Program evaluation regarding the
effectiveness of curriculum and field activities in meeting the
needs of their respective school districts is being conducted
through surveys completed by program participants, mentors and/or
clinical supervisors, and university faculty. Over time, school
leadership success factors (e.g., professional development
opportunities, student discipline, and teacher satisfaction) that
are not measured by traditional accountability reports, notably
standardized test scores, are examined to determine the
longitudinal impact of the school leadership preparation program
and its prospective leaders. For each field-based project completed
and implemented by candidates, a self-developed survey is
distributed to stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents, students [as
appropriate], administrators) to determine their level of
satisfaction with the overall performance of the candidates during
that seminar. Additionally, follow-up surveys are distributed to
school and district administrators to determine their perceptions
of the preparedness and effectiveness of program participants
involved in field experiences and internships at their respective
sites.
Each candidate is surveyed at the end of
Seminars II and V to determine individual levels of satisfaction
with the program and the quality of instruction. These evaluations
are used to provide the data necessary to monitor, evaluate, and
modify the program as needed. The data are collected through the
PASS-PORT electronic assessment system. Other data, such as student
opinions of teaching and exit surveys are used to provide
additional information regarding the quality of the program.
Analysis of the results is conducted by the
university staff and members of the advisory council, who then
carry on the processes of program evaluation, formal discussion and
dialogue, and collaborative decision making before making
recommendations for program improvement. Approved changes are then
systematically studied to measure their effects on the program and,
consequently, on the leaders being produced by this program.
Results from Surveys and Assessments
The first two cohorts completed surveys, some
individually and some in focus groups. Mentors and field site
school principals completed an open-ended evaluation of the
program. Superintendents wrote letters of opinion. Professors
completed an electronic evaluation.
Cohort Surveys and Assessments
When asked if the first 6 hours met their
expectations, students asked for more field experiences and less
lecture (face-to-face) time, additional assessment during the
semester, and extra field time with their mentors. They felt a lack
of district and school recognition, support, and approval. Some
felt afraid to talk to their site principal, even when they had a
school leader mentor from another site. Some reported that other
teachers who had completed another graduate program complained
about the attention and release time for cohort members. They
reported the need for more communication with mentors and release
time for field experience. The artifacts generated by each student
in their electronic portfolios have been, on the whole, judged to
be of high quality. (See Appendix D.)
Evaluations from Mentors and Field Site
School Principals
When asked about their impression of the
program, school leaders notedthat they really appreciated the
attention and skill development for aspiring school leaders and
wished that their preparation program had been this intense. They
expressed a concern for time spent away from the classroom to
conduct field experience. A need for a thorough mentor preparation
workshop was noted. Several respondents expressed appreciation for
the advanced learning they received as a result of site visits by
the university mentor: as in, “You have made me think of my school
and student achievement in new ways I never thought of before. I
have learned so much from this experience.” One principal took the
opposite point of view by criticizing the program when he said, “I
will encourage any of my teachers who want to get a master of
education degree in school leadership to go to Mississippi. They
don’t have this crazy program there. Teachers should be able to get
a degree without all of this interference from the university. I
don’t have time to deal with this.” Clarify what this quote
means
Letters from Superintendents
Superintendents expressed concerns of
sustainability and wondered if their district could continue the
leadership program if funds were reduced. Others did not want their
teachers out of the classroom and thus were opposed to release
time. Some expressed concern about nominating teachers for the
leadership program, resulting in perceived favoritism and
complaints. One superintendent said, “I am proceeding with caution
about this different way of preparing school leaders. I need to
know more.” She continued to explain that she had not been active
in the design of the program, and had sent a representative in her
place. Now, during implementation, she felt like she needed to be
more involved in the decision making process.
Survey of Professor Views
Some professors believed that the new program
could make a real impact on PK-12 student achievement and school
leadership. A few felt that the most of the workload for design and
implementation was being placed on junior faculty, without
compensation for tenure and promotion. Other professors were very
concerned about the amount of field work and didn’t know how they
were going to have time to travel to districts. These professors
were concerned about their subject area being covered thoroughly
due to the lack of real lecture time. Lecturing about subjects such
as law, finance, history of education, and other subjects were a
very important missing ingredient of the new program. Since the
content and method of delivery of many parts of the program had
been mandated through the process of state approval and strict
curriculum alignment to standards, some professors believed that
their academic freedom had been curtailed. Still, others believed
that their academic freedoms had been breeched due to the.
