A Review of State Policies on Principal Professional Development

Although principal professional development (PPD) has been proven to improve school performance at various levels, professional development (PD) for teachers receives more time, resources, and attention at both district and state level. When PPD is provided it often does not meet research-based recommendations. The literature was reviewed and five criteria areas with multiple indicators for effective PPD outlined; these were subsequently revised and validated by experts in the field. The PPD certification policies of each U.S. state that made this information publicly accessible was examined through Department of Education websites, with clarification by phone when necessary. This study revealed that only one state met all indicators, and that most states did not have comprehensive, research-based PPD policies. Given the significant effect school leadership has on student achievement and school improvement, further research on PPD implementation should be prioritized.

Introduction
Research indicates principal professional development (PPD) is a fundamental element in school improvement (Ayers et al., 2012;Evans & Mohr, 1999;Gümüs, 2019;Togneri & Anderson, 2003). The practices of PPD are similar to and as important to the overall academic and socioemotional growth of a school as teacher PD practices. Yet, teacher PD has overshadowed PPD, receiving more time, resources, and attention at both district and state level (Prothero, 2015;Rowland, 2017). Establishing research-based criteria provides guidance for creating effective, high quality PPD and creating accountability measures to ensure this is taking place.
The overall purpose of this study was to examine whether state certification policies match research-determined and expert-validated criteria for PPD policies. It is the belief of the authors that reliable accountability measures are necessary to ensure effective PPD is advancing the professional growth of school administrators. PPD is needed, neither will be satisfied. If, however, the principal and the district align their development goals, the principal is more invested in his/her personal growth and the district is more likely to provide the necessary support, resulting in more effective school leadership skills and school improvement (Reed, 2014).
Two studies have made the case for establishing strong foundational knowledge about a principal's skills and needs before implementing PPD, and suggest plans must be data-driven (Ayers et al., 2012;Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Togneri and Anderson studied five high-poverty school districts showing school improvement and identified data-based PD as a key factor: "districts provided teachers and principals with better data-and with more assistance in how to use them to guide instructional practice" (2003, p. 93). Once principals had received training in data analysis and received meaningful data sets, their decisions became data-based. This process enabled principals to become district leaders and train teacher-leaders to make data-driven decisions in the teachers' individual classrooms (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Under this model, shared leadership within the district created the opportunity for positive change to take place in instructional leadership. As Togneri and Anderson explain, "improving learning opportunities for all children will require more than individual talents or school-by-school efforts. It will demand system-wide approaches that touch every child in every school in every district across the nation" (2003, p. 88). Creating stronger leaders within the district was one factor in improving learning opportunities for all students. While providing effective PPD created strong leaders across a district, a productive relationship between principal and district leaders led to tailored, meaningful, and effective PPD (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).

Theme 2: Effective PPD is job-embedded, ongoing, and sustained.
Professional development for educators and administrators has taken a multitude of forms, and been as random as a mandatory, largely irrelevant, isolated workshop or as site-specific as district walk-throughs with immediate feedback (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). For PPD to be effective, it must be job-embedded, ongoing and sustained (Lawrence, Santiago, Zamora, Bertani, & Bocchino, 2008;National Staff Development Council, 2000;Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
Togneri and Anderson reported that districts committed to long-term development successfully improved their performance: "The districts in our study understood that making a difference takes time. They set their courses and stayed with them for years. They experienced remarkable stability in their leadership" (2003, p. 88). These districts were committed to developing their principals before PPD plans were formed or implemented. With full district support and backing, effective PPD created improvement-focused school leaders (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
Once district administrators committed to a long-term PPD plan, principals acquired the practical tools required to enhance their daily practices (Lawrence et al., 2008). According to Lawrence et al. (2008), the five most important principles for successful PPD were job-embedment, practicality on a daily basis, a safe environment, ongoing support through coaching, and the provision of a network for consultation and problem-solving. Lawrence et al. argue that "principals need tools, protocols, and strategies to enhance their work as leaders. High-quality leadership development programs blend knowing what to do-declarative knowledge-with knowing how and when to do it-procedural and contextual knowledge" (2008, p. 26). These tools and protocols originate from a variety of sources, including a coach or mentor, district level leaders, and nondistrict employees with knowledge of best practices. Whether from internal or external sources, effective tools must be practical in nature, and as Peterson has reported, PPD must be "careerstaged", therefore new and veteran principals will receive different training ( , p. 22). Peterson (2002 also suggests the inclusion of aspiring principals in practical PPD would prepare the foundations for successful school leadership. Lawrence et al. (2008) identified practical PPD as necessary for effecting change in leaders and improving schools, and argue that job-embedded PPD provides a principal with the most practical knowledge and skills for their own setting: If principals are to acquire foundational knowledge, apply advanced skills to real-life challenges, and develop a deep understanding of the content, they must practice and apply their skills through concrete, hands-on experiences. This requires an integrated program design that enables participants to practice their program learning and transfer it to their daily leadership actions in schools. (p. 34) Kelley and Shaw (2009) and Gray and Bishop (2005) agree that contextual leadership development is most effective. Principals become more invested when they see how PPD is directly applied to their setting and potentially addresses an immediate school need. Job-embedded PPD also provides principals with the practical tools necessary to change their daily practices (Lawrence et al., 2008).
Effective PPD provides principals with the practical tools to enhance their instructional leadership (Hallinger & Murphy, 2012;Lawrence et al., 2008;Togneri & Anderson, 2003). The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) has called for excellence in instructional leadership and argues that effective PPD will include new thinking on effective leadership (NSDC, 2000). The NSDC report published in 2000 placed an emphasis on developing principals, who would then take this knowledge and experience to their school sites and develop their teachers. As Hallinger and Murphy (2012) have stated, "while effective leadership cannot guarantee successful education reform, research affirms that sustainable school improvement is seldom found without active, skillful instructional leadership from principals and teachers" (p. 6). According to Peterson (2002), to successfully increase instructional leadership, PPD must be continuous: While the most common professional development programs for administrators are one-shot workshops, a more successful approach is to have all-day and multiplesession meetings over the entire year. The short sessions can provide information on smaller topics, but a longer experience with a cohort group can have a greater impact on learning and the development of professional networks in the district. A combination of summer program and school year meetings is a successful approach. (p. 16) As principals need more than sporadic or one-time PPD events, job-embedded, ongoing professional development is a necessity (Peterson, 2002).

