Partnerships between universities and school districts are increasingly being identified as a means to overcome the difficulties of preparing the next generation of urban high school principals. This article examines the development of such a multiorganizational partnership with a large urban school district, two universities, and a national educational organization. The partnership development is analyzed against a framework of dimensions of effective collaborations. Data include interviews and observations and are analyzed using qualitative methods. Findings indicate that challenges in multi-institution partnerships are inevitable. However, the overarching focus on a common goal, defined responsibilities, authentic communication, alignment of common interests, and dynamic receptiveness to ongoing evaluative feedback enables the sustenance of an effective program.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowlesB., KingD., & CrowG. (2000, April). Viable principal candidates: Superintendents’ perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
2.
Browne-FerrignoT. (2004). Principals Excellence Program: Developing effective school leaders through unique university-district partnership. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 5(2), 24–36.
3.
Browne-FerrignoT., & MuthR. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468–494.
4.
CarriganJ., BrownC., & JenkinsK. (1999, March). Principals’ salaries: Incentives or deterrents to professional advancement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA.
5.
ChapmanJ. (2005). Recruitment, retention and development of school principals.Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
6.
Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study.Arlington, VA: Author.
7.
EricksonF. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In FraserB. J., & TobinK. (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
8.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.New York: Aldine.
9.
GoldringE., & SimsP. (2005). Modeling creative and courageous school leadership through district-community-university partnerships. Educational Policy, 19(1), 223–249.
10.
KennedyC. (2000). Summary of responses to NAESP/NASSP/NMSA survey questions.Washington, DC: Principals’ Leadership Summit.
11.
KnightS. L., WisemanD., & SmithC. W. (1992). The reflectivity–activity dilemma in school–university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 269–277.
12.
LangmanJ., & McLaughlinM. W. (1993). Collaborate or go it alone? Tough decisions for youth policy. In HeathS. B., & McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.), Identity and inner city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender (pp. 147–175). New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
LaPointeM., MeyersonD., & Darling-HammondL. (2006). Preparing and supporting principals for effective leadership: Early findings from Stanford's School Leadership Study.Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
14.
LaskerR. D., & WeissE. S. (2003). Broadening partnership in community problem solving: A multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. Journal of Urban Health, 80, 14–46.
15.
McAdamsR. P. (1998). Who'll run the schools? The coming administrator shortage. American School Board Journal, 29(8), 37–39.
16.
MerriamS. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
MilesM., & HubermanA. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2007). Changing role of the middle level and high school leader.Reston, VA: Author.
19.
OrrM. T., & BarberM. E. (2006). Collaborative leadership preparation: A comparative study of partnership and conventional programs and practices. Journal of School Leadership, 16, 709–739.
20.
OstrowerF. (2005, spring). The reality underneath the buzz of partnerships: The potential and pitfalls of partnership. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from http://www.ssreview.com
21.
PounderD., & MerrillR. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice theory perspective. Education Administration Quarterly, 7(1), 27–57.
22.
WhitakerK. S. (2001). Where are the principal candidates: Perceptions of superintendents. NASSP Bulletin, 85(625), 82–92.
23.
WhitakerK. S., KingR., & VogelL. R. (2004). School district–university partnerships: Graduate student perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of a reformed leadership development program. Planning and Changing, 35(3), 209–222.
24.
WinterP. A., MunozM., & RinehartJ. S. (2003). Head of the school. American School Board Journal, 190(5), 35–36.
25.
ZeitounP., & NewtonR. M. (2002). Strategies for reinventing the principalship.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED469274)
