You are on page 1of 121

Mentorship for Teacher Leaders

Collection Editor:
Fred Mednick
Mentorship for Teacher Leaders

Collection Editor:
Fred Mednick

Arnold Barrera Andra McGinn

James E. Berry Carol Mullen
Bonnie Beyer Larry Ragan
Richard Braley Patricia Reeves
Rebecca M. Bustamante, Ph.D. Sherri Ritter
Kathleen Campbell Linda Searby
Ed Cox William Sharp
Rayma Harchar John Slate
Mary Harris-John Bob Smith
Colleen Kennedy Michael Yelvington
Angus MacNeil

< >


Rice University, Houston, Texas

© 2008 Fred Mednick

This selection and arrangement of content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License:
Table of Contents
1 Elearning for Mentors
1.1 e-Based Professional Development (e-PD) for Eective Teaching and Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Utilizing Distance Education in Your Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Best Practices in Online Teaching - During Teaching - Promote Active Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 Mentorship and Leadership Practices
2.1 A Study of Social and Political Acumen in Dynamic Educational Leadership and
the Implications for Leadership Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Mentors' Views of Factors Essential for the Success of Beginning Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3 The Role of the Principal
3.1 Toward a Leadership Practice Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2 The Long View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.3 The Principalship: Manager to Leader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.4 Preparing, Developing, and Credentialing K-12 School Leaders: Continuous
Learning for Professional Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.5 Reality Check: Designing a New Leadership Program for the 21st Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
STRATEGIC PLANNING IN DIVERSE SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.7 A Mentoring Mindset: Preparing Future Principals to be Eective Protégés . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.8 An Imperative for Leadership Preparation Programs: Preparing Future Leaders
to Meet the Needs of Students, Schools, and Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.9 It Takes a Village to Raise New Faculty: Implementing Triangular Mentoring
Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.10 Perceptions Within the Discipline: Exceptional Scholarship in Educational Lead-
ership and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Attributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Chapter 1

Elearning for Mentors

1.1 e-Based Professional Development (e-PD) for Eective Teaching
and Leadership

This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of Professors
of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge base in educational
Professional development is both a growing trend and an increasing need in this country for those em-
ployed in a wide variety of professions. It is a way for employees to engage in workplace learning to improve
performance levels and skills, and to learn new ones as well. According to the American Society for Training
& Development (ASTD), Many economists and business leaders agree that the key to achieving business
results and sustaining a competitive advantage is a fully engaged, knowledgeable, and skilled workforce
(Rivera & Paradise, 2006, p. 2). According to this same report, American industry spends an estimated
$109.25 billion annually on professional development activities.
Educators make up about two percent of the American workforce (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007).
According to the US Department of Education (USDOE), there are over 2.7 million full-time teachers in
this country, and they play a critical role in the quality of education. In a 2004 report by the USDOE, The
single most important factor aecting student achievement is teachers. . . (Kleiman, 2004). The importance
of highly-qualied teachers is evident, and therefore the question becomes: how do we keep 2.7 million
teachers trained and current so they may deliver the quality education this country's children deserve?
Professional development is a key component to maintaining a skilled workforce and producing quality
teachers, so the challenge lies in providing and delivering training so that it is meaningful, high-quality, and
presented in the most eective format.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, teachers on average spend over 40 hours per week on school
duties both inside and outside of the classroom. In addition, they work 10 months during the year and then
during their two-month break many take second jobs, teach summer courses, or spend time in workshops
or college classes to continue their education (U.S. Department of Labor, 2006). To complicate matters,
many teachers live in rural areas where they do not have access to professional development opportunities.
Additionally, there is the problem of a shortage of qualied teachers in such elds as mathematics, science,

