328 K-12 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
better how to support teachers implement instructional initiatives. It was clear in these two
districts administrators were expected to be knowledgeable about issues associated with
teaching and learning.
The licensure renewal policy appeared to have three of the four policy implementation
attributes associated with implementation (Desimone et al., 2007). The policy appeared to
have authority as administrators were required to have professional growth plans that were
self-developed with input from the superintendent, thus making the professional growth plans
relevant. Indeed, the policy was being implemented as intended, with or without
administrators’ cognizance. The policy was consistent in that licensure renewal was required
to link to the professional growth plan of the school and district. And, the policy was stable in
that policy change had been made incrementally in the state (16 North Carolina
Administrative Code 06C.0304, effective 2006).The one element of the 4-part framework
offered by Desimone et al. that did not appear present in this context was the power element.
In this instance the threat of losing one’s license seemed extreme and highly unlikely,
particularly since the state did not monitor the local district for compliance in this area. The
Desimone et al. framework seemed to apply.
Given the limited data in this study, it does appear that administrator behavior at the local
level can be influenced through policy approaches that are more subtle (i.e., employing
stability, consistency, and authority) and are based on best practices in professional
development. While Firestone et al. (2007) suggested more “pointed” approaches to ensure
policy implementation, the data from this study suggest that a different paradigm altogether
may be more likely to result in policy implementation. Power was not influential in the
implementation process.
The 4-part policy attributes discussed by Desimone et al. (2007), were useful in analyzing
policy implementation. Although the policy is fundamentally a mandate, and “powerful” as
defined by Desimone et al., the policy seems to be enacted based on the strength of its
persuasiveness. The policy, last amended in January 2006, with the last section going into
effect in July 2007, coupled with the relative instability of many administrators in their
positions (serving two complete years or less), does not necessarily meet the stability criteria.
The policy is, however, high on the consistency measure as administrators demonstrated
compliance to the law, based on their own sense of professional development and need to link
to the school improvement plan and improve their schools. So, in contrast to the teachers
studied by Desimone et al., policy implementation in this study was connected to
persuasiveness and consistency, rather than persuasiveness and stability. The combination of
high consistency and persuasiveness supported the implementation, despite low stability.
Thus, while the North Carolina policy is more “pointed” (albeit without monitoring) as
Firestone suggested, implementation did not seem to be dependent on that pointedness, or
“power” as Desimone et al. (2007) describe.
Study results suggest that the policy in North Carolina is supporting the implementation of
ongoing professional development among administrators. With little to no attention to the
mandated licensure aspects of the professional development requirements, principals in these
districts engaged in professional development that was consistent with the policy, for the sake
of supporting teaching and learning. Licensure renewal, was a by-product, rather than a
driving motivator for their behavior. Hence, administrator behavior can be influenced by
policy approaches that are both more subtle and that assume a level of professionalism among
administrators. While limited in generalizability, this study stands as a cautionary note to
states when constructing policy. Ongoing professional development policies enacted and