ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

A poposal on Linkage between Principalship Preparation and

Principals’ Role as curriculum leaders in Oromia Regional State.

By

Batiri Geremew (ID. NO. GSR/0886/12)

Submitted to: Dr. Solomon Areaya(advisor) and Dr.Lemma Setegn(co-advisor)

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

March 2022
Contents pages
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................IV
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................V
Chapter One: Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background of the Study................................................................................................................1
1.2. Statement of the Problem..................................................................................................................4
1.3. Research Questions...........................................................................................................................8
1.4. Objectives of the study.....................................................................................................................8
1.4.1. General objective.......................................................................................................................8
1.4 .2. Specific objectives....................................................................................................................8
1.5. Significance of the Study..................................................................................................................9
1.7. Scope of the Study............................................................................................................................9
1.8. Conceptual framework of the study................................................................................................10
1.9. Definitions of key terms.................................................................................................................10
1. 10.Organization of the Study.............................................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature..............................................................................................12
2.1. Theoretical Framework of the Study..................................................................................................12
2.1.1. Problem Based Learning and Reflection..................................................................................12
2.1.3. Internships and Leadership Mentoring/Coaching.....................................................................13
2.2. History of Principal Preparation.....................................................................................................15
2.2. 1. The Ideology Era (1820 – 1900).............................................................................................15
2.2.2. The Prescriptive Era (1900 – 1946).........................................................................................15
2.2.3. The Behavioral Science Era (1947 – 1985)..............................................................................16
2.2.4. The Dialectic Era (1986 – Present)..........................................................................................17
2.3. Characteristics of Effective Principal Preparation Programs..........................................................19
2.3.1. Rigorous recruitment and selection of program candidates...............................................20
2.3.2. Research-based and standards-aligned curriculum............................................................21
2.3.3. Supportive program structures for candidate learning..............................................................25
2.3.4. Authentic and meaningful student assessment.........................................................................26
2.3.5.Rigorous program evaluation....................................................................................................27
2.4. The definition of curriculum and curriculum leaders......................................................................30

i
 2.4.1. Defining Curriculum................................................................................................................30
2.4.2. Curriculum leaders...................................................................................................................31
2.5. The Characteristics of a Curriculum Manager................................................................................33
2.6. Roles of curriculum leaders............................................................................................................34
2.7. The importance of curriculum leaders............................................................................................38
2.8. The Role of the Principal in Managing the Curriculum..................................................................38
2.8.1. Co-coordinating the Curriculum..............................................................................................39
2.8. 2. Ensuring the Implementation of Policy...................................................................................41
2.8.3. The Monitoring and Support of Teachers................................................................................42
2.8.4. Building and Sustaining a School Vision.................................................................................43
2.8.5. Tapping the Expertise of Teacher Leaders...............................................................................43
2.8.6. Collaboration in work..............................................................................................................44
2.8.7. Managing Resources................................................................................................................45
2.9. Role of Teachers as Curriculum Leaders........................................................................................45
2.10. School Leadership Preparation in Ethiopia...................................................................................47
2.10.1. Job Description of Secondary School Principals in Ethiopia.................................................51
2.11. Challenges of Curriculum Leadership in Schools.........................................................................53
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology...................................................................................55
3.1. The purpose of the study.................................................................................................................55
3.2. The Research Design and Method..................................................................................................55
3.4. Sources of Data...............................................................................................................................56
3.5. Sample Population and Sampling Techniques................................................................................58
3.6 .Data Gathering Tools......................................................................................................................60
3.6.1. Questionnaire...........................................................................................................................60
3.6.2. Interview..................................................................................................................................61
3.6.3. Document Analysis..................................................................................................................61
3.7. Data Collecting Procedures.............................................................................................................61
3.8. Methods of Data Analysis...............................................................................................................62
3.9.WORK PLAN.....................................................................................................................................62
10. Budget Plan.........................................................................................................................................63
References.............................................................................................................................................64

ii
 List of figures

Figure 1.conceptual framework………………………………………………………………10

Figure 2. Prototypes of the Designs of the study …………………………………………....56

iii
 List of Tables

Table.1.Domains and competencies of school principals……………………………………49

Table.2. Duties and Responsibilities of Secondary School Principals……………………...51

Table.3.The Number Samples Zones, Teachers and principal……………………………..60

iv
 Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAU - Addis Ababa University

APP -Aspiring Principals program

EdAd -Educational Administration

EdPM - Educational Planning and Management

FDRE -Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

INSPIRE-Institute for the Evaluation of Educational Leadership Preparation, which equips

practitioners with systemic, valid, and reliable evaluation tools

ISLLC - Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium

MoE -Ministry of Education

MScL -Master in School Leadership

OEB -Oromia Education Bureau

PGDSL- Post Graduate Diploma in School Leadership

PPI - Principal Pipeline Initiative

SPSS -Statistical Package for Social Science

WOE -Woreda Education Office

ZED - Zonal Education Department

v
 Chapter One: Introduction

1.1. Background of the Study

In the current global educational context, in which schooling systems are compared
internationally and where there are increasing demands for the development of 21st-century
skills, the schooling sector requires leaders who are deeply involved in the improvement of
instruction and curriculum in schools. School principals are key to developing and maintaining
successful, effective schools and education systems (Bush 2008; Hargreaves & Fink 2006).
Thus, principals play a key role in the development and maintenance of academic standards
which include the knowledge and skills that learners are expected to learn in a subject and each
grade (Shelton, 2011).

Educational organizations of this century are increasing in size and complexity (Arikewuyo,
2009), which in turn increases the volume and the intricacy of the school leadership task (Bush,
2008). More importantly, competencies that are required to lead the schools are becoming
diverse and multifaceted (Huber, 2005).

Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) further state that much of the principal training and preparation
programs of today focus on the management rather than the leadership role of principals,
centering on "a collection of courses of general management principles, school laws,
administrative requirements, and procedure with little emphasis on knowledge about student
learning, effective teaching, professional development, curriculum, and organizational change"
(pp. 9-10). According to him, less emphasis was given to the instructional leadership roles of
principals.

Beck and Murphy (1993) identified the role of the modern principal as an instructional leader,
problem solver, resource provider, visionary, and change agent. These changes in the role of the
principal have also resulted in increased pressure on principal preparatory programs (Hallinger,
1999). Facing new roles and heightened expectations, aspiring principals require intense and
relevant preparation (Lashway, 2003).

6
To accomplish their purpose, schools which are one of the most popular agencies of education
(Mohanty, 2008) need to deliver quality learning through effective teaching. The success of
effective teaching is reflected by the school outcomes-the quality and quantity of graduates.
However, this cannot be possible without the adequate and proper provision of the curriculum
and instruction at all levels and grades and the implementation responsibility of which rests on
school leadership, notably on the principal. The principal or school head is commonly thought to
be the school leader while school leadership may include other personnel, such as members of
the formal leadership team which may include deputy principals, unit leaders, department heads,
and others like PTSA who contribute to the aims of the school (Dinham, 2005).

To this effect, the education systems need to select and prepare professional principals to
efficiently carry out the task of leading schools. Principalship professionalization can be
described as a ‘social and educational process used to transform educators into educational
leaders who will offer and justify their services in terms of their specialist expertise and moral
integrity appropriate to their profession’ (Macpherson, 2010: 211).

Given the vitality of the school principals to lead in the complex and challenging school
circumstances, it is indispensable to be provided with the necessary training to run its roles
effectively and efficiently. The curriculum for principalship preparation at Universities has to be
made relevant to school contexts; the courses designed should have practical relevance to leading
learning which the primary activity of the school is. Concerning the principal being a
curriculum-instructional leader, Joseph Murphy has developed six curriculum and instructional
roles for the principal: promoting quality instruction, supervising and evaluating instruction,
allocating and protecting instructional time, coordinating the curriculum, promoting content
coverage, and monitoring student progress (Murphy, 1998).