Reality Check: Lessons Learned and Challenges
Faced
Change is difficult, especially in the
implementation stages. Even though partnerships were formed to
create shared and distributed leadership for the development of the
new preparation and development program, at this time some
resistance to change is being experienced. Perhaps those who chose
not to be involved in the design process may become involved now as
the program is modified as an outcome of the program
evaluations.
Not surprisingly, this new process of
preparing school leaders through field experience was a major
paradigm shift for area school leaders, especially superintendents.
Assurances that this was a partnership and paradigm shift were
difficult to accept by many area leaders. In addition, school
district leaders were reluctant to nominate exemplary teachers for
the program fearing accusations of favoritism from teachers. The
shift to the new paradigm at the university level was met with the
challenge to include more people in the process.
Field experiences are a challenge to manage.
Some clinical supervisors and mentors have to experience additional
professional development in order to provide appropriate guidance
to candidates. During the implementation of the program, the
university initially struggled with providing appropriate training
of mentors as well as university staff. With training and
additional support from SREB programs, such as the Training Mentors
for School Improvement module, this process was better
facilitated.
Future plans include addressing the
challenges of diversity and social justice, moving away from the
status quo, and finding new solutions to unanticipated problems.
Murphy (1992) has stated that school leaders were often former
teachers residing within a 25 to 50 mile radius of the school they
now lead. Additionally, most schools seem to promote from within
with little regard to skill. If a broader pool of leaders could be
tapped, the educational and skill level may increase. It is hoped
that a more national and global leadership community may be
developed using the technology of distance learning and capstone
experiences. In this way, professors, administrators, and
administrative candidates could share and benefit from appropriate
field experiences and unfamiliar perspectives in their region or
state.
The authors believe that the new program of
leadership development and preparation will be successful, even
though the program is in its infancy. However, according to a study
conducted by Davis (2005), leadership programs that were
concept-driven, cohort-based, and field-based scored higher on the
School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA), received higher
performance ratings by supervisors, and were perceived by teachers
as being more effective. It is hoped that this new leadership
program will train new leaders to make a notable difference in
school improvement and student achievement in Southeastern
Louisiana University’s service area.
Conclusion
The recent focus on the importance of school
leadership and its effects on school improvement has put school
leader preparation programs under scrutiny and prompted them to
redesign. Even though new research is being conducted, the task of
preparing educational administrators has suffered from a lack of
clarity and paucity of systematic scholarly inquiry. This
examination of Southeastern Louisiana University’ new program
contributes to the knowledge base for school leadership preparation
because it is a leader in the arena of state, university, and
school district(s) collaboration to educate all students
effectively and equitably.
A deeper understanding about the impact of
school leadership as a means for promoting social justice and
democracy especially in the Deep South are needed. The ongoing
outcomes of Southeastern Louisiana University’s school leader
preparation program may provide better understandings of how to
integrate powerful transformative and instructional learning
experiences into preparation program design, content, and field
experience to develop leadership capacity. There is much to be
learned as these new leadership preparation programs unfold
throughout the nation. It is hoped that an ever-evolving research
base will help all institutions of school leadership preparation
and professional development to learn from each other.
References
Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (April, 2001).
Preparing a new breed of principals: It’s time for action. Atlanta,
GA: Southern Regional Education Board. (01V17) Monograph retrieved
April 2, 2006 from
http://www.sreb.org/main/Leadership/pubs/01V17_Time_for_Action.pdf.
Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2004). Principals
excellence program: Developing effective school leaders through
unique university-district partnership. NCPEA Education Leadership
Review, 5 (2), 24-36.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M.,
& Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing
successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute in conjunction with the finance project
commissioned by the Wallace Foundation.
Fry, B., O’Neill, K. & Bottoms, G.
(2006). Schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of university
principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional
Education Board.
Grogan, M. & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining
preparation and professional development for the future.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233-256.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational
change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3),
329-351.
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, P. M. (2005,
Summer). The accidental principal. Education Next. (No.3). Hoover
Institution, Leland Stanford Junior University. Retrieved May 17,
2006, from http://www.educationnext.org/20053/34.html
Hill-Winstead, M. F. & Stader, D. (2004,
April). Responding to the challenge of reforming leadership
preparation programs: A standards based preparation pyramid. Paper
presented at American Educational Research Association, San Diego,
CA.
