As Educational Leadership programs are revised to meet the changing demands on school leaders, much attention is being directed at each of the Educational Leadership Constituency Council (ELCC) standards. While many programmatic modifications have been made to strengthen the knowledge and performances, dispositions have been much harder to impact directly. Student interactions with others, leadership characteristics, ethical decisions, personal demeanor, and work ethic are often not directly addressed on an individual basis with principal candidates during the coursework of their graduate studies. However, faculty at a southeastern public university has observed that a weak disposition often has a direct impact on the success of the internship. Likewise, employers of our graduates also indicate that graduates who struggle in their first administrative position often do so as a result of weak dispositions.

The purpose of this case study is to analyze the focus of individual disposition conferences at a transition point in the Educational Leadership Program. These individual conferences are quite time consuming, causing reflection on the value of the time hours spent addressing specific dispositions of principal interns. To ensure the conferences explicitly and frequently address dispositions necessary for the success of school leaders, two questions will be addressed in this study:

The University Graduate Conceptual Framework identifies nine dispositions to address in every graduate program within the university’s College of Education. Thereby, every graduate from the Educational Leadership program is expected to be able to:

The Educational Leadership faculty has intentionally woven a thread of ethics and dispositions through coursework. In the first course, Schooling in American Society, the ELCC standards are taught in depth, with particular attention to Standard 5. This standard clearly encompasses dispositions:

Students are given opportunities to apply each standard to relevant situations. Then each course presents possible dilemmas where this standard would be challenged. For example, in Leadership for Special Needs, students face decisions related to changing trends within a diverse student body, requiring leaders to act with fairness in their responsive actions. In the Personnel course, students learn to make selections of new employees based on ethical standards that follow policy. Activities that require thoughtful consideration of their own dispositions are presented in every course.

Over the past two years, faculty has undertaken an experimental program that deliberately and specifically calls attention to the personal dispositions of its principal leadership candidates on an individual basis. At the midpoint transition, students participate in a mandatory 30-minute session with the Educational Leadership faculty to discuss their readiness for leadership during the first internship. Topics addressed in the private conferences include interpersonal skills, goal setting, leadership traits and specific concerns that may have a direct impact on their leadership. Though these conferences are time-consuming, they provide a unique opportunity for the faculty to discuss a student’s tendency to act in a certain way as well as any concerns

As the demands and pressures on school principals increase, principal preparation programs are paying closer attention to the candidate’s dispositions. The National Council for Accreditation in Teacher Education (NCATE) and National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) have promoted the concept of dispositions as essential to the success of both teachers and administrators. Most students enter Educational Leadership programs with three to five years of successful service in the role of the teacher. Therefore, one might logically assume appropriate dispositions would be in place before entry to the program.

Dispositions are the qualities that typify a person as an individual. In a paper presented at the First Annual Symposium on Educator Dispositions, Usher (2002) explained that they are the controlling, perceptual qualities that determine the person’s natural or usual ways of thinking or acting.

The National Council for Accreditation in Teacher Education defines dispositions as “professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities.” Institutions are expected to assess professional dispositions based on observable behaviors in educational settings. Two professional dispositions, fairness and the belief that all students can learn, are specified for assessment. This council allows colleges and universities to identify, define, and operationalize additional professional dispositions according to their mission and conceptual framework (NCATE, 2007)

The Educational Leadership Constituency Council (ELCC) has established guidelines that also speak specifically to dispositions of school leaders. According to NCPEA (2002),

The dispositions of the leaders have a definite effect on the culture of the school. The actions of the principal are noticed and interpreted by others as what matters and is valued (Deal & Peters, 1993). Principals are expected to be the role models in the building, setting the tone for how staff and students interact with one another and with other members of the school, district, and larger community. Likewise school leaders’ values and dispositions also impact the quality of education in their schools. (Gold, Evans, Earley, Hallpine, & Collabone, 2003).

In previous studies, Standard 5 has been found to be a critical one. McCown, Arnold, Miles, and Hargadine (2000) found that Missouri superintendents view Standards 5 (integrity, fairness, and ethics) and 2 (school culture and instructional program) as substantially more important than Standard 6 (political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context). Knuth (2004) found that Washington State superintendents harbor an identical view. In Indiana, both principals and superintendents rated Standard 5 as most important of the standards (Cox, 2003). Though all six standards are essential, the standard that addresses dispositions is unquestionably regarded with high importance.