Theme 3: Effective PPD is a collaborative process providing a safe setting for consultation and problem-solving.
A number of studies ( Evans & Mohr, 1999;Lawrence et al., 2008) have suggested buildinglevel administrators need the opportunity to problem-solve and collaborate with their peers in a safe setting. As Lawrence et al. (2008) reported, "Principals often learn alone, on the job, and in the full view of the public. When learning new skills, principals need multiple practice sessions, rewriting opportunities, and closed rehearsal space just as other performers do" (p. 36). A safe setting enabled administrators to develop confidence in their skills and take risks they may not have taken when carrying out on-the-job duties. Research suggests it is important for principals to experience tools, protocols, and strategies as part of their learning; practice these processes in a safe environment; receive feedback during practice; and exchange strategies (Lawrence et al., 2008). In these safe spaces, principals gave and received feedback from their peers, an important step whenever new skills, techniques or approaches are learned. Role-playing with other building-level administrators and receiving feedback on the process enabled principals to develop new skills efficiently and effectively (Lawrence et al., 2008).
While a principal's learning is personal, this takes place most effectively while working in groups, with individuals critically considering one another's thinking to reach a higher understanding (Evans & Mohr, 1999). Principals' learning has been shown to be most efficient when others are learning the same concepts, strategies, and techniques in the same context.
Several studies have shown principals holding each other accountable for PPD content and skills. As Evans and Mohr (2009) have explained, relationships emerge from PPD and remain strong through a mutual appreciation for collaborative development: The relationships that evolve out of small group professional development sustain the work between gatherings. Participants stay in touch through e-mail and telephone-and sometimes airplanes. They become very familiar with one another's contexts and are therefore able to encourage and prod one another in helpful ways. They make commitments to one another and build a web of lateral accountability. (p. 2) Other principals who understand the unique challenges they face are a vital outlet: In the midst of this very serious work it is, in part, a sense of humor that gives principals the elasticity and the willingness to face tough choices and difficult times.
We have some fun-we eat and laugh together. Sometimes we cry together. (Evans & Mohr, 1999, p. 5) As Black (2000) has reported, a small group of trusted confidants is hugely beneficial: "Professional development should include a network of critical friends" (p. 17). However, rather than merely an outlet for frustrations, this must be a constructive network: research has shown that districts with successful PPD created "collegial circles of principals that focus on improving teaching and learning rather than commiserate about day-to-day problems and frustrations" (National Institute on Educational Governance, 1999, p. 17). Keeping the focus on developing skills to improve teaching and learning is vital during collaborative PPD (NIEG, 1999). Data analysis is a primary method for schools to determine their current reality, and this is an area in which collaboration has proved particularly effective. According to Nicholson (2006), effective PPD activities focus on specific school improvement goals; employ mechanisms for analysis regression, stagnation, or progression; increase a principal's ability to analyze data; take place at a principal's own school; and focus on solving real problems. Reviewing data also raises the likelihood of behavioral, academic and staff challenges being resolved (Nicholson, 2006). Buildinglevel administrators who have analyzed data independently and then shared their findings with a group gain different perspectives for analyzing problems, a process that also leads to increased consensus-building (National Staff Development Council, 2000). On returning to their schools, administrators can analyze and become familiar with data independently before meeting with grade level teams or departments: principals who had taken part in collaborative, data-infused PPD experiences are more likely to ask appropriate questions, explain trends, and receive useful feedback from teachers at these meetings (NSDC, 2000).
It is important that these collaborative networks are maintained: on returning to their schools, principals often feel isolated and daunted by the task of implementing their new knowledge (Bezzina, 1994). Creating an effective learning culture enables PPD participants to continue to learn and seek feedback (Bezzina, 1994). Sparks (2002) has provided examples of how this culture can be sustained: Principals participate in specialized institutes focused on particular instructional programs or practices, attend support groups and study groups, participate in 'intervisitations' (visits to other schools to promote understanding of a specific practice) and 'buddying' (informal meetings to share problems and strategies for their solution). (p. 80) Building-level administrators who learn together, provide feedback to one another, and visit each other's schools are more likely to develop a sense of trust, enabling them to be honest, take risks and grow together (Sparks, 2000). Togneri and Anderson (2003) analyzed several districts and found collaboration in PPD occurred in many forms: In two of the districts, principals met weekly to share challenges, exchange strategies and learn about emerging issues. In other districts, principals met monthly in full groups and small peer groups. As a result, of the formal gatherings, principals throughout the districts developed numerous informal collegial networks. Principals repeatedly noted that they relied heavily on a small group of colleagues with whom they connected by e-mail and phone weekly, and sometimes daily. (p. 40) Sparks (2000) has argued that school systems wishing to raise the quality of teaching and learning must ensure all principals are members of ongoing study groups to address the most important instructional issues within their schools. Principals would not be as engaged and less likely to form bonds with one another if the topics discussed during PPD did not directly relate to their positions (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Professional development for principals has lagged behind that for teachers, as Prothero (2015) has reported: If you go to a conference on education, of the 100 sessions on professional development, 98 might be on teacher PD and maybe one will be on principal PD … Professional development for school leaders is often bypassed for other pressing needs such as teacher training. The professional development many principals have received was of questionable quality. (p. 10) Improved PD experiences in general only took place once districts ensured there were funds available to pay for quality PPD (Nicholson, 2005). As Nicholson (2005) has explained, there is often confusion over whether this is the case: "Currently identified characteristics of effective PD are tentative, tending to feature "yes, but" elements (e.g., yes, sufficient time and resources are necessary, but time and resources are scarce)" (p. 6). Accessible research for policy makers has existed for some time. However, districts received insufficient funds or allocated funds in a manner leaving PPD underfunded (Nicholson, 2005). To address resource concerns, districts with financial difficulties have at times combined their resources to meet mutual needs, while smaller, rural districts often come together to focus on issues of local interest (Nicholson, 2006).

