This article looks at the quality of students entering preparation programs that will drive the standards and accountability movement. Until we give serious attention to improving the quality of selection criteria, the standards movement has little chance to impact education positively. This study warns that no aspect of our preparation programs is more damaging than our reputation for being a refuge for mediocre candidates. A program consisting of mediocre candidates will not likely pull the standards cart—more likely, such a program will stall the cart in its tracks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchillesC. M. (2002). Perils in publications, pedagogy, and policy. Education Leadership Review, 3(3), 1–8.
2.
American Association of School Administrators (AASA). (1960). Professional administrators for America's schools (38th AASA Yearbook). Washington, DC: National Educational Association.
3.
BaltzellD., & DentlerR. (1983). Selecting American school principals: Research report.Cambridge, MA: Alt Publishing.
4.
BridgesE. M. (1994). Time management: Work of the principal.Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 025 527)
5.
BryantB. J. (1978). Employment factors superintendents use in hiring administrators for their school districts. Prepared for the Association for School, College, & University Staffing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 9866)
6.
ColemanD. G., CopelandD. G., & AdamsR. C. (2001). University education administration program development: Administrative skills vs. administrative standards as predictors of administrative success. In KowalskiT. J. (Ed.), 2001 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration yearbook (pp. 25–35). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
7.
CooperB. S., & BoydW. L. (1987). The evolution of training for school administrators. In MurphyJ., & HallingerP. (Eds.), Approaches to administrative training (pp. 3–27). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
8.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Standards for school leaders.Washington, DC: Author.
9.
CreightonT. (1996). A construct validation of the Administrative Diagnostic Inventory (Report No. TM 027 024). Washington, DC: Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 254)
10.
CreightonT. (2001a). Lessons from the performing arts: Can auditioning improve the selection process in university preparation programs in the twenty-first century?International Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5(1), 1–10.
11.
CreightonT. (2001b, February). A meta-analysis of 450 university preparation programs and their selection strategies. Paper presented at the annual American Association of School Administrators, Orlando, FL.
12.
CreightonT., & JonesG. (2001, August). Selection or self-selection? How rigorous are selection criteria in education administration programs? Paper presented at the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration Conference, Houston, TX.
13.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2001). Graduate Record Examination guide to the use of scores.Princeton, NJ: Author.
14.
Educational Testing Service. (1995). GRE data views: Why not 1,000?Princeton, NJ: Author.
15.
FarquharR. H., & PieleP. K. (1972). Preparing educational leaders: A review of recent literature. (ERIC/CEM state of the knowledge series, number 14; UCEA monograph series, number 1). Danville, IL: Interstate.
16.
FullanM. (1994). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Graduate Record Examination Guide to the Use of Scores. (2001). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18.
Graduate Record Examination to add new analytical section. (2001, July 2). Houston Chronicle, 4.
19.
HarrisS., ArnoldM., LoweryS., & CrockerC. (2000). A study of motivators and inhibitors for men and women deciding to become a principal. Education Leadership Review, 1(3), 30–37.
20.
HoyleJ. (2001). I've got standards, you've got standards, all God's children got standards. AASA Professor, 24(2), 27–32.
MurphyJ. (1999). Changes in preparation programs: Perceptions of department chairs. In MurphyJ., & ForsythP. B. (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform (pp. 170–191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
23.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). (1989). Improving the preparation of school administrators: The reform agenda.Charlottesville, VA: American Association of School Adminisrators.
24.
NortonM. S. (1994). Student recruitment and selection practices in educational administration programs.Arizona State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 087)
25.
PitnerN. J. (1990, September). Reinventing school leadership (pp. 129–131). Working memo prepared for the Reinventing School Leadership Conference. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Educational Leadership.
26.
PounderD. G., & YoungI. P. (1996). Recruitment and selection of educational administrators: Priorities for today's schools. In LeithwoodK., ChapmentJ., CorsonD., HallingerP., & HartA. (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership (pp. 279–308). Boston: Kluwer.
27.
SarasonS. B. (1999). Teaching as a performing art.New York: Teachers College Press.
28.
SchlechtyP. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational reform.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
SchmittN., & CohenS. A. (1990). Criterion-related validity of the National Association of Secondary School Principals Assessment Center.Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
30.
SergiovanniT. (1996). The roots of school leadership. Principal, 74(2), 6–9.
31.
ShipmanN. (2001). Repairing the bumps in the road. Education Leadership Review, 2(2), 10–13.
32.
VaillP. V. (1989). Managing as a performing art.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
WillsG. (1994). Certain trumpets: The nature of leadership.New York: Simon & Schuster.
