This article reports the results for the first cycle of an action research study about a district–university partnership. Two district facilitators and two university facilitators co-constructed a principal preparation program for an inner-city school district to help prepare the next generation of building leaders. Twenty-two students participated in the 15-month nontraditional program. The study found that in preparing first-time school leaders, the most helpful experiences were those that developed self-understanding and readiness for the role change. New instructional techniques and the full-time residency facilitated this earning. It also found that the partnership, though providing new and exciting opportunities to deviate from the traditional preparation model, needed further development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettB. G. (2005). Transferring learning from the classroom to the workplace: Challenges and implications for educational leadership preparation. Educational Considerations, 32(2), 6–16.
2.
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.
3.
BarnettB. G., & MuseI. D. (1993). Cohort groups in educational administration: Promises and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 3, 400–415.
4.
BarnettD. (2004). School leadership preparation programs: Are they preparing tomorrow's leaders?Education, 125(1), 121–129.
5.
Behar-HorensteinL. S. (1995). Promoting effective school leadership: A change-oriented model for the preparation of principals. Peabody Journal of Education, 70, 18–40.
BradburyH., & ReasonP. (2001). Conclusion: Broadening the bandwidth of validity: Issues and choice-points for improving the quality of action research. In ReasonP., & BradburyH. (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 447–456). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
BrandtD. (1990). Getting social about critical thinking: Power and constraints of apprenticeship. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 12(2), 56–63.
9.
BredesonP. V. (2004). Creating spaces for the development of democratic school leaders: A case of program redesign in the United States. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), 708–723.
BrooksJ., & BrooksM. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
12.
BrownK. (2006). A transformative andragogy for principal preparation. UCEA Review, 45(2), 1–5.
13.
Browne-FerrignoT. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468–503.
14.
Browne-FerrignoT., & MuthR. (2003). Effects of cohorts on learners. Journal of School Leadership, 13(6), 621–643.
15.
Browne-FerrignoT., & MuthR. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468–494.
16.
Cambron-McCabeN., & CunninghamL. (2002). National commission for the advancement of educational leadership: Opportunity for transformation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 289–299.
17.
ChenowithT., CarrC., & RuhlT. (2002, August). Best practices in educational leadership preparation programs. Paper presented at the Administrator Licensure Planning Forum, University of Oregon, Eugene.
18.
CicchinelliL., DeanC., GalvinM., GoodwinB., & ParsleyD. (2006). Success in sight: A comprehensive approach to school improvement.Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
19.
CoghlanD., & BrannickT. (2005). Doing action research in your own organization.London: Sage.
20.
CornblethK. (1990). Curriculum in context.New York: Falmer Press.
21.
CottonK. (2003). Principals and students achievement. What the research says.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
22.
DareshJ. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: Professional promise or predictable problems?Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 495–517.
23.
DavisS., Darling-HammondL., LaPointeM., & MeyersonD. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals.Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
24.
DillerP. F. (2004). Duquesne University IDPEL cohorts: A laboratory for leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA.
25.
DonaldsonJ. F., & ScribnerJ. P. (2003). Instructional cohorts and learning: Ironic uses of a social system. Journal of School Leadership, 13, 644–665.
26.
DukeD., ButinD., & SofkaA. (2003). The impact of Virginia's accountability plan on high school English departments. In DukeD., GroganM., TuckerP., & HeineckeW. (Eds.), Educational leadership in an age of accountability (pp. 135–154). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
27.
FerrandinoV. (2001). Challenges for 21st-century elementary school principals. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(6), 440–442.
28.
FryB., BottomsG., & O'NeillK. (2005, April). The principal internship: How can we get it right?Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education.
GoldringE., & SimsP. (2005). Modeling creative and courageous school leadership through district–university–community partnerships. Educational Policy, 19(1), 223–249.
31.
