Introduction

The purpose of this document is to provide a standards-based model for aligning learning outcomes in a master’s degree educational leadership preparation program. Alignment is defined as a framework for program design based on national standards, national accreditation, and state program approval. The format is specified elements that would be found in a model program curriculum guide. Review of this curriculum guide can provide new as well as established programs the opportunity to reflect upon an authentic model that has provided foundational components for curriculum alignment in the attainment of “Initial Accreditation” from the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC).

The primary focus of this document is to address accountability for program learning outcomes. Items presented in this model curriculum guide are indentified as samples and include: a program logic; vision, mission, values, and goals; learning outcomes; courses; national accreditation principles; state program approval; a matrix that connects all elements; concluding with course descriptions and competencies. The samples have been generated primarily from items in the past or currently in use in a university educational leadership preparation program (School of Education, 2009). They were initially designed and developed for the program and/or integrated into this document. The efforts of faculty and colleagues who have supported the process are greatly appreciated. The model presented is not all inclusive.

TEAC Quality Principles are key components in this model curriculum guide as well as the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) competencies for state approved preparation programs in administration and supervision preK-12. The purpose for the use of a university’s program components, TEAC and VDOE is to provide authenticity to the presentation of samples.

For those already engaged in or have already designed and developed a leadership preparation program curriculum guide, or those considering a similar endeavor, encouragement and a caveat are offered. The process, though ultimately beneficial, will be very frustrating at times and very difficult because much time is required for successful outcomes. Engaging the entire faculty and staff is demanding. But for those who make the commitment to persevere in the process, the potential end product will be well worth the time, energy, and effort expended. It will also provide a greater level of accountability for all stakeholders and a means to assist in evaluation for continuous program improvement.