Introduction

It has been projected that more than forty percent of principals in U.S. public schools will leave their jobs within the next ten years (Education Schools Project, 2005). Not surprisingly, policymakers have become increasingly concerned about a pending shortage of qualified individuals to fill principal positions in the nation’s schools (Gates, Ringel, & Santibanez, 2003). Not only are numerous principals expected to leave the profession, but the majority of school districts nationwide have found it difficult to recruit and retain administrators, with the average tenure of administrators shorter than it has been in the past (Glass et al., 2000; Howley & Pendarvis, 2002). These leaders are facing complex issues, stemming in large part from state improvement plans and No Child Left Behind legislation (Education Schools Project, 2005). Partnerships and special recruitment strategies are being implemented in various principal preparation programs, including internal training programs to facilitate recruitment by increasing the supply of people interested in and qualified for administrative positions (Byham, 1999; Hopkins, 2003) and partnerships between universities and K-12 school districts (Taskforce on the Principalship, 2000). Are these reforms working? How effective are the programs that are preparing leaders for today’s schools?

A recent report from the Education Schools Project called into serious question the quality of programs that prepare school administrators (Education Schools Project, 2005). Despite the exciting new partnerships and innovative training programs developed in some areas, this report raised widespread concern about numerous preparation programs for school leaders. In addition to a list of dire findings, the report included drastic suggestions for changes in how school leaders are prepared. These recommendations include the replacement of current master’s degree programs with the Masters in Educational Administration, or M.E.A. This degree, similar to the MBA in the business world, was suggested as the only degree necessary to prepare practitioners to serve in our nation’s schools (Education Schools Project, 2005).

The purpose of this article is to describe a model of principal preparation that addresses solutions to the problems outlined in the Levine report. The proposed model includes less drastic, though still powerful, changes to existing programs, rather than a replacement of programs with an MEA. The following sections describe a model for redesigning existing programs in educational administration that is solution-based, inspired by the negative findings from the Levine report. Numerous preparation programs have implemented these components, and many more are moving in this direction (Young, et al, 2005), despite the overly pessimistic generalizations from Levine. Perhaps what follows can serve as a guide to those who need to make changes in their programs and encouragement to those already changing.

Designing a Quality Program

The weaknesses highlighted in the most recent wide-scale report on the preparation of school leaders, the Levine report (Education Schools Project, 2005) can be addressed through a redesign of the master’s degrees available in educational administration. This model would have a time and context relevant curriculum, a selective admission process, quality faculty, extensive clinical instruction, conferring of appropriate of degrees and certification, and an emphasis on empirical research that is connected to practice. In addition, this model involves partnerships with schools to facilitate recruitment and screening of applicants, as well as providing a bridge between theory and practice.

Curricular Cohesion

Levine asserted that some programs preparing school leaders consist of a disarray of courses, some of which are taught outside of the department (Education Schools Project, 2005). A coherent and rigorous curriculum is central to strong preparation programs for future school leaders. The framework for this curriculum should be the ISLLC (Interstate School Leadership Licensure Certification) standards, on which the SLLA is based (MPEA, n.d.). This comprehensive framework provides the core knowledge, dispositions, and performances for successful school leader preparation. Existing programs can examine their courses in light of these standards to assure that the curriculum includes all essential areas. Courses that are superfluous can be replaced with those that are aligned with the ISLLC standards. Activities within courses can be scrutinized to determine if students are developing knowledge, dispositions, and performances for each of the standards. This is not a simple process, but it would provide for a cohesive curriculum. This ISLLC alignment did not impress Levine, but this process is recommended by all of the prominent professional organizations in educational administration (Young, et al, 2005).