1 This content is available online at <>.


and foreign languages who need specic training and courses to obtain state certication (Kleiman, 2004, p.
Electronic professional development (e-PD) may provide the solution to some of these training issues.
It provides teachers with opportunities to participate in quality in-service education while staying in their
communities, and even in their classrooms. Having the opportunity to meet the standards of high-quality
professional development while living a normal life may encourage more teachers to participate, thus reducing
some of the shortages we now face. We are just beginning to see the full potential of e-PD, but to be eective
these programs must address the quality standards like those outlined in the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001; in other words, professional development today must be relevant, meaningful, useful, and standards-
based. These standards include such criteria as being delivered by qualied individuals with appropriate
credentials and providing training in the use of technology. Forty states have written professional development
standards and thirty nine of those engage in nancing professional development opportunities for their
teachers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). This fact alone highlights the importance of how
state and federal governments contribute to quality teacher training.
Ohio, for example, has developed a Tri-Tier Model of School Improvement, which aligns resources, infor-
mation, tools, professional development and technical assistance. This model, found on the Ohio Department
of Education website,
2 , focuses on six areas: data analysis; best practices; plan-
ning; implementation and monitoring; resource management; and high-quality professional development. All
of these are integrated for the purpose of improving student achievement, teacher instruction, and overall
school performance. Ohio's professional development plan is built around the needs of educators by respond-
ing to the needs of the students. It is also aligned with local, state, and national goals. The state's standards
for professional development are the following: Standard 1  High Quality Professional Development (HQPD)
is a purposeful, structured and continuous process that occurs over time; Standard 2  HQPD is informed by
multiple sources of data; Standard 3  HQPD is collaborative; Standard 4  HQPD includes varied learning
experiences that accommodate individual educators' knowledge and skills; Standard 5  HQPD is evaluated
by its short- and long-term impact on professional practice and achievement of all students; and Standard 6
 HQPD results in the acquisition, enhancement or renement of skills and knowledge.
The use of e-PD as a viable source for developing quality teachers is becoming more common, but as with
all new ventures, the lack of accepted standards make for a wide range of quality learning opportunities.
Some questions to be considered are: What dierent types of e-PD courses are available? What should
administrators and teachers look for when trying to choose a quality e-based course? How should an e-
based professional development course be evaluated? The goals of this paper are to help identify good e-PD
courses, and to help the reader understand the process of distinguishing electronic high quality professional
development programs so they can make informed decisions when considering various e-based opportunities.
Background of Traditional Professional Development: Taking Aim
According to Roland Barth (2001), traditional professional development for educators has been charac-
terized by assorted courses at universities, episodic in-service activities in school districts, or incoherently
planned workshops. Barth describes this as a wasteland of professional development, and Malone (2001)
concurs, stating that after a rather intense period of formal training for educators, it seems that the profes-
sional development that follows is rather informal, self-guided, and sporadic.
Teaching and school administration are intense, complex jobs, and without regular, well-planned, relevant
professional development, educators become stagnant and less productive in terms of new ideas, instructional
strategies, time management, interpersonal and communication skills, and the energy required to keep up
with the pace of teaching and learning, especially under the stringent guidelines of No Child Left Behind.
Barth (2001) contends that in the past, those traditional forms of professional development drew upon
common assumptions and logic: nd schools where students achieve at high levels, observe and identify
those traits that are exhibited by the teachers and principals, and develop professional activities based on
those traits. While this appears sound on the surface, Barth asserts that the aw in this design comes from
assuming that the main measure of eective teachers and principals comes solely from high student test
scores. However, as we now know, a good education is much more than high test scores, and schools are


very seldom that similar.

Unlike teachers, school principals were actually not assumed to require professional development prior
to the 1980's, and only in the 1990's did participation in administrative sta development become common.
Today, many states require that school administrators complete a specied number of in-service hours or
courses over a specied period of time (Hallinger and Murphy, 1991). Likewise, teachers in almost every
state are required to attend in-service workshops to renew their teaching certication, meet state standards,
or maintain their jobs.
Two decades ago, principals were seen as the learn-ed, while teachers and students were the learn-ers.
Principals were required to know everything from building management to human relations to every subject
in the curriculum. Their needs for professional development came dead last; it was simply assumed that
they knew all they needed to know, and therefore had no immediate need for professional development. As
we moved into the 1990's, professional development for principals came to be viewed as a `necessary evil' for
the advancement of administrative skills, knowledge, and abilities. Workshops and conferences abounded all
over the country, and indeed, there was a movement toward sharpening principals' management skills and
ne-tuning their knowledge of curriculum, instruction, assessment, supervision, and more recently, the use
of technology as a management tool.
With professional development, we often expect a great deal of change for a minimum amount of eort
(Caldwell, 2001). Whether it is increased leadership competency or other signicant behavior changes,
principals are sometimes expected to exhibit changes in leadership ability or habits by simply being exposed
to new ideas and motivational speakers. In the past two decades, it has been common practice to expose
principals to short-term, topic-specic in-service sessions held out of the district, which in essence ended up
being appropriate for only awareness-level development. These experiences have not usually had an ongoing,
consistent nature, which is needed to build leadership skills and result in substantive behavior change.
Recent research indicates that principals need continuous professional development to support their eorts
to improve their schools and to revitalize their commitment to maintaining positive learning communities
(Foster, Loving and Shumate, 2000; Evans and Mohr, 1999; Neufeld, 1997). Today's increasingly complex
society requires that principals learn to guide their schools through greater challenges than ever. The federal
legislation No Child Left Behind, for example, has changed the landscape of accountability for all children's
learning, and principals, more than ever are being held accountable for how well teachers teach and students
Traditional views of professional development for principals essentially took on the assumption that trans-
ferring knowledge from experts to practitioners would suce. This, however, has proven to be disappointing
and insucient to principals, negating the assumption that periodic in-service, oered in a remedial manner,
was most eective and that the most eective way for principals to learn was to be exposed to a speaker.
Past practice assumed that professional development involved acquiring new skills, instead of building the
capacity for reective practice (Evans and Mohr, 1999).
The research on best practices in professional development outlines another set of assumptions, which
serve to empower the principal not only as a school leader but as an adult learner. These assumptions
include: that ongoing professional development is needed for substantial change to occur; that school change
is partly due to personal change; that a goal of professional development is to support the inquiry into and
study of teaching and learning; that principals learn as a result of training, practice, feedback, and reection;
that professional development is essential to school development; and that professional development should
be primarily school-focused and job-embedded (Mann, 1998).
If we view principals as key gures in the eort to improve schools, we begin to understand the special
professional development needs they have. Principals are pivotal to creating conditions that lead to eective
schools, and this is well-documented in the research literature on school improvement. According to Ron
Edmonds' work in the 1970's, strong leadership in the person of the school principal is one of the Correlates
of Eective Schools. Studies show that in schools with high student achievement and a clear sense of
community, good principals can make a signicant dierence (Boyer, 1983; Center for Educational Policy
Analysis, 2003; DuFour, 1991). Improved professional development not only gives principals the condence
to take on their roles as leaders, it gives administrators the competence to be successful and motivated