GonderP. (1999). Invigorating education by reinventing staff development. In Mid-continent Regional Education Laboratory (Ed.), Noteworthy perspectives on comprehensive school reform.Aurora, CO: Authors.
32.
GroganM. (1999). Equity/equality issues of gender, race and class. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 518–536.
33.
GroganM., & AndrewsR. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233–256.
34.
GroganM., & RobersonS. (2002). Developing a new generation of educational leaders by capitalizing on partnerships. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(6/7), 314–318.
35.
GroganM., & RolandP. (2003). A study of successful teachers preparing high school students for the standards of learning tests in Virginia. In DukeD., GroganM., TuckerP., & HeineckeW. (Eds.), Educational leadership in an age of accountability (pp. 114–134). Albany: State University of New York Press.
36.
HarleA. Z. (2000). Leadership academy: One system's solution to leadership training. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 67(1), 56–59.
37.
HerrK., & AndersonG. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
KochanF. (1999). A collage of voice and form: A summary of the findings. In KochanF., JacksonB., & DukeD. (Eds.), A thousand voices from the firing line (pp. 104–110). Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.
42.
KochanF., JacksonB., & DukeD. (Eds.). (1999). A thousand voices from the firing line.Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.
McCabeD. H., RicciardiD., & JamisonM. G. (2000). Listening to principals as customers: Administrators evaluate practice-based preparation. Planning and Changing, 31(3/4), 206–225.
46.
McREL. (2005). Final report: High-needs schools—what does it take to beat the odds?Aurora, CO: Author.
47.
MilsteinM. M. (1995). Progress and perils: Development of the field-based Ed.D. program in educational administration at the University of New Mexico. Planning & Changing, 26, 130–47.
48.
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2006). Fact sheets. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from www.hccp.org.
49.
National Research Service. (2003). K–12 principals guide to No Child Left Behind. National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National Association of Secondary Principals.
50.
NorrisC., BarnettB., BasomM., & YerkesD. (1996). The cohort: A vehicle for building transformational leadership skills. Planning and Changing, 27(3/4), 145–164.
51.
O'DonnellR. J., & WhiteG. P. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals instructional leadership behaviors and students achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89, 56–71.
52.
PounderD., ReitzugU., & YoungM. D. (2002). Preparing school leaders for school improvement, social justice, and community. In MurphyJ. (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 261–288). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
53.
SchonD. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.New York: Basic Books.
54.
ScribnerJ. P., CockrellK. S., CockrellD. H., & ValentineJ. W. (1999). Creating professional communities in schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school improvement process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 130–160.
55.
SmithW. F., & AndrewsR. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
56.
StarrattR. J. (2004). Ethical leadership.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
57.
TirozziG. (2001). The artistry of leadership: The evolving role of the secondary school principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(6), 434–439.
58.
TuckerP. D. (2003). The principalship: Renewed call for instructional leadership. In DukeD., GroganM., TuckerP., & HeineckeW. (Eds.), Educational leadership in an age of accountability (pp. 97–113). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
59.
TuckerP. D., HenigC. B., & SalmonowiczM. J. (2005). Learning outcomes of an educational leadership cohort program. Educational Considerations. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from http://www.coe.ksu.edu/EdConsiderations
60.
WatersJ. T., MarzanoR. J., & McNultyB. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on students achievement.Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
61.
WengerP. (1999). Selecting and implementing research-based instruction. In Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (Ed.), Noteworthy perspectives on comprehensive school reform.Aurora, CO: Author.
62.
WhitakerK. S., & BarnettB. G. (1999). A partnership model linking K–12 school districts and leadership preparation programs. Planning and Changing, 30(3/4), 126–143.
63.
WhitakerK. S., KingR., & VogelL. R. (2004). School district–university partnerships: Graduate students perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of a reformed leadership development program. Planning and Changing, 35(3/4), 209–222.
64.
YoungM., PetersonG., & ShortP. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 38(2), 137–175.