King, D. (2002). The changing shape of
leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 61-63.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared
leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership
(Rev. ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Center for Research
in Human Development and Education, Laboratory for Student Success.
Retrieved April 18, 2006, from
www.temple.edu/lss/pdf/Leithwood.pdf.
Levine, A. (March, 2005). Educating school
leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.
¹Louisiana Educational Leaders Network.
(2005) Educational Leadership Certification Structure. Retrieved
May 24, 2006 from
http://www.leadlouisiana.net/site100-01/1001669/docs/ed_leadership_certification_structure.pdf.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003).
Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of
transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Mazzeo, C. (September 12, 2003). Issue brief
of the Educational Policy Studies Division, National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices. Washington, DC: Wallace
Foundation, National Governors’ Association.
Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of principal
preparation: Reframing the education of school administrators.
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Portin, B. S., Knapp, M., Murphy, J., &
Beck, L. (2003). Self-reflective renewal in schools. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship:
A reflective practice perspective. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Southworth, G. & Doughty, J. (2006). A
fine British blend. Educational Leadership, 63(8), 51. Stader, D.
(April, 2003). A framework for reflection and clarifying
dispositions. Paper presented at the Louisiana Association of
Professors of Educational Administration. Southeastern Louisiana
University, Hammond, Louisiana.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002, January
8). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty,
B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What thirty years of research
tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Retrieved April 2, 2006, from
www.mcrel.org/topics/productDetail.asp?topicsID=7&productID=144.
West, R. F. (November 7, 2003). Integrating
the SREB modules into the principal preparation program at East
Tennessee State University: A progress report. Paper prepared for
the
University Continuing Education
AssociationConvention, Learning for Leadership and
Leadership for Learning. Portland, OR.
Appendix A
Beginning Principals
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW
It may have seemed like you were “thrown to
the wolves” when you became principals. Tell us what we need to
teach new and aspiring principals.
- What did you need to be successful?
- What content in college classes did you need to use?
- How should we address this content?
- What types of field activities do candidates need?
- How can we best prepare candidates to pass the licensure
test?
- What type of support do you need from the university?
Appendix B
Survey of Region 2 Superintendents and
Administrators in Louisiana
The task before us: A RIGOROUS SELECTION
SYSTEM
A rigorous system that chooses only the best
candidates for principal preparation will encourage more talented
educators to seek out leadership programs, National Governors
Association. How can universities and school systems work together
to “tap” or select the right individuals for leadership
preparation? Here are some ideas gathered from brainstorming
sessions at the SREB Leadership Initiative summer
conference.
Please check the ideas that you will support
for recruitment and selection in your district.
WHAT SHOULD WE CONSIDER?
_ Demonstrates success in raising achievement
for all students
_ Shows leadership in coaching other teachers
to raise student achievement
_ Recommended by high-performing
principals
_ Implemented innovative learning strategies
in their classrooms
_ Challenges all students through rigorous,
standards-based teaching
_ Integrates technology into daily
teaching
_ Good communications, human relations and
organizational skills
_ Ability to motivate
_ National Board certified
_ won awards and recognition
_ earned a master’s degree in a content
area
_ Active in professional organizations
_ Provide professional development for other
teachers
_ Worked collaboratively on teaching/learning
issues
_ Written successful grant proposals focused
on student achievement
_ Works successfully on teaching teams
_ Can analyze research and apply it to
practice
_ Uses student data and work samples to make
instructional decisions
_ Shows leadership in the larger
community
_ Articulates and implement a vision
_ Committed to continuous improvement
HOW SHOULD WE SCREEN POTENTIAL
CANDIDATES?
_ Joint screening by university and school
system leaders
_ Nomination by principals, peers and
parents
_ Assessment tools like Myers-Briggs,
leadership style inventories, 360-degree competency-based
instruments
_ Self-assessment
_ Portfolios documenting teaching and
leadership skills
_ Screening protocols based on the SREB
leadership success factors
_ Direct interviews and conversations with
peers
_ Observations and videos of classroom and
peer teaching
_ Simulations and role plays
_ Biographical sketches
_ Demonstration of effective oral and written
communications skills
_ Candidate analysis of case studies
_ Willingness to work in high-need
schools
_ Mini-courses that expose potential
candidates to the challenges of leadership
_ “Gateway” internships to gauge leadership
potential
_ List other ideas
