Examining University Leadership Preparation: An Analysis of Program Attributes and Practices

Historical Role of UCEA in Quality Leadership Preparation

In the more than 60 years since UCEA was established, the field of educational leadership and the role of a school leader have evolved; however, the organization’s goals have endured. Those goals are: (a) to promote and disseminate research to the field, (b) to engage in continuous leadership preparation improvement, and (c) to prepare leaders to meet the needs of students and families (UCEA, 2017a). Building on UCEA’s legacy promoting research and quality leadership development, in the mid-1990s, UCEA, in collaboration with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA), led the development of standards for the field of educational leadership. This group published the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards in 1996, which represented a significant step toward a common Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL).

Subsequent to the development of each version of these national standards, UCEA worked with partner organizations to develop standards to guide the preparation of educational leaders and the evaluation of educational leadership programs (i.e., the Educational Leadership Constituent Council [ELCC] standards). Currently, UCEA’s executive director, Michelle Young, is chairing the committee responsible for developing the 2018 National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) standards, which will replace the ELCC standards. These preparation standards define preparation content and clinical practice that promote the development of aspiring school and district leaders with the knowledge, understanding, and ability to improve student achievement in the schools and districts they serve. UCEA membership criteria continue to be tightly aligned with professional standards for school and district leaders.

Complementing the leadership and preparation standards work, UCEA sponsored and supported research and publications focused on understanding the features and practices of quality educational leadership preparation and it designed evaluation tools for leadership preparation programs that help assess and improve program quality. In 2009, UCEA published the first Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders (Young, Crow, Murphy, Ogawa, 2009). The following year, UCEA published a research-based guidebook (Orr, Young, & Rorrer, 2010), as well as accompanying online resources, to help faculty in school leadership preparation programs plan for program improvement. Two years later, UCEA published a document that outlined institutional and program quality criteria to guide master’s and doctoral programs in educational leadership (Young et al., 2012). UCEA also cosponsored an Evaluation Research Taskforce with the Learning and Teaching in Educational Leadership (LTEL) special interest group of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), which resulted in the development of a survey for programs to use for information on their graduates and their programs. The earliest rendition of the surveys was revised by a UCEA team beginning in 2008 and 2010 and was then known as the School Leadership Preparation Program Surveys (SLPPS; Pounder, 2012).

In 2011 UCEA, in collaboration with the Utah Education Policy Center, undertook a full revision, expansion, and validation of the surveys. As a result of this research and development work, the INSPIRE research team launched a new and improved survey suite. The INSPIRE Leadership Survey Suite provides valid and reliable data that examine the programmatic elements of educational leadership preparation programs and the experiences of program participants as well as those participants once they have taken leadership positions. The INSPIRE Leadership Surveys are aligned to PSEL and NELP standards and provide data to help programs examine relationships between their program features, graduate student experiences and their practice once they assume leadership roles. The INSPIRE Leadership Survey Suite consists of four surveys.

It is important to point out that all UCEA institutions have committed to completing the INSPIRE Preparation Program Features Survey and a growing number are using the Graduate and Leaders in Practice Surveys. For more information on the development of these surveys, as well as the validity and reliability of the instrument, refer to Pounder’s 2012 article and the UCEA website.

Leveraging the UCEA’s evaluation work, particularly the INSPIRE Survey Suite and UCEA’s membership review process, UCEA most recently worked with New Leaders to develop a comprehensive toolkit for states that guides statewide initiatives to evaluate and improve educational leadership preparation. The State Evaluation of Principal Preparation Programs (SEP3) Toolkit recommends a set of indicators of program quality and a two-stage approach for assessing quality and promoting program improvement (UCEA & New Leaders, 2016).

