Florida’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition invited university−district partnerships to compete for funds aimed at improving principal preparation programs. In this article, we report findings from a qualitative case study focused on one program partnership funded by RTTT. Drawing upon interviews with faculty and relevant documents, we conducted a thematic analysis to determine how faculty perceived RTTT, the state, and the district influenced the development of the program. Three themes were identified and suggest that faculty perceived the influence of RTTT was filtered by the state’s existing reform priorities. Implications for preparation and directions for future research are provided.
Acker-HocevarM.Cruz-JanzenM. I.WilsonC. L. (2010). The impact of two policies on principal and teacher preparation programs: No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In ZajdaJ. (Ed.), Globalization, education, and social justice (pp. 103-126). New York, NY: Springer.
2.
AugustineC. H.GonzalezG.IkemotoG. S.RusselJ.ZellmanG. L.ConstantL.. . . DemboskyJ. W. (2009). Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
3.
BarnettD. (2004). School leadership preparation programs: Are they preparing tomorrow’s leaders?Education, 125, 121-129.
4.
BaxterP.JackS. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 544-559.
5.
BranchG. F.HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals (NBER Working Paper No. 17803). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17803
6.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
7.
BriggsK.CheneyG. R.DavisJ.MollK. A. (2013). Operating in the dark: What outdated state policies and data gaps mean for effective school leadership. Dallas, TX: George W. Bush Institute. Available from http://www.bushcenter.org
8.
Browne-FerrignoT. (2011). Mandated university-district partnerships for principal preparation: Professors’ perspectives on required program redesign. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 735-754.
9.
Browne-FerrignoT. (2013). Mandated preparation program redesign: Kentucky case. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 168-190.
10.
ColemanA. (2011). Towards a blended model of leadership for school-based collaborations. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39, 296-316.
11.
CrowG. M.ArnoldN. W.WitherspoonN.ReedC. J.ShohoA. R. (2012). The complexity of leveraging university program change. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7, 172-194.
12.
Darling-HammondL.MeyersonD.LaPointeM.OrrM. T. (2010). Preparing principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (2003). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/article/view/261
14.
DoolittleG. (2013). Seeking clarity in New Jersey for leadership preparation program design: Confusion, fragility, and unintended consequences. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 230-246.
15.
EnglishF. W. (2003). Cookie-cutter leaders for cookie-cutter schools: The teleology of standardization and the de-legitimization of the university in educational leadership preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2, 27-46.
16.
EnglishF. W. (2006). The unintended consequences of a standardized knowledge base in advancing educational leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 461-472.
FrieseS. (2014). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
19.
FullerE. J.HollingworthL. (2014). A bridge too far? Challenges in evaluating principal effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 466-499.
20.
FusarelliB. C.CooperB. S. (Eds.). (2010). The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
21.
HessF. M.KellyA. (2005). An innovative look, a recalcitrant reality: The politics of principal preparation program reform. Educational Policy, 19, 155-180.
22.
HonigM. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-23). Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
KimballS. (2011). Strategic talent management for principals. In OddenA. R. (Ed.), Strategic management of human capital in education: Improving instructional practice and student learning in schools (pp. 133-152). New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
KochanF.ReamesE. H. (2013). Experiencing educational leadership preparation program redesign in Alabama: One university’s perspective. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 152-167.
25.
KolbeT.RiceJ. K. (2012). And they’re off: Tracking federal Race to the Top investments from the starting gate. Educational Policy, 26, 185-209.
26.
LeithwoodK. A.LouisK. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MannaP.RyanL. L. (2011). Competitive grants and educational federalism: President Obama’s Race to the Top in theory and practice. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41, 522-546.
29.
McGuinnP. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the top, competitive grants, and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26, 136-159.
30.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
31.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32.
MitgangL. (2012). The making of the principal: Five lessons in leadership training. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Available from http://www.wallacefoundation.org
33.
MitgangL. (2013). Districts matter: Cultivating the principals urban schools need. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Available from http://www.wallacefoundation.org
34.
MountfordM.Acker-HocevarM. A. (2013). Florida’s mandated educational leadership program redesign: The William Cecil Golden touch. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 212-229.
35.
MountfordM.Acker-HocevarM.Maslin-OstrowskiP. (2009, November). Florida leadership standards: Can’t live with them, can’t live without them. Paper presented at the UCEA Conference, Anaheim, CA.
36.
MurphyJ. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 176-191.
37.
MurphyJ. (2005). Uncovering the foundations of the ISLLC standards and addressing concerns in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 154-191.
38.
OddenA. R. (Ed.). (1991). Education policy implementation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
39.
OrrM. T.KingC.LaPointeM. (2010). Districts developing leaders: Lessons on consumer actions and program approaches from eight urban districts. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
40.
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, 18-70.
41.
PeshkinA. (1988). In search of subjectivity—One’s own. Educational Researcher, 17, 17-21.
42.
PhillipsJ. C. (2013a). Revisioning a school administrator preparation program: A North Carolina case study. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 191-211.
43.
PhillipsJ. C. (2013b). State-mandated principal preparation program redesign: Impetus for reform or invitation to chaos?Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 139-151.
44.
PreisS.GroganM.ShermanW. H.BeatyD. M. (2007). What the research and literature say about the delivery of educational leadership preparation programs in the United States. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2, 1-36.
45.
SaldañaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46.
SpillaneJ. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Innovations in education: Innovative pathways to school leadership. Washington, DC: Office of Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED484220)
48.
Van MeterD. S.Van HornC. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration & Society, 6, 445-488.
49.
WeatherlyR.LipskyM. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171-197.
50.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
53.
YinR. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
YoungM. D. (2013). Is state-mandated redesign an effective and sustainable solution?Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 247-254.
55.
YoungM. D.PetersenG. J.ShortP. M. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 137-175.
