The Academy Structure

The Academy is an intense, all day, six week experience which introduces potential school leaders to the knowledge base, skills, attitudes, and values needed to become an educational leader. (Zigler, Koschoreck, & McCafferty, 2006) They also go on to say: “The Academy is a blend of interpersonal communication and the foundations of administration into a specially designed learning experience. The essence of the Academy is that the participants will learn, experience, and then model the processes and professional skills expected in learning centers of the future.”(p. 447) A description of the themes is listed in the 2004 Academy syllabus:

The following are the general stages of the six week learning experience of the Academy:

Week 1 – Team building, problem solving, and the renewal of communication skills and process. Portfolio development and ELCC/ISLLC standards are introduced.

Week 2 – Consensus process skills, exploration of present and future alternatives in education. Vision building. A description of the learning place of the future compared with the present.

Week 3 – A study of the role of the educational leader for the learning place of the future. Principle-centered leadership. Organizational theory in education.

Week 4 – Simulated experiences, situations (for example: diversity, angry parents, finance), case studies, role play, and reflective practice. Issues defined. Planning of the Master’s/licensure programs. Plans for continued personal growth and development. Research project (with literature review) introduced and developed.

Week 5 – Inquiry team’s project plans. Inquiry teams complete study projects into issues of educational leadership in actual and current situations. Each inquiry incorporates craft knowledge, research knowledge, and theory. Each inquiry results in a public report to a school leader or a group identified by the school leader. Planning of Master’s/licensure programs. Research project, in small groups, completed.

Week 6 – Assessing personal and professional growth. Acquiring and practicing general strategies that incorporate skills learned. Inquiry team project presentations. Closing celebration and reunion (alumni practitioner speakers, university speakers, and practitioner panel in conference format).

An important aspect is the knowledge base offered as an input for the students as they work through the six week process. This includes books by Sergiovanni, Owens, Bennis, Barth, Covey, Kowalski, Deal, Peterson, and articles by notables such as Mintzberg, Herzberg, or from Business Week and the Harvard Business Review. What they discover about themselves aids in their understanding of their own style and of those in their surrounding school environment, thus instruments that assess learning styles, leadership styles, and conflict management are included as part of their learning.

A Staff of Practitioners

The originator of the Academy, Dr. James LaPlant, of the University of Cincinnati, initiated the program as a team of two faculty instructors for the entire six-week experience in 1986. Later, the instructional staff became a larger team of university faculty, until 1992 when two practitioners were brought on board as instructors, joining the faculty members. The program soon moved to a team of six instructors, most of whom were Academy graduates and practitioners in the field of school leadership, with a pair of different instructors responsible for each of three two-week periods. The university faculty member oversaw the entire Academy as the glue connecting the three different instructional teams. It has now evolved into a team of sixteen practitioners who serve as the instructional team. The university faculty connection is still present, but one practitioner has become a faculty member at the university, while another practitioner has become a faculty member at a nearby university. Thus the mix of faculty and practitioners for the Academy has become much harder to define and delineate.

It is very important to have instructors that understand the "process" of the Academy, realizing that it is an experiential learning situation, with no lecture, and the restraint to allow the students to discover, experience, argue, debate, work in groups, facilitate their own groups, and do their own personal inventory of strengths and weaknesses. The implementation of the Academy is "facilitator/team builder" focused, so students experience the process, but can also then facilitate teams and groups, as they have experienced inside group work plus facilitated their own groups during this six-week period. The instructional staff also brings theory to the real world, making the experiences of the Academy reflect the current state of education, with all its positive and negative aspects. These two items help to address criticisms of preparation programs by practitioners moving into the field, according to Restine (1999), which were "(a) the absence of facilitator/team builder focus; and (b) the lack of practical demonstrations of how the theories being taught could be applied to real situations." (p. 47) The practitioner instructional team brings the field of educational administration to life, in a very "real world" way.

An important lesson to be learned for aspiring school leaders is the value of collaboration and collegiality, and what can be gained from those. Collaboration and collegiality are experienced by the students of the Academy, but they also watch it being modeled by the instructional staff, an important aspect of the growth of future leaders (Daresh & Barnett, 1993; LaPlant, Hill, Gallagher, & Wagstaff, 1989; Murphy, 1992). Participants experience the strength of working in groups, and also get to watch that form of leadership in action. They come to understand the value of the cohort model and the value of working together. The Academy staff, being practitioners who lead in this manner in the field, find the experience very gratifying as they teach it and grow through the experience each summer.