Without question, the UCEA consortium has consistently supported important initiatives to encourage and support continuous program improvement, even for those programs that are currently considered high quality. In addition to the aforementioned UCEA efforts, individual UCEA institutions have also engaged in programmatic improvement and redesign efforts and sought external funding to support those efforts. Most recently, UCEA launched a Program Design Network (PDN) that organizes UCEA faculty in cross-institutional teams to support efforts to engage in program design, redesign, or improvement. In addition, four out of the seven universities selected for the Wallace Foundation’s (2016) University Preparation Program Initiative (UPPI) program redesign work are UCEA institutions. These efforts are representative of UCEA’s focus on continuous improvement to enhance the preparation of future leaders, and in turn, the success of schools and the experience of all students.

Critiques of the Field

Dissatisfaction with the quality of leadership research and preparation served as a compelling rationale for the development of UCEA in the 1950s. Since that time, the field of educational leadership and the preparation of principals and superintendents have continued to face critique. In 1987, UCEA launched the National Commission for Excellence in Educational Administration to examine and address critiques of leadership preparation and practice (Murphy & Forsyth, 1999). A key concern of this commission was focused on the large number of leadership preparation programs with questionable quality. Although the commission provided important guidance to states for reviewing and improving or closing lower quality programs, the impact of their work was short-lived.

Indeed, over the next few decades, the number of leadership preparation programs grew significantly, and included among their ranks were a growing number of for-profit organizations and programs that produced shockingly high numbers of students each year (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007). Using five national data sets, Baker and his colleagues found that the number of degrees produced by educational leadership programs increased by 90% between 1993 and 2003. Moreover, this growth was in organizations with limited institutional capacity. In fact, Research 1 and 2 institutions experienced either no growth or a slight decline in degrees conferred. Importantly, this study demonstrated that the educational leadership preparation field was not homogeneous; rather, there were patterns of behavior discernible among different types of institutions.

Notably in 2005, Arthur Levine, then president of Teachers College at Columbia University, released a report through the Education Schools Project ² titled, “Educating School Leaders.” This report argued that “the majority of [educational administration] programs range from inadequate to appalling, even at some of the country’s leading universities” (Levine, 2005, p. 23). Following cues from the educational leadership field at the time, he also pointed out the need to disaggregate findings across institution type and stratified his sample to represent different Carnegie classifications, geographic regions, and school types. However, his discussion of the data failed to make this distinction (e.g., 89% reported, “Schools of education fail to adequately prepare their graduates to cope with classroom realities” [p. 30]; and “The admissions criteria used at most of the educational leadership programs we visited have nothing to do with a potential student’s ability to be successful as a principal” [p. 31]). Furthermore, serious concerns were raised about the quality of the research underlying the report (Young & Orr, 2006).

A couple of years after the release of Levine’s report, Hess and Kelly (2007), from the American Enterprise Institute, conducted a study interrogating the content of educational leadership preparation program curriculum by collecting select syllabi from 31 programs. In their report, they echoed the concerns raised by Levine (2005). Critiques, however, arose about this study as well. Of particular concern were the methodology and conclusions reported, given the lack of comprehensiveness (i.e., looking at a program as a whole) and comparability of the course syllabi across institutions, as well as concerns about whether syllabi represent an accurate measure of the learning that takes place in the classroom. Although there were considerable methodological concerns, these reports continue to be widely referenced as evidence that traditional school leadership preparation programs are not meeting the needs of districts, schools, and students, despite empirical evidence to the contrary.

In 2016, the Wallace Foundation, in a report preceding the launch of the UPPI, reported that many district leaders were dissatisfied with the quality of leadership preparation programs and believed that leadership preparation programs had room for improvement. The content of the report was based on aggregated data, collected by several national professional associations (e.g., American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], AASA, UCEA), which informed several phases on the initiative (e.g., determining the level of university interest in preparation program redesign, determining which programs to invite to submit a proposal, etc.). However, much of the data used to make claims about program quality were drawn from an AASA survey designed to gather the perceptions of member superintendents.