Understanding this importance, Ethiopia has formulated the Education and Policy of 1994 which
gave more consideration to the professionalization principalship. With this policy direction and
guideline, many educational leaders and managers have been trained and assigned as principals
in primary and secondary schools.

Recently, in terms of school leadership training, the Ministry of Education of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has come up with National Professional Standard for the school

7
principal, (MoE, 2013b) which is supposed to be used as a base by university principal
preparation programs. This seems to be in line with the provision in Education and Training
Policy regarding professionalizing the leadership (TGE, 1994). The policy envisages that
educational leadership will be democratic, professional, coordinated, efficient, and effective.

Critical of the past modalities such as EdAd and EdPM (MoE, 2013a), the Ministry has designed
a training program known as Post Graduate Diploma in School Leadership (PGDSL) to be
completed in two summer seasons (MoE, 2013a). The shift in strategy envisions a practice-
oriented training package for school leadership to improve work practices which were later
changed for secondary level principalship to Master in School Leadership due to the request by
the trainees. In the curriculum framework, the Ministry has also put admission criteria as to who
should be eligible for the principal post (MoE,2014).

Despite the policy giving high expectations and professionalization of school principals, the
current literature on public school administration preparation programs provided a less
dichotomous view of the appropriateness of these programs for the work of today’s principals.
One set of the literature claimed that many university preparation programs fail to provide
authentic leadership opportunities (Fry, Bottoms, O’Neill, 2005; Hall, 2006). “All too often, new
principals face just this kind of beginning; they are armed with theory and overwhelmed with
reality” (Peel, Buckner, Wallace, Wrenn, & Evans, 1998, p.27). Universities have traditionally
concentrated on introducing potential administrators to the latest trends and theories in
educational leadership, but have failed to provide practical skills for applying that knowledge in
the real world (Peel, Buckner, Wallace, Wrenn, & Evans, 2005).

The training of principalship delivered at universities doesn’t focus on the principals' curriculum
leadership roles which might be the major area of the goal of the schools. The graduates do not
have the necessary knowledge and competency in the curriculum leadership areas to effectively
lead the school for the proper provision of quality education which is complained about by the
beneficiates. Taking this into account, the purpose of this study is to assess the linkage between
principalship preparation and principals’ roles as curriculum leaders in Oromia Regional State.

8
1.2. Statement of the Problem

Principal Preparation is defined as the customary method of training leadership including

successful completion of sequenced courses found within university programs (Styron and
Lenire, 2009).

Curriculum leadership is a significant driver in improving academic achievement. The

curriculum leader is directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices; it is his/her knowledge of instructional strategies, current
research, and application of student achievement data that gives shape to instructional
programming (Copland & Knapp, 2005). By focusing on learning, teaching, and monitoring
progress, curriculum leaders help educators improve their instructional practices and ensure
student achievement improves as a result of meaningful, supportive decisions about pedagogy,
coursework, and instructional materials (King, 2002).

Coleman et al. (2003) further state that the principal understands of curriculum management
strategies is essential in having an overview of the whole curriculum, for consistency, high
standards, and high performance. Moreover, according to Khoza (2016), the strategies for
management of the curriculum require the principal to understand the curriculum concepts;
namely, goals, content, teachers’ activities, teachers’ role, resources, time, environment,
assessment, and accessibility

Hallinger(2005)asserts that many principals encounter great challenges in matching their diverse
administrative duties with curriculum leadership functions. According to Kruger (2003), many
school principals lack the time for and understanding of their instructional leadership
functions.as a result many of them invest little of their time in analyzing curriculum delivery
with teachers in the classrooms.

What is clear is that school principals whose training was grounded in managerial models, very
often struggle to acquire the knowledge and skills that they need to execute their functions as
school heads and leaders of curriculum delivery. An area of school leadership development,
according to (Vick, 2004), is the creation and sharing of a focused vision and mission for optimal
learner performance. Vick claims that principals need to inform staff about performance
expectations, including learner outcomes and then support them in the process to achieve these.

9
This means that principals have to be well informed about the curriculum, teaching methods and
assessment, new research on learning and so forth. It is well noted that school principals are
expected to be instructional leaders who lead the management of curriculum implementations in
schools which include curriculum planning, curriculum coverage and improved school based
assessment.

However, current studies reveal that pre-service principal training cannot impact how a principal
functions as an instructional leader. Ginsberg (1988) argued that few college programs offer
courses in instructional leadership, but instead train principals to be managers rather than
curriculum leaders (Rallis & Highsmith, 1986). According to Darling-Hammond et al., (2007)
and Levine (2005), principal preparation programs have not advanced far enough to meet the
training demands of the new principal paradigm, which is to redesign schools that will prepare
students to compete in the 21st century global context. Critics argue that current principal
preparation programs are archaic, focus on a weak knowledge base and managerial duties,
(Levine, 2005; Orr, 2006) and do not align coursework to meet the needs of practitioners out in
the field (Murphy, 2007).

Studies done in Ethiopia (Matebe, 2015; Mehreteab, 2015) also reveal that principals devote
their time on activities other than instructional matters. Mehreteab (2015), based on his findings,
recommended that principals should act as instructional leaders and learners; revealing that they
have limited capacity in acting as instructional leaders. Hence, the central job of the school
principals has to be redirected from routine administration duties to instructional leadership
which would come from training programs.

A study conducted at Ambo University portrays that the historical development of the Ethiopian
school leadership development process in different stages were examined the development of the
school leadership of a nation that lasted over a century has many challenges from different
angles. This study identified the ups and down of school leadership development process starting
from evolution to current time was political command. The decisions regarding the principals’
preparation, assignment etc.didn’t involve educational stakeholders and most often, it didn’t
incorporate the will and concerns of the leaders’. Furthermore, evolution of the school leadership
was changeable in that it fluctuated back and forth rather than consistently advancing forward.

10
Hence, school leadership development of the nation could not contribute what it must contribute
to the Ethiopian school leadership in development (Tesfaye, 2018).

In 2013 the Ethiopian teachers, principals, and supervisors' development guideline was revised.
This guideline was stated that the primary and secondary school principals must have bachelors
and master's degrees in one of the school subjects respectively. According to this guideline, the
principals are expected to be trained in PGDSL for two summers after they have been assigned to
the principalship position. Again in 2014 summer the secondary school principalship training
was upgraded to masters degree in school leadership and that the primary school principalship
was left as it was originally designed (MoE,2014). The program limits principal professional
preparation to a diploma level(a two year training as opposed to earlier a four year one). This
Master level training is also being provided during shorter summer season along with distance
courses awarding second degree.

The PGDSL program is argued to be less than optimal in providing the professional capacity
candidates need to carry out duties effectively as principals. The way candidates were recruited,
status of PGDSL (undergraduate vs postgraduate- the postgraduate diploma holders were subject
area graduates without background training in education leadership such as EdPM), issues of
ownership (Universities, MoE, Education Bureaus, Schools-since the program was alleged to be
prepared by MoE), and shortage of training time were among the arguments against the program.
Moreover, since policy makers have changed their decision repeatedly resulted in lack of
permanent pincipalship preparation program to depend on in country.

The Ethiopian Education development Road Map MoE (2019) presented gives attention for
school leaders’ development. The capacity to plan, manage and monitor the education system
demands knowledge and skill in collecting, processing, analyzing and managing educational
information at all levels of the system. Weak capacities in strategic planning and leadership,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation hinder the education system. The document has
described that the weak education leadership capacity, limited leaders’ capacities of educational
authorities at the regional, zonal, Woreda and school levels. This portrays the existence of skill
gaps in school principals.

