Principales programas de la preparación han sido criticados mucho tiempo a través de la nación por fabricantes de política, por líderes de escuela, por los eruditos, y por organizaciones profesionales. Estos expertos han levantado preocupación acerca de la falta de aplicabilidad entre teoría y práctica, y una falta de colaboración con distritos de escuela (Mazo & Jóvenes, 1996); falta de contenido coherente y riguroso de plan (McCarty, 1999; Murphy, 1993), y la falta de experiencias clínicas substanciales (Levine, 2005). En 2001, Terry Orr y el Concilio de la Universidad de Administración/Aprender y Enseñar Educativos en el Liderazgo Educativo (UCEA/LTEL) Destacamento Especial a Evaluar Preparación de Liderazgo de Educativo empezó una investigación en la preparación de líderes de escuela y desarrolló una inspección, Preparación de Liderazgo de Escuela e Inspección de Práctica (SLPPS, anteriormente Inspección de UCEA/LTEL de Preparación de Liderazgo y Práctica) y un compañero Maestro Inspección. Dos instituciones en regiones diferentes de Estados Unidos sortearon la Inspección de Maestro dentro de las escuelas donde sus egresados de programa sirvieron como directores. Ambas principal preparación programa acentuado desarrollando liderazgo habilidades para la mejora de enseñar y aprender. El propósito de este método mezclado que múltiples caso fue de revisar cómo voz de maestro puede informar los esfuerzos continuos de mejora de principales programas de preparación. Específicamente, la pregunta de investigación fue: ¿Cómo haga las percepciones de egresados de maestros y programa acerca de acciones de director y maestro informan principal preparación? Las conclusiones añaden a la base del conocimiento y la práctica de evaluación de programa y proporcionan un lazo más fuerte en la cadena de factores de la preparación para practicar que influencias educan mejora en enseñar y aprender.

Connections are needed between the university and schools in strengthening the preparation of principals who can support student learning and school improvement (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). Although research supports the vital role of teachers in promoting student learning, the principal is instrumental in strengthening a school culture that supports and sustains quality teaching and learning (Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004). In addition, principals are primarily responsible for creating conditions that support school improvement (Bellamy, Fulmer, Murphy, & Muth, 2007).

Both high-quality teachers and principals are needed in today’s schools. Hopkins (2008) argued, “Our nation is facing crises in terms of recruiting, preparing, and retaining high-quality teachers in its public schools” (p. 727). In addition, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2006), 56% of current principals are age 50 or more and will be retiring in this decade. Linking the university and partner schools in the recruitment and preparation of future teachers and principals can strengthen the pipeline of qualified educators for 21^st century schools. As Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, and Orr (2010) stated, in their study of successful principal preparation programs, “The exemplary programs were more likely than others to recruit excellent teachers who have strong instructional backgrounds and leadership potential and who better represent the populations of their communities” (p. 187).

Changing needs within public schools of increased demands of accountability systems have called for leaders who would transform schools to foster increased learning as a primary responsibility (Donaldson, 2006; Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson & Wahlstom, 2004; Leithwood & Riehl, 2005; Matthews & Crow, 2003; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). As Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, and Orr (2007) suggested, “New expectations for schools-that they successfully teach a broad range of students with different needs, while steadily improving achievement for all students-mean that schools typically must be redesigned rather than merely administered” (p. 1). To accomplish the goal of improving achievement for all students, distributed leadership and collaborative, shared decision making is needed (Kochan & Reed, 2005; Lashway, 2006; Quantz, Rogers, & Dantley, 1991; Spillane, 2006).

Principals are charged to serve as facilitators of learning and school improvement creating democratic cultures of academic excellence and equity for students of diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds (Dantley, 2005; Furman & Shields, 2005; Prestine & Nelson, 2005) and to model moral, authentic leadership (Dantley, 2005; Sergiovanni, 2007). With these responsibilities, principals often assume roles as change facilitators for sustainable, systemic improvement (Duffy, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Schlechty, 2008).