We recognize the need to provide empirical evidence to illuminate the value and influence of leadership preparation. We also understand the value in not only using data to differentiate between programs of varying quality but also for using data diagnostically for program improvement. The work fostered by the INSPIRE center investigates the value and influence of principal preparation programs based on the insights of faculty, program graduates, and those individuals who work closely with leaders in their schools (e.g., teachers, principal supervisors), using data collection tools that are field tested and valid.

Furthermore, building on the growing body of knowledge establishing a link between specific characteristics of leadership preparation and the career outcomes of graduates (Fuller, Hollingworth, & An, 2016), as well as the success of those graduates as school leaders (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007; Leithwood, Jantzi, Coffin, & Wilson, 1996; Orphanos & Orr, 2013; Orr, 2011; Orr & Orphanos, 2011), the INSPIRE instruments were designed to identify relationships between program graduates’ and practicing leaders’ areas and strength and growth and the features and content of the program through which they were prepared. As a result, through UCEA’s INSPIRE work we are able to present valid and reliable data about principal preparation programs, which foster program differentiation and program growth (Fuller, Hollingworth, & An, 2016.

Discussions about program quality frequently result in generalizations across institutions or the field. Yet, these discussions too often fail to make necessary distinctions between programs from different types of colleges, universities, or other preparation bodies. And there are important differences. UCEA member engagement in the attainment of UCEA goals, for example, suggests that UCEA programs are distinguishable by their commitment ³ to consistently strive to be better. This article uses INSPIRE-PP data to advance a data-informed conversation about program quality and to argue that university leadership preparation is not as flawed as the critics of the field purport.

Method

Since 2013, 97 UCEA member institutions participated in the first of four INSPIRE surveys: INSPIRE-PP. This article provides an overview of the first iteration of the INSPIRE-PP survey results and presents programs’ self-reported evidence of the types of features, priorities, and goals of UCEA member institutions. This study hopes to answer the following research questions.

The Program Features Survey includes questions concerning (a) degree, licensure, standards, and accreditation information; (b) program focus; (c) candidate selection practices; (d) program design elements and program staffing; (e) core content and priorities; (f) candidate learning experiences (e.g., instructional strategies and clinical experiences); (g) candidate assessment practices; and (h) program enrollment and completion data (UCEA, 2017b).

Findings

The findings are organized by the following categories: (a) program context, (b) content and relevancy of UCEA programs, (c) program personnel, and (d) program delivery. These organizational components reflect both the organization of the survey as well as the typical criticisms of the educational administration preparation field.

Program Content and Relevancy

One major indicator of the quality of preparation programs is the relevancy of the learning experience, which should prepare leaders for the complex job of a school leader (Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009). The Wallace report (2016) suggests, “the course of study at preparation programs does not always reflect principals’ real jobs” (p. 9). Research has connected the program’s focus and coherence, rigor and applicability of content, and problem-based and student-centered instruction to the overall effectiveness and preparedness of graduates (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Jackson & Kelley, 2003; McCarthy, 1999; Young et al., 2009). A hallmark of UCEA institutions is to reveal, “evidence of significant efforts by faculty members to identify, develop, and promote relevant knowledge of best practices focused on the essential problems of schooling, leadership, and administration” (Young, Orr, & Tucker, 2012, p. 3). This is reflected in the results shared in the following sections.

UCEA programs focus on preparing leaders for the work of leading and improving schools. From purposeful selection into programs through their summative assessments, the goal is to provide the opportunity for candidates to build their knowledge and gain skills that will prepare them for jobs as school leaders. This preparation is accomplished through a curriculum that is standards-aligned and research-based, through constructivist pedagogy that offers candidates the opportunity to build skills while gaining knowledge, and through authentic assessments that emphasize the ability to merge theory and practices. Learning is also advanced through university–district partnerships that tailor preparation to the needs of the districts and use internships that provide candidates with the opportunity to practice in core leadership responsibilities.

