Improving Educational Leadership Preparation Programs in Missouri:

Sustainability of Educational Reform Efforts through Collaboration

Jennifer Friend

University of Missouri-Kansas City

Robert Watson

Missouri State University

Jerry L. Waddle

Southeast Missouri State University

Presented at the Annual Convention of the University Council of Educational Administration

Session 15.10: Looking in the Mirror to Improve Practice:

Discussing Statewide Leadership Preparation Studies

San Antonio, Texas

November 11, 2006

Abstract

Missouri has 17 higher education institutions that offer preparatory programs for school principals and school district superintendents. Representatives from each institution have been meeting on a monthly basis as the Higher Education Evaluation Committee (HEEC) since July 2005 to collaborate to gather and analyze data used to evaluate and improve preparatory programs. HEEC’s goal is to positively impact student performance in K-12 schools through the inspiration and development of highly effective school and district leaders. In January 2006, data were collected from each institution to document program delivery, admission standards, full-time and adjunct faculty demographics, and internship requirements. These data were aggregated, and in the context of current research in the field, data were used to inform dialogue regarding recommendations presented to the State Board of Education for program improvement. This paper presents the initial results of this effort, in addition to a description of other statewide initiatives by the Missouri Professors of Educational Administration (MPEA) to improve preparatory programs for educational leaders.

Improving Educational Leadership Preparation Programs in Missouri:

Sustainability of Educational Reform Efforts through Collaboration

Ever hear of “Larry Lawnchair”? This was the 1982 story of a California man who tied 45 helium balloons to his lawn furniture and rose to an altitude of 16,000 feet. The innovation inspired the sport of “cluster ballooning,” where a person attaches helium balloons to a harness in order to rise as high as 20,000 feet into the frigid air, then pops the balloons to descend back to earth (Lovgren, 2004). This story is a metaphor for educational reform. Researchers, policy makers, and practitioners are constantly seeking innovative ways to achieve “lift-off” for their efforts to improve student performance and close the achievement gap. If the desired result is to achieve and maintain the “altitude” for optimal student performance, then the long descent to the ground and awkward or painful landings contribute to low efficacy and negative perceptions of the field of education.

Maintaining altitude involves a number of “helium balloons” that represent stakeholders and initiatives working to improve the educational process. With the publication of two national studies questioning the effectiveness of leadership preparation programs (Hess & Kelly, 2005; Levine, 2005), the demand for reform in higher education has resulted in “lawnchair lift-off” for innovations across the United States. Guidance for improving program effectiveness may be accessed through leadership standards created by state policy makers and national coalitions, such as the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). Requirements from accreditation agencies at the state level and through the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) also inform program development and implementation for participating universities.

As many educational leadership programs are being revised, new programs, including alternative certification routes for principals, are appearing across the nation. The U.S. Department of Education (2005) published a case study of six innovative programs, identifying effective program components such as: (a) beginning and operating the program guided by a distinct vision of effective school leaders, (b) exacting criteria for selecting and recruiting candidates, (c) a rigorous curriculum, (d) field-based experiences with project-based learning, and (e) an accelerated timeline for program completion (p. 9, 12). Teitel (2006) described alternative processes for recruiting future school leaders as including “members of traditionally underrepresented groups, such as women and people of color, as well as proven leaders from other sectors” (p. 501). Teitel also stated the need for connections between the courses that students are required to complete and the field experiences in which they are engaged.

In Missouri, the goal of positively impacting K-12 student performance by improving the preparation of school and district leaders has resulted in a statewide collaborative effort to facilitate a Higher Education Evaluation Committee chaired by representatives from the Missouri Professors of Educational Administration (MPEA). Additional statewide initiatives mobilized by the MPEA include a mentoring program for new building administrators and district superintendents, and a backward mapping project intended to inform improvement of preparatory programs for educational leaders. In an article describing changes in university educational administration programs, Orr (2006) stated that, “Collaboration seems to have been an important catalyst for schools of education and their programs” (p. 499). The Missouri model for reform utilizes such collaboration among stakeholders to promote programs that strive to achieve and maintain the best “altitude” for educational leadership programs that graduate principals and superintendents who positively impact student performance in K-12 schools.