Common elements of effective program design features identified by Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) included a coherent curriculum aligned with state and professional standards; curriculum emphasizing instructional leadership and school improvement; active, student-centered instruction; knowledgeable faculty who were experienced in school leadership; social and professional support through a cohort structure; vigorous, targeted recruitment; and a well-designed, supervised administrative internship. Although these common elements of effective principal preparation programs have been identified, an understanding of ways that school improvement efforts to improve teaching and learning are impacted by principal preparation programs with a clear focus on instructional leadership and school improvement is needed. As Levine (2005) emphasized, “Today, principals and superintendents have the job not only of managing our schools, but also of leading them through an era of profound social change that has required fundamental rethinking of what schools do and how they do it” (p. 5). Part of the problem for university-based programs has been that there is little empirical evidence that they have a significant impact on graduates’ ability to lead schools (Achilles, 1994; Brent, 1998; Brent & Haller, 1998). Research is needed that helps to illuminate the impact of principal preparation programs on school improvement (Young, 2008).

University-based principal preparation programs have been the subject of criticism for well over 20 years (Achilles, 1994). The need for structural and strategic reform around principal preparation became paramount in the 1990s (Beck & Murphy, 1994; Donmoyer, Imber, & Scheurich, 1995; Hallinger, Leithwood, & Murphy, 1993; Hannaway & Crowson, 1989; McCarthy & Kuh, 1997; Milstein & Associates, 1993; Mitchell & Cunningham, 1990; Mulkeen, Cambron-McCabe, & Anderson, 1994; Murphy, 1992, 1993; Murphy & Forsyth, 1999). This criticism hit a boiling point when two influential reform reports, A License to Lead? A New Leadership Agenda for American’s Schools (Hess, 2003)and Educating School Leaders (Levine, 2005), called for more aggressive reforms and questioned the capability of university-based programs to meet the needs of 21^st Century school leaders. Levine expressed urgency for this reform asserting, “the quality of leadership in our schools has seldom mattered more... Today, principals and superintendents have the job not only of managing our schools, but also of leading them through an era of profound social change that has required fundamental rethinking of what schools do and how they do it” (p. 5). Since then, the university’s monopoly on principal preparation has been dissolved due to deregulation and choice. Several states no longer require principal certification and an increasing number of states have allowed alternative and non-traditional providers into the principal preparation landscape. This climate makes it imperative for university-based programs to gather data about their effectiveness and impact on graduates. To date, external evaluative measures most often consist of anecdotes and surveys of superintendents and principals. These self-reporting measures are wholly inadequate because the essence of principal preparation resides in what graduates are able to do in the practice of school leadership.

Similar to most forms of professional development, existing evaluations of principal preparation programs have consisted mainly of post-program surveys of graduates and short-term job placement results (Jacobson, 1998; Murphy& Vriesenga, 2004; Orr & Barber, 2007; Orr & Hung, 2002). Guskey (2000) identified three major mistakes in evaluations of professional development: ( a) they merely document what was done;( b) they consist of participants’ perceptions, attitudes, or beliefs; and( c) they are too brief and fail to document long-term effects. An evaluative process consisting of multiple measures has the potential to inform developing pedagogies that link context, practices, and thinking. Research designs should start with a chain of variables linking leadership preparation to leader practices and ultimately to student learning, so the effects of preparation and leader actions become more evident.

Two institutions that participated in Orr’s study (2010) of the nature of 17 leadership preparation programs across the United States fielded the Teacher Survey within schools where their program graduates served as principals. Program A is a private university-urban district partnership program in a western state and Program B is within a south-central regional university that has been engaged in a collaborative university school partnership with four school districts for over a decade. Both of these principal preparation programs shared an identified focus on instructional leadership and school improvement and collaborated with partner districts. The results of the 2007 SLPPS revealed that program graduates of both of these institutions ranked their principal preparation programs as highly effective in preparing them to be instructional leaders (Orr, 2007).

The impact of these two university principal preparation programs on school improvement in teaching and learning was illuminated through a multiple case study. The purpose of this study was to pilot the administration of the Teacher Survey of and provide perspective on the importance of adding teacher voice to evaluation of leadership preparation. Specifically, this study is an examination of teacher and principal perceptions regarding principals’ actions as a means to investigate how the principals’ preparation programs influenced the conditions of teaching and learning at their schools. The research question was: How do the perceptions of teachers and program graduates about principal and teacher actions inform principal preparation?

