Two breakthrough ideas that build on the foundations laid to date and that propel us forward in a dramatic fashion were identified: (1) develop strategies, programs, and policies to create a denser pattern of leadership in Delaware's schools, i.e. bring the concept of distributive leadership to life in our schools and (2) craft and implement ideas to ensure leadership succession planning in Delaware school districts.

Below we describe our proposed work in these two areas in detail. Because we follow a similar pathway with each initiative, we spend considerably more time describing that roadway under breakthrough idea number one. We note how each initiative aligns with the goals of the SAELP II blueprint as laid out by the Wallace Foundation. We also reveal how each initiative nests within the existing policy structure of the state (e.g. the student achievement focus of the newly adopted Delaware Standards for School Leaders, the new policy framework for administrator assessment). We also document how each initiative provides a design for significantly extending the current policy landscape (e.g. a deepening of our SAELP I Task Force's recommendations addressing conditions of work that can impede or facilitate learning centered leadership). Special attention is devoted to describing the strategies and actions that will be undertaken to bring the breakthrough ideas to life and to cement them in place, that is to prevent them from unraveling when grant funds are depleted.

At the center of our work is a plan to engage every school district in the state, some more intensively than others but always with the intent to include all 19 school districts. Programs to deepen leadership development opportunities for prospective and current school leaders are tightly linked to plans to enhance conditions of work, especially for school principals. We show how intertwining the two linchpin issues of leader development and conditions of work provides an enriched policy seedbed for growing Delaware's vision of leadership for learning and enhanced student achievement.

For some time now, evidence has been accumulating that hierarchical models of schooling that limit leadership to administrative roles are not likely to work well in today's complex educational system. Administrators are increasingly sinking under the weight of this model; that is, the conditions of work are becoming untenable for more and more principals and superintendents. At the same time, teachers and parents who are excluded from the chain of leadership action are increasingly frustrated by their inability to contribute in more meaningful ways to the health of their schools and the success of their youngsters.

As problems with role-based conceptions of leadership crafted in the 20th century have surfaced, analysts have begun to redefine leadership. Conceptions of leadership as an "organizational property", as a "function", and as a product of "expertise" rather than an element of a position have all emerged over the last quarter century, beginning with Sergiovanni's call for leadership to be distributed densely throughout schools. Concomitantly, efforts to rebuild the "hierarchical" and "institutional" façade of school organizations with raw material from the "community" quarry have materialized. Calls for shared leadership, democratic community, learning organizations, teacher leadership and related ideas ribbon the magazines and journals of the profession.

In August 2002, Delaware adopted the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders. In so doing, we established a guiding policy framework that "recognizes the collaborative nature of school leadership" and honors "access, opportunity, and improvement for all members of the school community". In 2003, Delaware approved a comprehensive statewide assessment system for school leaders that underscores the concept of leadership as a collaborative endeavor. Our first breakthrough idea is designed to build on this policy work and extend it by helping school districts bring concepts of leadership density to life via the pathway of "distributive leadership". Although we believe in the value of collaborative leadership in its own right, here our focus is more instrumental. That is, we target denser leadership models to improve the conditions of work at the district and school levels so that learning and teaching can be highlighted more extensively in the work portfolios of principals. In short, our design was developed to map directly onto the goals of SAELP II-leadership for learning and enhanced student achievement.

As a review of the strategic through-line and the narrative below reveals, our design was also crafted to address the improvement "methodology" or the theory-in-action in SAELP II. First, we focus on both conditions of work and the development of leaders and leadership, but in a highly interconnected way.

Think of a DNA model with one strand representing "conditions of work" and the other depicting "leader development". Second, action is designed to cascade across the key levels of the policy and program architecture, that is, across the strategic through-line (e.g. from district to school) as well as to flow upward (e.g. from district models to state policy). In a sense, it is correct to hold that the central element in our strategic through-line is the district, with action flowing in both directions from that venue.