This paper examines Missouri’s collaborative efforts to achieve “lift-off” for several initiatives to improve educational administration preparation programs and the induction of new school and district leaders. Reform endeavors include the participation of all 17 higher education institutions that offer leadership preparation programs, the Missouri Department of Education, the Wallace Foundation, Dr. Orr’s national research on the impact of preparation programs, and the participation of practicing school and district leaders. The “balloons” designed to carry this “lawnchair” that will be described in this paper include: (a) monthly meetings of the Higher Education Evaluation Committee, (b) implementation of a statewide graduate follow-up survey, (c) interviews with school leaders through the Backward Mapping Project, and (d) support for new building and district leaders through the Missouri Administrator Mentoring Program.

Missouri Higher Education Evaluation Committee

Background

The MPEA initiated the Higher Education Evaluation Committee (HEEC) as a result of a symposium conducted by Dr. Margaret Terry Orr in Columbia, Missouri, on February 25, 2005, which inspired examination of the effectiveness of leadership preparation programs in the state. Some of the “balloons” for this effort include the collaboration of representatives from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and the Leadership Academy, professional organizations and foundations, and representatives from each of the 17 Missouri higher education institutions with educational leadership preparation programs. The HEEC meets on a monthly basis, and reports periodically to the State Commissioner of Education and the Missouri Board of Education.

The HEEC has moved into its second year, and is maintaining “altitude” through the ongoing participation of its membership. There is great diversity within the group, with private and state institutions, regional state supported institutions, research institutions, teaching institutions, and institutions that rely on regional adjunct instructors for program delivery. The withdrawal of any contributor to this initiative would be like “popping” one of the balloons keeping this lawnchair in the atmosphere, and would result in a loss of altitude. Recently, the costs associated with the HEEC’s goal to implement a statewide graduate follow-up survey increased, and the Leadership Academy responded by supporting the change with a budget adjustment for this endeavor.

Kottkamp and Orr (2003) stated the need to combat “deep and increasing skepticism that graduate leadership preparation programs could meet the challenge to prepare effective leaders” through comparative analysis and evaluation of programs, and connecting leaders’ preparation to effective practices (p. 1). The HEEC has developed and implemented a methodology for evaluation of Missouri’s educational leadership programs that is designed to examine the outcomes of different approaches to program design, program delivery, the impact on graduates, and the graduates’ leadership practices relative to K-12 student achievement and school improvement.

Year One Accomplishments

The HEEC achieved “lift-off” in the Fall of 2005 with an analysis of the syllabi for core courses in school leadership programs (such as the internship) and an analysis of the follow-up graduate surveys used by each of the 17 institutions in Missouri. Early collaborative work among the higher education institutions, many which vie with one another for students, was tinged with an element of competition. HEEC members understood the importance of the roles that graduates would fill as practitioners; therefore a lot of “hot air” was bypassed in favor of “helium” to achieve desired results. The power dynamic changed as time passed, transforming competitors into collaborators through the development of a common goal which united the participants to approach program improvement statewide in order to inspire and develop highly effective school leaders who have a positive impact on K-12 student performance in Missouri.

Monthly meetings took place in a central location in the state for approximately four hours in length. A typical session involved each institution’s representative bringing copies of program artifacts for the group, then a comparative analysis to find the range of particular elements (such as the number of internship hours required of candidates). This work led to a greater understanding of the different programs across the state, and to identification of common elements found at each institution.

By the end of 2005, the HEEC had divided into four subcommittees for the purpose of gathering data from each of the 17 institutions for (a) documenting program delivery, (b) documenting and analyzing primary program assessments, (c) documenting faculty demographics, and (d) documenting expectations for internship experiences. A survey was developed which included the aforementioned areas, in addition to admission standards by degree (MA, Ed.S, Ed.D), and ISLLC standards and rubrics. Data included detailed student and faculty demographic information from 2000-01 through 2004-05, and a number of “Yes/No” responses related to program components. The survey was completed by 14 out of 17 institutions in February 2006, and a research assistant compiled the raw data into a report over 40 pages in length. The analysis of this data yielded the creation of specific goals and new subcommittees for the 2006-07 monthly meetings.

A final accomplishment of the HEEC included collaboration to plan the MPEA Annual Spring Conference in April 2006. This event, held at Lincoln University in Jefferson City, Missouri, included sharing of educational administration program improvement initiatives, in addition to a graduate student poster session with original action research projects related to school and district leadership. The culminating activity for the conference was a Town Hall Meeting facilitated by The New York Times correspondent Alan Finder on the topic of “qualified” and “certified” school leaders. The Forum was attended by a wide variety of educational stakeholders, and panel members included the Missouri Commissioner of Education, the Superintendent of St. Louis Public Schools, the Executive Director of the University Council for Educational Administration, and the President of MPEA.

