A major recommendation, or mandate in some cases, handed down to principal preparation programs from accrediting agencies, state certification departments, or other bodies, is to prominently include school districts in the program. This might include Advisory Councils that include public school administrators, involving districts in the selection of mentors for fieldwork experiences, or other such efforts. The authors’ university has also included public school administrators in another, unique, way.

After replacing the traditional, program-ending comprehensive exam with an oral portfolio defense, public school administrators were invited to participate on the defense panel. A focus group of administrators who participated as panel members was facilitated to determine their opinions on a number of questions related to program quality, the defense format itself, and the overall quality of candidates.

The focus group provided meaningful information resulting in recommendations for making the program and the oral defense process even stronger.

Recommendations and mandates for reforming principal preparation programs cite the need for collaboration between all stakeholders, primarily between universities and school districts. When universities in the authors’ state of Louisiana were mandated to redesign principal preparation programs, collaboration was prominently mentioned in the guidelines set forth by the Louisiana Board of Regents.

Among things to be addressed in redesigned programs, universities were to “identify the diverse membership of the Redesign Team (e.g., College of Education, College of Business, community leaders, district personnel, school personnel, parents, etc.) and the process that was used for members to provide input as the educational leadership program was designed” (Louisiana Board of Regents, 2003, p. 18). Additionally, redesigned programs were to “identify other forms of collaboration that occurred as Redesign Team members gathered input and feedback about the program design from others,” and to “discuss collaborative agreements that have been created to allow candidates to engage in problem-based learning experiences and be mentored by highly effective educational leaders within partner schools/districts [including] the process that will be used by universities and districts as collaboration occurs to improve the redesigned program once implemented” (p. 18).

Other sources also call for collaboration between universities and partner school districts. The Southern Region Education Board (SREB), in citing actions needed by states, universities and school districts, went so far as to recommend that states “require university-district partnership agreements” (SREB, 2007, p. 30). Capasso and Daresh (2001) in their book written for administrative interns, wrote that “the success of your internship will depend, in part, on the types of partnerships you generate with appropriate stakeholder groups in your sponsoring school district” (p. 26). Likewise, Mullen (2006) included an article written by Browne-Ferrigno and Muth in which they described an award-winning program at the University of Colorado that was “developed through partnerships with school districts” (pp. 275-295). In a book titled Schools Can’t Wait: Accelerating the Redesign of University Principal Preparation Programs, SREB (2006) listed “University/district partnerships for principal preparation” as its “Core Condition #1” (p. 26). Hale and Moorman (2003) also cited the lack of collaboration between school districts and colleges and universities as being a major problem in the preparation of principals (p. 2).

The various calls for collaboration between universities and school districts recommend collaboration in areas such as the selection of students for the programs, development of the curriculum, development of fieldwork experiences, and evaluation of the interns’ performance (Wallace Foundation, 2008). The authors’ principal preparation program (hereafter referred to as “the program”) heeded the call and has involved school districts in many ways. An Advisory Council of principals and district-level personnel was formed to assist in designing the curriculum, setting entrance requirements, setting mentor qualifications, and constructing meaningful fieldwork experiences.

Since SREB (2003) recommended that universities “base successful internship completion on achievement of leadership standards through mastery of performance tasks” (p. 30), the program eliminated the written comprehensive examination, instead, requiring interns to complete a portfolio defense during the final semester of the program. It was decided that the defense of the portfolio include not just university faculty as evaluators, but school district personnel as well. This study attempted to determine to what extent, if any, school district personnel were positively or negatively influenced regarding program quality as a result of their participation as evaluators during candidates’ portfolio defenses.

The portfolio defense is the culminating experience to exit the program. The development of the portfolio begins during the first semester of coursework and continues throughout the program. During the first of the six seminars that make up the program, candidates are taught how to archive relevant artifacts and document fieldwork activities related to the standards of the Educational Leadership Constituent Consortium (ELCC) using the College’s internet-based Pass-Port system. Candidates are also provided an html-based template to be used for the CD version of the final portfolio. Throughout the program, candidates can modify the template and create links to relevant artifacts. As the final semester of the program approaches, candidates select the best representations from their Pass-Port portfolio to include on the CD. During the final semester, candidates are taught how to create the final CD for the portfolio defense. This version of the portfolio also includes a narrated Power Point presentation that allows candidates to indicate the extent to which they have met the various ELCC standards. Two weeks before their scheduled defense, candidates are required to provide four copies of their final CD for distribution to faculty and district personnel who will be present at the defense.