Programs can take a step beyond having a curriculum that is tied to the ISLLC standards by focusing on the contextual and time relevancy of student assignments within these courses. An advisory group of superintendents could review courses and their respective activities and suggest revisions based on site-specific needs. Working together, faculty and practitioners could identify projects for clinical experiences, tied to specific courses and products. The superintendents’ knowledge of school improvement plans in their schools would facilitate the authenticity and usefulness of student projects. Through collaboration between faculty, involved in research and theory development, and practitioners, actively involved in current school challenges, a valuable connection between two worlds can be achieved. Expertise in current research and theory could, thus, intersect with the real world of current administrative practice. This intersection of perspectives would ensure that coursework activities are adapted to the needs of school leaders in real schools while also being based on up-to-date theory and research.

To further strengthen the cohesion of the curriculum, students could proceed through the program in cohorts. This model appeals to adult learners because the program structure provides strong peer support (Donaldson, Scribner, & Perkins, 2001) and can be powerful when combined with adult learning strategies for instruction. Effective cohort programs use a variety of instructional strategies including team teaching (Muth & Barnett, 2001), problem-based learning (Bason & Barnett, 2001), case studies (Barnett & Muse, 1993), and an integrated curriculum (Muth & Barnett, 2001). Several of these instructional strategies were recommended by Levine (Education Schools Project, 2005) and are a natural complement to the group support and sharing of diverse thinking and expertise provided in cohort settings. The cohort process, when used appropriately (Norris ,2001) is an effective way of developing a learning community among students. In addition, school leaders learning together in cohorts can develop a network of colleagues with whom they can gain support during the challenges of future administrative positions. Ideally, this support network could help insulate new leaders from the overwhelming stress of their first positions, thereby decreasing attrition from their new roles.

Curricular disarray, as noted by Levine (2005), could be replaced by a cohesive curriculum tied to ISLCC standards, which a growing number of states have adopted as their curricular framework (MPEA). The activities within the courses could be made time relevant and context specific by utilizing the expertise of superintendents on an advisory group. This group would also provide a bridge between theory and practice. Rather then proceeding through a disarray of courses, students could proceed through a masters program as a cohort, thus receiving the additional learning benefits from that format.

High Admission and Graduation Standards

According to Levine, some programs have low admission standards and are graduating school leaders who are not good candidates for creating effective schools (Education Schools Project, 2005). A change to higher admission standards would create a great collide with university expectations of leadership preparation programs. Taking large classes of students, and reducing them intentionally to smaller classes, is not in alignment with typical university goals of drawing in more tuition relative to the expense of faculty. However, if educational administration programs are going to produce only graduates who will be strong school leaders, then a shrinking revenue stream for universities from such programs will be the required.

After gaining university support, the implementation of a higher admissions system would be relatively simple. From their existing pool of teachers, superintendents could be invited to make the initial recommendations for students to take the introductory course. In addition, students could self-select by enrolling in the introductory course. During the introductory course, students would engage in activities and discussions to assist them in making a personal decision regarding their appropriateness for the masters program in educational administration. Included in the course would be assessment materials to evaluate students' potential as school leaders. These materials, and a personal statement from each applicant, would be reviewed by a screening committee. This committee composed of faculty, principals, and superintendents, would screen students from the introductory course to determine which applicants are best suited for the remainder of the program. Because admitting poorly qualified individuals into educational administration programs is reportedly a problem (Education Schools Project, 2005), applicants who do not show promise as principals would not be allowed to continue in the remainder of the masters program. The committee would identify those students who possess high academic motivation and the skills to become strong leaders in schools, and filter out those who merely want to attain credentials for movement up the pay scale.

Strong Faculty

Another criticism of principal preparation programs is the overuse of adjunct faculty. Many colleges are over-utilizing adjunct professors (Wegner, Watson, & MacGregor, 2003), not just programs in educational administration. Nonetheless, the call for a strong faculty, with controlled and intentional use of adjunct faculty, is justifiable. The controlled use of adjunct faculty should include limiting the percentage of such part-timers and carefully selecting them for specific course assignments. In addition, the hiring of adjunct faculty needs to involve the full-time faculty members, not just the department head or continuing education director.