through job satisfaction (Howley, Chadwick, and Howley, 2002).

Growth of Needs-Based Professional Development: Hitting the Target
What are the characteristics of successful professional development for principals and teachers? The
research literature identies several key features: (a) it is built upon practice and reection; (b) it takes
place in the context of the school (job-embedded); (c) it is most successful when presented in a collaborative
learning environment; and (d) it requires appropriate resources (Bezzina, 1994). Additionally, we need to
look at the most successful methodologies for principal professional development. Murphy and Hallinger
(1992) advocate problem-based learning because it incorporates the content of the principal's role (e.g.,
legal issues, instructional supervision, sta development) with the management skills and processes that
go along with this leadership role (e.g., interpersonal relationships, communication, decision-making). Two
decades ago, Joyce and Showers (1983) contended that eective professional development involves a well-
planned sequence of relevant activities including presentation of theory, demonstrations, and opportunities
for practice, feedback, application, and reection. They have further asserted that short-term conferences or
workshops seldom provide these, because the importance of the application and reection phases of training
lies in learning by doing. Even though these researchers proposed this nearly a quarter of a century ago, it
makes sense for professional development in the 21st century as well. Professional development for principals
should focus on learning new behaviors or rening skills that can be directly related to the business of
providing school leadership (Caldwell, 2001). We have known for a long time that people learn best when
given the opportunity to practice, reect on their own learning, and react to feedback. This mindset serves
us well today as it did then.
The National Sta Development Council (2005) has been dedicated to the issue of providing quality
professional development, as are the state and national professional principals' organizations (e.g., National
Association of Elementary School Principals - NAESP, and the National Association of Secondary School
Principals - NASSP). For example, according to the NAESP website (
3 ), the Leadership
Academy oers workshops, seminars and e-learning opportunities with continuing education units (CEU's)
or professional development units (PDU's) for each hour of engaged learning in the on-line environment.
Likewise, the NASSP's website (
4 ) outlines the George Lucas
Educational Foundation's Professional Development Modules, where each module contains articles, video
footage, PowerPoint presentations, and other features on innovative classrooms and educational leadership.
The National Sta Development Council also supports other approaches to long-term professional devel-
opment. One example is Area Cooperative Educational Services (ACES) in Hamden, Connecticut. Their
Professional Development and School Improvement Program oers a variety of thematic modules for teachers
and administrators that can be implemented over a period of one to ve years. According to the company's
philosophy, the one-shot or short-term workshop designs may ll specic, immediate needs of schools districts,
but theirs is designed for long-term, systemic improvement. According to their website (
), the integral components to ACES's approach are online training modules, remote coaching and support.
While there are eorts to provide professional development for school leaders, it seems to be a matter
of quality vs. quantity. According to Barth (1986), principals seem to have built up antibodies against
useless professional development activities. Instead of being told Here it is and this is what I expect of
you, principals don't want their valuable time wasted with a so-called expert speaker or another canned
lecture. They want something they can take back to their schools today and really put to use. For example,
This is how you can use your Palm Pilot to record data during a teacher observation, and This will help
with organization and time management in your supervision duties. Or, This is what will happen in the
courtroom during a level four grievance hearing. And nally, Here are some suggestions for dealing with a
special education child advocate in an IEP meeting. These are real issues that principals deal with. With
their input, substantial professional development can be crafted around topics like these to meet their needs
and interests. And without follow-up and some link between the professional development activities and
their own practice, principals will gain little  or sustain much learning - from the experience.