Ritchhart (2002) contended that “dispositions concern not only what we can do, our abilities, but what we are actually likely to do, addressing the gap we often notice between our abilities and our actions” (p. 18). In order to understand and address dispositions explicitly, Costa and Kallick (2000) described a series of actions expected by school leaders: persisting, managing impulsivity, listening with understanding and empathy, thinking flexibly, thinking about one’s won thinking, striving for accuracy, questioning and posing problems, applying past knowledge to new situations, thinking and communicating with clarity and precision, gathering data through all senses, creating, imaging, innovating, taking responsible risks, thinking interdependently, finding humor, and remaining open to continuous learning. Hansen (2001) provided evidence of intelligent professional conduct, such as being curious, open-minded, decisive, systematic, skeptical, deliberate, judicious, inquisitive, strategic, diligent, fair-minded, and reflective.

Sockett (2006) organized these dispositions into three different dimensions:

According to Richardson and Onwuegbuzie (2003) the assessing dispositions can be “by nature, subjective and often dictated by personal philosophies” (p. 3). Measuring these qualities can be difficult and often subjective; however, specific student actions, comments, and behaviors clearly reveal strengths and weaknesses.

Costa and Kallick (2009) clearly indicated that these habits can be changed and developed over time. Diez (2006) stressed that improvement in these areas must be intentional, requiring that candidates thoughtfully explore their reasoning, motivation, words and actions.

For the purpose of this study, dispositions will be defined as attitudes, values, beliefs, and characteristics demonstrated over time through professional interactions, decisions and observable behaviors with the entire school community. By extending the work of Sockett and giving strong consideration to graduate dispositions, dispositions in this study will be examined in four domains:

From the detailed notes, similar comments were sorted and tallied. Next, these categories of comments were matched to the appropriate domain: moral and ethical dispositions, intellectual integrity, professional demeanor and work habits, and dispositions of relationships. Likewise the distinction was made regarding the disposition as a strength or weakness. Through the process of examining and summarizing all collected data, findings identified the frequency of certain dispositions and the standpoint of a strength or weakness.

Question 1: What dispositions were addressed most frequently in the conferences? Which dispositions were presented as significant strengths of students? Which ones were discussed for improvement?

In response to the first research question, the disposition domain addressed most frequently in the conferences was professional demeanor (132 comments during 76 conferences/173.6%). Of these, 65 comments in the 76 conferences (85.5%) were designated as strengths whereas 67 comments in the 76 conferences (80.6%) were designated as needs for improvement.

The most frequently addressed trait within this domain was time management (32/76 conferences/42.1%), with regard to being prompt, prepared, in attendance, and meeting deadlines. This characteristic was the one most often presented as a weaker trait. In 14 comments (18.4%) it was designated as strengths. In 18 comments (23.7%) it was presented as needs for improvement.

The specific disposition within this domain that was presented as a strength was effort, the willingness to go the extra mile, being dedicated and conscientious (29/76 conferences/38.2%). In 20 of 76 conferences (26.3%), effort was discussed as a strength. In 9/76 conferences (11.8%), effort was designated as a need for improvement.

In the domain of relationships, the most frequently discussed disposition was communication. This disposition was also the most frequently discussed need for improvement within this domain. In 7/76 conferences (9.2%), communication was a strength. In 13/76 conferences (17.1%), communication needed to be improved.

In the domain of relationship dispositions, the most frequently noted strength was cooperation and collaboration. In 9/76 conferences (11.8%), cooperation and collaboration was a strength. In 10/76 conferences (13.2%), cooperation and collaboration was a need for growth.

In the domain of intellectual integrity, being reflective and self aware, willing to learn was discussed most often in 15/76 conferences (19.7%). It was the disposition addressed most in this domain as strength and area of need. In 9/76 conferences (11.8%), being reflective was a strength. In 6/76 conferences (7.9%), being reflective was an area for growth

While not the most frequently discussed, the disposition of seeking professional growth and being an inquiring learner were tied as a strength with being reflective in the domain of intellectual integrity. In 9/76 conferences (11.8%), seeking professional growth was a strength. In 1/76 conferences (1.3%), seeking professional growth was a need for growth.

In the domain of moral and ethical dispositions, the most frequently discussed disposition was that of being open minded and receptive to unique styles and ideas of others (15.76 conferences/19.7%) This trait was discussed most frequently as both a strength and need for improvement within this domain. In 6 of the 76 conferences (7.9%), open-mindedness was given as a strength. In 9 of the 76 conferences (11.8%), open-mindedness was listed as a need.

Question 2: What dispositions were addressed infrequently in the conferences?

There was at least one disposition in each domain that was mentioned only once.

In the domain of moral and ethical dispositions, two dispositions were mentioned only once, both noted as strengths: 1) the belief that all children can learn, appreciating and persisting to ensure learning for all children was mentioned once and 2) setting and enforcing clear expectations and procedures was mentioned once.

In the domain of professional demeanor, two dispositions were only mentioned once, both noted as strengths: 1) being creative and seeing multiple solutions to problems and 2) being a “multi-tasker”, able to handle several issues at once.