11
From this, it can be asserted the principalship preparation at universities of the country are
practiced with frequent changes in their program of training and lack of autonomy to run the
program by themselves. When the courses of PGDSL was examined, it does not incorporate
curriculum and instruction course to the required number that can equip the principals with the
necessary knowledge and skill that enable them to lead the curriculum. This indicates the
training program gave less attention to curriculum leadership competencies identified like
monitoring the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; improving instructional
practices through the purposeful observation and evaluation of teachers; ensuring the regular
integration of appropriate assessments into daily classroom instruction; using technology and
multiple sources of data to improve classroom instruction; and providing staff with focused,
sustained, research-based professional development.

While studies (Matebe, 2015; Mehreteab, 2015) conducted in Ethiopia have found that there is
the problem of focus on instructional leadership by the school principals, they did not attempt to
see whether this emanated from principal preparation programs, i.e., the way principals are
prepared to impact teaching and learning. In addition, previous studies did not explore whether
the preparation programs prepare principals for curriculum leadership, a gap which this study
aims to fill in.

Moreover, most previous s studies in this area limit themselves more to the effect than to the
cause, i.e., the reason why principals lacked instructional leadership or curriculum leadership in
terms of preparation is not addressed. Hence, based on the belief that school principals have a
positive effect on the instructional process, their preparation will be examined in light of their
curriculum leadership roles expected to perform in bringing quality learning outcomes and
enable them to carry out their huge duties and responsibilities required further investigation.

The aforementioned points are tried to pinpoint that the trend of professionalization of principals
at the universities do not equip principals with the necessary knowledge and skills necessary to
run effectively and efficiently and lead the core operations of schools in general and teaching
and learning or instruction in particular which is missing in the Ethiopian context.
Consequently, this requires an investigation.

12
Hence, based on the belief that principals have a positive effect on instructional process, their
preparation will be examined in light of their roles as curriculum leaders they are expected to
perform in bringing quality learning outcomes and enable them carry out their huge duties and
responsibilities. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to assess the link between leadership
preparation and principals’ roles as curriculum leaders in Oromia Regional State and to provide
necessary recommendation.

1.3. Research Questions

1. Do school principalship preparation programs in Oromia regional state enable

professionalization? How?
2. How do school principals in Oromia region exercise and implement their role as
curriculum leaders?
3. What are the gaps between the curriculum for school principalship education and the
reality on the ground in the context of schools in Oromia region? How and why were the
gaps created if any?
4. Is there significant linkage between school principal preparation programs and principals’
role as curriculum leaders in the context of schools in Oromia region?

1.4. Objectives of the study

1.4.1. General objective

The general objective of the study is to assess the linkage between principalship preparation and
principals’ roe as curriculum leader in Oromia Regional State.

1.4 .2. Specific objectives

 To identify the degree to which the school principalship preparation programs in Oromia
regional state enable professionalization.
 To describe the way that school principalship preparation programs informs
professionalization.
 To assess the degree to which school principals in Oromia region enact their role as
curriculum leaders.

13
  To identify the discrepancy of the curriculum for school principalship education and the
reality on the ground in the context of schools in Oromia Region.
 To explain the way and the reason for the creation of the gaps.
 To identify the existence linkage between school principal preparation programs and
principals’ role as curriculum leaders in the context of schools in Oromia region.

1.5. Significance of the Study

The study might have the following importance.

 It may help Training Institutions /University preparation programs to equip future

principals with the necessary leadership knowledge and skills required to be able to lead
schools of the present and beyond.
 It may help principals to increase their emphasis on the main mission of the school that
is the teaching and learning and adjust themselves to play their roles as curriculum leader
 This study might be helpful in providing policy makers valuable information to improve
the government education sector.
 It might be used as a spring board for further research works in the area

1.7. Scope of the Study

This study is delimited to principal preparation programs and its linkage to principals’ role as
curriculum leaders in primary and secondary government schools of Oromia Regional state.

14
 1.8. Conceptual framework of the study

Inputs Throughput Outputs Outcomes

Skilled and
Strong principalship Teaching and Competent principals
knowledgeable
preparation programs, learning professional graduates lead effective
courses, trainers, Rigorous of school principals curriculum
recruitment and selection  Internship who lead the school in
processes ,resources general and act as implementation and
 Problem
curriculum leaders in improved students
solving particular result

Figure 1.conceptual framework for the study (adopted from General system theory)

1.9. Definitions of key Terms

The principalship - A position held by the chief school leader who is charged with making
sense of the issues within schools and directly influencing the ways in which these issues are
addressed for the good of the studentts (Fullan, 2002).

School leaders-include deputy principals, department heads and teachers themselves in addition
to principals (Dinham, 2005).

Instructional Leadership: Refers to role behavior (or practices) of school leaders, the principal
in defining the school mission, managing curriculum and Instruction, supervising instruction,
monitoring student progress and promoting learning climate (krug, 1992).

Principal Preparation – For this study, is defined as the customary method of training
leadership including successful completion of sequenced courses found within university
program (Styron and Lenire, 2009).

15
 1.10. Organization of the Study

This proposal is organized in to five chapters. The first chapter will deal with introduction of the
study, the second chapter focuses on review of related literature. Chapter three deals about
research design and methodology. Chapter four will present characteristics of respondents, data
and findings, analysis and interpretation of the study followed by the last chapter which is going
to resent summary of the study, conclusion and recommendations of the study

16
 Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature

2.1. Theoretical Framework of the Study

Principal preparation programs must provide pedagogies and learning activities consistent with
how adults learn most effectively, which includes integrating life experiences with new
knowledge and actively engaging with new experiences and information (Cunningham et al.,
2018; Knowles et al., 2005). This learning is accomplished through the instructional approaches
and program features described below.

2.1.1. Problem Based Learning and Reflection.

Authentic, meaningful, and relevant problem-solving activities through the use of instructional
activities such as case studies and simulations have received some research support
(Cunningham et al., 2018; DeJong & Grundmeyer, 2018; Sutcher et al., 2017; Young, 2015b,
2015c; Young & Crow, 2017). Principals need to understand, represent, and solve problems
encountered in practice, and some evidence suggests that this problem solving can be taught and
developed in candidates (Copland, 2000) and offers a way to practice skills in protected and safe
settings (Brazer & Bauer, 2013).

Case study analysis, in which candidates analyze problem-based scenarios and develop potential
solutions, “provides a forum for self-directed learning with authentic problems of practice that
aspiring leaders will encounter in their professional lives” (Byrne-Jiménez, Gooden, & Tucker,
2017, p. 184). Descriptive research has shown that case study analysis aligns with preparation
standards, promotes candidate reflection and decision-making skills, and builds communities of
practice (Crow & Whiteman, 2016).

Other learning experiences consistent with best practices in adult learning include role-playing,
Socratic questioning methods, and technology-assisted simulations (National Institute for School
Leadership, 2020; Taylor, Cordeiro, & Chrispeels, 2009). Critical reflection activities, such as
journal writing about social justice issues in a relevant course or during clinical experiences, can
encourage candidates to examine and question the assumptions that guide their way of thinking
and making sense of the world (Boske, 2011; Byrne-Jiménez et al., 2017). Active and authentic
problem-based learning experiences, when coupled with frequent opportunities for reflection and

17
analysis of practice, support adult learning and are characteristic of exemplary preparation
programs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Orr & Orphanos, 2011; Perez, Uline, Johnson,
JamesWard, & Basom, 2011). However, little direct empirical evidence exists regarding the
impact of these pedagogical approaches on principal leadership and competencies (Byrne-
Jiménez et al., 2017)

2.1.3. Internships and Leadership Mentoring/Coaching.

Field-based experiential learning through internships involves principal candidates applying and
refining their skills as they serve in varying leadership capacities under the wing of experienced
and ideally expert principals; this training is key to high-quality principal preparation and
strongly influences the candidates’learning and capacity to serve as instructional leaders in their
schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Orr, 2011; Orr & Orphanos, 2011; Perez et al., 2011;
Sutcher et al., 2017). These internships, also called residencies, constitute the aspect of
leadership often referred to as clinical preparation. The American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education (AACTE) defines clinical preparation as “fully integrating a school-based
experience throughout every facet of the program, providing candidates with adequate time and
opportunity to engage in authentic adult leadership work and reflective practice experiences” (as
cited in Mendels, 2016, p. 11). Internships are intended to help candidates strengthen their
leadership and administrative skills while practicing relevant tasks such as communication,
evaluation of teaching, and resource management (Reyes-Guerra & Barnett, 2017).

