When the schools chancellor, Joel Klein, created the Leadership Academy, he said it would ensure that public schools were stocked with “excellent principals” who would give New York City children the top-notch education they deserve.

According to the first round of test scores released this year, however, the new principals trained at the Leadership Academy achieved only average results. Overall, their schools had higher fourth-grade scores and lower eighth-grade scores – as did schools run by principals not trained at the Leadership Academy.

Citywide, eighth-graders’ scores on the state’s English Language Arts exam dipped 2.8 percentage points to 32.8% meeting or exceeding standards, from 35.6% in the 2003-04 school year. At middle schools that were run by Leadership Academy-trained principals from September through February, when the English exam was administered, eighth-graders’ scores dropped by even more, 4.8 percentage points, falling to 25.8% meeting or exceeding standards from 30.6%.

The test scores of students in the Leadership Academy alumni’s elementary schools proved to be better. Citywide, in results announced proudly by Mayor Bloomberg last week, the percentage of fourth-graders passing the statewide English Language Arts exam jumped by 9.9 points, to 59.5% from 49.6%. At schools run by Leadership Academy-trained principals, fourth-graders’ scores jumped by 10.6 percentage points, to 46.8% from 36.2%.

The figures do not include schools taken over by Leadership Academy principals mid-year, or schools in their first year of operation. Subtracting the Leadership Academy principals who were placed at high schools, new schools, and the central offices of the Department of Education left a sample of 18 elementary-school principals and 16 middle-school principals. Results from other schools with rookie principals were not available for comparison purposes late last week.

Chancellor Klein, who created the Leadership Academy and serves as chairman of its board of directors, said he was pleased with the initial results.

“Looking at them as a cohort, I think the elementary-school principals had a good first year and I’m pleased by their performance. The middle-school principals had a greater challenge and are going to take more time,” he said in a telephone interview. “At the end of the school year, I will look carefully at all of their scores – city and state ELA and math – and see a much broader picture, and for those who are not performing where I would expect, not getting significant gains, I will make an individualized assessment of why.”

Mr. Klein said it would probably take three to five years to be able to judge the principals.

Union officials and politicians who were interviewed for this article also said it was too soon to make judgments about the Leadership Academy and the principals trained there. Most said, however, that it was clear the specially trained principals did not exactly sprint out of the starting gate – something to keep in mind, especially since it costs roughly $300,000 to educate each principal at the academy.

“The cost question is a very legitimate question, it seems to me,” City Council member Eva Moskowitz said. “If it’s very expensive, that is one cause for concern. If it’s very expensive and very good, that might be worth it. It’s a little hard to tell in this short period of time what the retention rates will be and what the performance of the schools will be. So we’re going to have to wait for more information.”

A Democratic mayoral candidate, Rep. Anthony Weiner of Queens, who has vocally questioned the role and expense of the Leadership Academy, said: “Time will tell whether or not the Leadership Academy principals are very good. But one thing I can tell you is they’re very expensive, and up to now we have not seen results that are commensurate with the large amount of money that we’re spending.”

He added: “When you install a principal that costs $300,000 to train, it’s reasonable for us to expect gangbuster results, considering the explosive spending. Maybe it’s not fair to assess this based on one test, but that is what the mayor asked us to do.”

A member of the state Board of Regents from Manhattan, Merryl Tisch, suggested waiting for additional data. “A lot of these newly minted principals went into start-up schools or schools that were involved in turnarounds,” she said. “It wouldn’t be surprising that their fourth- and eighth-grade tests were not at the tippy-top. As they gain traction professionally, they’ll do well. … It takes time to become a seasoned academic leader.” She, too, said the principals should be judged in three to five years.

The president of the principals union, Jill Levy, who has questioned whether the training at the Leadership Academy prepares people to lead schools, said some principals trained at the Leadership Academy would inevitably succeed while others would fail. She also suggested that in three to five years the principals’ performance should be assessed and compared to the results in schools led by principals prepared in other programs.

“These scores are not indicative at this time about the quality of their leadership. Scores are also related to the teachers that are there,” Ms. Levy said. “These people inherited schools.”

The president of the teachers union, Randi Weingarten, who has said the union received “tons” of complaints about the attitudes and leadership styles of principals trained at the academy, likewise said the principals shouldn’t be judged on their first year. She also said rookie teachers should get some extra leeway.

“I have a whole bunch of new teachers this year who were severed for service for some rookie mistakes that never should have happened,” she said. “I would hope they would give teachers the same kind of allegiance they give these principals. All too often they come out swinging against teachers who make rookie mistakes.”

The chancellor said there’s no evidence that his administration is more tolerant of rookie principals than rookie teachers.

Despite average results in the Leadership Academy graduates’ first years, some of the main financial backers of the academy said it – and their support of it – is important. They also questioned the idea of assessing the principals’ performance so soon in their tenure.

The director of education at the Wallace Foundation, Richard Laine, said effective school leadership is a crucial ingredient in improving student learning. He said the Wallace Foundation, which is one of the academy’s main financial backers, has supported a broad range of leadership improvement strategies in New York City for four years.

“Our support of the academy is aimed at preparing principals for the city’s highest-needs schools through an intensive, simulation-based approach, a year-long internship with experienced principals, and ongoing mentoring,” he said. “At least three other cities are adopting this model, and we think it holds great promise – but, of course, it’s early to make a full assessment.”

The president of the Partnership for New York City, Kathryn Wylde, who has helped raise private money to finance the academy, said it’s impossible to judge the principals at this point – particularly because of the conditions in the school system.

“They can’t be judged in the context of a system where the hands of principals are tied to a large extent,” she said. “Hopefully, over the next couple of years we’ll see the school system adjust a number of key areas, including incentive pay to attract teachers to the most difficult schools. … Absent those changes, we’ve made clear that you’re putting somebody who’s trained in the Leadership Academy into an environment that has a lot of negative forces. It’s very difficult for them.”