Los resultados de una encuesta de Completers de licencia principal (PLC) de una pequeña universidad privada en el medio oeste revelan que requiere preparación principales clases, especialmente el derecho de escuela y las actividades de pasantías eran las experiencias más significativas. Todos los 200 PLC desde 2007-2008 y 2008-2009 se invitó a participar en el estudio centrado en cómo preparado para la dirección que se sentían que estaban como el marco teórico. En la encuesta administrada durante la primavera de 2010, el PLC evaluaron su programa de preparación principal: experiencias más significativas, cambios recomendados y problemas estaban menos dispuestos a resolver. Proponen agregar que más instrucciones relacionadas con la educación especial y la escuela de derecho y adicional experiencias trabajando estrechamente con un edificio principal. PLC sienten menos dispuesta a resolver los problemas relacionados a la educación especial, el proceso de instrucción de aula y disciplina.

Today school principals are responsible for one significant new factor compared to principals of just a decade or two earlier, that is, improving the learning performance of all students in their buildings. Principals must still perform the challenging managerial tasks such as developing students’ academic schedules, creating the master schedule for teacher responsibilities, accounting for the expenditures from their limited building budgets, and determining who will monitor the cafeteria, bus duty, hallway, and study hall assignments. However, today these management duties are regarded as minor challenges compared to the demand by all PreK-12 stakeholders for accountability and increasing expectations for high-quality teaching, for the professional development and growth of everyone working in their buildings, and, most importantly, for markedly improved achievement scores of all kids enrolled in their buildings.

Other than the teacher in each classroom, many education experts feel the principal in each building is the most significant factor in achieving improvements in student learning and positive changes in weak teachers (Gutmore, Strobert, & Gutmore, 2009; Harris, 2006; Johns, 2010). In an interview with Senator Al Franken concerning the bill Senator Franken introduced in Congress to improve principal training, Emily Johns (2010) quotes Franken as he discusses the research done by Arthur Levine and his associates: “What the research shows is that the quality of principals makes an enormous difference in terms of student achievement” (p. 1). If long-term changes are to be made, building by building and classroom by classroom, principals must lead those transformational change efforts. Logically, it follows that the responsibility for improving overall student achievement eventually ends up on the principal’s desk.

Even though there is a growing trend for non-profits, for-profits, and even large school districts to provide principal preparation programs, their numbers remain quite small in comparison to the large number of preparation programs offered at higher education institutions across the country. Levine (2005) found that 88% of principals still get their licenses through university preparation programs. In recent years, these principal preparation programs, offered through colleges of education and their departments of educational administration (EDAD), have come under intense scrutiny related to the quality of their graduates and their readiness to assume this new leadership role required of today’s principals (Gutmore, Strobert, & Gutmore, 2009; Kelly & Hess, 2005). Are these EDAD programs adequately preparing principals for tomorrow’s schools and future generations of students who will have to live and compete in an increasingly competitive global world? Many school administrator practitioners, education experts, and those working in principal preparation programs say no. Arthur Levine (2005), former president of Columbia University, in his seminal research report titled Educating School Leaders, which was written for the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation, stated, “This study found the overall quality of educational administration programs in the United States to be poor. The majority of the programs range from inadequate to appalling, even at some of the country’s leading universities. Collectively, school leadership programs are not successful on any of the nine quality criteria” (p. 23). Senator Al Franken, in his interview with Johns (2010) regarding principal preparation, quotes Levine: “The quality of preparation for people to become principals is really dreadful. We haven’t found the magic bullet…” (p. 2).

Others have expressed similar thoughts. Quinn (2005) put it this way, “Another way to strengthen principal preparation programs is to completely overhaul outdated university curriculum content. Course work and field-based learning must emphasize instructional leadership as the gold standard of good principals, and move away from the traditional emphasis on school management” (p. 14). Reacting to the articles commissioned by the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation, Usdan (2002) expressed the urgency of the issue, “The field of educational leadership preparation desperately needs to be transformed as expeditiously as possible” (p. 306).