As noted above, our plan is in many ways a "district connection blueprint" in which linkages are formed to and among every district in Delaware. Thus at one level our strategy brings all districts together for leader development on the concept of distributive leadership, while offering them this idea as a tool for improving working conditions. At a deeper level, the blueprint calls for the SAELP II team to work more intensively with four districts to develop distributive leadership models for middle or high schools-the area of most critical need in Delaware. Throughout, the design underscores the extensive involvement of SAELP II team members (e.g. the Delaware Association of School Administrators) and emphasizes the technical assistance of the various members of the National Consortium. We will also be forging linkages with New Jersey (and possibly Connecticut) thus allowing us to extend our resources and to secure greater traction in bringing distributive leadership into play.

Phase 1: Prelude. At the June 29, 2004 SAELP I Policy & Practice Institute for School Leaders in Delaware, we will feature an overview of the SAELP II distributed leadership initiative outlined in phases 2-4 below. This will be provided by one of the key players in the SAELP II Coalition. The SAELP II team is also discussing the possibility of devoting one address at the policy institute to the topic of distributed leadership. The state has already contracted with Brian McNulty from McREL to share the report on Balanced Leadership, which was presented at the National SAELP Results Conference in December 2003.

Phase 2: Leader Development Retreat and District Proposals. On October 9 and 10, we will sponsor a two-day retreat for teams for each of the 19 districts and secondary level charter schools in the state. Each district team will include the superintendent, a school board member, a principal, a teacher (preferably a union representative), and a member of the community (preferably an agent of the business or non-profit community with considerable experience in the area of leadership). The designated distributive leadership districts from New Jersey will be participating in this retreat.

The two-day meeting will feature school districts and businesses from around the nation that are successfully creating deeper leadership patterns in their organizations. We will turn to the National Consortium partners here to help us identify good cases from which Delaware leaders can learn. The program will also emphasize a review of distributive leadership from one of the leading scholars in this area (e.g. Elmore, Smylie, Spillane, Sergiovanni). The goals here are to bring all the districts into the leadership density game, to provide some broad roadmaps for navigating successfully in this area, and to generate knowledge and energy for action.

We will also use the meeting to lay out the SAELP II team's design to work intensively with four districts for the three year cycle of the grant. The objective here is to have these four districts (plus the ones from New Jersey) develop and implement "models" of distributive leadership at the middle or high school level that inform the actions of the remaining 15 districts. We will use a request-for-proposals (RFP) process to select the four districts, distributing the RFP at the retreat. The SAELP II team has already begun the process of teasing out the specifications at the heart of the RFP (e.g. strong organizational commitment from the school board and from the superintendent, a focus at the middle or high school level), and will turn to SAELP stakeholders in the state and to members of the National Consortium to help expand and refine these initial ideas. The timeline is to have proposals in hand by December 1 and to notify districts with strongest designs for nourishing denser patterns of leadership at the middle or high school level by December 15.

We have already begun discussions with the Delaware Department of Education, the Delaware State Education Association (teachers' union), Delaware School Boards Association, the legislature, and the Delaware Association of School Administrators about addressing grievance issues (such as waivers) and related legislative changes that will support distributive leadership. We believe that the National Consortium will be especially helpful to us on this matter, providing good examples of initiatives in place throughout the nation. We anticipate that additional policy level leverage points for buttressing distributive leadership will be uncovered throughout the three year improvement process.

The retreat will be co-sponsored by the Delaware Academy for School Leadership at the University of Delaware, the Delaware Department of Education, and the Delaware Association of School Administrators thus ensuring the availability of continuing education credit for retreat participants. "Leader development" that unfolds throughout the life of the distributive leadership initiative will also be eligible for continuing education credit.