Selection

Researchers have expressed the need to more closely consider the role of selection and recruitment in ensuring of the preparation of successful building-level leaders (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Jacobson, McCarthy, & Pounder, 2015; McCarthy, 2015; Young, 2015; Young et al., 2009). Selection should be determined by more than grade point averages, standardized test scores, or other traditional academic indicators (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2009; Murphy, Moorman, & McCarthy, 2008), and should incorporate the potential candidate’s motivation for entering a leadership program (McCarthy, 2002). Thus, for selection to be the first step in preparing high-quality leaders, the process should consider the applicant’s potential to lead instruction and his or her leadership experience or capacity for building leadership skills (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Jackson & Kelley, 2002).

Ninety-three percent of UCEA programs emphasize the importance of leadership potential, requesting evidence of this potential from the candidates’ supervisor (e.g., current principal or district leader; see Table 1). To assess a candidate’s leadership potential and to measure prior experience and academic potential, programs rely heavily on traditional sources of information such as (a) transcripts (96%), (b) resumes (94%), (c) professional recommendations (95%), (d) personal statements (99%), (e) prior degrees (89%), and (d) leadership experience (90%). A smaller number of UCEA institutions also collect less traditional, more observational information, such as communication skills (91%) often gauged by interviewing applicants (58%). Over half of the programs require evidence of teaching effectiveness (60%), instead of just teaching experience (95%) and credentials (90%). Importantly, programs seek evidence of the applicant’s social justice disposition when selecting candidates (81%).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Selection of Students for Admittance in UCEA Principal Preparation Programs.

	Extremely emphasized	Very much emphasized	Emphasized moderately	Almost no emphasis	No emphasis
Candidate selection: Emphasis on experience
Academic potential	27%	55%	18%	0%	0%
Leadership potential	48%	45%	6%	2%	0%
Prior relevant experience	23%	42%	34%	2%	0%
Job relevant demonstrations	16%	29%	33%	9%	13%
Candidate selection: Type of information
Professional recommendations	31%	54%	10%	4%	2%
Transcripts	24%	46%	26%	5%	0%
GRE or other test score	10%	23%	33%	11%	23%
Personal statement	42%	42%	15%	1%	1%
Résumé	22%	43%	29%	3%	3%
Prior degrees	11%	35%	43%	9%	2%
Previous leadership experience	20%	39%	31%	6%	4%
Communication skills	15%	58%	18%	6%	3%
Social justice dispositions	15%	29%	37%	10%	8%
Teaching experience	20%	46%	29%	4%	1%
Teaching credentials	16%	39%	35%	6%	4%
Teaching effectiveness	11%	19%	30%	20%	19%
Simulations	10%	3%	11%	19%	57%
Interviews	22%	25%	11%	10%	31%

Note. UCEA = University Council for Educational Administration; GRE = Graduate Record Examinations.

Another important consideration is the leadership candidate’s prior experience (Ni et al., 2016; Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009). Most are required to either have experience as a teacher or school-level staff. This corresponds with the fact that the majority of states require 3 or more years of classroom or school-based experience to be eligible for licensure (Anderson & Reynolds, 2015). A smaller number of programs are using job-related exhibitions to assess the applicant’s readiness and prior learning.

Curriculum

The coherence and content of program curriculum guides students’ learning and in turn, their practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Jacobson et al., 2015; Ni et al., 2016; Orr & Pounder, 2011; Orr & Orphanos, 2011; Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009;). The INSPIRE survey measures the emphasis on five general content areas that a well-balanced program should address in its curriculum: instructional leadership (97% very much or extremely emphasized), school improvement (96% very much or extremely emphasized), family and community relations (79% very much or extremely emphasized), management (69% very much or extremely emphasized), and organizational culture (68% very much or extremely emphasized). For those programs that did not indicate a strong emphasis on management and family and community relations, they were moderately emphasized by 31% and 20% of programs, respectively. All UCEA programs, target these five areas.