Many experts and those directly involved in the preparation of principals—professors, public school principals who act as mentors, and even past and present students in preparation programs—offer opinions about what needs to be done to prepare principals for the challenges of transforming teaching and learning. Levine (2005) interviewed administrators who were alumni of well-known EDAD programs. They described four resources that need to be improved: “(1) faculty with more experience as practitioners, (2) a more relevant curriculum, (3) upgraded technology, and (4) curriculum that requires more clinical experience” (p. 39). Nelson, de la Colina, and Boone (2008), in their description of how to prepare school leaders, stated the following: “ Moreover, in a comprehensive study of exemplary leadership preparation programs, Darling-Hammond et al. found that one of the key similarities among effective programs was a focus on instructional leadership and school improvement” (p. 699). Sherman (2008) studied the factors leading to success of first-year principals. He found a strong need “…for a greater connection between university preparation programs and the daily reality of principals’ work” (p. 752).

There seems to be a dearth of research related to how students in principal preparation programs feel about their preparation after they have earned their license. The author refers to these students as PLCs, Principal License Completers. PLCs have successfully worked through all the courses, activities, and projects. Many have also passed a national test of knowledge related to leadership and building administration, and they have probably been exposed repeatedly to the most recent leadership research. PLCs’ fresh, knowledgeable opinions of their preparation programs—things like what activities and projects helped the most; what they liked best; if they are already in principal positions, what things they were least prepared for; and what changes they would recommend in their colleges’ preparation programs—need to be compared to the experts’ opinions. From this we can better assess which activities and experiences may need to be changed.

Glasman, Cibulka, and Ashby (2002) supported this view. They declared that there is an “…increasing need to view the self-evaluation of leadership preparation programs as a pivotal new starting point in efforts to improve schools. An effective self-evaluation will lead to better preparation programs and, with other conditions, to better subsequent practice” (p. 257). Levine (2005) added, “…school leadership programs do not engage in systematic self-assessment” (p. 23). A thorough self-evaluation should involve recent principal license completers, as well as EDAD faculty responsible for principal preparation programs. In a 2007 article, Edmonds, Waddle, Murphy, Ozturgut, and Caruthers agreed, stating, “…leadership programs need to be more receptive to student concerns regarding delivery” (p. 14).

With this in mind, EDAD faculty decided that a thorough and ongoing self-evaluation of its principal preparation program would be best served by first launching a ten-year, longitudinal study of its recent Principal License Completers (PLCs). The initial survey gathered PLC thoughts and opinions on these subjects: what were the most helpful and meaningful activities performed during the course work and internship, responsibilities they were least prepared to perform as they began their principal position, and instructional practices, activities, and projects that need to be changed.

1. Do Principal License Completers (PLCs) perceive the principal preparation program to be effective?

2. What elements of the preparation program do PLCs perceive to be most valuable?

3. What do PLCs perceive to be the elements of the preparation program that need improved?

The findings from this initial survey for the longitudinal study were quite positive in regards to many parts of the principal preparation program, while, at the same time, describing several instructional practices, activities, and issues the faculty can analyze, study, and act on to better prepare PLCs to meet the challenges principals face today.

In recent years principal preparation programs in colleges of education have been severely criticized because of what a number of researchers, scholars, and practitioners describe as principals unable to successfully assume the challenging new role of transformational leader, that is, the person responsible in the end for the learning and academic achievement of all students in their buildings (Kelly & Hess, 2005). To add to its knowledge from the literature, EDAD faculty chose to engage in an ongoing self-evaluation of its preparation program by launching a ten-year, longitudinal study of its Principal License Completers.

Findings from the survey in year one show that recent Principal License Completers feel their principal preparation was effective. In fact, the last item on the survey asked PLCs to give the EDAD department a letter grade for their overall preparation, on a 4.00 scale, with an A being worth four points. The “grade point average” was 3.44. Several questions come to mind when thinking about that average. Since most of the PLCs are not yet employed as principals, will that average rise or fall as PLCs attempt to find principal jobs and experience the ups and downs of that search? Will the average rise or fall as PLCs land that first principal job and experience the reality of the demands on today’s principals? Future results from the longitudinal study should help answer these and other questions related to PLC satisfaction with the principal preparation program.

When analyzing what PLCs perceived was most valuable in their preparation, the category of “Classes” they took was listed most often, especially law, finance, and what they described as practical classes. They also place high value on class discussions. Internship experiences were also mentioned by most of the participants, especially the interviews, the professional conference requirement, and what they described as “real issues.” Along with “Classes,” the “Professors” category was mentioned often, with emphasis on professors’ communication skills, and the fact that many professors, both full-time and adjuncts, had been or were currently practitioners. Various aspects of how and where classes are scheduled was also a very positive aspect of PLCs’ satisfaction with the preparation program.

