This article provides a descriptive case study of the process used at one of North Carolina’s public universities to respond to a state-mandated revisioning directive for educational leadership preparation programs. The case provides an overview of the state educational leadership policy context, discussion of state and local support offered, examination of circumstances that facilitated or hindered program redesign and implementation, discussion of the faculty revisioning process, comparison of pre- and post-redesign program features, and the relationship of the redesigned program to recommended educational leadership preparation program guidelines.
BradshawL. K.BucknerK. (2010). Developmental skills assessment for future superintendents. In IrbyB.AlfordB.PerreaultG.ZellnerL. (Eds.), Eighteenth annual yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration—Promoting critical ideas of leadership, culture, and diversity (pp. 57-74). Lancaster, PA: ProActive.
2.
BucknerK.BradshawL. K. (2001). Student self-assessment of leadership skills: A useful tool in preparation programs. In KowalskiT. J.PerreaultG. (Eds.), Ninth annual yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration—21st century challenges for school administrators (pp. 135-145). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
3.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author.
4.
Darling-HammondL.LaPointeM.MeyersonD.OrrM. T.CohenC. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development program [Study commissioned by The Wallace Foundation]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
5.
DenzinN. K. (1999). Interpretive ethnography for the next century. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28, 510-519.
6.
GroganM.AndrewsR. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 233-256.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2002). Instructions to implement standards for advanced programs in educational leadership: For principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors. Retrieved from http://npbea.org
13.
North Carolina, General Assembly, HB 11, Session 2005-179. (2005). (enacted).
14.
North Carolina, General Assembly, HB 536, Session 2005-1792007-517 (2007) (enacted).
15.
North Carolina, General Assembly. (1993). Leaders for schools: The preparation and advancement of educational administrators: Report to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Legislative Library.
OrrM. T.PounderD. G. (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.
26.
PhillipsJ.BradshawL. K.JorissenK. (2008). Mapping the changing North Carolina policy context for school leadership: Implications for principal preparation. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Leadership, Orlando, FL.
27.
PhillipsJ. C.WilliamsT. J. (2010). Superintendents’ view of ideal entry-level administrator characteristics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Leadership. New Orleans, LA.
28.
SchwandtT. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative research: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social construction. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2006). Schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: Author.
30.
YoungM. D.PetersonG. J.ShortP. M. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 137-175.