A grant from the Wallace Foundation through the Ohio Department of Education to form a stronger partnership between the University of Cincinnati and the Cincinnati Public Schools for administrator development enabled the Academy to add new instructors in 2006. The new energy and practical insights brought by the additional staff added a new excitement to the Academy for 2006. (See Appendix for list of instructors in 2006)

The Instructional Staff Reflects the Workplace

The current instructional staff is made up of 15 members plus one university faculty member. The practitioner instructors include eight African-Americans and seven White/Non-Hispanics, plus one White/Non-Hispanic faculty member. The university faculty member is male, while the practitioners comprise nine females and three males. Among the practitioners are a large urban assistant superintendent, a director of special education, three elementary principals, one national board certified teacher, one high school principal, one former high school principal, three assistant principals, one former elementary principal who now teaches educational leadership courses at a small liberal arts college, one charter school superintendent, and two doctoral students in educational leadership, one of whom interned with Knowledgeworks, an educational foundation. Included are leaders that have been a state "principal of the year", a Milken Award winner, three lead Blue Ribbon schools, one leads a nationally distinguished Title I school, and one started a charter school and built it from the ground up. The diversity of backgrounds and experiences makes for a very rich instructional team. In fact, the strength of the group is the many varied backgrounds and experiences, which can lead to ideas, insights, and connections for the participants.

The recent Levine (2005) report indicated a dissatisfaction with fulltime faculty members as faculty, as principals felt their greatest shortcomings were the disconnect from practice. The instructional team connects the material to the real world, and models the real world in their work of design and instruction of the daily events and the total program within the Academy. Levine (2005) also mentions that "relatively few faculty members in education schools have had experience as school administrators. Six percent have been principals and two percent have been superintendents." (p. 38) The entire instructional staff (except for the university faculty member, which reflects what Levine is saying) of practitioners have a wealth of field experience and integrate that into the workings of the Academy.

Cohort Development

One of the most amazing aspects of the Academy as the induction experience for the Masters program in educational administration is that cohort development is left in the hands of the practitioners who make up the instructional team for the six weeks of the Academy. This indicates the amount of trust between the university faculty and the practitioner team, built as a result of years of excellent results. The goal every year is to develop individuals to become self-learners and also to develop one cohesive group of 42 individuals. The intent is to have them capable of working together, whether it is in groups of six, ten, or a single group of 42.

Zigler, Koschoreck and McCafferty (2006) offer some insight to the development of the Academy cohort:

The development of the cohort may be where the intensity of the all day, all summer, people-intensive situation has the biggest effect. The Academy pulls together a group of forty-plus students from diverse backgrounds and different school districts allowing them to grow into a single large cohesive community of practice. Because of the large time factor, the staff can has the time to build relationships among the students and with the instructional staff, which is far different from the traditional “single class, drive in, drive out” distant relationships that come as a result at many post-graduate programs. In fact, in the first two weeks students find an emphasis on interpersonal communication skills and group building among the tasks of the Academy. “Not surprisingly, the growth and development of these interpersonal skills lead to simultaneous growth and development in the areas of collegiality, valuing of diversity, interdependence, visioning and reflective practices, as well as discovery learning and andragogy” (McCafferty, Zigler, Leibold, Leibold, & Hill, 1996, p. 8). “It might be said that the Academy experience aims to instill not only the knowledge and skills of working collegially but also the inclination to do so – as a leader and as a follower” (McCafferty et al., 1996, p. 12), often initiating the discussion that the job of being a principal cannot be done alone. The development of the cohort, both as individuals and as a group, is key to many other aspects of the Academy and then later to the success of the on-campus part of the preparation program.” (p. 7-8)

