A growing body of research has demonstrated the impact of principals on a wide variety of school outcomes, including teacher retention and student test scores, graduation, and attendance. Research also confirms that principal turnover is generally associated with both teacher turnover and student achievement dips. Finally, evidence shows that principal effectiveness and retention are impacted by the quality and content of principals’ preparation and their access to particular kinds of professional development.
In this paper, we examine the conditions of the principalship in California in recent years, including trends in preparation, experience, and turnover over time; the distribution of principals to schools of different types; and the factors associated with principal turnover. We leverage statewide, restricted-use, staff-level data from the California Department of Education (CDE) and California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). We also model principal turnover using a regression analysis that examines turnover as a function of principal characteristics (age, experience, preparation), school characteristics (type, locale, resources) and district characteristics (size, type, expenditures, salary level.
Key Findings
The principalship is growing more diverse by race and gender: Between 2012–13 and 2024–25, the proportion of principals of color increased from 35% to 42%, with large increases for Latino/a principals and smaller gains for African American and Asian principals. The proportion of women principals also grew at each level of the system, to 47% of high school principals, 55% of middle school principals, and 74% of elementary school principals.
The principalship is aging: A larger share of principals (28%) are 55 or over than at any other time over the past 13 years, signaling pending retirements.
A small, but growing share of principals are entering via the “test-only” route: In 2024–25, 6.0% of principals had entered by passing the CPACE rather than through a preparation program, an increase from 4.6% in 2020–21.
Recent improvements in preparation, induction, and professional development are appreciated by California principals and appear to impact their effectiveness. Studies of principals’ experiences of preparation and induction following the adoption of new standards for licensure and accreditation find stronger perceptions of preparedness. Those who have experienced coaching and professional learning communities through 21CSLA also acknowledge the value of those experiences. Other California studies have found that principals’ access to high-quality preparation and professional development associated with these reforms has been associated with their ability to enable greater teacher retention and student achievement gains.
Principal experience and preparation are inequitably distributed across the state: Rural schools, charter schools, alternative schools of choice, special education schools, and virtual schools are less likely to have experienced and prepared principals than mainstream and non-rural schools. Inequities are not generally associated with student body composition aside from those associated with these school types.
Principals’ wages are largely stagnant: After a brief increase in wages following the initial implementation of LCFF funding, wages for principals declined in real dollar terms. Over the last 3 years, salaries have been increasing once again, but they remain lower than they were at the height of the pandemic in 2020–21.
Principal turnover in California is higher than the national average: Principals in California are less likely to stay in their schools than principals nationally, with about 78% of principals remaining in their schools in 2020–21 as compared to 80% nationally. As of 2024–25, California principal retention in the same school was 78.4%.
Principal turnover in California is associated with compensation, preparation, and aspects of school working conditions. Controlling for school and principal characteristics, turnover is higher for principals who have lower salaries, those enter through the test-only route, and those in settings that have higher teacher turnover, higher suspension rates, and higher ratios of students to teachers.
Implications for California
To increase the pipeline of principals, reduce barriers to traditional preparation programs, and support equitable distribution of principal preparation and stability, California could provide funding to cover the cost of high-quality preparation programs or create paid internships in the context of an assistant principalship or other clinical opportunity, as states like Illinois, Mississippi, and North Carolina have. While salary decisions are local in California, the state could contribute to educators’ compensation through loan forgiveness, housing supports, or tax credits for educators, potentially focused on those working in particular kinds of schools.
To support ongoing supports for principals, California can ensure ongoing funding for the work of 21 CSLA, which has been funded from the federal Title II 3 percent set-aside and expand funding to support training and coaching in schools with higher levels of inexperienced and untrained principals, such as special education, alternative, and rural schools.
Both the state and districts can improve working conditions by providing sufficient resources for principals to accomplish their educational objectives. Districts can ensure that principals have support staff, such as assistant principals, counselors, and teacher leaders to address student and school needs. To address administrator overload, California could pare back unnecessary reporting requirements to reduce compliance tasks that do not contribute to effective school leadership. Further, to reduce barriers to administrative support, California could relax the 5% cap on administrative spending enforced by proposition 223 and/or the restrictions on specific program oversight funding that limit them to 1% of revenues.
Principal training in how to create a supportive school climate can make a difference in teacher turnover. The state can facilitate this learning by offering targeted training, professional learning communities, and coaching around how to create a positive school climate that enhances engagement and belonging for both students and teachers. This is already happening as part of California’s large investment in technical assistance for its community schools (about ¼ of the state’s schools) and could be expanded via 21CSLA or other support.
