While there are consistent calls for educational leadership programs in higher education to develop partnerships with varied groups, a review of the educational leadership literature reveals a consistent lack of published manuscripts specifically focused on partnerships, particularly in doctoral programs. This study investigated the degree to which educational leadership doctoral programs in the United States are engaging in partnership activities. The study also investigated whether there are differences in EdD and PhD program partnerships in terms of their purposes and the practitioner roles within them. Implications for practice and suggestions for future research are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettB. G., HallG. E., BergJ. H., & CamarenaM. M. (2010). A typology of partnerships for promoting innovation.Journal of School Leadership,20, 10–36.
2.
BarnettB., & JacobsonS. L. (2010). Higher education partnerships for studying and improving leadership preparation and development around the world.Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives (pp. 255–276). London: Continuum.
3.
BottomsG., & O'NeillK. (2001). Preparing a new breed of school principals: It's time for action.Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Educational Board.
4.
BreaultD. A., & BreaultR. (2010). Partnerships for preparing leaders: What can we learn from PDS research?International Journal of Leadership in Education,13(4), 437–454.
5.
Browne-FerrignoT. (2004). Principal's excellence program: Developing effective school leaders through unique university district partnership.Education Leadership Review,5(2), 24–36.
6.
Browne-FerrignoT., & SanzoK. S. (2011). Introduction to special issue on university–district partnerships.Journal of School Leadership, 21, 650–658.
7.
ButtramJ. (2015). Introduction: National survey of U.S. doctoral educational leadership programs.International Journal of Educational Reform,24(3), 208–211.
8.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2013). The case for the NEW professional practice doctorate: Reclaiming the education doctorate. Retrieved from http://cpedinitiative.org/
9.
CrowG. M., ArnoldN. W., ReedC. J., & ShohoA. (2012). The complexity of leveraging university program change.Journal of Research on Leadership Education,7(2), 172–194.
10.
Darling-HammondL., LaPointeM., MeyersonD., OrrM. T., & CohenC. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs.Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
11.
DuderstadtJ. J., DanielE. A., & DouglasV. H. (2003). The development of institutional strategies.Educause Review,38(3), 48.
12.
GoodladJ. (1993). School–university partnerships and partner schools.Education Policy,7(1), 24–39.
GroganM., BredesonP. V., ShermanW. H., PreisS., & BeatyD. A. (2009). The design and delivery of leadership preparation. In YoungM., CrowG., MurphyJ., & OgawaR. (Eds.), The handbook of research on the education of school leaders (pp. 395–416). New York: Routledge.
15.
GutierrezC., FieldS., SimmonsJ., & BasileC. G. (2007). Principals as knowledge managers in partner schools.School Leadership and Management,27(4), 333–346.
16.
HessF. M., & KellyA. P. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation programs.New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group.East Lansing, MI: Author.
18.
JohnstonM. (1997). Contradictions in collaboration: New thinking on school/university partnerships.New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
KochanF. (1998). Professional development schools: A comprehensive view. In ByrdD. M., & McIntyreD. J. (Eds.), Research on professional development schools: Teacher education yearbook VII (pp. 173–190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
20.
KochanF., & ReamesE. H. (2013). Experiencing educational leadership preparation program redesign in Alabama: One university's perspective.Journal of Research on Educational Leadership,8, 1–16.
21.
KochanF., & SaboD. (1995). Collaboration in educational leadership: Seeking a bridge between town and gown.Planning and Changing,26(3/4), 168–178.
22.
KochanF., & TwaleD. (1998). Advisory groups in educational leadership programs: Seeking a bridge between town and gown.Planning and Changing,29(4), 237–250.
23.
LevineA. (2005). Educating school leaders.Washington, DC: Education Schools Project.
24.
McCarthyM. (2002). Educational leadership preparation programs: A glance at the past with an eye towards the future.Leadership Policy in School,1(3), 201–221.
25.
MillerP., & HafnerM. (2008). Moving toward dialogical collaboration: A critical examination of a university-school-community partnership.Educational Administration Quarterly,44(1), 66–110.
26.
NortonJ. (2002). Preparing school leaders: It's time to face the facts.Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Educational Board.
27.
OrrM. T. (2006). Mapping innovation in leadership preparation in our nation's schools of education.Phi Delta Kappan,87(7), 492–499.
28.
OrrM. T., & OrphanosS. (2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for principals.Educational Administration Quarterly,47(1), 114–172.
29.
OrrM. T., & PounderD. (2011). Teaching and preparing school leaders. In ConleyS., & CooperB. S. (Eds.), Finding, preparing, and supporting school leaders: Critical issues, useful solutions (pp. 11–39). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
30.
OvertonB. J., & BurkhardtJ. C. (1999). Drucker could be right, but … New leadership models for institutional–community partnerships.Applied Developmental Science,3(4), 217–227.
31.
PeelH. A., & WallaceC. (1996, August). Improving leadership preparation programs through a school, university and professional organization partnership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Corpus Christi, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 402671)
PerezL. G., UlineC. L., JohnsonJ. F., James-WardC., & BasomM. R. (2011). Foregrounding fieldwork in leadership preparation: The transformative capacity of authentic inquiry.Educational Administration Quarterly,47(1), 217–257.
34.
PhillipsJ. C. (2013). State-mandated principal preparation program redesign: Impetus for reform or invitation to chaos?Journal of Research on Educational Leadership,8, 139–151.
35.
ReamesE. H. (2010). Shifting paradigms: Redesigning a principal preparation program's curriculum.Journal of Research on Educational Leadership,5, 436–459.
36.
SaffuK. (2000). Contradictions in international tertiary strategic alliances: The case from down under.International Studies in Educational Administration,28(92), 36–47.
37.
SanzoK. L., MyranS., & ClaytonJ. K. (2010). Building bridges between knowledge and practice: A university–school district leadership preparation program partnership.Journal of Educational Administration,49(3), 292–312.
38.
SchusterJ. H., & FinkelsteinM. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
SheltonS. (2010). Strong leaders, strong schools: 2009 state laws.Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
40.
ShohoA. R. (2011). Presidential address: Rise? Or demise?UCEA Review,52(1), 1–8.
41.
Southern Regional Educational Board. (2006). Schools can't wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs.Atlanta, GA: Author.
42.
Southern Regional Educational Board. (2010). Progress over a decade in preparing more effective school principals.Atlanta, GA: Author.
43.
University Council for Educational Administration. (2010). Values, vision and goals.Austin, TX: Author.
44.
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(3/4), 209–222.
45.
YoungM. D. (2013). Is the conversation on the educational doctorate leading to better programming?UCEA Review,54(1), 15–17.
46.
YoungM. D., PetersonG. T., & ShortP. M. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders.Educational Administration Quarterly,38, 137–175.