A UCEA study of cohort programs (Norton, 1995) in educational administration found “the majority of institutions viewed cohort programs as having a better quality of students than previous programs, revealing a higher quality of student scholarship in course work, resulting in greater student commitment to the program and program completion, bringing about a higher level of student, faculty, and institutional socialization, and as resulting in higher levels of student enthusiasm toward course work and the preparation program in general” (p. 34). Professors at the University of Cincinnati, in the later classes of the educational leadership program, have found that the cohort does develop stronger connections for everyone in the program---professors and students. The cohort, according to students from the past, is a key ingredient to helping more students finish the program in a quicker fashion (it can be 12 months from start of the Academy to graduation, if they go full time). A large group will “fast-track” each year, finishing the 60 quarter hour program in one calendar year. Norton (1995) also found the “differences between cohort programs and previous preparation programs were described by respondents in terms such as more support for learners, greater sense of community, quicker program completion, greater course continuity, more student/faculty interaction, better theory and practice linkages, and so forth” (p. 33). Everything that Norton saw in his study is being seen in this Academy. But in this case, the original cohort development is done by a staff of practitioners, which is very unique. The faculty only picks them up in classes in the Fall. This involves a large amount of trust in the Academy process and in the practitioners, all of whom have gone through the Academy and the University of Cincinnati Educational Leadership program.

In McCafferty, Zigler, Leibold, Leibold, and Hill (1996), the authors suggest that the “practices in the Academy aim in all ways to model and achieve authentic collegial relationships and practices among participants. Virtually no work is accomplished alone in the Academy unlike most preparation programs and all too many schools” (p. 9). The instructors work as a team, the participants work in teams, they develop their own teams for a final project. Over the six-week period, the students experience a learning community from the inside as it is being built and developed and strengthened. They come to understand the interpersonal skills required to allow everyone to have an opinion and still bring the group together on major work issues inside the Academy. It is truly like a faculty of 30 working together to build a “visionary school.” This allows them to take that learning community development with them as they become leaders, understanding it deeply, since they have experienced it themselves.

The group experiences this movement of the cohort to a level of organizational improvement becoming a true ‘community of practice.” The students watch it being modeled, experience the process, and it becomes a model for them for the future. The entire group becomes stronger than the collective individuals, and they seem to see that in the final week.

The Instructional Team as Part of the University Faculty

The current staff of seven instructor/practitioners meets with faculty to redesign and evaluate the Academy each year. They meet with the regular faculty as part of a cadre of practitioners to help the department grow and improve, and to insure that their courses meet the demands of the current school administrators. And these practitioners are often called upon to teach courses as adjunct instructors. This has made a more cohesive group of practitioners and faculty, drawing on the strengths of each other, which has strengthened and enhanced the entire program at the university. This has also resulted in a "faculty team" that is improved by the numbers of people involved and the diversity of the group.

This group also has created some very close ties between the university and school districts in the surrounding area. As the university continues to develop its partnerships to truly make an impact in area schools, the practitioners are key contacts to the real world.

The instructional team remains involved in the development of the educational leadership program after the induction experience of the Academy, as part of a cadre of practitioners who evaluate and work with faculty to improve later coursework as part of the Masters. Some of the practitioner team also teaches classes as a normal function of an adjunct, like most universities. Some members also act as facilitators for the online Masters in educational administration now offered at the University of Cincinnati. The entire program is offered online, and we have found it very beneficial to have the facilitators for the courses be graduates of the program or part of the Academy instructional team. The familiarity with the program makes for the instruction to be a consistent and cohesive program, and allows it to be as close as possible to the on-campus Masters in educational administration, which is the intent.

Conclusion

Milstein (1993) felt that practitioners help university programs keep instruction current, topical, and are better to show real-world application. Levine (2005) believes that faculty composition, with a good mix of practitioners and academicians, is essential to having a strong, relevant program. The instructional team models participative leadership, models how to facilitate groups, and models how to be flexible as situations arise. These are key ingredients for successful school leadership in today’s complex school environments.

The feelings of the faculty at the University of Cincinnati are that the practitioners have added a very important piece to the development of teachers becoming school leaders. Each summer they take a group of individuals and mold them into a strong, interconnected cohort capable of helping themselves and each other to complete a rigorous academic program in a short time period, and making friends for life. The experience is very “real world” as only practitioners in the field can make it.

Note:

The author strongly suggests that for a more complete understanding of the Academy, one should obtain the NCPEA 2006 Yearbook, for an article entitled: The administrator development academy: Adding intensity to the preparation program---the next step to excellence. One may also contact Ted Zigler at ted.zigler@uc.edu for information.