Theme 4: Effective PPD is reflective.
Reflection enables individuals to challenge concepts, beliefs, and philosophies as well as reach a commonality embracing best practices and thought. As Daudelin (1997) has stated, reflection takes a number of forms: informal reflection happens in everyday life; formal reflection often occurs in the workplace. However, as natural and familiar as this practice is, reflection is often not seen as an effective learning and educational process, and is neglected in favor of a more active, practical approach (Daudelin, 1997). While some organizations resist implementing a reflective approach, a number have begun to embed reflection into their practices (Daudelin, 1997).
At its core, reflection is a personal cognitive process, enabling individuals to connect experiences in order to inform decisions. Daudelin (1997) has defined reflection as: The process of stepping back from an experience to ponder, carefully and persistently, its meaning to the self through the development of inferences; learning is the creation of meaning from previous or current events that serve as a guide for future behavior. (p. 13) Daudelin (1997) has also described four stages of reflection: defining the issue to reflect upon; analyzing the problem and searching for possibilities; formulating and testing a theory; and acting on or bringing closure to the reflection. Ross (1989) has also established stages for reflection: identifying a problem; responding to the problem by connecting it to similar situations; framing and reframing the problem; anticipating the consequences and implications of the varying solutions developed; and determining if the consequences were those desired.
Having applied the practice of reflection to the educational context, Evans and Mohr (1999) demonstrated that providing principals with the opportunity to reflect on their work and practice did not conflict with the ability to complete objectives: a common misconception. Although most individuals have viewed PPD as an opportunity to discover new methodologies and strategies (Evans & Mohr, 1999), effective PPD is more than the absorption of ideas and techniques and provides principals with the ability to reflect on their own and other daily practices within their school (Polite, 2000). Polite (2000) has stated that reflective development is not only important for making effective decisions, but also in understanding the purpose and reasoning behind a decision. While a managerial skills process focuses on drawing a conclusion, reflective practice prioritizes questioning a decision and the implications of implementing a decision (Polite, 2000).
Research has shown that providing principals the time and opportunity to reflect is a significant aspect of effective PPD (Gil-Garcia & Cintron, 2002). Wagner (2006) has argued that an effective leader who implements reflective practice will produce four beneficial results: data-driven decision making, providing a more precise view of their own skills and areas of development; individualized, accurate and well-defined PD plans; increased student achievement through the genuine development of areas of strength; and the creation of effective and innovative PD goals through consistent re-evaluation.
A study at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform (Evans & Mohr, 1999) prioritized the reflection process for principals. In this study by Evans and Mohr (1999), principals wrote responses to questions posed, then shared and reflected on these within the group, enabling them to analyze their own thought processes, procedures, and position on a specific concept. Not only did principals gain insight into other approaches, they learned the value of reflecting and sharing (Evans & Mohr, 1999). The principals then began to implement reflection as a part of staff development, which led to increased consensus on various school issues (Evans & Mohr, 1999). In this approach to PPD, termed the reflective inquiry approach, principals embrace their current knowledge while developing new knowledge through an inquiry process, resulting in an appreciation that their primary source of knowledge and information lies in reflecting on their practices and engaging with this knowledge (Fenwick & Pierce, 2002). Gray & Bishop (2009) have shown how keeping reflective journals, tracking the experiences that contribute to their development, has helped principals cultivate their leadership skills. In a study analyzing the development needs of assistant principals, Oliver (2005) found a strong desire for the opportunity to converse and reflect on information presented during PD. The assistant principals believed this essential to ensure the process benefited their development (Oliver, 2005).

