The need for more and better-prepared educational leaders has led to greater program effort to adhere to national leadership standards and form university–district partnerships for improved preparation, particularly in creating better-quality internships and more supportive structures. This article compares 3 leadership preparation programs—2 partnership and 1 conventional— on program attributes and differences in graduates’ reported gains in leadership skill development, career aspirations, and career advancement. Forty-nine program graduates were surveyed from 2 cohorts of a suburban university–partnership program, its conventional program counterpart, and an urban university–partnership program. The findings show that internship scope and quality as well as program structure qualities—more common of the partnership programs—were significantly and positively associated with leadership learning and career outcomes, beyond graduates’ initial commitment. These results suggest that program design and operation are instrumental in participants’ education and their postprogram career aspirations and pursuits. The article offers insights into conceptual methodological considerations for further research on preparation effectiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
2.
AnthesK. (2004, April). Administrator license requirements, portability, waivers and alternative certification (Document No. 5085). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
3.
BarberM. (2004). Pathway from preparation to practice: A study of an innovative principal preparation program. Unpublished paper, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
4.
BarkerS. (1997, November). Is your successor in your schoolhouse? Finding principal candidates. NASSP Bulletin, 81(592), 85–91.
5.
BarnettB. G. (1990). School-university collaboration: A fad or the future of administrator preparation?Planning and Changing, 21(3), 146–157.
6.
BarnettB. G., BasomM. R., YerkesD. M., & NorrisC. J. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 255–282.
7.
BarnettB. G., & MuseI. D. (1993). Cohort groups in educational administration: Promises and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 3(4), 400–415.
8.
BarnettB. G., & MuthR. (2003). Assessment of cohort-based educational leadership preparation programs. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 15, 97–112.
9.
BredesonP. (1996). New directions in the preparation of educational leaders. In LeithwoodK., ChapmanJ., CorsonD., HallingerP., & Weaver-HartA. (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 251–274). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
10.
BridgesE., & HallingerP. (1997). Using problem-based learning to prepare educational administrators. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 131–146.
11.
CarrC. S. (2005). Evolution of a leadership preparation program in the 21st century. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 6(1), 33–41.
12.
CoplandM. A. (2000). Problem-based learning and prospective principals’ problem-framing ability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(4), 385–607.
13.
CordeiroP. A., & SloanE. S. (1996). Administrative interns as legitimate participants in the community of practice. Journal of School Leadership, 6(1), 4–29.
14.
DareshJ. C. (1995). Research base on mentoring for educational leaders: What do we know?Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 7–16.
15.
DituriJ. Z. (2004). Explaining teachers’ intentions to aspire to the principalship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, New York.
16.
Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study.Arlington, VA: Author.
17.
Educational Research Service. (2000). The principal, keystone of a high-achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need.Arlington, VA: Author.
18.
FryB., BottomsG., & O'NeillK. (2005). The principal internship: How can we get it right?Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Educational Board.
19.
GatesS. M., RingelJ. S., & SantibanezL. (2003). Who is leading our schools? An overview of school administrators and their careers.Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
20.
GlasmanN., CibulkaJ., & AshbyD. (2002). Program self-evaluation for continuous improvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 257–288.
21.
GriffithsD. E., StoutR. T., & ForsythP. B. (Eds.). (1988). Leaders for America's schools: The report and papers of the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration.Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
22.
GroganM., & RobertsonS. (2002). Developing a new generation of educational leaders by capitalizing on partnerships. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(7), 314–318.
23.
HaleE., & MoormanH. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations.Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership; Edwardsville, IL: Illinois Education Research Council.
24.
HammondJ., MuffsM., & SciasciaS. (2001). The leadership crisis: Is it for real?Principal, 81(2), 28–32.
25.
HowleyA., & PendarvisE. (2002). Recruiting and retaining rural school administrators.Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED470950)
26.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship. Report of the Task Force on the Principal-ship.Washington, DC: Author.
27.
JacksonB. L., & KelleyC. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192–212.
28.
