In 2013, the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) in its inaugural “Exemplary Educational Leadership Preparation” (EELP) program competition recognized University of Illinois at Chicago’s (UIC) Doctorate in Urban Education Leadership as one of two EELP programs in the United States. This article provides information about (a) the initial design of this program, (b) the program’s key features as of 2014 following informal and formal program improvement, (c) key work routines and processes that have been introduced and used to support program redesign and ongoing program improvement, (d) key challenges faced in the work to sustain and enhance the program and approaches for addressing these challenges, and (e) recent key program evaluation results.
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, 255-282.
2.
BottomsG.O’NeillK.FryB.HillD. (2003). Good principals are the key to successful schools: Six strategies to prepare more good principals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
3.
BredesonP. V. (1996). New directions in the preparation of educational leaders. In LeithwoodK.ChapmanJ.CorsonD.HallingerP.HartA. (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 251-275). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
4.
BridgesE. M.HallingerP. (1997). Using problem-based learning to prepare educational administrators. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 131-146.
5.
BrykA.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. (2010). Organizations schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
ChapmanC.HarrisA. (2004). Improving schools in difficult and challenging contexts: Strategies for improvement. Educational Research, 46, 219-228.
7.
ChickN.HaynieA.ChurungR. (2009). From generic to signature pedagogies: Teaching disciplinary understanding. In GurungR.ChickN.HaynieA. (Eds.), Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind (pp. 1-18). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
8.
CoplandM. A. (2000). Problem-based learning and prospective principals’ problem-framing ability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 585-607.
9.
CosnerS. (2005). High school principals and school capacity: An exploratory study of capacity building from a social and human capital perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin–Madison.
10.
CosnerS. (2011). Teacher learning, instructional considerations, and principal communication: Lessons from a longitudinal study of collaborative date use by teachers. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39, 568-589.
11.
CosnerS. (2012). Leading the on-going development of collaborative data practices: Advancing a schema for diagnosis and intervention. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11, 26-65.
12.
CosnerS. (2014a). Advancing a phase-based model of school leadership for the support of collaborative data practices as a school-wide improvement strategy. Journal of School Leadership, 24, 692-724.
13.
CosnerS. (2014b). Strengthening collaborative data practices in schools: The need to cultivate developmental perspectives and diagnostic approaches. In BowersA.ShohoA.BarnettB. (Eds.), Using data in schools to inform leadership and decision making (pp. 67-93). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
14.
CosnerS.JonesM. F. (in press). Leading school-wide improvement in low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability: Key actions and considerations. Journal of Educational Administration.
15.
CosnerS.TozerS.SmylieM. (2012). The Ed.D. Program at UIC: Using cycles of inquiry and improvement to advance leadership preparation. Planning & Changing, 43(1-2), 127-148.
16.
CummingsT.WorleyC. (2008). Organization development and change (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
17.
Darling-HammondL.LaPointeM.MeyersonD.OrrM. T.CohenC. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
18.
DavisS.Darling-HammondL. (2012). Innovative principal preparation programs: What works and how we know. Planning & Changing, 43(1-2), 25-45.
19.
EhrichL.HansfordB.TennentL. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in educational and other professions: A review of the literature. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 518-540.
20.
FinniganK.DalyA. (2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system. American Journal of Education, 119, 41-71.
21.
FinniganK.DalyA.StewartJ. (2012). Organizational learning in schools under sanction. Education Research International, 2012, Article ID 270404. doi:10.1155/2012/270404
22.
FryB.O’NeillK.BottomsG. (2006). Schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
23.
GallimoreR.ErmelingB.SaundersW.GoldenbergC. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 537-553.
24.
GamoranA.SecadaW.MarrettC. (2000). The organizational context of teaching and learning: Changing theoretical perspectives. In HallinanM. (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 37-63). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
25.
GavinL. (2011, May24). Setting targets for grades 3-12 linked to the ACTs college readiness benchmarks. Evanston Roundtable, pp. 1-10.