Theme 5: Effective PPD is supported through on-going coaching and/or mentoring.
Ehrich and Hansford (2006) have found that instructional accountability has an emotional and physical effect on principals and, as a result, programs to assist principals have tended to focus on managing the demands of the position, many of which are complex and conflicting (Ehrich & Hansford 2006). Mentoring and coaching programs have been shown to help principals develop the skills and attributes to deal with these demands, and have been utilized in PPD for over 25 years (Daresh, 2010). In fact, though once a rarity in our educational system, mentoring has become a certification requirement in approximately half of U.S. states (Mendels & Mitgang, 2013). However, the implementation of effective mentoring programs remains problematic (Mendels & Mitgang, 2013). According to Barnett & O'Mahony (2007), effective mentoring meets several criteria: space is created for the two individuals to reflect on issues within school leadership; social interaction is created and the support received is personalized; the program connects to the central points of leadership work; the focus is on individual development through internal engagement; a principal's learning and PPD is enriched through personalized feedback; and finally, the program takes place in conjunction with other job-embedded development strategies and opportunities. Research by Ehrich, Hansford and Tennent (2004) has determined that successful mentor programs have had explicitly defined goals and desired outcomes, thoughtful and well-designed matching of mentor and mentee, adequate time and resources, and safeguards to minimize possible conflicts (Ehrich, Hansford, & Tennent, 2004).
Research has shown the importance of a state or district developing and structuring their mentor program based on local goals and policies, and district mentoring programs have tended to pair a novice principal with a veteran principal from within the same district. However, this relationship can at times create an uncomfortable forum that does not allow for the effective sharing of ideas, while the demands of principalship may not allow the mentor to adequately invest in the mentee's development (Bloom, Costangna, & Warren, 2003). Bloom, Costangna, and Warren (2003) have suggested that novice principals should be paired with a mentor to provide support, information and assistance on district issues, but should also be allocated an external (non-district) coach. The lack of internal connection to the school district enables external coaches to assist the individual in confidence, keeping information and discussion between the coach and the principal. While the concept of coaching has not been widely accepted for school administrators it has often been implemented in teacher development (Barnett & O'Mahony, 2012). DeHann (2005) and Barnett and O'Mahony (2013) have identified many benefits in coaching, including the ability to tailor the process to person-focused, insight-focused, problem-focused, or solution-focused relationships, while Rich and Jackson (2005) found coaches were able to assist principals in honing specific skills, thinking reflectively, contextualizing situations in the broader educational landscape, and understanding themselves.
The research covered in this literature review demonstrates not only the need for PPD, but for effective PPD policies. In the following section we will discuss how we refined and utilized the criteria created from this review to assess whether state PPD policies adhere to research-based recommendations.