Goals for 2006-07

During the September 2006 meeting, subcommittees were formed based on the goals identified by HEEC members. Representatives from the different higher education institutions volunteered to collaborate in pairs on further analysis of available data to create presentations at the monthly meetings in the following areas:

The HEEC members also stated a desire for ongoing updates with regard to the revision of the ISLLC Standards, an initiative of the National Policy Board for Educational Administration.

Two professional development offerings took place in October 2006. The first was facilitated by Honor Fede, a representative of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). This presentation focused on the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) Standards for school and district leaders, and NCATE assessment processes for candidates’ knowledge, skills, and student learning. The second offering focused on the Connexions Project, providing an active learning experience with new technology to support instruction. “Connexions is a rapidly growing collection of free scholarly materials and a powerful set of free software tools to help: (a) authors publish and collaborate, (b) instructors rapidly build and share custom courses, and (c) learners explore the links among concepts, courses, and disciplines” (Connexions, 2006, p.1).

The goal to increase participation of students of color in educational administration programs, and to increase the number of faculty of color was identified after analysis of data demonstrated that faculty and school leaders in Missouri were predominantly White. Investigation in this area included review of recent scholarly publications that have addressed unique issues that people of color face in school leadership (Brown, 2005; Rusch, 2004). The HEEC goal was further explored during the MPEA Fall conference in October 2006, with keynote speaker Dr. Juan Carlos Gonzalez. Conference attendees received statistical information and qualitative findings based on research studies and surveys conducted in U.S. higher education institutions. Strategies related to the recruitment, interviewing, induction, and retention of faculty of color were shared, and a follow-up presentation by HEEC subcommittee members is planned for November 2006. The remaining goals for the 2006-07 HEEC meetings will be investigated during the monthly meetings, with presentations from each pairing of institutions’ representatives relative to their topics.

Statewide Graduate Follow-up Survey

Dialogue continued throughout the HEEC meetings to determine an appropriate common follow-up survey for educational administration graduates from Missouri institutions. The University Council on Educational Administration and the Teaching in Education Administration-SIG of AERA (UCEA-TEA) Survey of Leadership Preparation and Practice was identified as a potential instrument for statewide implementation. Dr. Orr gave a presentation at the December 2005 HEEC meeting to share preliminary findings of the multi-institutional follow-up study and considerations for usage of the survey for Missouri institutions.

Positive factors for the UCEA-TEA survey included direct correlation to NCATE standards, online availability of the instrument, and access to a national data set for comparative analysis of state average and individual institution results. Questions arose about the logistics of the survey, such as whether each institution could personalize the on-line survey and add questions at the beginning or end of the instrument. The methodology was developed to enable each institution to manage survey implementation and access to results (individual institution, state average, and national results). In May 2006 the HEEC members made the decision to approve use of the UCEA-TEA survey for the common follow-up instrument for Missouri educational administration graduates.

The September 2006 HEEC meeting included a focus on the steps for implementation of the UCEA-TEA survey that each Missouri institution must complete in order to begin use of the instrument in December 2006:

The HEEC agreed upon Year 3 as the common year for data collection. To begin the survey in December 2006, institutions must at least include all graduates from educational administration degree programs during the 2003 calendar year. This will be the aggregate data used to create a statewide average for survey responses.

The funding for this initiative is provided by the Missouri Education Department’s Leadership Academy, which will sponsor the “Hosted Survey” charges and associated data analysis costs. The results of the UCEA-TEA survey will provide data for the HEEC to examine the impact of leadership preparation on practices of school principals. Some of the elements of the graduate follow-up survey include: (a) program attributes and instructional quality, (b) internship attributes, (c) leadership learning and practice, and (d) organizational changes and school outcomes.

Backward Mapping Project

Background

The MPEA sponsors another project that began prior to the formation of the HEEC that continues to examine educational administration preparation program effectiveness through interview responses from practicing school leaders. This initiative represents another set of “balloons” that contribute to improvement of leadership programs. Currently the project has three years of data collected to support findings and recommendations to Missouri’s colleges and universities regarding educational administration preparation.