Phase 3: Creation and Implementation of Models. . The SAELP II initiative will fund four districts that wish to develop and implement distributive leadership models at the secondary school level, with an understanding that they in turn will be engaged in educating their colleagues in the 15 remaining districts. Our intention is to provide the districts with the seed money that will facilitate their work, not to provide the core funding for creating and carrying the distributive leadership model into action. This will help ensure the sustainability of their work. Each district will receive $25,000 over the three years of the grant. There will be an additional $50,000 available for specific requests related to professional development that supports the pilot schools' leadership teams in implementing the distributive leadership model.

The SAELP team will work closely with these four districts throughout the term of the grant. We will create a dedicated website for distributive leadership to nurture communication and interactive work among primarily the four intensive districts-but a system that also will be accessible to all districts in the state. We will keep the balance of the funds, $162,300, centrally to: (1) facilitate joint activities (e.g. bringing in representatives from districts outside of Delaware that are well regarded for their work in the area of distributive leadership.) [Partner districts from New Jersey, and possibly Connecticut, will be involved here as well.]; (2) meet specific requests from one or more of the four districts (e.g. to fund a professional development experiences on learning communities); (3) host the Leader Development Retreat; (4) develop and maintain a dedicated website for districts; (4) facilitate a communication flow among and between all 19 districts, the Department of Education, out-of state districts, and state policymakers; and finally, (5) contract for an impact study on the models of distributive leadership.

Phase 4: Dissemination. The SAELP II team will structure ways for the four intensively engaged districts to provide information that flows vertically to state policymakers (an upward flow in the strategic through-line) and horizontally to the other 15 districts and charter schools. The focus will be on understanding what we can learn from these four longitudinal efforts at the middle and high school level to spread the concept of leadership density widely throughout the state. We anticipate insights about productive leader development, alterations to existing governance arrangements, and enhancements in working conditions.

While much of the form of learning is yet to be determined, we envision the generation of a series of policies that SAELP coalition members will work to implement. We also foresee the development of a manual of models for districts and the creation of a portfolio of leader development activities from which school and district-based educators can partake. We will also work with universities to bring this knowledge into education leadership preparation programs through our SAELP Critical Friends activity.

Based on our understanding of the literature in the area, we have attempted to ensure sustainability in a variety of aligned ways. To begin with, as noted above, we use SAELP II resources not to provide core support for developing distributed leadership but rather as a wedge to generate energy and knowledge, as an inducement to pull district funds toward the aim of building leadership more deeply in Delaware's schools, and as a support system in terms of leader development.

Second, our SAELP II design calls for careful monitoring of the actions of the four intensely involved districts [as well as, what we learn from our New Jersey partners and efforts afoot throughout the nation] to uncover reforms in code and administrative regulations that can be enacted to support attempts to diffuse the concept of distributed leadership in schools and districts throughout Delaware (an upward flow on the strategic through line if you will). SAELP II partners are committed to move aggressively to reconfigure the policy architecture of the state to help ensure transfer and guarantee sustainability.

Third, we have consciously enacted a strategy that incorporates all districts into the action from the inception of the work. We plan, with the assistance of SAELP II team members and representatives of the National Consortium-as well as agents of the districts themselves, to devise strategies for keeping all the districts involved even while the spotlight is directed primarily on the four intensely involved districts.

Finally, based on earlier work in SAELP I, formal preparation programs for school leaders are being re-engineered to underscore the concept of distributed leadership. Sustainability will be enhanced as notions and models of dense leadership become a central part of the fabric of school administration.

At the end of year one, we will have the network of 19 districts established and the four intensely involved districts selected and operational. District plans that describe visions of distributive leadership and outline the processes for putting those visions into play will be written (and available for use by all districts within the state).

At the end of year three, each of the districts will have developed a "model" for bringing distributive leadership to life. These models will be published for use by all the districts in Delaware-and all of the SAELP II states. Distributed leadership will be implemented fully in one middle or high school in each of the four intensely-involved districts. We also expect to see considerable, if uneven, action in the remaining 15 districts at this point in time.