Internship designs may be (1) full-time and job embedded, in which a candidate works in
concentrated blocks of time as a quasi-administrator; (2) detached, in which a candidate takes a
single course and engages in leadership tasks during off-duty teaching hours (before/after school,
evenings, summer), documenting completion of activities in a journal or portfolio; or (3) course
embedded, in which field-based experiences are integrated into a variety of courses to allow a
candidate to connect learning to experiences in authentic settings (Barnett, Shoho, & Copland,
2010). Detached internships are most common (Reyes-Guerra & Barnett, 2017), although
fulltime, job-embedded internships, which are more intensive and in-depth and often involve
university-district partnerships, are gaining appeal (Crow & Whiteman, 2016). High-quality
internships have been shown to help candidates acquire standards-based skills (Ringler, Rouse,
& St. Clair, 2012), increase their confidence in assuming leadership roles (Reyes-Guerra &
18
Barnett, 2017), and see their work in increased layers of complexity, better preparing them tolead
(Orr, 2011; Perez et al., 2011). However, some concerns have been raised about the tendency of
many candidates to intern in the school where they already teach, thus limiting exposure to other
school contexts; a lack of well-prepared mentors; and assignment of more procedural tasks (e.g.,
attendance, bus duty) than tasks that require engagement with meaningful problems of practice
(Clayton, 2012; Reyes-Guerra & Barnett, 2017).

Exemplary internship programs possess several characteristics in common. These internships

establish clear expectations for a candidate’s responsibilities and roles (Clayton & Myran, 2013),
provide the candidate with authentic leadership responsibilities (Havard, Morgan, & Patrick,
2010), and include highly effective mentoring and coaching that include modeling of leadership
skills (Duncan, Range, & Scherz, 2011; Sutcher et al., 2017).

Coaching and mentoring are consistent with all aspects of supporting adult learning, and are
essential to facilitate transfer of new learning to the school setting (Southern Regional Education
Board, 2007; Zepeda, 2013). Effective mentors share their expertise and help candidates reflect
on their practice (Mendels, 2016), and can “help candidates link their internship experiences to
the theories and problem-based activities they learn in their coursework” (Sutcher et al., 2017, p.
10). Preparation programs often seek to identify mentors who have proven experience with
enhancing instruction in their schools (Bartee, 2012), but also make selections based on
professional reputation, years of administrative experience, and willingness to spend sufficient
time with interns as well as to participate in mentor training (Brooks, Havard, Tatum, & Patrick,
2010; Havard et al., 2010). The mentor-intern relationship can flourish when respect, openness,
and trust are established mutually, when reflection is encouraged and conversations are
thoughtprovoking and nonjudgmental, and when the mentoring relationship is given priority
through frequent opportunities for face-to-face contact (Schechter, 2014).

Some exemplary preparation programs offer intensive internship experiences; for example, the
New Leaders alternative preparation program includes a yearlong residency in which candidates
typically serve as assistant principals while being mentored by an expert principal (Gates et al.,
2014). Other programs involve program-district collaborative efforts to pair candidates with
expert principals (Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012). The University of Illinois at Chicago’s
doctorate in urban education provides a fully paid, yearlong principal residency that is district

19
funded, and includes site-based leadership coaching during the principal residency and
continuing as a candidate transitions to assistant principal or principal (Cosner et al., 2015).

While highly effective, these programs are expensive and can present barriers to institutions and
candidates if districts do not cover the costs (Mendels, 2016). High-quality programs provide
financial support to candidates to complete their internships; for example, the Principal Fellows
Program offered in North Carolina uses state funding to support yearlong principal internships
(University of North Carolina General Administration, 2020).

2.2. History of Principal Preparation

2.2. 1. The Ideology Era (1820 – 1900)

The Era of Ideology in school administration (1820 – 1900), produced a knowledge base of
applied philosophy very similar to the one informing teaching (Harris, Ballenger, & Leonard,
2004; Murphy, 1995). Literature discussing school administration or preparation was scarce prior
to 1900. Murphy (1995) suggested a school leadership role separate from the teaching function
did not emerge to any significant degree until after the Civil War. According to Button (1966),
prior to the Civil War there did very few school administrators, not enough of them to constitute
anything even remotely resemble a profession? Button defined administration prior to 1900 as
supervision, two words that were used interchangeably during this era, and supervision was the
training of teachers (Button, 1966).

2.2.2. The Prescriptive Era (1900 – 1946)

The beginning of the 20th century marked a new era for the field of public school
administration. “Concomitantly, a new perspective on management – the captain of commerce
role – that reflected dominant social and cultural forces was held up as an appropriate model for
school leaders” (Murphy, 1995, p.63). The knowledge base for the profession and its preparation
programs followed suit. Influenced significantly by the industrial revolution, the foundation of
the field followed the business ideology of the time (Button, 1966; Harris, Ballenger, & Leonard,
2004; Murphy, 1995). Button (1966) stated, the appropriate basis for decision-making was
ideally a fiscal one. Like a business enterprise, the schools were to be operated at minimum cost.
Like factories, they were to be operated at maximum efficiency. The child was first the raw
material and then the product; the teacher was the worker; and the school was the factory
(p.219). The business model for public school administration and preparation was founded on

20
three premises: schools operated much like business enterprise or factories, justified for
administrative control over a wider variety of matters, and allied the administrator with the
businessman (Button, 1966).

Newlon published Educational Administration as Social Policy in 1934. This work completed a
variety analysis of the field of educational administration. Newlon concluded the field was
oriented toward finance, business management, physical equipment, and the more mechanical
aspects of administration, organization, and personnel management. Newlon discovered that over
80% of the preparatory program materials focused on the executive, organizational, and legal
aspects of administration. Callahan and Button (1964) found the knowledge base of school
administration to be a mixture of finance, business management, public relations, and plant
management.

In the 1930s, during the Depression and the New Deal, the business management model, along
with businessmen, fell into disrepute. The purpose of schools shifted not only to operate with the
highest level of efficiency and economy, but to strengthen the democracy (Button, 1966; Harris,
Ballenger, & Leonard, 2004). Newlon (1934) proclaimed, Education should of course, be
efficiently and economically administered, but it should be kept in mind always that efficiency
and economy must be defined in terms of purposes and responsibilities and that economy and
parsimony are not synonyms in the parlance of public affairs. The fundamental desideratum is
that schools be kept free if they are to serve their primary purpose of social education (p.129).
The business ideology fell into disfavor and consideration of the social foundational aspects of
leadership was significantly enhanced. The “human” dimension began to find its way into the
knowledge base reshaping research agendas and preparation experiences (Murphy, 1995).

2.2.3. The Behavioral Science Era (1947 – 1985)

Andrews and Grogan (2002) asserted as a result of the effects of World War II and its aftermath,
the principalship of the 1940s and early 1950s embraced patriotic values that stressed the
importance of education to a democratic and strong society. The post-World War II era also
experienced severe criticisms of the existing knowledge base, preparation programs employing
prescriptive content and of the administrators trained by such programs. New ideas about the
appropriate knowledge base began to emerge as a result of these criticisms and a renewed hope

21
for the possibility of developing stronger cognitive foundations for educational leadership
(Harris, Ballenger, & Leonard, 2004; Murphy, 1995). The pursuit began for a science of
administration. Murphy (1995) stated prescriptions from practice were increasingly replaced
with theoretical, conceptual, and empirical material drawn from the various social sciences.
Technique-oriented material based on practical experience fell into disfavor as scholars tried to
produce a foundation of scientifically supported knowledge (Culbertson & Farquhar, 1971).

