Abstract
The changing conditions of schools, school populations, and standards-based accountability for student achievement, as well as the expanding knowledge base on effective leadership have created unique new challenges for leadership practice. As researchers have sought to understand these challenges and their implications for leadership practice, significant attention has also been focused on increasing the quality of leadership preparation programs (Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Milstein, 1993; Orr, 2006; U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], 2005; Young, 2004; Young, Crow, Murphy, & Ogawa, 2009).
Researchers have learned that quality leadership matters. Specifically, educational leaders are influenced by the quality of their leadership preparation and development opportunities. The University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) has played a significant role in supporting both research and research utilization in this area, in an effort to support educational leaders and foster quality educational leadership preparation. The Exemplary Educational Leadership Preparation (EELP) award is one example of such efforts.
What We Know About Effective Leadership Preparation
UCEA has advanced knowledge and development concerning the preparation and practice of educational leaders since it was established in 1954. Over the course of its 60-year history, UCEA has consistently worked to engage university faculty in program development and improvement efforts. Its activities have focused around the development of innovative programming, case studies, simulations, and standards; fostering research, publications, and research utilization; supporting collaboration around program improvement, and working with key stakeholders to foster policies and practices that support school and district leadership.
UCEA offers the leading forum for leadership preparation program-related research and policy development through its annual research-based conference and mechanisms for thoughtful discussion and problem solving around key issues in the field through its governance structure. UCEA has structures, reach, and experience with relating research and practice in leadership preparation and institutional improvement. About 1,400 professors in 99 member institutions and more than 1,500 additional faculty affiliates and graduate students are involved in various aspects of the UCEA program.
Several recent endeavors have led to significant developments in the area of educational leadership preparation. In 2000, UCEA affiliated with the Learning and Teaching in Educational Leadership (LTEL) to develop a joint research taskforce to design evaluation tools and support research on educational leadership preparation, and in 2003, UCEA collaborated with the American Educational Research Association’s (AERA) Division A and the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) to develop a Joint Research Taskforce on Educational Leadership Preparation. These two taskforces engaged in individual and joint research on leadership preparation, leading to significant increases in the knowledge base. Their work, along with expert opinion, provided important insight into a set of essential core program attributes, including a well-defined, leadership-for-learning focus; coherence; challenging and reflective content; student-centered instructional practices; competent faculty; positive student relationships; a cohort structure; supportive organizational structures; and substantive and lengthy internships (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007; Jackson & Kelley, 2002; McCarthy, 1999; Orr & Pounder, 2008; Young et al., 2009).
Research continues to evolve around the above-mentioned preparation program features as well as their effects on graduates’ knowledge, leadership practices, and career outcomes (Copland, 2000; Hermond, 1999; Leithwood, Jantzi, Coffin, & Wilson, 1996; Pounder, 1995; Short & Rinehart, 1993). To share just a few examples, Short and Rinehart (1993) demonstrated the relationship between reflective practice experiences in preparation and the subsequent application of content knowledge to school problems and leadership actions. Pounder’s (1995) examination of project-based learning revealed how participants gain knowledge and the extent to which their project work led to positive changes in their schools. Leithwood et al.’s (1996) research found that programs with a strong focus on instructional strategies in both content and assignments as well as their use of cohorts were strongly related to teachers’ positive perceptions of principals’ leadership effectiveness.
Collaborations between UCEA and the LTEL special interest group of AERA also led to the development of important evaluation tools that have been piloted, revised, and updated (Pounder, 2012). The current version offered by UCEA, the Initiative for Systemic Program Improvement Through Research in Educational Leadership (INSPIRE Leadership) suite provides a 360° evaluation tool for educational leadership preparation program effectiveness.
Preparation Programs Are Improving
As researchers have increased the knowledge base around the content and structure of effective preparation, many educational leadership faculty have incorporated this knowledge into their programs. For example, programs have increased opportunities for candidates to deepen their understanding of critical leadership practices to ensure their ability to lead organizations and build a collaborative vision, to support and advocate for student learning, to foster and engage in data-informed decision making, to develop a supportive organizational and instructional culture, to seek out and incorporate diverse perspectives, to engage stakeholders, to acquire and effectively use resources, and to reflect on how their knowledge bases interact with each other and how to apply them (Leithwood et al., 1996; Young et al., 2009).