In the domain of relationships, only one disposition was discussed with a single student. Being a motivator, encourager, and sharing leadership was a shared as a strength.

In the domain of intellectual integrity, all traits were mentioned more than once. The most infrequent traits were mentioned with 4 (5/3%) of the principal candidates: One disposition, being receptive to feedback and responding to it appropriately. Of these three (3.9%) of the comments were designated a strength in this area. One (1.3%) of these comments was designated as a need for improvement. The other disposition infrequently addressed in this domain was having solid judgment and common sense. One (1.3%) of these comments was designated as a need for improvement and three (3.9%) of these comments were designated a strength in this area.

From the analysis of the focus of disposition conferences held at a transition point in the Educational Leadership Program, the scope of dispositions addressed on an individual basis was comprehensive. However, to ensure dispositions continue to be addressed in an explicit and frequent manner, several conclusions stem from the data that may be considered for program modification.

First, more intentional teaching of dispositions in the first courses of the program is appropriate. This instruction might best involve a thorough list of dispositions with explanations of their importance in school leadership. Presenting the four domains with explicit examples would strengthen the instruction.

In order for students to fully understand personal strengths and areas of need, faculty will revisit the disposition form used for self-reflection and for disposition conferences. The revision will result in a more comprehensive approach to professional strengths and needs.

Because of the noted areas for growth, time management, communication, reflective practice and open-mindedness will be a focus during the internship. For example, when a principal candidate identifies the need to strengthen one specific disposition, the university supervisor will follow-through with professional dialogue during the internship visits.

During the conferences, faculty will follow a structured protocol in order to address each of the four domains in providing a more thorough analysis of an individual’s dispositional strengths and needs. By using a protocol, the infrequently addressed topics will be included more often when needed. The significant meaningful feedback to students on the consistency of their dispositions is of critical importance. Fairness and supporting the belief that all students can learn throughout the school will be addressed specifically to meet NCATE expectations.

This study demonstrates a positive step toward understanding educational leadership dispositions addressed in school leadership preparation programs. It has provided insight on the frequency of specific dispositions addressed in with principal candidates as well as identifying strengths and weaknesses of principal candidates as they enter the formal internship. Other Educational Leadership programs may benefit from a similar analysis of dispositional components of their programs.

Further study will be conducted to examine the students’ perception of the disposition conferences and any specific benefits tied to the individual meetings. More specific study will also be necessary to determine impact of the professional dispositions as they are transferred into the workplace as a school administrator.

Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000). Discovering and exploring habits of mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2009). Leading and learning with habits of mind: Sixteen essential characteristics for success. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Deal, T. E. (1993). The culture of schools. In M. Sashkin & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational Leadership and School Culture. Berkeley, CA: McCutchen Publishing.

Cox, E. P. (2003) Administrator perceptions in new licensing standards. ERS Spectrum, 21(3), 4-10.

Diez, M. E. (2006). Assessing dispositions: Five principles to guide practice. In H. Sockett (Ed.). Teacher dispositions: Building a teacher education framework of moral standards (pp. 49-68). Washington DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Gold, A., Evans, J., Earley, P., Hallpine, D., & Collarbone, P. (2003).Principled principals? Values- driven leadership: Evidence from ten case studies of ‘outstanding’ school leaders. Educational Management & Administration, 31(2), 127-138.

Hansen, D. (2001). Exploring the moral heart of teaching: Toward a teacher’s creed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Knuth, R. K. (2004a). Principal performance and the ISLLC Standards: Implications for principal selection and professional development. ERS Spectrum, 22(4),4-9.

Knuth, R. K. (2004b). [Survey of Washington State superintendents: Principal success and failure]. Unpublished raw data.

McCown, C., Arnold, M., Miles, D., & Hargadine, K. (2000). Why principals succeed: Comparing principal performance to national professional standards. ERS Spectrum, 18, 14-19.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2007, November). NCATE News: Defines Professional Dispositions as used in Teacher Education. Retrieved April 8, 2009 from http://www.ncate.org/public/102407.asp

National Board Policy for Educational Administration. (2002). Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership. Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_5-02.pdf

Richardson, D. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003, November). Attitudes toward dispositions related to teaching pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, administrators, and college/university professors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS.

Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sockett, H. (Ed). (2006). Teacher dispositions: Building a teacher education framework of moral standards. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Usher, D. (2002, November). Arthur Combs' five dimensions of helper belief reformulated as five dispositions of teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the meeting of the First Annual Symposium on Educator Dispositions, Richmond, KY.

Wasicsko, M. M. (2004, October.) The 20-Minute Hiring Assessment: How to ensure you’re hiring the best by gauging educator dispositions. Retrieved April 8, 2009 from http:/www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=1133