Program alignment with standards

There is evidence to suggest that when aligned with standards, the curriculum is more coherent and effective (Barnett, 2005; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Ni et al., 2016; Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009;). All of the UCEA building-level preparation programs in the sample align their program with one or more sets of standards. The ISLLC, ELCC, and state standards have considerable similarity. The most common standards used by programs are state-developed standards (72%). Fifty-seven percent of UCEA programs were aligned with the 1996 or 2008 ISLLC standards, and 41% of programs were aligned with the 2011 ELCC. An additional 10% used another set of standards, such as Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation Programs (CAEP) or Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) standards, international standards, district standards, or other core competencies put forth by organizations (e.g., Danforth).

Accreditation body

In addition to adhering to a set of standards, the entire sample of UCEA institutions participates in an accreditation process, ensuring a high level of quality for the programs. Preparation programs can receive accreditation from national, state, or regional accrediting bodies, often depending on university or state level policies dictating expectations for accreditation (Ni et al., 2016; Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009). The largest proportion of programs are approved and accredited by a state accreditation body (77%), whereas 68% of programs undergo national approval from the CAEP. An additional 10% of programs indicated that they use another accrediting body, such as regional organizations like the SACS, which was specifically mentioned by four programs. Fifty-four programs (48%) indicated that more than one accrediting body reviews their program.

Instruction

Evidence suggests instructional techniques that rely on problem-based learning and encourage individual and group reflection better prepare leaders for school improvement (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Ni et al., 2016; Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009). UCEA programs demonstrate an understanding of the instructional practices most relevant for adult learning. These programs also understand the importance of preparing leaders who will be able to make decisions to that will lead to success at their schools. To this fact, less than half of programs regularly use lectures (48%). However, building-level preparation programs regularly use strategies that encourage learning from peers and address the communication skills needed by a leader. These strategies include small group activities (95%) and discussions (91%). UCEA programs create learning experiences that reflect the job of a practicing administrator by assigning field-based, course-related projects (95%), using problem-based learning (83%), requiring action research or inquiry projects (75%), and analyzing case studies (78%). See Table 2 for specific breakdowns.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Curriculum and Instruction Across UCEA Principal Preparation Programs.

	Extremely emphasized	Very much emphasized	Emphasized moderately	Almost no emphasis	No emphasis
Emphasis on content areas
Organizational culture	31%	37%	2%	0%	0%
Instructional leadership	65%	32%	3%	0%	0%
School improvement	62%	34%	4%	0%	0%
Management	29%	40%	31%	0%	0%
Family and community relations	42%	37%	20%	1%	0%
Use of learning practices/instructional strategies
Field-based projects that are course related	62%	33%	4%	1%	0%
Problem-based learning	39%	44%	15%	2%	0%
Action research or inquiry projects	38%	37%	19%	4%	1%
Case studies	24%	54%	18%	4%	0%
Lectures	14%	34%	35%	13%	4%
Small-group activities (during class or outside class)	55%	40%	4%	1%	0%
In-class/online discussions	52%	39%	7%	2%	0%

Note. UCEA = University Council for Educational Administration.

Partnerships

The Wallace Foundation report (2016) argues that “strong university–district partnerships are essential to high-quality preparation but are far from universal” (p. 8). Research supports that the development of university–district partnerships can improve preparation by more closely aligning theory to practice (Davis, Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, & LaPointe, 2005; Jacobson et al., 2015; Orr, 2011). Strong partnerships can also increase the candidate’s engagement in the program (Orr & Barber, 2007; Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009). In a study of high-quality programs described as exceptional, Jackson and Kelley (2002) found that those programs partnered with local districts for (a) the selection and recruitment process, (b) the continued support of program elements, and (c) the organization and development of the clinical experience. These partnerships benefit both the district and university.

The majority of the UCEA participating institutions have programs that are engaged in university–district partnerships; however, around a quarter of those partnerships are informal. The most frequent form of collaboration was for districts to partner with the university to support the organization and supervision of the internship (92%). Those programs with more significant formal relationships had official memorandums of understanding (47%) and structured advisory committees (44%).