Method State Selection Process
The focus of this research is each state's policy relating to the creation of PPD, specifically whether such policy mandates adherence to research-based recommendations.
In order to gather information on policy the following steps were taken: (1) the websites of state Departments of Education were identified and analyzed, (2) state policies on state government websites were identified and analyzed and (3) state departments of education were contacted by phone to clarify their policies. The PPD policies and/or recertification policies of all 50 states and the District of Columbia were collected by a three-person research team. Department of Education websites from each state were analyzed, and if PPD requirements were unclear from the websites, the state Department of Education was contacted for clarification.
The research team completed this process through consensus coding using a spreadsheet that listed the state, the source of data, the presence of a PPD policy, and the research team's initial evaluation of the policy. Department of Education interviewees were selected based on their involvement in and knowledge of the certification process. The research team made sure to work through the chain of command to ensure information was correct and consistent with state policy.
The research team then reviewed the policy of each state, listing the source of information and answering the following questions: does the state have a PPD policy for licensure or renewal (if yes, what are the requirements or hours) and does the state provide a model or best practice for PPD as established in the literature? Once these questions were answered, the research team presented an initial review determining that 27 states had policies for mandatory PPD of over an hour and took additional steps to enhance the impact by requiring specific content or delivery models. The remaining 23 states and the District of Columbia established mechanisms for certification but did not present adequate information for this analysis.

Criteria Development
Having established which states had PPD requirements, the research team began to develop criteria for effective PPD based upon the larger body of literature and expert consultation. The five expert-validated criteria listed in the literature review served as the basis: (1) Effective PPD is required, individualized, and based on data; (2) Effective PPD is job-embedded, ongoing, and sustained; (3) Effective PPD is a collaborative process providing a safe setting for consultation and problem-solving; (4) Effective PPD is reflective; and (5) Effective PPD is supported through ongoing coaching and/or mentoring.
Experts in the field who had made notable contributions to school administration PD were then contacted to review the criteria and indicators. The expert panelists who provided feedback are as follows: • Bruce Barnett, Ph.D. Department Chair and Professor at the University of Texas in San Antonio in the area of Educational Leadership. These individuals recommended revisions and ultimately validated the criteria and indicators as follows: • Criterion 1: PPD is required, individualized, and based on student, teacher, and principal performance data. o Indicator 1: Expectations for PPD are explicitly defined and widely communicated (Corcoran, Casserly, Price-Baugh, Walston, Hall, & Simon, 2013;Honig, 2013;Levin, Datnow & Carrier, 2012). o Indicator 2: The principal identifies performance strengths, weaknesses, dispositions, and areas of interest (Bussey & Welch, 2013;Gray & Bishop, 2009). o Indicator 3: The principal creates a PPD plan guided by student data and school/district improvement goals/plans (Evans & Mohr, 1999). o Indicator 4: Principals partner with district leaders to develop the PPD plan (Honig, 2013;Reed, 2014). o Indicator 5: The principal utilizes data to make decisions regarding school improvement to advance student achievement (Ayers et al., 2012;Sutcher et al., 2017;Togneri & Anderson, 2003). • Criterion 2: PPD is job-embedded and sustained.
o Indicator 1: Principals reflect on current PPD needs and experience (Bussey & Welch, 2013;Evans & Mohr, 1999;Gray & Bishop, 2009;Oliver, 2005). o Indicator 2: Principals reflect upon and clarify their values, beliefs, and dispositions, understanding that self-knowledge is the bedrock of effective leadership (Bussey & Welch, 2013). o Indicator 3: Principals reflect on PPD and apply it to a specific setting or context (Gray & Bishop, 2009;Oliver, 2005). • Criterion 5: PPD is supported through on-going coaching and/or mentoring.
The PPD systems of the 27 selected states were analyzed to determine to what degree they meet this expert-validated criteria. States were given a 'yes' if their publicly accessible policy information had language similar to the indicator. A majority-rules decision-making process was implemented.

State-by-State Analysis
In this section we present our findings regarding the PPD policies of the 27 states as of October 2015. Table 1 shows each state's adherence to the indicators structured in alphabetical order by state abbreviation, with each table in order horizontally by criterion and indicator. Table 2 shows the percentage of states that adhere to each indicator.