After being hired to teach specific courses, the adjunct faculty member should be assigned to a full-time faculty member so that consistency in expectations and course material can be facilitated. Furthermore, an orientation and training program would help adjunct faculty members with logistical issues, such as parking and copying, as well as instruction-related issues involving instructional technology, such as online systems and presentation software, and grading.

The performance of adjunct faculty needs to be included in evaluation processes in order to assure their accountability to the graduates of educational administration programs. This involves the typical course evaluation, but, ideally, moves beyond that. Products from the courses should be reviewed by full-time faculty to assure consistency of content and quality with products from other courses. A mentoring faculty member could visit with the adjunct faculty member at various points during the semester to provide formative suggestions for improvement.

There are benefits to intentional use of adjunct faculty in educational administration programs (Wegner, MacGregor, & Watson, 2003). The current issues faced by practicing administrations can be brought into the classroom for discussion. Preferably these issues are framed in current research and theory. The elusive intersection of theory and practice could be enhanced by intentional use of adjunct faculty. This intentional use should include sufficient conversations between practitioners and regular faculty. To facilitate these conversations, adjunct faculty should be invited to professional development programming designed for interaction between, and integration of, adjunct faculty and full-time faculty.

Extensive Clinical Instruction

How can principal preparation be made more relevant, including adequate field experiences for future leaders, similar to the practical experiences provided for student teachers? Field experiences, such as internships, are a component in many preparatory programs, including programs that train school leaders. Unfortunately, most of the students in school leadership programs are already full-time employees, typically teachers. Courses that require clinical experiences add to the already intensive demands of students in their profession of teaching. An alternative model would intentionally create more opportunities for administrative duties. The aspiring principal, released from teaching duties, would be replaced by a temporary teacher. Instead of teaching, the principal intern would work, at least part-time, as an additional administrator within the school district. This on-the-job-training would benefit the principal intern—who would learn about school administration—and the participating school—who would benefit from additional administrative support. This model would focus on contextual-based activities for principal interns. All clinical activities would be tied to real and specific school needs. This would enable the principal intern to learn about school leadership in an authentic way. Furthermore, these projects would generate products that would directly benefit the schools in various ways. For example, a culminating action research project would be designed so that principal interns could gather research-based information enabling schools to make data-based decisions regarding an individualized programmatic issue. Ideally, these internships would include administrative duties in at least two different school settings, rather than being limited to the school in which the intern has been teaching (Archer, 2005).

Three-pronged mentoring could also be a component of this model. Each principal intern could be supervised by the principal, a faculty advisor, and a mentor selected for his/her leadership success. A screening committee, composed of faculty, principals, and superintendents, would solicit and review applications from principals and select the best mentors for the principal interns.

Clinical experiences would be an essential and integral part of a redesigned masters program. Each course would require approximately 50 hours of clinical focus and result in projects that demonstrate specific competencies. Credit would be awarded for “on-site” and “off-site” internships but the principal intern would be able to benefit from substantially more clinical experience than an intern in a traditional masters program. Activities would help prepare students for typical school issues, such as in-school politics, working with parents, and handling test-based accountability (Archer, 2005). Every course, including the research courses, would be focused on job-embedded activities such as budget projects, strategic plans, supervision needs, curriculum revision, legal issues, and teacher evaluations. Future school leaders would be prepared for the challenges of aligning curriculum, professional development, and district, state, and national assessments and standards. This would transform the traditional internship experiences into a disbursed internship where students would be learning in the college classroom and in the school building continuously.

Appropriateness of Degree

Levine took issue with the variety of degrees available for aspiring school leaders and the inconsistent value of such programs from various universities (Educational Schools Project, 2005). The most consistent of these degrees is the masters degree, typically used to prepare principals. A debate regarding the Ph.D.versus the Ed.D. is beyond the scope of this paper, as is a discussion of preparation for superintendents. However, in a simplistic view, the masters degree prepares principals, the specialist degree trains superintendents, and doctorates prepare university faculty and/or leaders in high-level superintendent roles.