Another area for partnership is the selection and instruction of candidates (Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009). Some UCEA programs consider district input in the selection of students (39%). The districts also prioritize the consideration of graduates from partner programs when hiring for school or district leadership positions (34%). This mutual commitment between UCEA programs and partner districts is also apparent in the preparation program’s teaching with district staff teaching in 31% of the programs. UCEA programs have a high level of collaboration with districts and work closely with them to ensure that programs are meeting the needs of the schools their graduates will serve. These data can be found in Table 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Partnerships and Clinical Experience Across UCEA Principal Preparation Programs.

	To a great extent	To a good extent	Somewhat	A little	Not at all
Extent of partnership roles
Formal advisory committee	22%	22%	27%	11%	19%
Memorandum of understanding	28%	19%	13%	8%	32%
Shared decision making on student selection	13%	17%	17%	21%	32%
Participation in curriculum and program design	12%	13%	34%	21%	19%
District support on internship arrangements and supervision	45%	20%	19%	7%	9%
District staff teach in the program	12%	19%	38%	19%	23%
District partner(s) gives priority to hiring program graduates into school or district leadership positions	7%	27%	23%	20%	23%
Extent of clinical experience types
Free standing field-based experiences	58%	27%	5%	3%	6%
Embedded course-related fieldwork	44%	41%	12%	1%	1%
In-depth field-based work	55%	29%	14%	1%	1%
Sustained field-based work	51%	28%	14%	3%	4%
Fieldwork that is an extension of coursework	45%	34.40%	16%	3%	2%
Achievements regularly evaluated by program faculty	38%	33%	24%	3%	2%
Authentic field-based work	63%	33%	3%	0%	1%

Note. UCEA = University Council for Educational Administration.

Clinical component

The clinical experience should integrate theory and practice, allowing for practical experience and providing the opportunity to apply knowledge from coursework (The Wallace Foundation, 2016). Evidence suggests that the clinical component is the influential aspect of preparation programs (Cordeiro & Sloan, 1996; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Hackmann, Russell, & Elliot, 1999; Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Jacobson et al., 2015; McCarthy, 1999; Militello, Gajda, & Bowers, 2009; Orr, 2011; Orr & Pounder, 2011; Orr & Orphanos, 2011; Perez, Uline, Johnson, James-Ward, & Basom, 2011; Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009;). All UCEA building-level preparation programs have a clinical component, such as an internship, that provides experiential learning within school site(s). See Table 3 for data on the clinical experience.

The INSPIRE-PP data indicate that UCEA preparation programs provide a purposeful learning experience to their leadership interns (93%). Ninety-six percent of UCEA programs design the building-level leadership opportunities to give interns exposure to working in a school with diverse student populations. The internship learning experiences focus on school improvement (90%), engage in addressing problems collectively (84%), make decisions (88%), and apply the learning from coursework to their professional practice (90%). In fact, 82% said a field-based assignment was used to a good or great extent as formative evaluation.

A well-designed clinical experience incorporates the following features: (a) the integration of the internship with coursework (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Leithwood et al., 1996), (b) the opportunity for students to be engaged in essential leadership practices (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; S. Davis et al., 2005; Leithwood et al., 1996), (c) the exposure of candidates to a variety of school settings (Hackmann et al., 1999), and (d) the provision of extended learning time in field (Cordeiro, Krueger, Parks, Restine, & Wilton, 1993; Jackson & Kelley, 2002). Programs indicate they offer genuine leadership tasks as part of their internship. In addition, internships have a strong focus on purposefully connecting course objectives to the school-based context; bridging theory and practice. These data counter existing criticisms claiming internships are not designed to provide authentic experiences for future school leaders.