According to the Virginia Department of Education (2004), there are several key factors that dene
high-quality professional development. First is richness of content that is specically selected to deepen and
broaden the knowledge and skills of teachers and principals. Next, it is based on well-dened objectives.
High-quality professional development is well thought out regarding how it is delivered, the amount of time
it takes, the styles of pedagogy included, and the use of formative and summative assessments. Finally,
high-quality professional development is delivered by individuals who have demonstrated the appropriate
qualications and should provide training for educators in the use of technology so that it results in improved
teaching and learning.
e-Based Professional Development: Making a Bullseye
Distance education in the United States has evolved from the tradition of independent learning, where
learners who did not have geographical access to a physical site studied their own materials, generally in
isolation of other similar learners (Frydenberg, 2002). Online professional development includes a variety of
technologies. Typically, the term online refers to instruction delivered via the Internet. But, other forms of
computer-based courses and training exist, such as CD-ROM's (Killion, 2000). Today, the Internet provides
a virtual landslide of resources, including those mentioned previously through the national professional
organizations. Universities, both the brick-and-mortar kind as well as the online ones, oer courses and
continuing education courses for every content area, as well as those on leadership, instructional strategies, use
of technology in education, and numerous others. Warmack-Capes (2005) reports that some other sources of
online courses for educators include: Classroom Connect, IDE Corporation, Atomic Learning, and Scholastic.
The Public Broadcasting Service's (PBS) TeacherLine, found at
6 ,
is a premier professional development resource, delivering courses online for PreK-12 teachers, both for
graduate credit and recertication. Tapped In, an online workplace for educational professionals located at
7 , is an e-based forum where teachers, administrators, and others can gather
to learn, collaborate, share, and support one another in learning as well as in professional practice.
Another source is individual state departments of education. West Virginia, for example, is on the cut-
ting edge with its 21st Century Leadership (
8 )initiative, supported by a one million
dollar grant. While principals spend some of their time in face-to-face workshop sessions, there is also an on-
line component, which oers the participants the opportunity to evaluate professional development sessions,
journal and communicate with others in the program, and receive information on the current research on
various topics. South Carolina oers online professional development and training through its website found
9 , where topics include character education, special education, community collabora-
tion, and facilitating partnerships. Other state eorts in professional development include: Alabama's Best
Practices Program; Alaska Professional Development; the Arkansas Leadership Academy; Florida's Online
Reading-Professional Development (FOR-PD) Project; the Iowa Professional Development Model; the Uni-
versity of Hawaii's Education Laboratory School; and the Washington Professional Development Initiative
10 ).
Today's educators, both classroom teachers and building principals, are part of what Bartlett (2005)
refers to as the Net Generation (Net Geners). They are not only technology savvy, they expect to receive
information, entertainment, and even learning opportunities via some form of technology. As Bartlett asserts,
the Net Geners are not only acculturated to the use of technology, they are saturated with it. From laptops
to iPods to Palm Pilots to sophisticated cell phones, technology consumes our lives both at home and at
Most professionals in any eld also value education. They may learn in dierent ways than those ten
or twenty years ago, but they still want to learn. Convenience, after quality, is one of the main issues
these adult learners look for when choosing professional development opportunities. No longer is the lecture
format interesting or convenient for them; in fact, with the current Net Geners, it would not even be
attractive or acceptable. Professional development that does not include at least a module of technology-