26.
HallingerP.BridgesE. (1997). Problem-based leadership development: Preparing educational leaders for changing times. Journal of School Leadership, 7, 1-15.
27.
HallingerP.HeckR. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191.
28.
HansfordB.EhrichL. (2006). The principalship: How significant is mentoring?Journal of Educational Administration, 44, 36-52.
29.
HirshG.MannL.BainP.Pirola-MerloA.RichterA. (2004). Learning to lead: The development and testing of a model of leadership learning. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 311-327.
JacksonB. L.KelleyC. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 192-212.
32.
KelleyC.PetersonK. (2002). The work of principals and their preparation: Addressing critical needs for the twenty-first century. In TuckerM.CoddingJ. B. (Eds.), The principal challenge: Leading and managing in an era of accountability (pp. 247-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33.
LarrisonT.KorrW. (2013). Does social work have a signature pedagogy?Journal of School Social Work, 49, 194-206.
34.
LeithwoodK.JantziD.CoffinG.WilsonP. (1996). Preparing school leaders: What works?Journal of School Leadership, 6, 316-342.
35.
LeithwoodK.Seashore LouisK.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). Executive summary: How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Available from www.wallacefoundation.org
36.
LouisK. S.KruseS. & Associates. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
37.
MintropH.SundermanG. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—And why wemayretain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38, 353-364.
38.
MintropH.TrujilloT. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/153/279
39.
MitchellM.PalaciosV.LeachmanM. (2014, May1). States are still funding higher education below pre-recession levels. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4135
40.
NewmannF., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41.
NewmannF.KingM. B.YoungsP. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108, 259-299.
42.
NortonJ. (2002). Universities in the lead: Redesigning leadership preparation for student achievement. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Educational Board.
43.
OrrM. T. (2011). Pipeline to preparation to advancement: Graduates experiences in, through, and beyond leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 114-172.
44.
OrrM. T.BergB.ShoreR.MeierE. (2008). Putting the pieces together: Leadership for change in low-performing urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 40, 670-693.
45.
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 school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 18-70.
46.
PerezL.UlineC.JohnsonJ.James-WardC.BasomM. (2011). Foregrounding fieldwork in leadership preparation: Transformative capacity of authentic inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 217-257.
47.
PetersonK.KelleyC. (2002). Principals in-service programs: A portrait of diversity and promise. In TuckerM.CoddingJ. (Eds.), The principal challenge: Leading and managing in an era of accountability (pp. 313-346). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48.
PojasekR. (2009). Using leading indicators to drive sustainability performance. Environmental Quality Management, 18(1), 87-93.
49.
PounderD. G. (1995). Theory to practice in administrator preparation: An evaluation study. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 151-162.
50.
RobinsonV. M.LloydC. A.RoweK. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635-674.
51.
Seashore LouisK.DretzkeB.WahlstromK. (2010). How does leadership effect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21, 315-336.
ShortP.RinehartR. (1993). Reflection as a means of developing expertise. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29, 501-521.
54.
ShulmanL. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Dedalus, 134, 52-59.
55.
SmylieM. (2010). Continuous school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
56.
SmylieM.HartA. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development perspective. In MurphyJ.LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 421-441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
57.
SmylieM.WenzelS.FendtC. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg challenge: Lessons on leadership for school development. In MurphyJ.DatnowA. (Eds.), Leadership lessons for comprehensive school reform (pp. 135-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
58.
SpillaneJ.PariseL.ShererJ. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 586-619.
59.
SpillaneJ.ThompsonC. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 185-203.
60.
TimperleyH. (2009). Evidence-informed conversations: Making a difference to student achievement. In EarlL.TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 69-79). New York, NY: Springer.
61.
University Council for Educational Administration. (2012). Designing delivering and improving educational leadership preparation: A resource guide. Alexandria, VA: University Council for Education Administration.
62.
YoungM.CrowG.MurphyJ.OgawaR. (2009). Handbook of research on the education of school leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.