Participants selected to participate in the study full-time were building level administrators in the state of Missouri. The school leaders were selected based on assessment data obtained from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education as it related to the identification of high performing schools. Every effort was made to include a cross section of schools based on: (a) location, (b) rural, suburban, and urban settings, (c) grade configuration, and (d) size of the school. A purposive sample of principals was developed to include gender balance whenever possible. Twenty-seven principals were selected based on the criteria. Of the 27 selected, 17 participated in the study. The participants were 65 percent male and 35 percent female.

Prior to conducting the face-to-face interviews, each principal was contacted by phone to schedule a time that would best meet her/his needs. Questions and release forms were sent via email to each principal before the face-to-face interview. Release forms were collected before any interview was conducted. Members of the Missouri Professors of Educational Administration (MPEA) volunteered to conduct the interviews. The interview consisted of 18 open-ended questions asking the participants to respond to how they lead their schools, engage their staff members, as well as courses and/or activities in their preparation programs that prepared them for the task of being successful principals. The areas covered included vision, culture, management, collaboration, ethics, and political, social, economic and legal aspects of the school. Participants also were asked to describe the state of their current schools when they first arrived, changes they implemented, and lastly the most important responsibilities of principals and the greatest obstacles faced as administrators.

Responses to questions were analyzed according to common themes that included administrators’ views of current leadership practices that were connected back to coursework or activities in their preparation programs at Missouri institutions. Topics for the interviews were aligned to the ISLLC standards, including practices and preparation for:

Principals were also prompted to describe changes that they have implemented in their schools, to identify the top five most important areas of responsibility in their work, and to specify the greatest obstacles that they face as school administrators.

Conclusions

The data collected affirms the metaphor for collaboration to achieve “lift-off” of effective practices. Results indicate that successful principals must communicate with their stakeholders, involve people and set high expectations for students and staff, and lead by example. The findings support the literature in that effective principals are good communicators, visionary, ethical, use data, build relationships, and impact the school culture. Effective communications or being a good communicator is embedded in several aspects of leadership, according to the principals in this study, and would seem to be essential in the preparation of future leaders. Examination of coursework, curriculum, and field experiences to ensure the knowledge, dispositions, and performance of effective communication was articulated as part of successful preparation programs.

Effective principals indicated that they follow-through on the need for good communication when working with their staff members. Responses such as building relationships, communication and teaming were noted when asked to respond to how the staff is engaged. Successful principals also indicated the importance of communication in the preparation programs, whether it is through collaborative learning or communication with other school stakeholders. The need for a strong school law class was also evident in the responses of the participants. Additionally the participants indicated a gap in the preparation programs with regard to responding to the diverse needs of the community, and to some extent in the area of ethical leadership.

Future Actions

The MPEA reviewed the Backward Mapping Project data during the Spring 2006 Conference at Lincoln University. The 17 educational administration degree granting institutions will reconvene during the Fall 2006 Conference to evaluate current program delivery methods, curriculum, and instruction utilizing the responses from the identified successful principals. The purpose of the discussion will be to identify strengths and areas for improvement, and to share ideas to meet the needs of future school leaders in Missouri. The principals that participated in the research will be invited to participate in the discussion and offer suggestions for program improvement based on their experiences and from the perspectives of successful practicing administrators. With approved funding from the Missouri Leadership Academy and the State Action for Educational Leadership Programs, MPEA will expand the number of participants and continue to collect data from successful practicing administrators in an effort to continuously improve educational leadership programs across the state of Missouri.

Missouri Administrator Mentoring Program

During the 2005-06 academic year, the Missouri Department of Education initiated a new policy requiring beginning school administrators to engage in two years of mentoring support, and for beginning district superintendents to engage in one year of mentoring. The Missouri Administrator Mentoring Program (AMP) is another example of a collaborative initiative intended to contribute to successful “lift-off.” The program is sponsored by: (a) the Missouri Partnership for Mentoring School Leaders (MPMSL), (b) Missouri Professors of Educational Administration (MPEA), (c) Wallace Foundation, and (d) state professional organizations (Elementary and Secondary Principals, Superintendents, Career and Special Education Leaders).

