School Leadership Preparation Programs: Are They Preparing Tomorrow's Leaders?.

Abstract

The literature is replete with examples of how the role of today's school administrator has changed from that of a manager to an instructional leader (Lockwood, 1996; Fink & Resnick, 2001; DuFour, 1999; Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Principals are leading professional development activities, helping school councils make decisions by consensus, preparing and facilitating analysis of standardized testing results, and leading their schools in ways that demand a complete understanding of effective instructional practices. Top-down decision making is being replaced with opportunities for teachers, parents and other stakeholders to be involved. This requires a change in culture requiring principals to rethink leadership strategies and policies (Lashway, 1995). Teachers perceive principals who provide on-going dialog with the teaching staff and provide opportunities for professional development have a more positive impact on student learning (Blast and Blast, 2000). Are today's administrators prepared to be the instructional leaders that are required to bring about improved student achievement? The conclusion of the Policy Forum on Education Leadership that is only twenty-five percent of today's principals are prepared to be effective instructional leaders (Black, 2000). Hale and Moorman (2003) also suggest that leadership preparation programs are not providing the training needed for today's public school leaders. With the obvious gap between the readiness of administrators to be instructional leaders and the demands for accountability that school administrators face; in order to be relevant university preparation programs must complete comprehensive program analysis, identify content gaps, determine instructional implications, and align the curriculum to national standards. As a result of the reform efforts of the 1980's and 1990's many P-12 schools have completed extensive reviews of their course offerings and have aligned instructional strategies and course objectives to state and national standards. While faculty in universities enjoy academic freedom, it seems obvious that university programs must ensure that their graduates are prepared for today's challenges. This can be accomplished in part through curriculum alignment work, requiring expected course outcomes to align with applicable national standards, working with practitioners in identified effective schools, and putting into place on-going program assessments with strategies to improve those areas not meeting the needs of today's educational leaders. Method of Investigation In an effort to determine the kinds of practices in which today's school leaders are involved, a survey based on the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC): Standards for School Leaders was developed. Generic practices for each Standard were identified and respondents were asked to indicate the frequency in which they completed the practice. Respondents were divided into two groups, Morehead State University (MSU) graduates and non-Morehead State University graduates. Respondents were also asked to rate the effectiveness of their graduate training programs as it related to the identified practices. Respondents included school-based administrators (principals and assistant principals) and district-wide administrators (instructional supervisors, technology coordinators, assistant superintendents and superintendents). The data was not aggregated based on job classification. Appendix A provides a summary of the results. Results In every instance respondents indicated that the frequency of completing the identified tasks was greater than the effectiveness they had received in their preparation program. This was true for both MSU graduates as well as non-MSU graduates. In the ISSLC Standards, Standard One focuses on the vision of the school (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSO], 1996). Respondents indicated that the vision very often (mean score 4. …