Discussion
Our data shows that the policies of many states in October 2015 were not meeting the needs of principals as established by our research-based criteria. The low percentage of adherence to Criterion 1/Indicator 2 (26%) reveals that state policies are not demanding the implementation of individualized PPD plans, which enable school leaders to discover the areas they need to develop professionally and uses their own experiences and data to assist with this growth. Implementing needs assessments, supported and reviewed by district leaders, would enable principals to review various data points that present a picture of their own beliefs, practices, and philosophy and what impact these are having on students and staff members.
The low percentage of adherence to Criteria 3/Indicator 3 (19%) shows that resource allocations for collaboration between principals is severely lacking; very few states mandate these opportunities and/or allocate appropriate resources.
Opportunities for reflection are rarely a requirement of PPD policies, as shown by the low percentage for Criterion 4/Indicator 2 (19%). As discussed in the literature review, without reflecting on their values, beliefs, and dispositions, principals cannot make informed decisions, accurately analyze challenges, and evaluate their successes or failures.
The lowest performing criterion in the study relates to mentoring and coaching. Despite this technique being used in our educational system for many years, it is evident that the implementation and expectation of mentorship for school leadership remains deficient.
Of the 27 states examined, only Oregon met all the criteria indicators. Three states were making great progress towards meeting the criteria, and twenty-three were in the process of developing an effective policy. Overall, however, our findings demonstrate a disconnect between state policies and research-based criteria for PPD. One possible explanation for this might be that states have traditionally handed local control to districts without also providing guidance on how to conduct PPD. Though there have been some attempts to create accountability through the introduction of performance expectations and assessment, there is evidence that schools retain control over the direction and elements of their improvement practices (Wieczorek, 2017). Without a research-based policy for PPD, states are not ensuring principals receive the appropriate development to address the academic and socio-emotional needs of students, or to assist their staff members in dealing with the state, district and school educational goals and expectations. A lack of funding may also be an impediment to creating a state-wide PPD policy and accountability measures. Though a district-based practice allows for tailoring to local needs, it neither guarantees this happens in all districts, nor ensures the PPD opportunities provided adhere to research-based criteria. Our data illustrates a need for states to revisit their PPD policies and leads us to make the recommendations for further study detailed below.

Limitations of the Study
Although our study reviewed public policy regarding PPD, it did not analyze local policies or programs geared towards the continuous development of principals. Further research could determine whether the PPD programs produced by many school districts and local entities adequately meet the criteria established above.
Another limitation is that this study does not examine why states have not researched and/or implemented research-based practices for PPD. With only 53% of states having an accessible PPD policy, it is important to discover why the other 47% do not. There could be a variety of reasons why these states/territories do not have such a system, but this could also be due to our data collection being limited to publicly accessible information and initiatives. Although this study generated viable criteria for PPD policy analysis, it did not address the extent to which a state actually implemented their PPD policy. This would require in-depth analysis of each state.
Finally, although it is customary to use research-based criteria validated by experts it is possible that some states and districts believe there are other criteria more pertinent to the professional growth of their school administration. A comparative analysis of official ideologies regarding principal development and the research-based criteria above could lead to further discussion on the disconnect between the divergent frames of thought. Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.


THE SOROGAN VERSION OF ACADEMIC MOTIVATION SCALE (AMS-VS) FOR ISLAMIC BOARDING SCHOOL STUDENTS

There are many instruments that have been developed by researchers to measure motivation. However, none of the instruments has been specifically designed to measure sorogan motivation on Islamic boarding school students (santri). Therefore, this article was written to discuss the processes of adaptation, testing the validity, and reliability of academic motivation scales to measure sorogan motivation of santri. The authors use Theory of Self Determination (Deci & Ryan, 1995), Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992), and AMS Bahasa Indonesia (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018) as guidelines in compiling indicators, aspects, and items of Academic Motivation Scale Sorogan Version (AMS-VS). Test adaptation guidelines issued by the International Test Commission (2018) are used in adapting the AMS. The data collected from 102 respondents were analysed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The results showed that AMS-VS is a proper and strong measurement to determine the level sorogan motivation of santri.