based oerings will probably be less than successful considering the characteristics of current adult learners
who are autonomous in their approach to learning. The Net Generation is selective about those kinds of
professional development oerings where they can make the best use of their valuable and limited time. This
is especially true of school principals, whose days are jammed with meetings, classroom observations, parent
conferences, and problem solving. Anything less than high-quality, relevant, and convenient professional
development for the 21st century educator will not be acceptable.
Today's workforce, whether in the eld of business or education requires quality, continuous, job-
embedded professional development to remain current with best practices, and to continually improve skills,
knowledge, and abilities. In a highly competitive world laced with a variety of technological devices and
software, it becomes imperative that this training is oered in a manner that is both convenient and relevant
to the worker, and that includes oering training in an e-based format. Teachers and school principals, in
many cases do not have the funds or the time to spend away from their schools, and with shrinking budgets,
school districts are wise to explore oering professional development in this alternative manner. Further-
more, training modules oered online can be revisited an unlimited number of times by educators so that its
content and strategies become imbedded into daily practice. Planning time for teachers can become time for
study, research, and further training, while principals can engage in problem-based learning and use what
they learn immediately to improve their own practice.
Electronic professional development (termed here e-PD) also has broad implications for delivering train-
ing to very rural schools, where teachers and principals might otherwise not have the opportunity to attend
training sessions due to distance or cost. The delivery of e-based professional development also makes it
possible for larger numbers of participants to `attend' the same training session(s), whereas the traditional
lecture delivery method could reach only a small, isolated audience.
As we move forward into the 21st century, we nd a strong relationship between educational reform and
the use of technology for learning; technology enhances the learning power of the people who use it. The
use of technology for professional development has begun to transcend the former isolationism of this kind
of learning to a level of collaborative professional growth (Serim, 2007). The development of professional
learning communities built around e-based platforms promises to encourage a lifetime of learning through
online professional development opportunities for all educators.
Area Cooperative Educational Services (ACES). Professional development and school improvement. Re-
trieved March 30, 2007
Barth, R.S. (1986). Principal centered professional development. Theory into Practice, 25, 156-160.
Barth, R.S. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bartlett, M. (2005, May 9). Generation x? So old school the emphasis is now on the `Millennial'. Credit
Union Journal.
Bezzina, M. (1994). Empowering the principal through professional development. Paper presented at
the annual conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association, July 3-6, 1994.
Boyer, E.L. (1983). A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row.
Caldwell, S.D. (2001). Eective practices for principals' in-service. Theory into Practice, 25, 174-178.
Center for Educational Policy Analysis. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Retrieved March 15, 2005 from
12 whatweknow.pdf
DuFour, R.P. (1991). The principal as sta developer. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Evans, P. & Mohr, N. (1999). Professional development for principals: Seven core beliefs. Phi Delta
Kappan, 80, 530-533.
Foster, E., Loving, D., & Shumate, A. (2000). Eective principals, eective professional development
schools. Teaching and Change, 8, 76-98.


Frydenberg, J. (October, 2002). Quality standards in e-learning: A matrix of analysis. Retrieved April
29, 2007 from
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. (1991). Developing leaders for tomorrow's schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 72,
Howley, A., Chadwick, K., & Howley, C.W. (2002, April). Networking for the nuts and bolts: The ironies
of professional development for rural principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1983). Power in sta development through research on training. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Killion, J. (2000, Summer). To reap benets of online sta development, ask the right questions. Journal
of Sta Development, 21.
Kleiman, G. M. (2004). Meeting the need for high quality teachers: e-Learning solutions. Retrieved March
30, 2007, from
Malone, R.J. (2001). Principal Mentoring. (ERIC Digest No.149). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED457535)
Mann, M. (1998). Professional Development for Education Leaders. PREL Brieng Paper, Honolulu,
Murphy, J. & Hallinger, P. (1992). The Principalship in an Era of Transformation. The Journal of
Educational Administration, special issue.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). State Education Reforms (SER) . Re-
trieved March 30, 2007, from Institue of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education:
National Sta Development Council. (2005). Learning to Lead, Leading to Learn: Improv-
ing School Quality Through Principal Professional Development. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from
Neufeld, B. (1997). Responding to the Expressed Needs of Urban Middle School Principals. Urban
Education. Vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 490-510.
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2006). No Child Left Behind Federal
Denition of High Quality Professional Development.pdf. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from Oce of Educator
Quality and Certication:
Rivera, R. J., & Paradise, A. (2006). ASTD 2006 State of the Industry. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from
ASTD: Workplace Learning and Performance:
17 .
Serim, F. (2007). Building Virtual Communities for Professional Development. Retrieved from ology/Futures/serim.html
18 .
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from
Bureau of Labor Statistics:
U.S. Department of Education Oce of Postsecondary Education. (2005, October). The Secretary's
Fourth Annual Report on Teacher Quality: A Highly Qualied Teacher in Every Classroom . Retrieved
March 30, 2007, from
U.S. Department of Labor. (2006, August 4). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from
Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Virginia Department of Education (April 2004). High-Quality Professional Development Criteria.


Warmack-Capes, D. (2005). Online Professional Development Courses for Teachers. School Executive.

1.2 Utilizing Distance Education in Your Professional Development

Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
the Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration.