The School Leadership Preparation and Practice Survey (SLPPS) contained approximately 50 items using a five-point Likert scale. This survey was used to assess program graduates’ experiences and perceptions, and provide a source of evidence on program outcomes. Also, the Teacher Survey was administered to the teachers of these program graduates.

The researchers fielded both the SLLPS and the Teacher Survey. Completion of the survey was voluntary, and teachers were reminded that the purpose of the survey was not to evaluate the principal but to gather their perceptions about principal actions that would be used to inform the principal preparation program. The teachers were instructed to consider the survey as a draft and to provide written or verbal comments about survey items. The researchers observed the administration of the instrument on 6 of the 11 campuses to observe length of time in taking the survey and teachers’ overall responses. The researchers also interviewed the principals concerning comments that were shared concerning the instrument’s readability, length, comprehensiveness, and redundancy. The researcher administered the Teacher Survey for Program A and the principals assumed responsibility for administering the surveys to the teachers for Program B.

After all surveys were fielded and collected, the quantitative data were entered into an Excel Spreadsheet and later imported to the SPSS 17.0. The SLPPS and Teacher Survey data were analyzed using SPSS 17.0 to generate descriptive of means and standard deviations.

Research Question: How do the perceptions of teachers and program graduates about principal and teacher actions inform principal preparation?

The UCEA/LTEL-SIG Teacher Survey has three broad types of items: those that describe principal actions, (e.g., provides and engages teachers in professional development activities), those that describe teacher actions and efficacy, (e. g., observe another teacher teaching) and those that describe the school environment (e. g., curriculum, instruction, and learning materials are well coordinated across the different grade levels at this school). These three categories relate to how leaders influence student learning by setting directions, developing people and making the organization work (Leithwood, et. al, 2004). The following table displays the alignment between the twelve constructs of the UCEA/LTEL SIG Teacher Survey and the three categories.

Table 4

Teacher Survey Categories and Constructs

The SLPPS focuses on characteristics of principal preparation programs, and two of its constructs (Instructional Leadership and Principal Collaboration and Shared Decision Making) are aligned with the items on the Teacher Survey. Two other Teacher Survey constructs (Teacher Policy Influence and Teacher Collaboration) examine teacher perceptions of their own actions regarding their level of engagement and collaboration at the school. Due to this study’s focus on the links between principal preparation and teaching and learning, the survey results reported by each institution will include the following constructs: Principal Instructional Leadership, Principal Collaboration and Shared Decision Making, Teacher Policy Making and Teacher Collaboration.

We know that effective school leaders make a difference (Leithwood, Reidlinger, Bauer, & Jantzi, 2003; Silins, 2003). However, there has been little evidence showing that preparation programs make a difference in the field (Murphy & Vriesenga, 2004). Designing studies that examine school leader practice in the field and the connection between programs and school leader practice is imperative. The engagement of teacher voice about their principals’ and their own actions connects the work of preparation to practice. The teacher dimension contributes to studies about the effectiveness of principal preparation that examine graduates’ perceptions about their leadership learning from their programs.

We used the Teacher Survey to better understand school leader practice from the perspective of those who work closely with them - teachers. In examining school leader practice, teachers are in a unique position to provide evidence about school leader practice and they are often left out of the line of inquiry. The results of these two pilot studies provide some perspective on the importance of adding teacher voice in the variables evaluating the effectiveness of school leaders, and ultimately the connections between school leader practice and preparation programs.

In many respects, the study included both good news and bad news. Principal surveys revealed that principals perceived strong preparation in instructional leadership and school improvement. The teacher surveys revealed a contradictory finding. The teachers perceived that their principals facilitated collaborative environments; however, when asked about their own involvement in collaborations with teachers or decision making their responses were lower. This indicates that teachers see their principals as collaborative instructional leaders, but they do not seem to see themselves as instructional leaders who are empowered to collaborate and make decisions outside of their classrooms. Weak teacher responses in the areas of teacher empowerment and collaboration could indicate an area of improvement for the preparation programs. How do aspiring principals learn how to distribute authority and empower teachers? This finding also suggests a consideration of the context of principals’ work.