INTRODUCTION
Santri salaf is familiar with the sorogan learning method. Santri are students in Islamic boarding schools, while Salafi is students who explore and study ancient books. The sorogan is a typical learning method at an Islamic boarding school that can produce reputable alumni (Muhakamurrohman, 2014). This method's characteristic is one-to-one learning. Each student has the opportunity to read, explain, and recall the previous lesson to the teacher (Kyai) individually so that the teacher or Kyai can easily evaluate the student's progress (Dhofier, 2011). Students will be better able to absorb the knowledge as much as possible from the teacher, and through the learning process, students will succeed in getting benefits, especially mastery of science.
In several decades, scholars have used the theory of self-determination approach in various motivational literature (Cokley, 2015). According to the self-determination theory, to be a psychologically healthy individual, a person must have competence, autonomy, and a connection with something to achieve in the future (Deci & Ryan, 2000). An individual should feel that they determine their actions (autonomy), have closeness to others (connectedness) and can carry out tasks well (competence) (Støen Utvaer & Haugan, 2016). These needs are universally valid, regardless of cultural background and place of living (Deci et al, 2000). Fulfilling these three needs will develop the motivation in performing the task or many activities (Deci et al, 2000). Schunk & DiBenedetto (2020) believe that motivation is an essential element for individuals' success because motivation directly affects the effort's intensity in achieving goals. Authors divide motivation into three types Deci & Ryan (1995). The first is intrinsic motivation. It is an encouragement to perform something important that originates from the self. Intrinsic motivation includes interest, pleasure, and personal satisfaction. It is driven by intrinsic regulation, which is the person's highest quality of motivation (Deci et al, 2000).
The second is extrinsic motivation, characterized by the urge to do something derived from outside the individual, such as honorarium and parents' demands. There are four types of self-regulation that affect extrinsic motivation namely (1) external regulation is an encouragement to do something for getting appreciation from others (Deci & Ryan, 1985), (2) introjection regulation encourages individuals to accomplish something for avoiding guilt or showing his/her capability (Deci & Ryan, 2000), (3) the identified regulation is more autonomous regulation but still in extrinsic motivation form. This regulation reflects a person's awareness of his/ her actions and considers the action to be essential, and (4) the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation. Integrated regulation occurs when regulations are identified as internalized, which means that these motivations have been evaluated and aligned with their values and needs (Deci et al., 1991). The third is Amotivation, a condition of no encouragement to do something because of the assumption that the set goals are out of reach (Vallerand et al., 1992).
The initial version of AMS consists of seven aspects: knowledge, achievement, stimulation, identified regulation, introjected  (Vallerand et al., 1992). However, in Turkey's testing, only five aspects (motivation, external regulation, introjection regulation, identified regulation, and internal regulation) were used (Alivernini & Lucidi, 2008). Besides, Bosato (2001) study adapted AMS by changing several sentences in the last version of AMS. Fruthermore, Natalya & Purwanto (2018) added two alternative items for the amotivation aspect because they considered that the addition of these items was important. Several studies on AMS adapted into Indonesian and published, such as AMS-30 and AMS-15 items for college students (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018) and AMS-28 items for high school students (Marvianto & Widhiarso, 2019).
Although AMS is a valid and reliable instrument tested in various countries, some researchers claim that AMS has limitations and still needs development, such as further testing in different populations (Alivernini & Lucidi, 2008;Cokley, 2015;Bacanlı & Sahinkaya, 2011;Støen Utvaer & Haugan, 2016). Besides, Authors have not found a scale that explicitly measures students' motivation who receive the sorogan education method. Santri is a particular student population that is different from students receiving formal education.
Islamic boarding school has been acknowledged by some people is a subculture in Indonesia's heritage. This is due to the fact that Islamic boarding schools have three distinct aspects, namely the way of life, the values, and the hierarchy of internal authorities which is fully adhered (Karim, 2020). These distinctions made Islamic boarding school students have different characteristics with students from a formal school (Amalia et al., 2020;Aminullah, 2013;Sari, 2019).
The limited literature on the motivation scale in santri's population is an opportunity to research the scale in this particular population. Having a reliable instrument to determine the motivation of students receiving sorogan's learning method can encourage Islamic boarding schools to develop programs according to students' needs. The program is arranged to optimize the learning process so that students can obtain optimal learning outcomes.
According to the limitations, the researcher concludes that a valid, reliable, and contextual motivation scale needs to be developed, especially a scale suitable for students receiving the Sorogan learning method in the Islamic boarding school environment. So, the student's motivation can be measured. Validity and reliability are the main topics in each measurement (Anggraini et al., 2020). This study aims to adapt and modify the AMS items in the Indonesian version (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018) to measure student sorogan motivation in Islamic boarding school. Authors used seven aspects of AMS (Vallerand et al., 1992) and tested the internal consistency and reliability.

Participants
Participants in this study were voluntary without any reward. Participants in this study were students who had participated in the sorogan learning method. The authors considered this sampling because the instrument adaptation focused on participants' experiences in participating in the sorogan's learning method. The authors invited students from several Islamic boarding schools in Lampung Province, Indonesia. There were 105 students (male = 44, female = 61) who confirmed their interest in participating in this study. However, only 102 students (male = 41, female = 61; age M = 21.64; SD = 3.70) were considered to meet the participant criteria because they had followed the sorogan method at Islamic boarding schools. This study uses a 10 : 1 procedure, at least 10 participants for each variable (Hair et al., 2016).

Instrument
The AMS developed by Vallerand et al. (1992) has seven aspects, and each assesses three types of intrinsic motivation (knowledge, achievement, and stimulation), three types of external motivation (identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation), and amotivation. Later, the researcher constructed the seven aspects into 28 items. Each aspect has four items with seven alternative answers (1 = absolutely inappropriate to 7 = absolutely appropriate). The scale is described in the appendix. However, in adapting AMS into Indonesian, Natalya & Purwanto (2018) added two items of Amotivation aspects so that the final version of AMS in Indonesian was 30 items. Current study modified the AMS-30 Indonesian to the Sorogan Version of Academic Motivation Scale or AMS-VS.