During this era, relevant concepts from the behavioral sciences were plentifully available;
scientists, both physical and behavioral, were rising in esteem. Button (1966) stated, “The first
step in professionalization was to improve the preparation of those entering the field and to
incorporate basic knowledge; knowledge of the behavioral sciences was the best choice” (p.
222). The behavioral science movement led to a view of administration as an applied science in
which theory and research are directly and linearly linked to professional practice. According to
Culbertson and Farquhar (1971) a danger recognized in the literature was that social and
behavioral sciences were glorified in and of themselves as a means of academically legitimating
educational administration as a field of scholarly endeavor

Murphy (1995) asserted that despite periodic warning signals and occasional major assaults on
the science of administration, by the middle of the 1980s the knowledge base of educational
administration was firmly anchored in the social science disciplines. Cooper and Boyd (1987)
suggested preparatory programs typically focused on the study of administration, leadership, and
supervision including an introduction to school law, planning, politics, negotiation, budgeting,
and finance. These courses generally relied on a small number of similar textbooks and articles
from the management and educational administration journals. The programmatic content
emphasized a knowledge base borrowed from social psychology, management, and the
behavioral sciences (Cooper & Boyd, 1987; Milkos, 1983).

2.2.4. The Dialectic Era (1986 – Present)

Murphy (1995) stated, “It is without contention that we are now enmeshed in a third era of
turmoil in educational administration, one which promises to reorient the knowledge base as
radically as have the … prescriptive and behavioral science eras” (p. 66). The existing
knowledge base has been roundly criticized for being weak and inappropriate. Erickson (1979)

22
identified a lack of concern for identifying connections between organizational variables and
organizational outcomes. Murphy identified areas of weakness in the existing knowledge base
including moral and ethical dimensions, educational issues, diversity, and craft dimensions of
leadership.

The Dialectic Era began with several published concerns about the knowledge base of
educational administration. The National Commission on Excellence in Educational
Administration report, Leaders for America’s Schools, (1987) brought national attention to the
needs and concerns of educational leaders, especially their preparation programs. The 1989
report improving the Preparation of School Administrators: An Agenda for Reform from the
National Policy Board for Educational Administration also identified concerns. The 1990
National Commission for the Principalship and the 1993 National Policy Board for Educational
Administration both discussed the need for improvement within the knowledge base.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, principal preparation programs continued to train aspiring
principals as top down building managers. Andrews and Grogan (2002) stated that the
knowledge based deemed essential for principals to be prepared for management functions were
organized around concepts such as planning, organizing, financing, supervising, budgeting, and
scheduling rather than on the creation of relationships and environments within schools that
promote student learning. Principal preparation was more concerned with mandates, rules,
regulations, and focused on supervision and incentives as a strategy for working with the staff in
the school (Andrews & Grogan, 2002).

The late 1980s and 1990s marked an era of change in the conceptualization of the work and
preparation of the school principal. The principal was no longer seen as the building manager,
but as the instructional leader of the school (Andrews & Grogan, 2002). Harris, Ballenger, and
Leonard described that the 1980s cast the principal as an instructional leader and the 1990s as a
leader versus manager. In the 21st century, the role of the principal has become more complex
placing greater pressure on preparation programs. Effective principals must be skilled
instructional leaders, change initiators, managers, personal directors, problem solvers, and
visionaries (Blase & Kirby, 2000; Hale & Moorman, 2003).

23
The critical publications and transformation of the principalship led to a call for national
standards. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium formed in 1994 also indicated a
need for improvement and consistency within the knowledge base. This need led to the
development of the ISLLC Standards in 1996 and revised in 2008, for educational leadership
preparation programs. These standards focused on the six key areas for principal certification and
evaluation including vision, culture, management, collaboration, integrity, and context (Council
of Chief State School Officers, 1996; The State Consortium on Education Leadership, 2008).
Harris, Ballenger, and Leonard (2004) reported the standards-based movement has led to
identification of these specific components of leadership to serve as benchmarks for
accountability. This movement has also increased pressure on leadership preparation programs to
become more practitioner oriented. “In the pressure of this high-stakes testing accountability
environment, the K-12 principal must not only know administrative theory, but is often held
accountable through state accountability systems to demonstrate educational standards as
identified in written mandated state standards of administrator performance” (Harris, Ballenger,
& Leonard, 2004, p. 156).

2.3. Characteristics of Effective Principal Preparation Programs

Contemporary principal preparation programs focus on developing three levels of knowledge:

(1) declarative (the ability to describe effective leadership), (2) procedural (actual
implementation of leadership skills), and (3) contextual (matching appropriate actions to a
specific context or situation) (Cunningham, Van Gronigen, Tucker, & Young, 2018). Arming
principal candidates with these levels of knowledge and skills is thought to offer the best chance
that learning in programs will transfer and help principals lead effectively in any school context
(Ni, Hollingworth, Rorrer, & Pounder, 2016). Because of the increasing complexity of school
leadership (Fuller, Young, Richardson, Pendola, & Winn, 2018), school leaders must engage in
transformational learning that equips them with the capacity to “analyze the situations they face
to understand how to approach various situations and decisions and to articulate the why that
undergirds their actions and decision making” (Cunningham et al., 2018, p. 2).

Much of the research on characteristics of effective preparation programs focuses on case studies
of innovative and exemplary leadership program models and surveys of the efficacy of program
features. This research has revealed several features of effective principal preparation programs,

24
including targeted and selective recruitment (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, & Orr,
2010); program rigor and relevance with an emphasis on standards-based, instructional
leadership (e.g., Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012; Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, &
Meyerson, 2005; Orr & Orphanos, 2011); high-quality clinical experiences through active
instructional coursework and internships (e.g., Borden, Preskill, & DeMoss, 2012); and cohort
models, in which candidates enter and progress through coursework together (Darling-Hammond
et al., 2007; Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012; McCarthy, 2015). In essence, effective
preparation programs actively recruit and hire the right candidates for the right school context,
and are consistent with principles of how adults learn best (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005)
by providing learning approaches that are experiential, problem based, and authentic (Davis &
Darling-Hammond, 2012).

An overview of the research that addresses these and other features of effective principal
preparation programs and the available literature on program outcomes follows.

2.3.1. Rigorous recruitment and selection of program candidates.

Rigorous recruitment and selection processes in principal preparation programs are important
components of program effectiveness (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Orr, 2011), and these
practices have been found in exemplary preparation programs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010).
Recruitment and selection are complementary processes; recruitment strategies impact the
candidate pool in terms of characteristics such as diversity and degree of leadership potential,
while selection strategies emphasize the intentional or unintentional ways that candidates are
invited into preparation programs (Fuller, Reynolds, & O’Doherty, 2017).

Traditional indicators that are often used to select candidates in graduate leadership programs
(e.g., Graduate Record Exam, or GRE) may be ineffective in identifying those capable of leading
in many school contexts (McCarthy, 2015). Selection processes should factor in characteristics
associated with effective leadership practice in particular school contexts rather than relying
solely on test scores that purport to show the potential for academic success in graduate school
(Hess & Kelly, 2005) but may not predict program acceptance or completion (Young, 2008).
Multiple measures that assess the skills and knowledge associated with effective school
leadership offer a way to get an authentic picture of a candidate’s potential for success (Sutcher,
Podolsky, & Espinoza, 2017; Young, 2015a). For example, performance assessments may

25
include measures such as a candidate’s capability to analyze data and plan strategically,
evaluateinstruction through written and oral feedback, and address inequities based on case
studies (Cosner, Tozer, Zavitkovsky, & Whalen, 2015).