Orr (2009) stated, “What the principal does can have a huge effect on what the teacher does and the quality of learning experiences for the students” (p.1). However, the researchers identified that the context within which principals worked varied across multiple factors in the environment of the school and these contextual factors might also contribute to principals’ ability to impact school improvement. These factors that did not necessarily occur due to the principal preparation program were: (a) school setting (rural or urban), (b) style and influence of school superintendent and district leadership, (c) experience level of the teachers in the school, and (d) school resources available to support learning in the school. Since context does matter, then research and principal preparation should focus on how context impacts the effectiveness of leader behaviors. Context is pivotal in understanding the situation that principals encounter and experience. The issue of context was evident in terms of how the Teacher Survey itself could be interpreted and used.

The two instruments (SLPPS and Teacher Survey) differed greatly; an exact comparison of the questions could not be made. Therefore, it may have been useful for the principals to complete a version of the Teacher Survey with minor changes in the stem from “To what extent does the principal facilitate the conditions” to “To what extent do you facilitate the conditions.” The instrument could be more useful in providing comparisons between the principals’ and teachers’ responses.

Overall, in both settings, teacher perceptions were related to principal perceptions especially regarding the actions of principals. Establishing the validity of graduates’ leadership practice as school leaders is an important first step in linking programs with practice. The survey allowed us to understand teacher perceptions of school leader effectiveness in several areas including: instructional leadership, collaboration and shared decision-making, and purpose and direction. In addition, the survey allowed us to examine teacher perceptions of other aspects of the school environment and organizational context; however, we recognize that there are many factors that influence perceptions of the school context in addition to the school leader.

First, the fielding of the survey to program graduates of Program A and Program B was conducted with very small samples, so it is not appropriate to generalize any findings. Secondly, the survey instruments varied in item content and scale so comparisons of principal and teacher perceptions could not be made through statistical methods. In addition, future studies would benefit from fielding the teacher survey in schools where the principal did not graduate from a university preparation program in order to examine whether or not teacher perceptions are more or less favorable, and if principals possess more or less of the effective leadership behaviors when prepared at a university preparation program. In addition, these pilot studies only utilized descriptive statistics. Further research should test the relationship between leadership practices, teacher empowerment, collaboration, teacher performance, and student outcomes. Furthermore, it is possible that other factors in the school context influenced teacher perceptions of the school environment; therefore, future studies that consider those factors would strengthen a research design.

A Teacher Survey and Principal Survey could be paired as multi-source feedback tools about the leadership within the school. This feedback could assist preparation programs with program improvement and development of performance assessments for program participants. It might also be beneficial to administer the survey at the end of the first year and then several years later to understand whether or not and how principals’ leadership behaviors and influence change over time. Finally, these surveys should be used as formative information rather than evaluation. Listening to the perspectives of teachers will contribute to a preparation program’s ability to help its participants obtain the desired leadership attributes and skills.

Recognizing the need to prepare principals who could lead school improvement efforts, Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005) identified the importance of collaboration between principal preparation programs and area schools in the development of school leaders. However, researchers (Browne-Ferrigno, 2001; Norton, 2002) have suggested that there is little evidence that connects principal preparation to school improvement practices on the job suggesting that research that would begin to make these connections is a missing link.

Two diverse regions of the U.S. provided distinctly different settings to gain understanding of how leadership preparation programs that emphasize development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions to lead school improvement efforts impact the actions of school leaders. A comparison of the findings and processes of these two regions adds to the knowledge and practice base of program evaluation and provides a stronger link in the chain of factors from preparation to practice that influences school improvement in teaching and learning.

This study supports the impact of principal preparation programs that emphasize leadership skills and dispositions for leading school improvement in teaching and learning on improvement processes and practices. The study has implications for all university preparation programs in supporting that these programs’ areas of emphasis mattered in transferability to school improvement. These two universities maintained a strong focus on school improvement as a central theme in principal preparation courses, and this impact was evidenced by the positive results that were achieved.