Program Origins and Supporting Frameworks
We live in an era where the definition of school leadership has changed dramatically and is continuing to evolve. Once envisioned strictly as a manager of school operations, the advent of standards and accountability – values unlikely to wane over time – has brought leadership to the forefront of educational administration (Kowalksi, et al, 2008). Not only are school leaders – principals in particular – responsible for the day-to-day activities of school but for improving teaching and learning through organizational change.
Calls for the changing role of the school principal include instructional, community, and visionary leadership, with the statement that “principals of today’s schools must be able to (1) lead instruction, (2) shape an organization that demands and supports excellent instruction and dedicated learning by students and staff and (3) connect the outside world and its resources to the school and its work (Hale and Moorman, 2003, pp. 7-8). Gerald Tirozzi (2001), the Executive Director of the NASSP, adds that principals in the 21st century will be "recognized as leaders of curricular change, innovative and diversified instructional strategies, data-driven decision making and the implementation of accountability models for students and staff."
At the same time, however, there is a general consensus that there is a shortage of high quality school leadership. According to a Public Agenda survey, 60% of superintendents agreed that they have had to "take what you can get" in hiring a school principal (Farkas, Johnson, Duffett, & Foleno, 2001).
The supply of leadership in our schools has, for the most part, been the responsibility of university-based preparation programs. However, these programs have been heavily criticized for a number of their characteristics. Conventional programs tended to be consist of a fragmented series of courses leaving students to “put the pieces together on their own” (Department of Education, 2005, p. 3), and, according to Hale and Moorman (2003),
The general consensus in most quarters is that principal preparation programs (with a few notable exceptions) are too theoretical and totally unrelated to the daily demands on contemporary principals. The course work is poorly sequenced and organized, making it impossible to scaffold the learning. Because clinical experiences are inadequate or non-existent, students do not have mentored opportunities to develop practical understanding or real-world job competence (pp. 4-5).
Others concur, pointing to the absence of rigor and coherence, a weak connection between the curriculum and demands of everyday leadership, reliance on faculty with little, if any K-12 experience, and overall lack of capacity to provide the skills and knowledge needed to create a pool of exceptional school leaders (e.g. Murphy, 2007; Tucker and Codding, 2002; Jackson and Kelley, 2003).
Furthermore, evidence suggests even principals acknowledge the poor quality of their university preparation. Farkas, Johnson, & Duffet (2003) find 4% of principals citing university training as the most valuable source of preparation, while Tucker and Codding (2002) are not surprised that few principals are able to identify a connection between their capacity as a principal and their initial preparation for the job.
Efforts to reform the reputation and effectiveness of university-based preparation programs have become common as a result of these critiques. The establishment of standards – namely those offered by ISLLC – is a step toward ensuring that programs are adequately addressing the leadership needs of our schools. However, the Southern Regional Education Board notes, "most states have 'addressed new standards' by matching old course titles and content to new expectations. On paper, this strategy 'aligns' courses and standards. In reality, it results in little or no change" (SREB, 2003, p. 9). Furthermore, it warns, "Redesigning leadership preparation programs does not mean simply rearranging old courses—as staff at some universities and leadership academies are inclined to do. True redesign requires a new curriculum framework and new courses aimed at producing principals who can lead schools to excellence" (p. 7).
What, then, constitutes a "good" principal preparation program? Research on university-based preparation programs focuses on case studies of what are commonly referred to as innovative programs. These programs differ in their implementation but share a broad set of characteristics: stringent admissions and selection criteria, a cohort model, organization around a set of core principles (e.g. leadership for school improvement, moral or ethical leadership), reflective and experiential learning opportunities, careful sequencing of course content, and collaboration with area school districts (Orr, 2006; Jackson and Kelley, 2002; Hale and Moorman, 2003).
In meeting the needs of 21st century leaders, university preparation programs must attend both the calls to think ahead to the challenges wrought by our changing world and the criticisms that have been leveraged against such programs for decades. Instructional, community, and visionary leadership responsibilities have not replaced but rather have been added to the already challenging management tasks faced by school leaders. Curriculum and instruction must be grounded in the reality that principals spend their day "putting out fires" and provide the management tools to keep school operations intact. Concurrently, we must train candidates to effectively lead organizational change and prepare them for the evolving responsibilities generated by our social, economic, and political environment. Therefore, university-based leadership programs need to adapt to the changing definition of educational leadership, adopt practices that reflect this deeper understanding, and constantly revisit and re-evaluate the ways in which they prepare the next generation of school leaders.
The University of Delaware Master of Education in School Leadership rises to this challenge.
Our goal is the meaningful and effective preparation of the next generation of school leadership, a goal realized through several key components of the program:
- Annual cohorts of qualified applicants committed to improving our schools.
- Course content that addresses practical responsibilities of principals and challenges candidates to think beyond current practices.
- Program organization that supports candidates both academically and professionally, before, during, and after participation.
- Faculty and staff that engage in ongoing scholarship, reflection, and dialogue about the preparation and responsibilities of school leaders in the 21st century.
- Partnerships with school districts for both candidates’ internship experiences and recruitment of candidates to support of district leadership succession planning.
- Opportunities to benefit from partner educational programs, including the Delaware Academy for School Leadership, School of Education lecture series, educational research, and international education.
These components are supported and integrated into a cohesive program through the infusion of five principles we hold to be fundamental to the effective preparation of school leaders: problem- and field-based learning; evidence-based problem-solving; understanding school, community, and policy contexts; organizational improvement; and reflective leadership.
The University of Delaware recognizes the complex and evolving roles of the principal in the 21st century. Through a carefully planned and high-quality curriculum, meaningful problem- and field-based learning experiences, and a supportive and knowledgeable program faculty and staff, the Master of Education in School Leadership program prepares the next generation of skilled, reflective, and effective school leaders.
Supporting Frameworks
The Master of Education in School Leadership is aligned with and supported by the conceptual framework of the School of Education of the University of Delaware and the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards.
The University of Delaware School of Education Conceptual Framework
The University of Delaware aims to develop skilled professional educators who integrate complex roles and dispositions in the service of diverse communities of learners. Our programs encourage teacher candidates to believe that all children, adolescents, and adults can learn and to dedicate themselves to supporting that learning. Using developmentally and educationally effective approaches and guided by state and national standards, our candidates create environments that prepare learners to contribute to a democratic society within a global context. Our candidates come from varied professional preparation programs, including elementary and secondary education, early childhood education, special education, and physical education, and they will assume varied professional careers with learners of different ages and abilities. Regardless of their area of specialization, all UD-prepared educators are reflective practitioners serving diverse communities of learners as scholars, problem solvers, and partners.
ISLLC Standards
- Setting a widely shared vision for learning;
- Developing a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth;
- Ensuring effective management of the organization, operation, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment;
- Collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources;
- Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner; and
- Understanding, responding to, and influencing the political, social, legal, and cultural contexts.