Procedures
The authors used the Test Adaptation Guide made by the International Test Commission (ITC, 2018). At the Precondition stage, authors could not find copyright holders for the AMS version. However, the authors used AMS with 28 + 2 items, adapted and published by Natalya & Purwanto (2018). The authors asked permission to use the Indonesian version of AMS (See appendix 1) to the previous researcher by sending a message via email.
At the test development stage, the researcher did not translate the AMS English into Indonesian but changed or modified the questions or items of Indonesian version of AMS to the Islamic boarding school cultural context. Furthermore, two experts assessed the suitability of the items with the measurement object and appropriateness with the cultural context of the Islamic boarding school. Invited experts are experienced in instrument adaptation.
In the next step, authors invited two experts who really understand and experience the context of the Islamic boarding school's academic culture. At least ten years work experience in the field, being administrator, and teacher at the Islamic boarding school are the requirements for the invited experts. The questions for the experts are (1) the questions and statements in this scale appropriate for the student at Islamic boarding school? (2) if there is something inappropriate, how should the question be easy to understand and substantial with the context?
After experts' evaluation, the author conducted a readability test by two Islamic boarding school students. The authors asked the students to read the scale and interview them to check their understanding. The interview questions included the easiness of reading and understanding the AMS-VS's questions. After getting input from the students at the readability test and making improvements, the authors added demographic questions, guidelines, and constructing the scoring procedures. AMS-VS after expert validation and legibility test is demonstrated in appendix 2.

Data analysis
Finally, the Authors tested the items' validity and instrument's reliability. This study used confirmatory factor analysis with the LISREL 8.8 application to examine the appropriateness of the measurement design and the compatibility of item's grouping according to their aspects (Mair, 2018;Marsh et al., 2020). The higher the loading value of an item is, the similar and fit the item to the aspect being measured.
The loading value used as a guideline is as follow > .32 is low, > .45 moderate, > .55 good enough, > .63 good, and > .71 very good (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The criteria for fit model followed the fit model test steps, by looking at the p-value > .05, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .08, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90, and Normed Fit Index (NFI) >. 90 (Ghozali, 2017). If these criteria for Fit Model do not meet, the authors will use the Modification Index (MI) by correlating the  (Yamin, 2014).
The authors also measured construct reliability by looking at Average Variance Extracted (AVE) > .5 and Composite Reliability (CR) > .7 (Hair et al., 2016). The authors used the equation guide from Hair et al. (2016)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Validation by experts regarding the suitability of items with Islamic boarding schools' construct and academic conditions resulted in 30 AMS-VS items. Table 1 shows the AMS-VS item. The final items after the expert validation and readability test can be seen in appendix 2. Table 2 6,14,21,29 4 AMOT 7,8,15,22,23,30 6 Note. IM = Intrinsic Motivation; EM = Extrinsic Motivation; AMOT = Amotivation.
The CFA test results show that thirty items from the seven aspects of sorogan motivation are good, proper, and support the model with seven aspects in the previous AMS research (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018;Støen Utvaer & Haugan, 2016). Authors assume that the same mean age and social status of the participants influence the findings.
Although the initial model indicated that the model fit level did not meet the criteria, this problem could be overcome by adding the error relationship in some items with a large standardised residual or modification index (Yamin, 2014). Current study findings showed different results with some prior study, Fairchild et al. (2005) does not have to modify the model. They meet the fit model in the first analysis.
The existence of different findings raises questions about the theoretical basis. The question arises: "do intrinsic and extrinsic motivations not relate, as stated in the theory of self-determination?". De Castella et al. (2013) states that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are two independent variables, not two variables in one unit as in the selfdetermination theory. To answer this question, studies in this field need to be carried out to reach a consensus on scientists' theory of motivation.
AMS-VS meets the valid construct criteria because the value of the factor-loading items in one aspect is quite balanced, and the findings are similar to previous studies (Smith et al., 2012). AMS-VS has excellent reliability. Some of the CR and AVE values on AMS-VS are higher than the AMS-30 items adapted to Indonesian (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018) and Norwegian (Støen Utvaer & Haugan, 2016) The limitation in this finding is the generalization of the scale. The authors' purpose in modifying this scale is that the researcher wants to measure a sample's motivation with a specific background. Therefore, the use of this scale is limited to participants with a santri background. Second, the Authors use a self-report method which allows bias. The respondent's cognitive ability to understand the items or the statement and various other factors can affect the delivery's actual conditions.
The authors suggest enhancing the diversity and number of the participants institution of origin for further study. However, authors believe that this study has a meaningful contribution to literature and scientific advancement, especially in motivation literature. This study also showed that the AMS-VS is a robust instrument for measuring students' motivation. The Islamic boarding schoolteachers can use this instrument to determine the students' motivation in learning with the sorogan method. Besides, the administrators and the authorities of Islamic boarding schools can determine the learning methods policy.

CONCLUSION
This study adapted the Indonesian AMS-30 items into AMS-VS. The authors tested the AMS-VS to determine its construct validity and reliability using CFA. Based on the fit model's test results, this study found that the AMS-VS with seven aspects were not entirely fit but still could be used after modifying the model by correlating errors or  (3)(4), 325-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9 653137