Interns are typically supervised by a practicing leader (Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009). Mentors who supervise the clinical experience should exhibit effective leadership skills and success with student learning and school improvement (S. Davis et al., 2005; Leithwood et al., 1996). The quality of this mentorship affects the learning opportunities within the clinical experience (Cordeiro & Sloan, 1996; Jacobson & Battaglia, 2001; Jacobson & Cypres, 2012). The selection and use of high-quality mentors was an area of concern in the Wallace report (2016), but the INSPIRE evidence shows UCEA programs make an effort to ensure the use of high-quality mentors. UCEA internship mentors provide evidence that they have been successful as educational leaders (83%). Notably, 91% of programs match mentors and mentees based on a set of criteria, sometimes collaborating “to a large extent” (11%) with districts and mentors to make that match; however, in 13% of programs, the intern is tasked with independently choosing a mentor or is assigned a mentor without input from the district.

Assessment practices

Effective programs often measure learning by administering standards-based assessments (Ni et al., 2016; Orr & Orphanos, 2011; Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009). Ninety-seven UCEA member institutions indicated program assessments are associated with leadership standards. The evidence shows that the ELCC Standards (35%), the ISLLC Standards (56%), or states’ standards (73%) are the primary standards to which programs base their assessments; and as we know, there is considerable similarity between these three specific sets of standards. A smaller number of programs aligned assessment with other professional or institutional standards such as CAEP standards for Advanced Programs, the mission of the university, or district goals.

Formative assessment practices

UCEA programs provide ongoing, formative feedback for candidates by utilizing a variety of assessment sources, a practice that is supported by research (Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009). The data revealed a range in the emphasis programs place on various activities. For example, 72% of respondents use problem-based learning activities regularly. Furthermore, 68% used action research or inquiry projects regularly as an assessment source. These data suggest that 72% of building-level preparation programs used oral presentations regularly. Nearly half (47%) of respondents indicated they use additional types of formative assessment practices not included in the survey question options. Examples of other reported formative assessments included critical reflection and school site-based activities.

Traditional forms of assessment such as in class or take-home tests were occasionally (24%) given strong emphasis, and 20% never use this as a tool for gathering formative data. It appears that the majority of UCEA member institutions are placing more emphasis on application-oriented types of research-based assessment activities to better measure a candidate’s learning.

Faculty members use a variety of means to gather feedback like formal and regular assessment including coursework assessments (97%) and formal assessments of the candidate’s internship experience (98%). Other data from INSPIRE reveal that informal conversations, ongoing, formal progress reviews, and mentor insights are different ways UCEA principal preparation faculty engage preservice building principals in leadership development. Based on these data, UCEA programs create learning experiences that allow candidates to reflect on their practice. Furthermore, research suggests that, through such processes, students are able to develop deep relationships with faculty members and mentors (Young & Crow, 2016; Young et al., 2009).

Summative assessment strategies at program completion

UCEA member institutions are required to determine program participants’ readiness for the role of building leader (Young et al., 2012). Recall that (100%, n = 93) programs reported that the assessments for measuring their students’ development are aligned with a set of leadership standards. UCEA institutions assess the candidate’s readiness with a number of indicators of performance. To this end, 88% of programs require a portfolio of student work to provide evidence of readiness. Capstone projects or other culminating assignments are frequently an assessment component as well (87%). The majority of the building-level leadership programs use a state or national assessment (62%). Other forms of assessment include a master thesis/research paper (34%) and/or a comprehensive exam (48%). In some cases, the UCEA institutions design their own summative assessment, such as a performance-based assessment (e.g., formal presentation to a committee). Students graduating from UCEA principal leadership preparation programs (99%) are assessed according to the established professional standards of the educational leadership community. These assessments are also used as a data source to plan for program improvement in nearly all (99%) of the UCEA programs, showing a commitment to continuous improvement.

