align with their differing program requirements, but they are not uniform statewide or determined at a state level.
Several board members argued the state shouldn’t allow principal candidates to prove they’re ready for the job by using a test at all, because portfolios are more rigorous. Portfolios, they argued, cover the same expectations as the exams but also require proof that the candidates have actually used what they’ve learned during their internships.
Board members Amy White and Olivia Oxendine were the only two to vocally support keeping a licensure exam as an option for principal candidates, while other members — including Chairman Eric Davis — said they were satisfied with the compromise. Oxendine works in principal preparation at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke.
White called an exam a “floor” for determining whether a principal candidate could do the job and said a portfolio would be a way to show skills in action.
“In no way do I feel like an exam would define whether or not that candidate is truly qualified to be a principal,” White said. “I think evidence in that portfolio is truly the most demonstrative.”
But exam results would provide proof to outsiders of competency, she said.
Superintendent Catherine Truitt, who pushed for the board to recommend eliminating the exam as an option, suggested candidates who opted for the test instead of a portfolio would be doing less to prove they’ve mastered the skills principals need to have. Stakeholder feedback for months has suggested eliminating the exam and has never suggested keeping it, she said.
“This recommendation goes against every single stakeholder feedback that was given to the committee,” Truitt said. Truitt is a non-voting member of the board. The Department of Public Instruction, which Truitt oversees, had also recommended cutting the licensure exam.
Board Member James Ford wondered whether the exam was worth the time and money if it doesn’t provide information beyond what a portfolio would.
“There seems to be pretty universal agreement this written test does not provide that,” he said.
The previous exam had a near 100% passage rate, Truitt said, raising questions about what educators could learn from the results.
Board Member Jill Camnitz, who helped pass the recommendation on a 5-4 vote, said she was compelled to vote in favor of the motion because she wanted the portfolio review to be an option. She worried voting on a recommendation that nixed the exam could have jeopardized a board vote recommending the portfolio.
However the General Assembly responds to the recommendations, the state will need to adopt a new principal licensure exam. Board members asked the Department of Public Instruction to make some recommendations that the board could review.
The board would also receive recommendations on a statewide candidate portfolio model, if lawmakers adopted the portfolio option. The portfolio is not currently an option for principal candidates. All principal preparation programs have portfolio requirements that match their program requirements, but they are not streamlined statewide, as course requirements differ.
The board also approved three other recommendations to lawmakers on separate votes without opposition:
- Changing the year-long internship requirement to one that lasts 10 months — the typical duration of most educator positions — or 500 to 1,000 hours.
- Allowing people with educator licenses broadly — including psychologist or media coordinators — to become principals after at least four years of working in those educator jobs. This would replace the requirement that principal candidates need four year of classroom teaching experience, specifically.
- Requiring a master in school administration or an add-on licensure program if the candidate already has a master’s degree in a related field. This would replace the requirement that principal candidates have a master's in education administration.
Some board members questioned allowing non-teachers to become principals, particularly if principals evaluate teachers.
Superintendent Catherine Truitt said having non-teachers evaluate teachers is a source of stress for many teachers but said the state is working on placing more teachers in charge of reviews. As a part of the current draft teacher licensure model, teacher leaders would be among those evaluating teachers.
Tom Tomberlin, the Department of Public Instruction’s senior director of educator preparation, licensure and performance, said very few people pursuing a principal career came from non-teaching backgrounds.
“The percentage is fairly small,” he said. “It’s still overwhelmingly folks who have pursued a teaching career.”