At the end of year five, we will have in place the changes in law and administrative regulations that will facilitate the ability of districts to sustain distributive leadership in schools throughout the state. Based on learning from the SAELP II initiative, a portfolio of professional development initiatives will be available for use in Delaware's schools. Preparation for new leaders will reflect the enhanced position of collaborative leadership. In terms of academic achievement, all distributive leadership middle or high schools will move from "academic review or watch" to "commendable or distinguished".

Over the last few decades, a number of dynamics in the area of developing new school leaders have become evident. Most importantly, we have learned that school districts, the employing agencies, have been considerably less than proactive on the issue of identifying and nurturing talent to assume formal leadership roles in schools. This important work has been defaulted to university preparation programs and to individual employees who decide to pursue administrative licensure. The end result is that when the time arrives to hire new leaders, the candidate pool of highly qualified persons is often quite limited if not entirely empty.

As noted in the earlier section on state context, the full SAELP I Consortium, the three task forces that helped direct SAELP I work, participants at the Delaware Policy Institute in June 2003, and the SAELP II planning task force have all recommended action at the state and district levels to deepen the pool of leadership talent in the state. In particular, the SAELP I task force on Minority Recruitment and Selection has made a strong case for building a diverse pool of leaders that mirrors the student population in Delaware schools.

Breakthrough idea number two, which is tightly aligned with breakthrough idea number one, is designed to address this issue by crafting a framework to ensure that that succession planning is hardwired into the policy and practice domains of school districts and the state. As with the earlier breakthrough idea on distributive leadership, our intention is to pursue this objective through a "district-based model", that is, by engaging all 19 districts in the state and, in terms of the strategic through-line, having an impact on conditions of work and leader development upward to the state and downward through the school to the classroom. As noted above, the breakthrough idea is structured to address two existing policy goals in Delaware: (1) deepening the overall pool of leadership in the state--and crafting mechanisms to guarantee continual replenishment of the pool--and (2) increasing minority representation in the formal leadership ranks. The strategy here is "breakthrough" on a number of other dimensions as well. Most critically, it transfers responsibility for leader development to school districts, in cooperation with the state and its university training institutions.

SAELP II will work to support each of the 19 districts as they create policies and administrative regulations to create district-based leadership succession plans. The succession programs that nest within district policy and regulations will be buttressed by state policy. To begin with, existing regulations at the state level that are barriers to succession planning will be identified and a waiver initiative will be crafted to give districts flexibility in removing barriers to their succession planning. In addition, through policy, we will ensure that participants who successfully engage in succession planning work will receive a 2 percent salary increment under the state school finance system.

We will begin with a one-day workshop in January 2005 for teams from all districts in the state. Teams will be composed of the superintendent, a member of the board of education, a teacher, a principal, and a member of the community--someone with experience in the area of leader development, especially in the sub-area of career development. At this initial meeting, the topic of succession planning will be examined, benchmark programs from both the educational and corporate sectors will be highlighted, the criteria to employ in building robust plans will be presented, and the policy role to be assumed by the state will be laid out (e.g. the 2 percent cluster).

We note here that action on developing the program specifications (e.g. the need to scaffold learning experiences on the Delaware Standards for School Leaders) has begun under the direction of the SAELP II planning task force. In organizing the initial meeting--and subsequent activities for the districts--we plan to turn to SAELP team members from the corporate area that have insights to share as well as to representatives of the National Consortium who can help us identify benchmark programs in the educational and private sectors.

We will form a network of all the Delaware school districts that wish to engage in developing leadership succession plans. We will provide approximately $10,000 for each district to (1) develop a program, (2) implement the program, and (3) craft the policies and administrative regulations at the district level to shape and direct the implementation of the leadership succession program.