Rather than rely primarily on self-selection into administrator certification programs

(FarleyRipple, Raffel, & Welch, 2012; Murphy, Young, Crow, & Ogawa, 2009), many districts
must recruit both internally through grow-your-own programs, and externally by targeted
recruitment that identifies leaders with the potential to be effective in particular school contexts.
Leadership pipeline research demonstrates the value of strategically focusing on a pool of
potential candidates who truly want to work as principals rather than broadly recruiting a larger
pool of individuals (Fuller, Reynolds, & O’Doherty, 2017; Korach & Cosner, 2017). Many
times, however, potential school leaders are identified informally through “tapping” processes, in
which someone, often the principal, identifies and urges a teacher to enter a school leader
preparation program (Fuller et al., 2017). Research suggests that while principals tap those whom
they believe have more school-level leadership experience, they also disproportionally identify
male teachers and those with whom they share the same ethnicity (Myung, Loeb, & Horng,
2011).

Program-district partnerships, in which universities and districts collaborate to recruit the right
individuals into leadership roles, can serve to develop a candidate pool that reflects the diversity
of the school community and reduce reliance on self-selection (Hitt, Tucker, & Young, 2012).
State policymakers are increasingly supporting these partnerships; for example, Illinois enacted
legislation that requires these partnerships and provides supporting documents and policy
language to encourage successful implementation (Fuller et al., 2017) (see later discussion on
program-district partnerships). Mission-focused preparation programs align their recruitment
andselection processes to identify candidates both committed to these missions and with the
aptitude to lead in various contexts, such as rural (Sanzo, Myran, & Normore, 2012), urban
(Cosner et al., 2015), and turnaround schools (Davis, Leon, & Fultz, 2012).

2.3.2. Research-based and standards-aligned curriculum.

McCarthy (2015) described a historic shift from a curricular focus on school management,
finance, and budgeting to instructional leadership and leadership for student learning (Hackman
& McCarthy, 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 2010); however, McCarthy cited research suggesting that

26
courses offered in many programs had remained largely the same, and continued to emphasize
discrete disciplines such as school law and school finance rather than the integrated and coherent
programs of study thought to characterize exemplary programs (Hackmann & McCarthy, 2011).
While the notion of standards-based programs emerged through the development of national
standards for administrative licensure for leadership preparation programs (e.g., National Policy
Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA], 2018), preparation programs in many cases
have chosen to tweak course offerings by plugging standards into existing courses rather than
making substantive changes to re-create programs around these standards (Murphy et al., 2008).

Research shows that exemplary preparation programs align with research-based standards and
coherently link program goals, learning activities, and assessments with the program’s shared
values, beliefs, and knowledge about what constitutes organizational effectiveness
(DarlingHammond et al., 2010; Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012; Orr & Orphanos, 2011).
Learning and instruction represent the technical core of schooling (Louis, Leithwood,
Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010), and principals are charged with creating structures and
programs to supportteaching and learning (Marks & Printy, 2003; Sebastian & Allensworth,
2012). Instructional leadership capacity building focuses on “the knowledge, skills, and
commitments a leader needs to diagnose, develop, implement, and evaluate coherent systems of
curriculum, instruction, data systems, supports, and assessment” (NPBEA, 2018, p. 88).
Principals in high-quality programs become effective leaders capable of building teams of
teachers who can support the development of students’ academic, social, and emotional skills, as
well as differentiate teaching strategies to meet unique students’ needs (Sutcher et al., 2017).

Effective principal preparation programs include curricula that prepare leaders to develop
collegial and collaborative staff learning environments, which are associated with improved
student achievement (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009) and
reductions in teacher turnover (Pogodzinski, Youngs, & Frank, 2013). Principal candidates need
coursework and authentic learning experiences to help them develop structures that build
teachers’ professional capacity and enable collaboration, such as extended blocks of time for
planning and methods of distributed (or shared) leadership (Sutcher et al., 2017). For example,
the University of Connecticut’s preparation program involves candidates practicing collaborative

27
leadership tasks, such as encouraging teacher input and active involvement in school decision
making (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).

High-quality preparation programs focus on developing leaders with the capacity to enact
continuous school improvement by preparing them with the knowledge and skills needed to
establish ambitious goals and plans to accomplish these goals (Jacob, Goddard, Kim, Miller, &
Goddard, 2015; Sutcher et al., 2017); to implement, monitor, and adjust improvement plans;
andto rally staff, parents, and students to support improvement plans (Billingsley & McLeskey,
2014). These programs also include curricula that prepare educators to use data and collective
inquiry (including staff, families, and community organizations) processes to pinpoint
educational problems and identify strategies for improvement (Sutcher et al., 2017), arming
candidates with quantitative and qualitative data analysis skills, including the observation of
classroom instruction. The University of Illinois at Chicago’s Urban Education Leadership
program trains candidates to use a cycle of inquiry that includes (1) identifying root causes of
problems (instruction, organization, leadership); (2) selecting instructional improvement
strategies and a plan for strategy enactment; (3) setting process and outcome goals and a plan for
goal assessment; (4) enacting a strategy action plan; and (5) diagnosing process and outcome
progress and adjusting as needed (Cosner et al., 2015).

Many principal preparation programs now include curriculum units on cultural foundations and
social justice to better prepare school leaders who are culturally competent and can promote
equity, inclusion, and equal access to learning for the nation’s increasingly diverse student
population (Barakat, Reames, & Kensler, 2018; Crow & Whiteman, 2016; Khalifa, Gooden, &
Davis, 2016). Barakat and colleagues summarized the research on building the cultural
competence of school leaders; they noted that a selective admissions process (including a
commitment to social justice/equity), the experience of traveling and/or studying abroad, diverse
cohort and faculty members, field/internship experiences in diverse settings, and a special
diversity or social justice course were program components that correlated with the cultural
competence of school leaders.

However, few school leadership programs evaluate participants’ cultural competence as a

program outcome (Crow & Whiteman, 2016). While few studies have addressed the impact of
these programs, several studies have demonstrated that high-quality programs contributed

28
positively to participants’ cultural knowledge, beliefs, and motivations. For example, a
leadership for social justice course resulted in positive developmental shifts in preservice
candidates’ dispositions in areas such as appreciating diversity as an asset and providing a safe
and supportive learning environment (Allen, Harper, & Koschoreck, 2017). However, most
studies fail to measure or detect the impact on candidates’ actual cultural skills (Barakat,
Reames, & Kensler, 2012, 2018). Barakat and colleagues suggested that “although having an
internship component in diverse settings might be a good start, it would appear that additional
program changes are needed for educational leadership students to develop necessary [cultural
skills]” (Barakat et al., 2018, p. 18). Curriculum standards for preparation programs also include
community and external leadership, or “developing a leader’s knowledge, skills, and
commitments necessary to engage families, community, and school personnel in order to
strengthen student learning, support school improvement, and advocate for the needs of their
school and community” (NPBEA, 2018, p. 89). Research suggests that meaningful family and
community engagement contributes to positive student outcomes, and principals play a key role
in creating structures to support this engagement (Louis et al., 2010), including two-way
communication processes (Tschannen-Moran, 2001), and parent and family involvement
(Sheldon, Epstein, & Galindo, 2010)

Finally, preparation programs address organizational management to develop candidates’

capacity to effectively run schools (NPBEA, 2018). School leaders must be able to develop and
monitor school management and operations to support student learning and fulfill the school’s
mission and vision, as well as be able to diagnose needs (e.g., fiscal, technology, and physical
resources) and develop a resource plan to meet those needs (Robinson et al., 2008). Curricula
related to organizational management also include building capacity to interpret and adhere to
laws, rights, policies, and regulations related to schools (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Louis et al.,
2010).

2.3.3. Supportive program structures for candidate learning.

Research has identified several features of high-quality principal preparation programs that
relate to how they are designed, organized, and delivered to optimize candidate learning.