Although significant changes have occurred across the leadership preparation landscape leading to increased numbers of high-quality leadership preparation programs, critics have continued to share negative opinions of the preparation of current and future school leaders (Levine, 2005; UCEA, 1987; Young et al., 2009). Critiques offer an image of a preparation system that is seriously flawed in core program areas, including (a) the ways students have been recruited and selected into programs, (b) the education they receive once there, (c) the methods used to assess learning and growth, and (d) the procedures developed to certify and place graduates in leadership positions (Bredeson, 1996; Bridges & Hallinger, 1997; Griffiths, Stout, & Forsyth, 1988; Young et al., 2009). In 2005, the USDOE reiterated these critiques and added that conventional programs lack vision, purpose, and coherence (USDOE, 2005).
Fortunately, the unhelpful practices highlighted by critics are only one part of the preparation story. The story also includes program excellence and considerable energy flowing into the improvement and enhancement of preparation programs in educational leadership (Young et al., 2009). Still, changing the reputation of educational leadership preparation will be no small feat. Not only are the criticisms of leadership preparation deeply engrained, but the number of programs offering preparation for educational leaders in the U.S. has doubled (Baker, Orr & Young, 2007). Much of this growth has occurred in the private, for-profit sector, which includes few programs that reflect the features associated with high-quality leadership preparation (Baker, 2012).
Fostering Improvements
In an effort to provide greater access to the existing and expanding knowledge base on educational leadership preparation, UCEA is committed to effective research translation, dissemination, and utilization. Research translation, dissemination, and utilization together make up an interconnected and challenging set of processes. Each step requires a solid understanding of end user needs and preferences as well as the skills and resources to successfully implement the stage. Research results are not always translated into useful tools or materials, nor are they disseminated adequately to interested audiences. In addition, interested and knowledgeable faculty may be willing to apply positive research results to improve their programs but lack the means by which they can convince their university officials to support the program improvements, particularly if these require more faculty resources (such as to arrange for better internships or to work with local districts for better program articulation). Better use of research, and in particular, improved use of research on leadership preparation requires a strategic focus on translation, dissemination, and utilization based on a strong understanding of end user needs as well as the contexts in which they practice.
UCEA is working with its member institutions, as well as in collaboration with other professional organizations, to develop means for more widespread dissemination. The UCEA website, for example, hosts a repository of publications and research tools from the UCEA-LTEL Evaluation taskforce. UCEA also provides electronic access to a variety of other resources on preparation, through its website. Resources include UCEA’s program quality rubrics, UCEA’s curriculum development planner, articles from the Journal of Research on Leadership Education (JRLE), the UCEA Review’s series on Innovative Programs and other pieces pertinent to leadership preparation, the Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, the UCEA Implications series, and UCEA program centers such as the Center for the Study of School-Site Leadership and the Center for Study of Leadership in Urban Schools. Finally, UCEA’s handbooks on leadership development, the International Handbook of Research on Leadership Development and the Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders, have served as additional important resources to the field.
As noted above, however, UCEA rarely works alone in its program improvement efforts. In addition to working with faculty from UCEA member institutions and critical higher education partners, UCEA has also worked with a number of school districts, professional associations, and foundations to support effective leadership and leadership preparation. Of particular significance is UCEA’s partnership with the Wallace Foundation, which has contributed significantly to the knowledge base on effective educational leadership over the last decade. UCEA has served as a thought and communication partner for the Wallace Foundation since 2000. Through this relationship, UCEA has made significant resources available to its members and its broader stakeholder community. In addition, in 2013, the Wallace Foundation agreed to underwrite the Annual EELP Award.