In the case of leader preparation, one size does not fit all needs. Practical skills are important at all levels, as is theory and the ability to conduct research. To divorce practitioners from the faculty, who are involved in research and theory development in that profession, is unwise. An understanding of theory helps leaders to frame problems and develop appropriate solutions. The ability to design research, collect and analyze data, and interpret results is an essential component of data-driven decision making. Degrees that integrate theory, research, and practice into the preparation of school leaders are part of the ideal model. Existing programs, with faculty versed in theory and research, should work in partnership with existing school leaders to redesign programs in which their perspectives could be merged. The solution is not a completely new degree program, but a revamping of existing programs.

Excellence in Research

An exemplary model for preparing school leaders would include a standard of excellence in research. If Levine’s findings are accurate (Educational Schools Project, 2005) then some programs fall short of this standard. In addition, No Child Left Behind includes a push for scientifically-based research. To address this issue, courses in research should be taught early in the sequence of courses so that the mindset of school leaders will be oriented towards asking data-based questions. Students would then be directed towards research questions that have practical implications, grounded in current theory, and are a continuance of an existing line of inquiry. These questions would grow in sophistication from the masters level through doctoral level investigations. The success of the profession, both in the arenas of theory and in practice, should be based on the higher quality of “research-minded” educational administrators.

Discussion

Should the traditional masters in educational administration be replaced by a “professional track graduate program” (Archer, 2005), the Masters in Educational Administration (MEA)? Or should existing programs be redesigned in light of the criticisms launched by Levine? The model outlined in this paper is intended to address the weaknesses identified in the Levine report. Should these solutions be part of a re-named degree, i.e., the MEA, or are they better incorporated into existing programs?

If programs can make improvements, as many already are (Young, et al, 2005), then the situation is not as dire as Levine would contend. Furthermore, existing programs, with their networks of contacts through their regional school systems, are in the best position to implement some of the changes outlined, especially those requiring connections with superintendents and mentoring principals.

The contribution of faculty to educational administration programs is their currency in theory and research. Practitioners, integrally involved in these programs, would bring time relevancy and contextual appropriateness for preparation activities. A marriage of the two can be accomplished by involving current superintendents and principals in the development of curriculum for preparation programs. These superintendents would become an advisory group for the faculty, reviewing course content and projects. Expertise in current research and theory would thereby intersect with the real world of current administrative practice. This intersection of perspectives would assure that coursework activities are adapted to the needs of school leaders in real schools.

One attribute of all high-performing schools is a dedicated and dynamic principal. Principals can influence teaching and classroom practice by formulating school goals, setting and communicating high achievement expectations, organizing resources for instruction, supervising and evaluating teachers’ performance, and monitoring student progress. The primary responsibility of the successful principal, however, is to create an environment that will enable all students to achieve. The redesigned masters program could be based on current best practices such as cohort format and adult learning theory. Appropriate use of distance education technologies could also improve access for students in remote areas where need for school leaders is often greater. Establishing the effectiveness of these instructional strategies is not as difficult as demonstrating a connection between leader preparation and impacts on student achievement. Evaluating the effectiveness of leadership preparation programs and their effects on schools is a priority in program evaluation efforts (Terry Orr, personal communication, 2005). It is vital that evaluative efforts for this, and other leadership preparation programs, be linked to performance of schools. That remains as one of the most substantial challenges facing educational researchers, and programs that prepare school leaders.

The other sizeable challenge of such programs is financing the extensive solutions outlined in the proposed model. Most of the recommendations cost time, and time, of course, equates with money. Redesigning the curriculum would require extensive faculty time, releasing them from other, income-generating duties. This financial demand, combined with a smaller stream of students due to higher admissions standards, would be hard to sell for many university administrators, especially when they are already struggling with serious revenue issues. Utilizing adjunct faculty can save money, but adequately orienting, training, and mentoring them could offset those savings. Releasing teachers from teaching duties so as to provide extensive clinical experiences would be costly, as well. These expenses could be born by sponsoring school districts, but many are already facing budgetary crises. Furthermore, research connecting leader preparation with student achievement is important, but difficult. Reform is possible, without replacing existing programs with MEAs, but that reform would be expensive.