To support the work of network members over the life of this SAELP II initiative during which plans are created and cemented into the district policy structure, we will create a dedicated website. We will also develop a Succession Planning Advisory Task Force that is composed of a representative from each district team, SAELP consortium members, and key leaders from the business sector. The advisory group will meet once a month to plan professional development needs, share successes or concerns, and provide guidance to the districts. We will also convene district teams twice a year during the life of the grant to work on collaborative construction of succession plans and district policies. Our goal here is to have the districts learn from each other. At the same time, we will continue to make available examples of quality initiatives elsewhere--from districts in other states and from the corporate sector both in Delaware and throughout the nation. We will tap the resources of the National Consortium in locating the benchmark programs.

The SAELP II Consortium will play three key roles in the work. First, the team will be the convener of the 19 districts and the shaper, along with districts themselves, of the work agenda. Second, the Consortium will be the conduit of the work of the districts to the policy structure at the state level (the ride up the strategic through-line). Finally, the Consortium will be a direct provider of services on two fronts.

To begin with, we will forge a leader development system for existing principals who will serve as mentors to prospective administrators in the leadership succession plan programs. To ensure the longevity of the mentor training, we will establish a 2 percent salary cluster at the level of state policy. While Wallace funds will be used to develop the training, state funds will be employed in the on-going delivery of the leadership development. Through the framework of the Delaware Principals' Academy and the university-based preparation programs in the state, we will create linkages between the district-based, succession-focused learning experiences and administrative licensure. Specifically, we will work with universities to develop a six hour "internship" which all participants in the succession plans will complete. This internship will form part of the degree structure for those participants who elect to complete coursework for licensure. At the state policy level, we will work with professional and governmental members of SAELP II to enact policy to provide free tuition or for all minority candidates in district leadership succession programs who pursue the coursework for administrative licensure.

As was the case with the earlier breakthrough idea on distributive leadership, we believe that we gain considerable leverage on the impact and sustainability issues through (1) our use of a district-focused model, that is by working with all the willing participant districts in the state, (2) the development of a broad support framework at both the district and state policy levels, and (3) by using Wallace funds not to provide core operational support but as a resource in the development phase of work, with state and district funds being employed for delivery--district and state funds that will remain after the grant monies have been exhausted. On the policy issue, for example, we spotlight the importance of measurable results and sustainability by consciously identifying and emphasizing the changes in the structure of district policies and administrative regulations to lock succession planning initiatives into place. We also capture a series of changes in state policy (e.g. tuition forgiveness for minority candidates, cluster funds for leader development) that help ensure the long term viability of the succession planning work.

At the end of year one, each participating district will have developed a quality leadership succession plan, including needed changes in district policies and administrative regulations.

At the end of year three, the first cohort of carefully selected participants will have completed their programs. We anticipate a total state cohort of about 100 at the end of year three.

At the end of year five, we will see about 200 additional leaders in the pool from which school administrators could be selected--a total pool after year five that will be roughly half the size of the total of all school administrative positions in the state. One quarter of this pool of 300 will be educators of color. SAELP II will also have created approximately 150 mentors from the existing cadre of school administrators (2 per district in each year 2 through 5). Since the foundation for this training will be hardwired into both district and state policy and delivered through the existing resourced state program structure, we expect these benefits to flow for considerable time into the future.

Delaware's State Action for Education Leadership Consortium consists of partners representing a variety of stakeholder groups intimately engaged and supportive of statewide accountability initiatives. The group has been dedicated to attending meetings and participating in the array of task forces and conversations that have led to the accomplishment of the SAELP I goals.

There have been key members of the Consortium who have taken leadership roles in pushing the agenda and assisting the project director with planning and facilitating the variety of activities that have taken place over the past three years. Identified in the table below (in alphabetical order) are the members who have been involved with the project and continue to provide support for SAELP II.

Bolded are those members who are considered to be directly engaged in the work of the project and will continue to serve in leadership positions of the SAELP II Team. An asterisk (*) identifies those key members who will be responsible for the Wallace SAELP II Project. Biographies are included in this document.