As technology expands the professional development available outside the traditional classroom, it is impor-
tant that educational executives consider the role of distance education in the development of school leaders.
The student population has changed with many older adults, particularly school administrators attending
universities and urging the universities to provide instruction in more convenient ways. More districts are
seeking to develop leadership in their districts through customized leadership programs. Working adults
want education delivered direct to them, at home or the workplace. . .. Preparation may be weaker than
among conventional students; motivation may be stronger (Jones & Pritchard, 1999, p. 56).
These new methods of delivery include television and the Internet, both of which allow students to access
coursework miles from the traditional campus classroom. Instruction will have to change and assignments
will need to be more tailored to a population that is not on campus. College instructors will increasingly
encounter classes that are much larger than the traditional graduate level class. Decisions regarding which
courses are selected for distance education need to be carefully considered. As Lamb and Smith (2000)
pointed out, The distance education environment tends to exaggerate both the positive and the negative
aspects of all the elements of instruction (p. 13). Kelly (1990) noted that instructors must develop new
skills for distance education teaching in the areas of timing, teaching methods, feedback from students at
remote sites, and the evaluation of students.
Stammen (2001) noted that technologies in and of themselves do not change the nature of leadership
but the way educators use the technology does. The new technology requires instructors to re-consider and
develop additional learner centered environments. To make learning happen instructors need to understand
both how to work the content and how the technology is impacting their instruction. Some are skeptical of
university motives noting the prospect of not having to build new facilities to accommodate more students
has great economic appeal (Weigel, 2000). Regardless, the opportunity to improve the instruction and
availability through the new technology is here to stay.
It is important to determine the eectiveness of the new methods of delivery and periodically compare
them to traditional campus classroom instruction. Swan and Jackman (2000) discussed Souder's 1993 com-
parison of distance learners with traditional learners, stating that the distance learning students performed
better than the host-site learners in several areas or elds of study, including exams and homework assign-
ments (p. 59). Citing the limited number of studies comparing dierent methods of instruction in higher
education, Swan and Jackson looked at remote-site and home-site students at the secondary school level.
They found no signicant dierences in student achievement between the two sites when comparing grade
point averages.

21 This content is available online at <>.


In 2002, educational leadership students in our school nance class and school principalship classes at
Ball State University were surveyed (Sharp & Cox, 2003). Of these students, 12 in the nance class were in a
studio classroom, with 89 taking the course on television at 42 o-campus sites around the state of Indiana.
In the principalship course, 25 students were in the studio and 60 were at 22 remote television sites. In 2004,
when one of the professors had moved to the University of South Carolina, we again surveyed our distance
learning classes. This time, we had 75 students in the school nance television class and seven in the studio
class at Ball State. At South Carolina, we had 64 in the televised sections of school law and leadership
theory and 35 students in the studio sections of those courses. The purpose of the identical surveys in both
years was to see if there were diering points of view regarding the questioning format, attendance, and
assessment procedures between the studio groups and the groups at the remote sites and whether there were
any changes in opinion between the survey conducted in 2002 and the one done in 2004. We also wanted to
collect data regarding any technological problems and information about the students themselves and their
The survey for the research study was added to an evaluation form so that all students would complete
the survey. The results were not given to us until after nal grades were submitted. Proctors at the remote
sites distributed surveys to the students to complete onsite and then mailed them back to the oce for
scoring. Thus, every student in attendance completed a survey. The research questions addressed in the
study were as follows: (a) What was the prior experience with television classes?, (b) How did students
accept the practice of not being able to ask questions anytime they wished?, (c) Did students feel that
attendance should be taken in these large classes?, (d) Did the students like the testing method used for
them?, and (e) Were there major technological problems?.
Results and Discussion
Distance learning has become more popular with students in general and with educational leadership
students in particular. We wanted to see if this was true with our students, and we wanted to see to what
extent they had prior experience with television classes. Also, it is possible that the attitude of the on-
campus students towards the o-campus arrangements (taking time for attendance, discussing technological
problems, etc.) could be aected if they had also utilized these o-campus classes in the past. We also
wanted to know the experience that the educational leadership students had previously had with television
classes to see how popular this format was for educational leadership students (see Table 1).
Table 1