Despite the expense, many high quality programs already exist (Young, et al, 2005). Other programs can, and should be, examined to determine if improvements are needed, and Levine’s findings, and the suggestions inspired here, can provide a guide for such changes. An integrated and cohesive curriculum can replace curricular disarray. Applicants to degree programs can be screened and selected based on their potential as school leaders, rather than funneled through a “cash cow” program. A strong faculty, comprised of an appropriate balance of practitioners and full-time faculty, can replace a weak faculty of numerous and disconnected adjunct faculty. Clinical instruction can be made more adequate through a redesigned, contextually-based and time-relevant curriculum. And, lastly, the poor student research that exists in some programs could be raised to a higher level of quality, developing research-minded school leaders. Degrees in educational administration, thus designed, could be made more appropriate for future building principals and better address the increasing challenges these leaders will encounter in today’s schools.

References

Archer, J. (2005). Study blasts leadership preparation. Education Week, 24(27), 1, 18.

Basom, M. R. (2001, November). Cohorts and their affects on faculty and instruction in programs of educational leadership [Electronic version]. San Diego State UniversityUniversity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration.

Barnett, B., & Muth, R. (2001, November). Issues related to the assessment of cohort-based educational leadership preparation programs [Electronic version]. Denver, Colorado: University of Northern Colorado and University of Colorado at Denver.

Byham, W.C. (1999). Grooming next-millennium leaders. HR Magazine. Retrieved on November 6, 2003, from http://www.shrm.org/hrmagazine/articles/0299byham.html

Donaldson, J.F., Scribner, J.P., & Perkins, M. (2001, November) Instructional cohorts and learning: Ironic uses of a social system [Electronic version]. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Cincinnati, OH.

Dufour, R. (2002). The Learning-Centered Principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12-15.

Education Schools Project. (2005). Educating school’s leaders. Retrieved April 5, 2005 from http://www.edschools.org/reports_leaders.htm

Gates, S.M., Ringel, J.S., & Santibanez, L. (2003). Who is leading out schools? An overview of school administrators and their careers. RAND Publications. Retrieved November 19, 2003 from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1679

Glass, T., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. (2000). The study of the American public school superintendent. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

Hammond, J., Muffs, M., & Sciascia, S. (2001). The Leadership Crisis: Is it for Real? Principal, 81(2), 28-32.

Hopkins, G. (2003). From the principal files: The principal shortage – what can schools do to attract a new generation of school leaders? Education World. Retrieved November 6, 2003, from http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin197a.html

Howley, A., & Pendarvis, E. (2002). Recruiting and retaining rural school administrators. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED470950).

Missouri Professors of Educational Administration. (n.d.). About ISLLC. Retrieved May 5, 2005 from http://www.umsl.edu/~mpea/Pages/AoubtISLLC/AboutISLLC.html

Muth, R., & Barnett, B. (2001). Making the case for cohorts: Identifying research gaps, improving professional preparation and gaining political support. Educational Leadership and Administration, 3, 109-121.

Norris, C. J. (November 3, 2001). Cohorts and instructional management educational leadership preparation programs. University of Tennessee.

Task Force on the Principalship. (2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship.Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Wegner, S., MacGregor, C., & Watson, R. (2003). Best practices for the use of part-time practitioner faculty members in principal preparation programs. Connections: Journal of Principal Preparation and Development, 5, 32-37.

Wegner, S., Watson, R., & MacGregor, C. (2003). Faculty on the fringe: One state’s response to an unraveling professorate in an era of standards. The AASA Professor, 26(1), 27-32.

Young, M. D., Crow, G., Orr, M. T., Ogawa, R., & Creighton, T. (2005). An educative look at “Educating School Leaders.” Retrieved April 29, 2005 from http://www.ucea.org