Discussion

Results from the INSPIRE Preparation Program Survey offer evidence of the ways in which UCEA programs are aligned with research evidence on quality preparation. The 113 programs from 97 UCEA member universities meet the field’s standards of accreditation, an indicator of standards-aligned, research-backed program content. Furthermore, these programs deliver relevant content by staffing tenure-track, full-time professors and clinical faculty or practitioners and by purposefully working with districts to select and prepare candidates. The content delivery models used are designed to meet the needs of working professional educators, while providing extensive and rigorous coursework, typically earning a master’s degree over 2 years of coursework and clinical experience. The data from the INSPIRE-PP survey demonstrate that the UCEA programs incorporate the structures deemed to be effective preparation practices. To summarize, they

Furthermore, the programs’ content is standards based. The standards are backed by a strong research base and by the input of practitioners (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015), suggesting that the programs are working to provide relevant curriculum for practical leadership training. UCEA programs also report they are preparing principals to be instructional leaders, to forward school improvement, to foster family and community relations, to shape organizational culture, and to manage the building operations. Leadership students are assessed in these objectives through multiple measures with an emphasis on feedback and opportunities to apply knowledge and skills. Much leadership development takes place through clinical experiences, supervised by established leaders who mentor students and provide field-based learning. Through both the internship and class assignments, these programs provide the opportunity to connect the coursework to practical experiences, while employing both formal and informal partnerships helps to facilitate this process.

Critics of educational leadership preparation assert that university-based educational leadership preparation programs need improvement (e.g., Hess & Kelly, 2007; Levine, 2005; The Wallace Foundation, 2016). The most common criticisms are directed at the absence of strong partnerships, the mismatched relevance of the course of study to the day-to-day expectations of the position, and the lack of high-quality internships. The INSPIRE-PP data shared in this article tell a different story. They suggest that UCEA building-level leadership programs are demonstrating strong partnerships, bridging theory and practice throughout the program and internship opportunity.

An additional concern, often addressed by critics, is that the faculties staffing these programs are not able to provide on-the-job training, due to their focus on research and theory. We contend that a majority of full-time, tenure-line faculty members, in conjunction with the support and input of current practicing leaders and district liaisons, should staff programs. Furthermore, the data we shared reveal that UCEA programs are not working in isolation in the proverbial “ivory tower” but work with practitioners to select candidates, design coursework and delivery of instruction, and to support the clinical component.

It has also been suggested that preparation programs are not thoughtful about the selection of candidates. Levine (2005) argued that admission and graduation standards were low. The data from this study suggest otherwise. UCEA programs are going beyond the standard measures of academic ability and professional experience to consider leadership potential, communication skills, and social justice dispositions. In addition, there is evidence of rigorous and practice-based formative and summative assessment.

Finally, contrary to Levine’s (2005) claim that programs do not engage in self-assessment, UCEA, as a professional body, and its member institutions are making ongoing evaluation and improvement a cornerstone. In fact, part of the UCEA mission is the prevailing perspective that UCEA faculties continuously work toward improvement and refine leadership preparation practices. The INSPIRE Leadership Program Evaluation Suite advances this mission by providing UCEA member programs with evaluation data that can inform program improvement. As more programs complete the Graduate Survey and we continue to pilot the Leader in Practice Surveys, programs will be better informed to continue their deep commitment to improvement, and the INSPIRE research team may be able to strengthen the claims made in this article.

Conclusion

The findings presented here reveal the incongruity of painting all programs with the same, broad brush. Although UCEA programs may vary in degree on particular aspects of their program characteristics, this study exemplifies the overall consistency of UCEA programs in meeting quality preparation standards of practice. It is critical that as critiques emerge in the field, the conversations differentiate among preparation programs. It is our hope that we can administer the INSPIRE Survey Suite to more programs to better inform the field on the state of preparation.

UCEA programs are a specific group of institutions that elect to meet high programmatic standards for membership. This is not to claim that UCEA programs do not need to improve. On the contrary, and as indicated in the organization’s expectations, UCEA programs make efforts to evolve and change to continuously offer excellent programming to aspiring leaders. These data reveal that UCEA programs are known for and engage in high-quality preparation work and will continue to strive for excellence as that is what our nation’s schools deserve.