While the majority of students in both 2002 groups had prior experience with television classes, less

than 14% of either group had four or more courses. In 2004, over 52% of both groups had taken four or
more courses by television before taking the courses that were surveyed. This is a large increase in the
participation of students in distance education, and looking at the individual counts for the two universities
(not shown here), this increase is evident for both places and from both groups of studentsstudio and
o-campus students. The gures show that over half of these students are taking, at the minimum, their
fth television course. Thus, whatever problems the students may have encountered, they continue to take
courses with this delivery format. It should be noted that the studio students have taken the same number
of courses via television (except this course).This may help explain why the majority of on-campus students
were generally understanding of interruptions from o-campus sites, as shown in later results.
Technology enabled students at the remote sites to push a button to dial in to talk to the professor during
class. When someone dialed in, a beep would sound in the studio classroom indicating that someone was
calling. In discussing live television classes with other instructors, we were told that one common problem was
that the students would call in without warning (unlike students raising their hands in class) and interrupt
the ow of the class for all the other students and the instructor. In 2002, both of us told students that
they could only call in to ask questions during designated question and answer times. Since this waiting
for permission to ask questions was so dierent from the usual graduate classroom routine, we wondered
how the students would accept this new procedure. In our 2002 classes, the students cooperated and did not
call into the studio until we asked for questions or until we called on students to call in to answer questions.
In the earlier survey, we asked the students for their opinion on this no call-in rule. The results of that
inquiry are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2

The 2002 results indicated that 82.1% of the studio students said that this rule was reasonable due to
the class size, and 83.5% of the remote site students agreed. In 2004, the same rule was in place for the Ball
State students (but was not used in South Carolina). The Ball State students at the remote sites responded
in a manner similar to the students two years ago, with 81.3% saying that the rule was a good one because
of the class size. However, in the studio, only 57.1% said that they agreed with this rule in 2004, possibly
due to the small number in the studio (n=7), as one or two students were not happy that they could not
get immediate responses from the instructor like they could in a traditional class. (They had been told that
they would be treated like the remote-site students, having to wait for a designated time to ask questions.)
Since phone calls that came from the remote sites would make a buzzing noise, the studio students were
asked if they were bothered by these call-ins. Findings indicated that, in 2002, 66.7% of the campus students
said that it never bothered them, and 30.6% said that it sometimes bothered them. In 2004, 85.7% of the
campus students stated that they were never bothered by the call-ins, with 14.3% saying that it sometimes
bothered them. One assumption may be that with students taking more and more television courses, they
have become used to the call-ins.
The size of the classes meant that attendance took longer. The students were asked whether it was still
appropriate to take attendance in these large classes. The results of that inquiry are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3

In the studio class, in 2002, 76.7% said that attendance should be taken, while 56.0% of the remote-site
students felt that taking attendance was appropriate. In 2004, the percentages declined: 42.9% of the studio
students said that attendance should be taken, with 32.4% of the remote-site students agreeing.
Another change was the way in which the educational leadership students were tested. There were
two options that did not require students to come to campus. We could use the usual pencil and paper
examination and mail them to the remote sites where a proctor would supervise the exams and return them
by mail, or we could put the exams on the Internet and students could take them by computer.
In 2002, both methods of testing were used. The students in the school nance class were given the
written exams, and the students in the principalship class were tested by computer. When the students
were asked whether they preferred the way they were examined or whether they would prefer the alternate
method, students in both classes preferred the way they were tested, even though they were tested in dierent
ways. The results of that inquiry are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4

For the studio class taking a paper test (nance class), 100% said that they would prefer a paper test; for
the o-campus students taking a paper test, 79.5% said that they liked that method. For the studio classes
that completed exams on computer (principalship class), 68.2% said that they would prefer the computer
for taking exams; for the o-campus students taking the computer test, 91.9% said that they would prefer
that method. This seems to suggest that either way is acceptable to students. Since access to computers was
the same for all students and since paper tests could have been used for all students, it seems that students
simply preferred what was given to them.
In 2004, all students were tested using written tests, and they were asked whether they would prefer
taking their exams that way or whether they would prefer tests on a computer. For the studio students,
69.0% said that they would prefer the way they had been testedby written exams. For those at the remote
sites, 66.9% said that they would have preferred to have been tested by computer rather than by written
We also surveyed the students about technology problems. Students attending class in the studio were
not required to use telephones or to ask questions, and they did not need to utilize the television technology
to view or hear the professor. If any studio students had been adverse to technology, it would not have