PLCs’ suggestions for improvements will undoubtedly create considerable analysis and discussion during EDAD faculty meetings in 2010-11. Many of the suggestions in Table 2 refer to needing more of a particular class activity or experience, for example, more law, special education, and handouts related to contracts and parent communications, policies, and more online instruction. The same can be said for internship-related suggestions: more time in real-life experiences with a principal and perhaps doing a few more interviews rather than some of the activities now required. It certainly is not a surprise for former and current principals to see that PLCs expressed a need for more information about handling discipline situations, both with students and staff. PLCs also want more information and experience with integrating technology into principal’s routine responsibilities.

A large number of survey participants said that although they thought the internship was one of the strongest parts of their preparation program, they also indicated EDAD faculty should consider replacing some of the articles that must be critiqued with other more meaningful experiences. The specific concern was that the large number of critiques and some of the activities seemed like busy work and not especially applicable to principal preparation.

With just one year of data from the Principal License Completers (PLCs) in this ten-year, longitudinal study, EDAD faculty must guard against being too satisfied with the overall positive feedback from our recent PLCs. Continued principal practitioner experience for PLCs currently employed as principals and beginning practitioner experience as principals for any newly-employed PLCs could shed new understanding and opinions about how the principal license preparation program might be improved. However, it is encouraging that a large majority of the responses to the research questions summarized in the “Discussion” are a very close match to the suggestions for improvement from Levine and other experts. For example, Levine (2005) talked about “…curriculum that requires more clinical experience,” (p. 39) and PLCs suggested more time working with a principal and possibly even substituting for the principal for a week. These suggestions from PLCs also support comments from Sherman (2008) when he concluded that there is a need “…for a greater connection between university preparation programs and the daily reality of principals’ work” (p. 752).

Our EDAD faculty can seek answers from PLCs to a number of questions in the coming years of this longitudinal study. For example, we certainly will want to know where PLCs go for their first and subsequent principal positions, and why they made those decisions. We can inquire as to how their opinions and suggestions change as they obtain principal experience. PLCs will certainly be an excellent source of feedback regarding changes that are made in the principal preparation program during this ten-year study.

Hopefully, the broad parameters of this longitudinal study will motivate other departments of educational administration, as well as our own department, to consider different research questions related to improving principal preparation. For example, (1) Would a longer internship experience better prepare aspiring principals for the real world of the building principalship? (2) How have the opinions of employers related to principal preparation changed in recent years? (3) Are the candidates coming from principal preparation programs prepared for the increasing demands for instructional leadership? (4) What is being done in higher education preparation programs to better prepare principals to turn around failing schools?

Edmonds, C. A., Waddle, J. L., Murphy, C. H., Ozturgut, O., & Caruthers, L. E. (2007). Leading the learning: What Missouri principals say about their preparation programs. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 3(4), 14-21. Retrieved from www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx

Glasman, N., Cibulka, J., & Ashby, D. (2002). Program self-evaluation for continuous improvement. Educational Administration Quarterly 38(2), 257-288. doi: 10.1177/0013161x02382008

Gutmore, D., Strobert, B., & Gutmore, R. F. (2009). Meeting the needs: A best practice grow your own school leader program. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 6(1), 33-39. Retrieved from www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx

Harris, S. L. (2006). Best practices of award-winning public school principals: Implications for University preparation programs. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 3(2), 30-41. Retrieved from www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx

Johns, E. (2010, February 16). A discussion on the principles of principals. Minneapolis StarTribune, pp. 1, 2. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/politics/80868822.html?page-3&c=y

Kelly, A. P., & Hess, F. (2005). The accidental principal: What doesn’t get taught at ed schools? Education Next, 5(3), 1-7.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. The Education Schools Project, 1-86. Retrieved from www.edschools.org/reports_leaders.htm

Nelson, S. W., de la Colina, M. G., & Boone, M. D. (2008). Lifeworld or systemsworld: What guides novice principals? Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), 690-701. doi: 10.1108/09578230810908280

Quinn, T. (2005, May/June). Leadership development: The principal-university connection. Principal, 12-16. Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2005/M-Jp12.pdf

Sherman, A. (2008). Using case studies to visualize success with first year principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), 752-761. doi: 10.1108/09578230810908334

Usdan, M. (2002). Reactions to articles commissioned by the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly 38(2), 300-307. doi: 10.1177/0013161x02382010