JacobsonS. L. (1998). Preparing educational leaders: A basis for partnership. In JacobsonS. L., EmihovichC., HelfrichJ., PetrieH. G., & StevensonR. B. (Eds.), Transforming schools and schools of education (pp. 71–98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
29.
KlineT., SulskyS., & Rever-MoriyamaS. (2000). Common method variance and specification error: A practical approach to detection. Journal of Psychology, 134(4), 401–421.
30.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
KrausC. M., & CordeiroP. (1995, October). Challenging tradition: Re-examining the preparation of educational leaders for the workplace. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT.
32.
LankfordH., & WyckoffJ. (2003). The supply of school leaders: A multivariate analysis of administrative certification and transitions to leadership positions.Albany: State University of New York, University of Albany.
33.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(Suppl.), 679–706.
34.
LeithwoodK., JantziD., CoffinG., & WilsonP. (1996). Preparing school leaders: What works?Journal of School Leadership, 6(3), 316–342.
35.
LeithwoodK., LouisK. S., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement; Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Ontario, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
LovelyS. (1999). Developing leaders from within. Thrust for Educational Leaders, 29(1), 12–13.
38.
McCarthyM. (1999). The evolution of educational leadership preparation programs. In MurphyJ., & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 119–139). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKerrowK. (1998). Administrative internships: Quality or quantity?Journal of School Leadership, 82(2), 171–186.
41.
MurphyJ. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 176–191.
42.
MuseI. D., & RandallE. V. (1994). The NASSP–Brigham Young leader preparation program: Partners in education. NASSP Bulletin, 78(559), 4–7.
43.
OrrM. T. (2003, April). Evaluating educational leadership development. What and how to measure leadership preparation and its impact. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
44.
OrrM. T. (2006, March). Mapping leadership preparation innovation in our nation's schools of educationPhi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 492–499.
45.
OrrM. T., DoolittleG., KottkampR., OstermanK., & SilverbergR. (2004, Winter). What are we learning from the ELCC/NCATE required program evaluations? Findings from real-time action research at the UCEA convention. UCEA Review, 46(1), 7–10.
46.
OrrM. T., HungS., & SobolT. (2002, April). Learning from alternatives—Early findings of a nontraditional principal certification program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
47.
PecaK. (1994, February). A collaborative model of administrative internship: Meeting the needs of the university and local districts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
48.
PeelH. A., WallaceC., BucknerK. G., WrennS. L., & EvansR. (1998). Improving leadership preparation programs through a school, university, and professional organization partnership. NASSP Bulletin, 82(602), 26–34.
49.
PlaykoM. A., & DareshJ. C. (1992). Administrator training or leadership development? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN.
50.
PortinB., SchneiderP., DeArmondM., & GrundlachL. (2003). Making sense of leading schools: A study of the principalship.Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
51.
PounderD. G. (1995). Theory to practice in administrator preparation: An evaluation study. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 151–162.
52.
PounderD. G., & MerrillR. J. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principal-ship: A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 27–57.
53.
SandersN. M., & SimpsonJ. (2005). State policy framework to develop highly qualified administrators.Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
54.
SandlinR., & FeigenS. (1995). Collaboration between the university and school district: Can it work?Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(4), 75–82.
55.
SnyderW. R. (1994). A very special specialist degree for school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 78(559), 23–27.
56.
ThompsonS. (2001). The school leadership challenge. Strategies, 8(1), 1–2.
57.
U. S. Department of Education. (2005). FY 2005 school leadership application for grants.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement.
58.
WatersJ. T., MarzanoR. J., & McNultyB. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
59.
WeissC. H. (1998). Evaluation.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
60.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
61.
WilmoreE. L., McNeilJ. J., & TownzenL. (1999). The evaluation of a field based preparation program in Texas. Unpublished paper, University of Texas–Arlington.
62.
WoodruffJ. (2004). Mismatched labor pools and perceptions: Contrasting suburban superintendents’ and certified teachers’ views of the principalship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, New York.
63.
YoungM. D., PetersenG. J., & ShortP. M. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 137–175.
