This study is framed in the model of exemplary leadership preparation programs as documented in the work of Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr and Cohen (2007). Studies of leadership preparation programs (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2007; Devita, Colvin, Darling-Hammond, & Haycock, 2007; Dilworth & Thomas, 2001) have consistently found similar components across exemplary leadership preparation programs. These components, if implemented with fidelity, led to outcomes which included principals who felt they were better prepared to lead instruction and garner support from all stakeholderss, were more positive about the work of a principal, had a greater intent to stay in the field of administration, and were better able to develop a school vision. Moreover, schools with principals who focused on instructional leadership found increased student achievement and greater job satisfaction in their teachers (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2007).

This study focused on two of the components of exemplary leadership programs; that is, university-school district partnerships and instruction from both university professors and school practitioners.

Goodlad (1993) in his early work with professional development schools and partnerships for teaching training, noted that school systems and universities profit from symbiotic relationships; that is, the “intimate living together of two dissimilar organisms in a mutually beneficial relationship” (p. 29). Gutierrez, Field, Simmons, and Basile (2007) refer to these benefits as “intellectual capital” (p.334). This resource is the expertise brought to the table by the core people in the partnership. Gutierrez, et al. call this the “heart of actualizing the potential of the partner school model” (p. 335).

Strong partnerships between the university and the school districts increase the likelihood of quality candidates for the university, opportunities for valuable internship experiences, and active, on-going conversations on the best way to marry research and practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Devita et al., 2007; Dilworth & Thomas, 2001; Schmidt-Davis et al., 2009). Darling-Hammond et al. found that university-school district collaboration at the beginning of leadership preparation ensured that support would continue to be provided once graduates became principals.

The relationship that is established between school districts and universities must be one of mutual respect and benefits. Goodlad (1998), as cited in Dyson (1999), noted that the purpose of school-university collaboration is to allow the strengths of both entities to benefit the whole while also allowing for the goals of each partner to be met. However, as the partnership is initiated, Goodlad (1993) suggested that lessons learned from professional development school endeavors should be heeded. Cultural differences in school systems and university systems are vastly different. Schools are more regimented in time, schedules, and space where universities have greater freedom in scheduling and time for research and investigating problems of interest. While universities approach problems from the perspective of inquiry and pondering, the approach of schools holds a more immediate need for action (Goodlad, 1998). Each side of the partnership should be aware of and sensitive to the perspectives from which the other will approach the partnership.

Kersch and Masztal (1998) cautioned that even without problems, the tasks of initiating a partnership will take more time and effort than anticipated. These researchers also note that change comes slowly, particularly for those who are being asked to change. An analysis of collaborations prompted Kersch and Mazstal to recommend a written commitment from the partners which should include a timeline, a list of responsibilities of each partner, and an evaluation. The written commitment must emanate from the shared vision of all partners, a vision founded on communication and compromise. Partnerships will rarely be sequential but evolving.

Instruction from both university faculty and practicing school and district level administrators provided aspiring leaders the theory-to-practice connection critical to understanding work in the field (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2007; Devita, et al., 2007). The big picture of theory with the application to schools provided students of leadership with improved problem solving skills.

The application of theory to the world of schools is critical to preparing aspiring leaders for the real work of principals. Quinn (2005) supported the creation of “a problem-based, real world program of instruction” to “encourage universities and principals to seek innovative approaches to the leadership curriculum” (p. 16). This can be accomplished with exemplary principals working with professors on syllabi, course activities, and formative assessments. Quinn further recommended on-site delivery of instruction to increase accessibility of practitioner partners and district personnel. Convenient access to the instructional site may motivate practitioners to participate in the instructional component of the partnership.

Qualitative data were collected through interviews. Principal participants in the partnerships were asked to volunteer for interviews. Ten practitioner partners were identified and all agreed to be interviewed while three identified school district leaders agreed to be interviewed. Six superintendents, or their representatives, agreed to be interviewed and five university professors volunteered for participation. This resulted in a final sample size of 24 participants. Interviews took place both face-to-face and via telephone. All interdisciplinary partners contacted for an interview were unable to participate. A description of site participants is found in Table 1.