In advance of the portfolio defense date, members of the defense committee are given copies of the candidates’ CDs to view so they can develop questions for the candidates. On the actual defense date, each candidate will answer questions before a panel of three faculty members and one school district representative. Each candidate’s defense lasts approximately 45 minutes. Since members of the committee will have already viewed the candidate’s CD, the candidate does not go through the Power Point presentation, but rather answers committee members’ questions related to the CD’s contents.

The committee’s makeup includes a faculty member whose primary focus is research, two content-area faculty members, and a district representative who develops questions related to the application of the candidates’ knowledge and skills as they relate to “real world” school leadership. Following each candidate’s defense, the committee convenes to vote whether or not the candidate successfully passed. While the school district representatives provide feedback, they are non-voting members of the committee when it comes to deciding whether or not the candidate passed.

The researchers were interested in determining the perceptions of the school district personnel after having participated as an oral defense committee member. A focus group consisting of the four school district representatives who participated in the Fall 2007 portfolio defenses was held in Spring 2008. During the focus group, the participants were asked to respond to the following six questions:

The focus group session was audio-recorded, with participant permission, in order to make an accurate transcription of their comments.

Question 1: How did your participation in the portfolio defense affect, or alter, your impressions of the new leadership program?

There was consensus that by participating on the portfolio defense committee the district personnel had a more thorough knowledge of what the program entailed, but also had a great deal of respect for the quality of the program. Some of the pertinent quotes included:

Question 2: If you were assigned to be an on-site mentor for a candidate during some portion of the program, would the experience of participating in the portfolio defense help in carrying out your mentor responsibilities?

As in Question 1, the focus group was unanimous in its opinion that they would do a better job mentoring a candidate after having participated in the portfolio defense. Sample responses include:

Question 3: As a result of seeing the portfolio defenses, what is your overall impression of the candidates?

While there was also a consensus regarding the strength of the candidates, at least one focus group member observed that varied types of strengths surfaced. For example, some of the more technologically-astute candidates were able to include more “bells and whistles” on their CD, while other candidates had more substantive content. Some of the focus group responses included:

Question 4: As far as the portfolio itself, what recommendations or changes would you suggest (e.g., the content, layout, etc.)?

Since the portfolio defense is new, the researchers wanted to assess what improvements could be made. One participant said she enjoyed hearing the voice of the candidate as the candidate “walked us through” the portfolio. Other members of the group also provided important input and suggestions, including:

Question 5: How could the department better prepare you for participation in the defense?

All focus group members made some valuable recommendations regarding what the department could do to prepare a district representative for their role in the portfolio defense. It was pointed out that, other than being given the CDs, no specific instructions or rubrics were distributed which would have clarified their roles. Additionally, the practitioners were unclear what types of questions they should ask and from what perspective to view the CDs. Some of the more pertinent comments included:

Question 6: Based on your knowledge of, and experience with, the new program, do you think it more effectively prepares candidates for the current roles of school leaders than the traditional program through which you received certification?

Finally, since all of the focus group members had received their degrees and/or administrative certification through a traditional program, the researchers wanted to assess their opinions related to the new, redesigned program structure compared to the more traditional course-driven programs. The participants were unanimous in their praise for the new program. They particularly appreciated the fact that the new program, while still teaching some theory, focused on practical, field-based experiences. The participants said the current candidates are learning things in the program that the practitioners didn’t learn until they were on the job. The consensus was that the new program design was much superior to the more traditional programs through which the practitioners received their certification. The following comments are representative of how the practicing administrators answered the question:

The researchers, by initiating the focus group, demonstrated yet another way for the principal preparation program to collaborate with practitioners, something emphasized in the literature cited earlier. As a result of the input received from the district personnel who participated, the researchers make the following recommendations:

If student-prepared CDs or other media are to be used:

Capasso, R. L., & Daresh, J. C. (2001). The school administrator internship handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Hale, E. & Moorman, H. (September, 2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations. Institute for Educational Leadership, Washington, D.C. and Illinois Education Research Council, Edwardsville, IL.

Louisiana Board of Regents, Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, & The Professional Development Leadership Advisory Council. (2003). Guidelines for the redesign of post-baccalaureate education programs. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Board of Regents.

Mullen, C. A. (Ed.). (2006). Mentoring and tutoring: Partnership in learning. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2003). Good principals are the key to successful schools: Six strategies to prepare more good principals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Region Education Board. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED478010)

Southern Regional Education Board. (2006). Schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2007). Good principals aren’t born --- They’re mentored: Are we investing enough to get the school leaders we need? Atlanta, GA.

Wallace Foundation. (June, 2008). Becoming a leader: Preparing school principals for today’s schools. New York, NY.

Content actions

Footer

This work is licensed by Tony Armenta and Thomas DeVaney under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.

Last edited by National Council of Professors of Educational Administration on Dec 4, 2008 4:21 pm -0600.