Cohort models. A limited research base has shown that having small groups of aspiring
principals progress through multiyear programs together collaboratively as peers promotes

29
several positive leadership-related outcomes (Crow & Whiteman, 2016), and is generally
considered a key element in high-quality or exemplary preparation programs (Cosner et al.,
2015; Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012; Greenlee & Karanxha, 2010; McCarthy, 2015; Sutcher
et al., 2017). Cohort models have been shown to increase the likelihood of program completion
(Nimer, 2009); build candidates’ capacity to develop peer relationships and networks, and help
them develop a sense of trust and community in their programs (Greenlee & Karanxha, 2010;
Salazar, Pazey, & Zembik, 2013); improve leadership learning and development (Ni et al., 2019;
Salazar et al., 2013); and increase the likelihood that candidates feel well prepared for the
principal role (Huang, Beachum, White, Kaimal, Fitzgerald, & Reed, 2012). In addition,
evidence suggests that cohort models in exemplary programs create lasting networks of
graduates who can share ideas and resources, and engage in problem solving and critical
reflection with peers well into their careers (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).

2.3.4. Authentic and meaningful student assessment.

High-quality principal preparation programs use standards-based assessments to elicit feedback

for both the candidate and the program generally; these assessments are tied to program vision
and goals and are used for continuous program improvement (Davis et al., 2005; Davis &
Darling-Hammond, 2012; Sutcher et al., 2017; Young & Crow, 2017). In a review of five
exemplary programs, Davis and Darling-Hammond (2012) found that all five assessed candidate
competence both throughout and at the completion ofprograms using multiple performance
measures. Examples included structured portfolios containing critical work products, problem-
based learning projects, professional platform statements, monthly site visits, and formal
evaluations.

Portfolios have received the most research attention in the literature, with some descriptive
studies documenting the connection between standards-aligned portfolios and reflective practice,
and the capacity of portfolios to represent positive trends in candidates’ understanding and
application of standards as they progress through a preparation program (Crow & Whiteman,
2016). Other measures of candidate learning may include end-of course reflections and quality of
action research projects (Buskey & Karvonen, 2012), as well as capstone thesis projects that
engage students with documentation and analysis of cycle and inquiry leadership work
conducted through a residency program (Cosner et al., 2015).
30
Formative assessment measures used throughout the program to gauge candidate progress and
adjust programming as needed, and summative measures used at the end of programs to
determine candidate outcomes are both needed for continuous improvement of preparation
programs (Korach & Agans, 2011).

2.3.5. Rigorous program evaluation.

While there is a good deal of implementation evidence that identifies components common to
exemplary school leader preparation programs, much less rigorous evidence is available on how
these programs promote candidate learning, on-the-job leadership performance, and school
performance, and on how they influence career outcomes (Black & Murtadha, 2007; Crow &
Whiteman, 2016; Herman, et al., 2017; McCarthy, 2015; Ni, Hollingsworth, Rorrer, & Pounder,
2016; Orr & Barber, 2009), despite the increasing state and national emphasis on program
evaluation (Crow & Whiteman, 2016). However, several researchers have documented
preparation program impact on self-reported learning outcomes, leadership confidence and
efficacy, and satisfaction of graduates (Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012; Ni et al., 2019; Orr,
2011).

In a review of exemplary programs, Davis and DarlingHammond (2012) found that the programs
produced high levels of satisfaction and high levels of confidence and efficacy with
administrative and instructional leadership tasks. Orr (2011) found positive associations between
program features (e.g., program content, delivery strategies, supports, internship) and self-
reported graduate learning outcomes.

Orr and Orphanos (2011) found that exemplary preparation program graduates reported higher
program quality and internship quality than a national sample of conventional program
graduates, and that these higher qualities significantly impacted graduates’ learning about
organizational and instructional leadership. Additional research is needed to determine whether
graduates are able to demonstrate the two key dimensions of learning transfer (Blume, Ford,
Baldwin, & Huang, 2010): generalization of learned skills to a variety of leadership tasks and
contexts, and maintenance of acquired leadership skills over time (Ni et al., 2019). The UCEA
has responded to the overall lack of evidence on effectiveness of leadership preparation
programs by establishing the INSPIRE Institute for the Evaluation of Educational Leadership

31
Preparation, which equips practitioners with systemic, valid, and reliable evaluation tools (Winn
et al., 2016). One tool is the INSPIRE-G survey, which is used to collect information on recent
graduates’ assessments of their program experiences and perceptions of various program quality
elements, and their self-assessed learning about leadership (Ni et al., 2019).

A recent national study found that graduates who reported high-quality program features
(program rigor/relevance, faculty quality, peer relationships, cohort structure, and internship
experiences) reported higher levels of knowledge and skills related to leadership learning;
strongest associations were found for program rigor/relevance and faculty quality, although the
faculty quality association was fully explained by a program’s rigor/relevance. (Ni et al., 2019).
Furthermore, cohort models, while positively related to learning outcomes, had an indirect
impact and were found to be mediated by peer relationships. Findings from this study add
confirmation to the research addressing features of exemplary preparation program, such as
coherent content emphasizing instructional leadership, high-quality clinical experiences, and
cohort models that build teamwork and collaborative learning (Ni et al., 2019).

Currently under debate in the research literature are best practices in the identification of
common metrics (outside of self-report data) to assess the effectiveness of principal preparation
programs (McCarthy, 2015). Commonly discussed metrics include graduates’ success in
increasing student achievement, effectiveness as leaders, job placement rates, and subsequent
retention in the position. In an analysis of principal preparation programs in Tennessee, Grissom
et al. (2019) found associations between these programs and high and low principal job
performance (e.g., ratings received by supervisors and teacher ratings of leadership quality), but
program effectiveness rankings varied by the type of outcome (labor market, job performance,
licensure scores) measured, and the researchers were unable to discern exemplary programs or
those that were failing and required intervention.

The researchers also determined that the school context (e.g., numbers of disadvantaged students
in the school or district) into which principals are hired varied considerably across the
preparation programs, and that analysis of these factors must be included in any evaluations of
these programs. The researchers and others warn that, in some cases, using these metrics
exclusively may lead policymakers to make unwarranted conclusions about leadership program
quality and effectiveness (Fuller & Hollingsworth, 2018; Grissom et al., 2019).

32
Several principal preparation programs incorporate many of the exemplary program
characteristics previously discussed, and employ rigorous evaluation processes to determine
program impact. New Leaders’ Aspiring Principals program (APP), is a national alternative
certification program that recruits and trains aspiring principals who then serve in urban high
need schools. The program provides the core elements of selective recruitment and admissions,
strong program-district partnerships, alignment to research-based standards, residency-based
training, data use for continuous improvement, and early tenure endorsement and support (Gates,
Baird, Doss, et al., 2019; Gates et al., 2014). A 5-year evaluation of the impact of this model
found that students in schools led by program graduates made small but significantly larger
achievement gains in reading and math than students at schools led by non-APP new principals,
although the magnitude of effects varied substantially across districts (Burkhauser, Gates,
Hamilton, & Ikemoto, 2012; Gates et al., 2014). In addition, almost two thirds of New Leaders
alumni were people of color, compared with an average of 20% of principals and teachers
nationally. A subsequent follow-up analysis continued to find high levels of APP candidate
diversity, higher achievement scores and higher attendance levels at schools led by APP
graduates, and higher 2-year (but not 3-year) principal retention and placement rates
intoprincipal positions compared with non-APP graduates who were also new principals (Gates,
Baird, Doss, et al., 2019).