The EELP Award
The EELP award was launched in 2013 through an invitation to university-based leadership educators to nominate their programs in the spring of 2013. Specifically, applications were solicited from any university-based program that prepared leaders to lead in elementary, middle, or high schools, or programs focusing on the development of district-level leadership. The award attracted a great deal of attention. In its first year, 10 programs submitted full portfolios and in the second year, 16 programs submitted full portfolios.
Nomination portfolios were judged on two key criteria, the extent to which the program (a) reflected the current research on the features, content, and experiences associated with effective leadership preparation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Young et al., 2009) and (b) has demonstrated evidence of program effectiveness. Portfolios included descriptions of program purpose and practices, with descriptions provided in the following 11 areas:
Program Focus: What kind of leader does the program claim to prepare and how is that type of leadership reflected in the various dimensions of the program (e.g., recruitment, curriculum, practical experiences, and assessment)?
Recruitment: What strategies are used to recruit candidates? What perspectives, priorities, and data inform the development of recruitment materials? Who participates in the recruitment process and why?
Selection: What strategies, information, and criteria are used to select candidates for participation in the preparation program? How are the selection criteria and process integrated to the program’s goals and approach? Who participates in candidate selection and how? Does the student body reflect the diversity of the area served by the program?
Learning Experiences: What is the point of view about learning in the program? How does teaching reflect this perspective? What kinds of learning experiences are integrated into the program?
Knowledge and Skills: Is the program anchored to a set of nationally recognized leadership standards? How does the program integrate research and professional knowledge with leadership practice? In what ways are issues related to leading diverse and/or low-income student populations dealt with?
Internship: How does the internship support leadership development? How is it supervised and by whom? What does it involve and how is it funded?
Supportive Structures: What program structures (e.g., cohorts, mentoring, coaching) are provided to support communities of practice?
Partnerships: What kinds of partnerships inform the program? How have district personnel influenced and/or informed the program?
Candidate Assessment: How do you know that candidates are gaining the intended knowledge, skills, and dispositions? How are candidate assessments used to support candidate growth?
Program Improvement: How are candidate and program assessments used to promote program improvement?
Faculty: How many faculty teach in this program? Do program faculty represent expertise from the research and practice communities? How does the program ensure that its faculty have the capabilities to prepare effective educational leaders? How do faculty members work together to design, improve, and deliver the program?
Programs also provided information about course content, fieldwork experiences, and an overview of the evidence collected on program effectiveness.
A selection committee, made up of educational leadership researchers with strong expertise in educational leadership preparation, reviewed and evaluated the nominees. During the first year, the selection committee members included Martha McCarthy, Diana Pounder, Stephen Jacobson, and Michele Acker-Hocevar, all of whom have contributed significantly to the research base of effective leadership preparation through their research, writing, editing, and program development work.
Conclusion
We believe that the question of whether educational leadership preparation matters has been answered: It most certainly does matter. Current research on leadership preparation suggests that highly effective leadership preparation programs are distinguishable by their features and by their influence on their graduates’ learning and career advancement (Orr & Pounder, 2008; Young et al., 2009). In other words, quality preparation matters.
This special issue of the JRLE highlights the two educational leadership preparation programs that were selected for the first annual EELP Award. The two programs, though very different, reflect excellence in educational leadership preparation. The articles included in this issue provide descriptions of the programs, highlight key features, and explore elements that make them both powerful and contextually relevant. Each of the programs clearly demonstrates that educational leadership preparation programs can and do make a difference in the practice of program graduates.
It is our hope and intention that this special issue serves as a resource to faculty who are interested in making changes or improvements to their leadership preparation programs. Much is yet to be learned about how effective the innovative approaches to leadership preparation featured in this special issue and other issues of this journal will be; however, the programs highlighted by the EELP award and featured in this issue signal a shift in the way that university faculty are thinking about, designing, and delivering preparation programs for educational leaders. We would describe this shift as one that moves programs from delivering content about leadership to engaging future leaders in authentic leadership experiences that are purposefully designed to reflect contemporary challenges and opportunities of leadership practice.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.