The MPEA is a driving force for this program, along with the Regional Professional Development Centers (RPDC). Mentors are invited and trained to become mentors to the new school leaders. Selection of the mentor is developed via a committee process that includes recommendations from principals, career education, and special education directors located within the nine RPDC districts within the state. The final match is made by the district superintendent with input from the new school leader. The mentor and new school leaders are required to maintain four logs during each year of the two year process. The logs are handled by the AMP director who maintains the records of the mentoring experience. The logs along with focus group meetings are required and part of the mentoring process. Each log is to represent approximately six hours of mentoring each quarter. Those experiences can be face to face with their mentors, professional development activities at the local or state level, national conventions, reflective coaching sessions, and other activities with their school and district leaders.

Currently there are approximately 400 trained mentors, with more added each training session. During 2006-2007 there will an additional four training sessions developed around the state to meet the need for mentors. The new school leaders pool continues to grow as year one and year two groups are being mentored. The mentoring process continues to expand as the success of the program is communicated by participants in their networking experiences.

An evaluation was completed of the first year new school leaders and is currently being refined by the coordinator. Results will be available later this year. One of the strong findings was the importance of developing a positive working relationship with the mentor, and that the mentor should be out of the district. Another finding was the need to provide additional training specific to their roles as a new school leaders in areas such as time management, working with and changing the school culture, data collection and interpretation, curriculum, and evaluation of staff. Additional funds will also be presented as the final report is review by the AMP board and recommendation presented to enhance upon existing processes. Finally, the AMP board is planning on a spring celebration of the first graduates of the mentoring program in June of 2007. The celebration will include professional development sessions, a main speaker, highlights of the first group and certificates for new school leaders and their mentors.

Reporting and Policy Implications

Missouri is gaining “altitude,” as the collaboration continues and relationships among researchers, policymakers, instructors, and practitioners influence development of principals and superintendents who positively impact student performance in K-12 schools. The ultimate goal will be to sustain education reforms, rather than succumbing to the saying, “What goes up must come down.” In May 2007, a report will be prepared for presentation to the Missouri State Board of Education and the Commissioner of Education that will include a summary of the HEEC’s Year Two accomplishments and policy recommendations. Last year’s summative presentation included consensus, or majority views for program delivery recommendations and assessment of candidates and programs. The presentation at the end of this year will include new recommendations, in addition to a “minority report” to share the views of all institutions with regard to these issues.

The Missouri Professors of Educational Administration (MPEA) have made a consistent effort over the last several years to be proactive in improving the initial preparation of school leaders and their continuing on-the-job development, all directed toward improving school leadership that positively impacts student learning. Rather than being at the mercy of policymakers, the members of MPEA have a voice in the process through specific efforts centered around the following areas: (a) improved programming at the semi-annual conferences, (b) special professional development activities for professors of educational administration, (c) development and implementation of the statewide Mentoring Program for new school leaders, (d) the Backward Mapping project, and (e) the Higher Education Evaluation Committee.

Students in our PreK-12 schools have a narrow window of opportunity, with limited time for educators and policymakers to figure out how to get this “lawnchair” off the ground. The MPEA’s ongoing activities are aimed at preparing school and district administrators who can better lead reform to improve student learning in PreK-12 education. Preliminary evaluation of the increased professional development for professors and the statewide Mentoring Program have indicated positive results from the participants. Results from the Backward Mapping project and the HEEC efforts to analyze and improve the preparation programs in the state are yet to be determined. However, preliminary indications are that the institutions will continue to collaborate to identify significant information about program improvement, leading to myriad “balloons” that will reach new heights.

References

Brown, F. (2005). African Americans and school leadership: An introduction. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 585-590.

Connexions. (2006). Retrieved October 7, 2006, from http://cnx.org/

Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2005). Learning to lead? What gets taught in principal preparation

programs. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy and Governance. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED485999)

Kottkamp, R., & Orr, M. T. (2003, March). Evaluating the effectiveness of educational

leadership preparation and its impact on practice: A field initiated study. Unpublished manuscript.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders: Executive summary. Washington D.C.: The

Education Schools Project.

Lovgren, S. (2004, August 27). Real “Danny Deckchairs” soar with just a seat and some

balloons. National Geographic News. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0811_040811_danny_deckchair.html

Orr, M. T. (2006). Mapping innovation in leadership preparation in our Nation’s schools of

education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 492-499.

Rusch, E. A. (2004). Gender and race in leadership preparation: A constrained discourse.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 16-48.

Teitel, L. (2006). Mapping the terrain of ‘alternative’ leadership education: Lessons for

universities. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 500-507.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Innovative pathways to school leadership. Washington

D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED484220)