Another example of more rigorous program evaluation is the research-supported Wallace

Foundation’s Principal Pipeline Initiative (PPI). As stated previously, attracting effective
principal candidates is most acute for hard-to-staff schools, which often lack applicant pools with
sufficient numbers of candidates who have relevant leadership experience, leading to high levels
of attrition and ongoing cycles of hiring replacements, particularly in low-income urban settings
(Center on School Turnaround, 2017; Goldhaber, Lavery, & Theobald, 2015). In 2011, PPI
invested in six large urban districts, engaging these districts and preparation programs in
collaborative recruitment and selection efforts aligned with district leadership standards
(Turnbull, Riley & MacFarlane, 2015). District-developed standards further guided preparation,
hiring, evaluation, and support of principals, and PPI supported districts as they developed
tracking systems that documented where leaders were prepared, their career paths, and
evaluation data. These tracking systems, in turn, provided data to inform preparation/professional
development programs and decisions about hiring and placements, as well as specific principal

33
competency needs in the district (Turnbull, et al., 2015). A longitudinal analysis demonstrated
that schools, particularly those in the lowest quartile, with newly placed principals in PPI
districts had significantly higher academic performance than comparison schools with newly
placed principals, and PPI principals were more likely to be retained after 2 and 3 years on the
job (Gates, Baird, Master, & Chavez-Herrerias, 2019).

A cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that PPI did not represent a “big ticket” district
expenditure, with participating districts devoting 0.4% of their current expenditures to principal
pipeline activities (Kaufman, Gates, Harvey, Wang, & Barrett, 2017). An academic return on
investment (ROI) analysis found that the per-student costs ($42) were small relative to student
achievement benefits compared with other academic interventions (Gates, Baird, Master, et al.,
2019). This finding is consistent with other research that demonstrates the cost effectiveness of
successful school leadership initiatives, such as the National Institute for School Leadership’s
executive development program (Nunnery, Ross, Chappell, Pribesh, & Hoag-Carhart, 2011;
Nunnery, Yen, & Ross, 2011).

2.4. The definition of curriculum and curriculum leaders

2.4.1. Defining Curriculum

A curriculum refers to the formal academic program provided by a school, as reflected in
subjects on the timetable. Coleman et al. (2003) propose that the curriculum sets the goals for
instruction, teachers independently deciding how to achieve such goals. The curriculum
organizes knowledge in ways that are best for learning subject matter, offering familiarity with
subject matter concepts, and deploying matching pedagogy as a central focus. Curriculum refers
to all the learning that is planned and guided as a body of knowledge to achieve certain outcomes
(Booyse and Du Plessis, 2014). . Scholars mentioned above have defined the curriculum as a
formal academic program and organizer of knowledge to be learnt, and which sets the goals of
instruction

The most common understanding relates to curriculum as subject matter or a series of written
documents like books and syllabi. It is also seen as a set of school experiences, which means it
does not only includes “subjects,” and but includes all activities, such as lunch, play, sports, and
other non-academic activities.

34
Other definitions have defined curriculum as a plan tied to goals and related objectives. These
definitions suggest a process of choosing from the many possible activities those are preferred
and, thus, value-laden.

Curriculum is also to be drawn from outcomes or results. Here, curriculum is seen as targeting
specific knowledge, behavior, and attitudes for learners. This is a highly active definition that
accepts change in schools as a normal variable in planning.

2.4.2. Curriculum leaders

Curriculum leadership is not be determined by an individual’s title or years of experience.
According to Wiles (2009) Curriculum leadership is the essential function of school leadership,
so it can be carried out by both a principal and by teachers. Thus, a school principal or a teacher
is responsible for making sure that the school has a quality curriculum and that it is implemented
effectively.

Curricular leadership is discussed by Fidler (1997) as instructional leadership. He believed that

the principals of a school has an impact on the professional work of the school, including the
teaching and learning which goes on in the classrooms. He presented two points of view from
which instructional leadership can be considered: a functional approach and a process approach.
The functional approach involves leaders in defining the school mission, managing curriculum
and instruction, supervising teaching, monitoring learner progress and promoting an instructional
climate. The process approach looks at ways this might be accomplished.

Thus, a curriculum leader has to make sure that the curriculum goals are achieved, which is to
maximize learner’s learning by providing quality in the content oflearning. Thus, Curriculum
leadership focuses on what is learned (the curriculum) and how it is taught (the instruction).

Another goal of curriculum leadership is to develop schools as a learning organization. A school

becomes a learning organization when individuals (teacher, learners) expand their capacity to
create results they truly desire and where people are continually learning to see the whole
together. This form of leadership is viewed in the following finite activities:

establishing objectives,
structuring scope and sequence

35
 choosing relevant textbooks and resources, and
Selecting appropriate forms of evaluation, and curricular development needs to be
explored.
Glatthorn (1997) listed the essential functions of curriculum leadership carried out at the school
and classroom levels:

At school level At Classroom Level

develop the school’s vision of a quality develop yearly planning of
curriculum calendars for operationalizing
supplement the National’s or state’s educational the curriculum
goals develop units of study
develop the school’s own vision & Mission enrich the curriculum and
develop a learning-centered schedule remediate learning
determine the nature and extent of curriculum evaluate the curriculum
integration
align the curriculum
monitor and assist in curriculum implementation
The roles and functions show that regardless of whether these are at the school level or
classroom level, curriculum leadership involves tasks that guarantee quality education. Any
effective curricular leader will have following characteristics:

(i) Learner – continually seeking information, evidence and research to support current
practices or develop new approaches within the school.
(ii) Strategic thinker and have a long term vision – the ability to step out of the busyness
of school and the role of curriculum leader to assess where the school is at and what long
term initiatives will have an impact on improving learner learning.
(iii) Relational – Has an ability to develop effective relationships with teachers, learners,
leadership and other stakeholders to be able to work effectively and communicate with
all groups within the school. This is essential for any strategy to be implemented well in
school.

36
(iv) Action based – the ability to make decisions and act on them. Having knowledge is
important but unless one act on this knowledge than it is pointless. Developing plans and
actions that are implemented is crucial to being successful
Curriculum leadership is a significant driver in improving academic achievement. The
curriculum leader is directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices; it is his/her knowledge of instructional strategies, current
research, and application of student achievement data that gives shape to instructional
programming (Copland & Knapp, 2005). Teacher leaders earn credibility from other teachers
respect when their expertise and their personal and professional values on instruction positively
influence school culture (Patterson & Patterson, 2004). By focusing on learning, teaching and
monitoring progress, curriculum leaders help educators improve their instructional practices and
ensure student achievement improves as a result of meaningful, supportive decisions about
pedagogy, coursework, and instructional materials (King, 2002).

2.5. The Characteristics of a Curriculum Manager

According to Smith and Andrews (1989:23), the principal as curriculum leader means that the
principal is perceived as:

providing the necessary resources so that the school’s academic goals can be achieved
possessing policy knowledge and management skills in curriculum matters which lead to
improved teaching practices
being a skilled communicator in one-on-one small groups and large-group settings
to be future-focussed and creating a visible presence for the staff, learners and parents at
both the physical- and philosophical levels of what the school is all about.
However, both experience and training are needed to assist the principal in gaining and
mastering these qualities. As Everard and Morris (1996:216) contend, true proficiency comes
only from practical experience coupled with reflective learning.

Beare, Caldwell and Millikan (1989:155) identify the following three requirements for
curriculum management:

 curriculum managers work with other principals to develop a shared commitment to a

common vision of excellence in teaching

37
  the leader has a vision for excellence in teaching. Snowden and Gordon (1998:66) agree,
adding that the leader must have the organisational vision necessary to guide the school
into the future and an ability to articulate this vision. The principal should therefore not
only be clear on where he/she is heading to with the school, but should also be able to
clarify this to the staff and
 curriculum managers and their teaching colleagues have the knowledge and skills to
ensure that the vision becomes a reality.
These requirements can be fulfilled in a situation where there is a healthy and objective
relationship between the principal and his/her staff. Lezotte (1992:1) warns that the vision of the
school cannot be attained unless the principal creates support for it among those implementing
the curriculum. Hoy and Miskel(1991:277) maintain that the quality of the principal-teacher
relationship is the most important factor in determining the leader’s influence on the group
members.

38