The practitioner partners who were interviewed were those principals and/or district personnel who were identified as having expertise in the course content. These partners co-taught with professors. Respondents identified as district leaders were district level personnel who worked in the large urban district where the university is located. This group has a distinctive partnership with the university because the Leadership Academy initial cohort were all employees of this district. Thus, the support and feedback from this group was critical to the success of the partnership. The university professors were limited to faculty who taught in the leadership preparation program. District superintendents, or their representatives, were limited to school system representatives who partnered with the university through formal memoranda of understanding and who were active in the Steering Committee, the advisory group to the leadership preparation program.

An interview protocol was utilized for each of the four categories of partners who were interviewed. All interviews were semi-structured and varied in length from 15-25 minutes. Interviews were recorded and verbatim transcribed. Transcripts were entered into QDA Miner, a qualitative analysis software program. Two researchers independently coded the transcripts and compared coded transcripts. Three systematic iterations were completed to determine frequencies in the data.

Working independently, each researcher created codes based upon the responses of the participants. For example, a response from a participant of “the experience, the conversation, and the, you know, collaboration of those individuals was just…it was neat” (Practitioner Partner 2) was coded as “experience”. A response of “the practitioner partner had updates from the field and provided information related to current trends and practices” (University Professor 2) was coded as “contribution to the course”.

Summaries were generated from QDA Miner Software, which were analyzed for patterns and used for code mapping. Three iterations of coding, collaboration, and modifications reduced data to create categories for university and K-12 partnerships. Categories such as collaboration of teaching, perceptions and experience, and contribution to aspiring leaders were constructed. The researchers discussed commonalities and discrepancies from their interpretations in an effort to identify themes. Five themes emerged from the pattern variables and were used to establish the shared beliefs and principles of the practitioner partners, district leaders, and professors (see Table 2).

Note. Adapted fromAnfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K., & Mangione, T. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31, 28-38.

Professors and practitioners agreed that there is value in merging theory and practice. Respondents related that the most complex aspect of the partnership for both the professors and the practitioner partner was learning how to balance the class time devoted to theory and to practice as well as collaborating on planning and elements of class discussion. As one professor noted, class time must be planned so students can understand “real-life situations that allow students to apply in-class concepts and topics to work conditions they will face.” The practitioner partner can “apply stories of things that happened at his school about concepts we were learning” (UP 1).

The perspective of the practitioner partners supported the concept of bridging theory with practice. Common responses indicated that “having a practitioner partner allows students to experience firsthand what it is like ‘in the trenches’ so that they can apply their academic knowledge to the reality of the coursework” (PP 5) and “what a practitioner is able to do is come in and show you working models of how they base things on theory [the students] have already learned” (PP 1).

Emphasis on the application of textbook theory to everyday practice was successful because of the level of collaboration between the instructors. The cooperative efforts from all instructor participants were evident, as supported by interview responses.

Collaboration between practitioners and professors progressed from program initiation to data collection for this study. During the early days of professors and practitioner partners in the same classroom, there was little consistency across coursework in how the partnership worked. In some classes, the practitioners were guest speakers in a specific content area. The belief was that “more in-depth collaboration [might] occur in year two and three” (PP 3). University professor 5 stated that he

As the program has evolved, the role of the practitioner has developed into that of a co-teacher. Through team teaching, professors and practitioners are able to collaborate on course content, timelines, and expectations as well as instruction, class activities, and within class and web-based discussions. Respondents cited specific strategies for co-teaching, such as “we divided the class in half where I introduced the topic, and then he followed up with the application to the school level” (UP 1). Another professor stated that “We looked at the four pillars or elements of school data….he kind of took the lead role in three and I took the lead in the student performance” (UP 5).

While university professors and practitioner partners worked collaboratively in construction and delivery of the coursework, the department faculty reached out to the districts surrounding the university, whether students from these districts participated in the leadership preparation program or not. Faculty from ELPS realized that feedback and attempts to meet the needs of the regional school systems widened the net of collaboration for all involved.

Interviews were conducted with university partners from local school systems. Respondents included regional school system superintendents, or their representatives, from the group charged with serving as the advisory board to the program’s leadership preparation program, known as the Steering Committee (SC). Superintendents responded that the partnerships are unique in that Local Education Agencies (LEA) surrounding the university have not had the opportunity to collaborate with a university in this capacity. Partner superintendents also agreed that the unique nature of the partnership extended beyond the boundaries of the regional area as they were not aware of other school districts participating to the extent that they have. Collaborating partners were pleased with the opportunity to contribute to the training of aspiring leaders, to see the university as a resource to their districts, and to participate in this collaboration as a pathway to build camaraderie between districts. The work of the SC was viewed as a way to learn from the university and each other. One respondent stated that “I see it as something that will be a real plus for all of us in terms of us steering our people in that direction [more effective development] and having the opportunity to learn and grow new leaders” (SC 4), while another perceived the partnership as “a wonderful resource and asset to the region as far as leadership development” (SC 2).