References

Bottoms, G., & O'Neill, K. (2001). Preparing a new breed of school principals: It's time for action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Daresh, J., & Barnett, B. (1993). Restructuring leadership development in Colorado. In J. Murphy (Ed.), Preparing tomorrow's school leaders: Alternative designs (pp. 129-156). University Park, PA: University Council for Educational Administration.

Kochan, F. K., Jackson, B. L., & Duke, D. L. (1999). A thousand voices from the firing line: A study of educational leaders, their jobs, their preparation, and the problems they face. Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.

LaPlant, J., Hill, J., Gallagher, K., & Wagstaff, L. (1989). Proactive recruitment and initial training experiences for potential administrators: Issues for administrator preparation. The AASA Professor, 11(4), 8-12.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Policy report by The Education Schools Project.

Livingston, M., Davis, L., Green, R.L., & DeSpain, B.C. (2001). Strengthening the professional role through collaboration: A guide for school administrators. Education, Fall 2001, Vol. 122, Issue 1, p. 135+.

McCafferty, S. (1994). Building community in an administrator development academy. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration. Philadelphia, PA.

McCafferty, S., Zigler, T. A., Leibold, C., Leibold, G., & Hill, J. (1996). The Administrator Development Academy: Addressing the behaviors, beliefs, and practices needed for future educational leaders. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration. Louisville, KY.

Milstein, M. M. (1993). Changing the way we prepare educational leaders: The Danforth experience. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers, not MBAs. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publ.

Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school administrators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, J. Forsyth, P.B. (1999). Educational administration: a decade of reform. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Norton, M. S. (1995). The status of student cohorts in educational administration preparation programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration. Salt Lake City, UT.

Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational behavior in education (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Restine, L.N. (1999). Laying the foundation: Principal preparation. In F.K. Kochan, B.L. Jackson, & D.L. Duke (Eds.), A Thousand voices from the firing line. (p. 44-53). Columbia, Mo.: University Council for Educational Administration.

Zigler, T. A., Koschoreck, J.W., & McCafferty, S.P. (2006). The administrator development academy: Adding intensity to the preparation program---the next step to excellence. In F.L. Dembowski & L.K. LeMasters (Eds.), Unbridled spirit: Best practices in educational administration. NCPEA 2006 Yearbook. Lancaster, Pa.: Proactive Publications.

Zigler, T. A., Koschoreck, J. W., Allen, J. G., McCafferty, S., Tillman, S., & Cook, A. (2004). The Administrator Development Academy: An intense, innovative preservice preparation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cincinnati.

Zigler, T. (2004). A case study examination of the use of reflection as a professional development strategy in an innovative administrator preparation program. A paper presented at Annual Convention of the University Council of Education Administration. Kansas City, Missouri.

Appendix

Instructional Staff for the 2006 Administrator Development Academy:

James Koschoreck Educ Leadership (UC) – Did research on the Texas School

Schools of Improvement

Ted Zigler Educ Leadership (UC) – Ohio Principal of the Year 2001

Steve McCafferty Principal, Mildred Dean Elem. School – Nat’l Title I Exemplary School, Newport City Schools, former high school principal

Debi Ray Lead Teacher, Aiken High School (CPS)

Angela Cook Principal, Kilgour Elem. -Nat’l Blue Ribbon School (CPS)

Jim Allen Educ Leadership (Antioch College), former administrator in Lakota School District

Stephanie Tillman Principal, Harrison Elem. –Nat’l Blue Ribbon School

Southwest Local Schools

Glenda Brown Supt. and Founder of the Phoenix Community School

Ann Ogletree Doctoral student in Educ Leadership (UC) – former Elem. principal

Laura Mitchell Asst. Supt. (CPS) – former Milken Award winner

Eric Thomas Principal, Aiken College and Career High School (CPS)

Tracy Pirkle Dir. Of Special Services, Oak Hills Local Schools

Antonio Shelton Asst. Principal at Sycamore High School, Doctoral student at UK

Carri Schneider Doctoral student in Educ Leadership (UC), former teacher at Milford

Donna Fields former Asst. Principal, Roselawn Condon Elem. (CPS)

Antonio Bias Asst. Principal, Academy of World Languages (CPS)