Respondents from the various partnership groups articulated differing foci for the partnership. The wider net of school districts surrounding the university established a partnership with the ELPS faculty and each sent a representative to serve in an advisory capacity on the SC. SC representatives and many practitioner partners responded that a broader focus should be the intent of the partnerships; that is, their concern was how to improve the learning provided to aspiring leaders. The larger interest was in what both the districts and the university can do in the present, and in the future, to ensure that schools have exemplary principals who will meet the needs of the community in which they work.

The largest school district with whom the university partnered was located in the same city as the university. This district was not only larger than the other school systems but represented the only urban district of the twenty six partners. Moreover, the first cohort of students in the Leadership Academy was populated solely by school building personnel from this district. The perceptions of the district personnel regarding the focus of the partnership was more narrow than the SC and intent upon the details of how the partnership, and the larger outcomes, should proceed, rather than the process of what should occur. Their concerns were specifically local and then national, through the recognition that they hoped the Center for Educational Leadership would bring to the area. This partnership group repeatedly cautioned that they needed to make sure the university would continue to meet the needs for preparing aspiring leaders as identified by the urban district, rather than the larger picture of leadership preparation for the regional area. Common among this group was the thought that “here is an opportunity to really put a handprint on where the needs are and what skills, talents, attributes we [district personnel] want to see in administrators” (DL 1). The district leaders believed that by supporting a full time internship, that is, four days each week, in their school system, the aspiring leaders would not only gain experience as an administrator but would gain this experience working under the policies, procedures, and guidelines of the district. Concerns expressed by every respondent from this urban district centered on how the district personnel would be able to meet the needs of the partnership, including time for meetings, assuring that mentors spent adequate time to address the needs of interns, and whether the demands of the partnership would be reasonable for the district.

All respondents considered the partnership experience valuable to both the leadership candidates and themselves as educators. However, interviewees also acknowledged that there were aspects of the partnership that were difficult. Factors such as clearly defining the role of the practitioner, the practitioner’s contribution in pre-planning the course, and the diversity of the practitioner partners were addressed by both practitioners and professors. Professors suggested that there is a need to “offer clear, specific examples of what they [practitioner partners] will be doing” (UP 4). One professor expressed concern about differing expectations; that is, practitioner partners who were part of the new Leadership Academy were selected by district level personnel with no input from faculty while practitioner partners in the previously existing program were selected with input from program faculty. This professor (UP 1) called for “greater clarity from the district” regarding faculty expectations for practitioner partners.

Another challenge was finding practitioner partners who held expertise in specific areas such as school reform, finance, and policy. Conversely, some practitioner partners held expertise in many areas and faculty were cautious about overusing partners, hoping to offer a variety of perspectives to the students. One faculty member recommended, “I don’t think the students should ever have the same practitioner partner in two classes” (UP 4).

Additional recommendations forwarded during the interviews were for faculty to make a concerted effort to increase communication between the partners and the professors. Opportunities to improve curriculum and input from all parties on course objectives was considered paramount. Both professors and practitioners agreed that to offer a program that successfully prepares educators to be effective school leaders, both the university and the school district must commit to the growth and development of school level leaders to their full potential. As a result, continual refinement is needed (DL 1).

Professors agreed that by collaborating with practitioners, aspiring leaders were provided the opportunity to gain practical insights into the complex and challenging issues that school leaders face. This partnership supported meaningful information and theory taught by the professor. Professors unanimously responded that information shared by the practitioner partners was valuable and relevant to the curriculum being taught. Timely examples provided by practitioner partners were deemed especially pertinent to conveying how theory is “lived” in the world of schools, noting that “examples have proved valuable in generating connects between concepts we discuss in class and practical conditions they face as leaders in schools” (UP 4).

Professors shared that though they were at one time K-12 educators, the world of schools is rapidly changing; thus, the presence of a practitioner partner who experiences the daily life of schools benefits all. UP 2 stated “I think the experience provided an excellent learning opportunity for both the students and myself.” Perceptions of the various partners associated with the leadership preparation program proved invaluable as the successes and challenges of the program are continually evaluated.