aected their class. For o-campus students, however, bad weather could cause major problems with both
the telephones and television technology.
When asked about problems with the audio and/or video, 59.7% of the 2004 o-site students said that
the system worked all the time, 38.1% said that it sometimes did not work but was not a problem, and 1.4%
said that it did not work a lot of the time and was a problem for them. While these gures were a slight
improvement over 2002, it should be remembered that one of the sites changed from Ball State to South
Carolina. Still, it was reassuring to know that nearly 98% felt that they did not have a real problem with
the television technology.
Students at the remote sites could call in for attendance or questions/answers on a phone system by
pushing a button on a special phone at their site. This phone system worked all the time for 66.9% of the
students in 2004, did not work sometimes but was not a problem for 27.3%, and did not work a lot of the
time and was a problem for 2.9% of the students. As noted earlier, students were given a regular phone
number to call into the television studio director's oce and report problems with their special phones or
problems with the television system. The director then notied us during the class and noted whether this
was an isolated case or whether there were other sites that were having problems. Although 46.8% of the
students did call into the studio to report technical problems, previously mentioned ndings indicate that
their outages were not considered a problem for most of them.
O-campus students were asked if they ever had to order tapes/videostreaming of the presentations be-
cause of technical problems. The responses (2004) indicated that 10.1% ordered one tape or videostreaming,
2.9% ordered more than one tape/videostreaming, and 86.3% did not have to order any recordings of the
classes. Again, it appears that technical problems, though present at times, were not a major problem for
the vast majority of the students, and there were provisions made for those who did have problems.
Previous researchers have sometimes stated that females had more problems with technology than males,
and we wanted to see if females tended to take the on-campus class or the o-campus class or whether there
was any dierence in their choices. We also wanted to know what percentage of the students were classroom
teachers and how many students taking these administrative courses were already school administrators.
Finally, since recruitment of students is important to a department's survival, we wanted to know if we
had students in our classes who were actually in programs at other universities and took our courses for
convenience. Questions were asked to gather student information about gender and position. The results of
that inquiry are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5

In 2004, the studio class was 35.7% female, while the o-campus students were 51.8% female. In the
studio class in 2004, 71.4% of the students were classroom teachers, and 14.3% were school administrators.
At the remote sites in 2004, 79.1% were teachers, with 18.0% stating that they were administrators. In 2002
we noted that females did select the on-campus class more than the o-campus sites. This was reversed in

2004, so no conclusions can be made about selection of sites by gender.

The reasons the students chose a particular method of course delivery was also an area of inquiry. The
studio students were asked if they would have preferred to have taken the course o campus instead of
coming to the studio. Although in 2004, 11.9% said that this was sometimes true, 85.7% stated that it
was never true (a change from 30.6% and 69.4% in 2002, but similar if added together). The students who
completed the course o campus did not have to pay student fees (recreation, library use, sports and musical
tickets, etc.) and only paid tuition for the three-hour graduate course. Students on campus had to pay
the full tuition and fees amount. When we asked the o-campus students the advantage of taking a course
on television, 93.5% said that it was for convenience. An important question for the o-campus students
was the following: Considering the advantages and the disadvantages of a television course, would you take
another one if it was something that you needed and it was at a convenient site? Responses indicated that
97.8% would take another televised course. Clearly, the advantages outweighed the disadvantages for these
Distance education experience was more evident in the 2004 survey. The no-call-in rule was considered
reasonable by the students, and most of the on-campus students were not bothered by the phones. Taking
attendance took quite a bit of class time, and students at both sites wished that taking attendance could
be reduced or eliminated. There were problems with the technology, but these problems were not major for
most students. Students who had no prior degrees from these two universities took the television courses,
pointing out potential recruitment benets of this method of instruction. When asked the reason that o-
campus students completed the course by television, the overwhelming reason was the convenience of driving
to a nearby site instead of traveling to campus.
The results were positive for our o-campus students and technology-based leadership development.
The o-campus students received the same instruction as campus students for a lower cost, with no major
technological problems, and at a convenient location. The on-campus students seemed to accept the various
technological requirements necessary for our o-campus students. For school district leaders considering
technology-based leadership development, the results are encouraging.
Jones, D. R., & Pritchard, A. L. (1999). Realizing the virtual university. Educational Technology, 39(5),
Kelly, M. (1990). Course creation issues in distance education. In Education at a distance: From issues
to practice (pp. 77-99). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Lamb, A. C., & Smith, W. L. (2000). Ten facts of life for distance learning courses. Tech Trends, 44(1),
Sharp, W. L., & Cox, E. P. (2003). Distance learning: A comparison of classroom students with o-
campus television students. The Journal of Technology Studies, 29(1), 29-34.
Sinn, J. W. (2004). Electronic course delivery in higher education: Promise and challenge. The Journal
of Technology Studies, 30(1), 24-28.
Souder, W. E. (1993). The eectiveness of traditional vs. satellite delivery in three management of
technology master's degree programs. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 37-53.
Stammen, R., & Schmidt, M. (2001). Basic understanding for developing distance education for online
instruction. NASSP Bulletin, 85(628), 47-50.
Swan, M. K., & Jackman, D. H. (2000). Comparing the success of students enrolled in distance education
courses vs. face-to-face classrooms. The Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1), 58-63.
Weigel, T. (2000). E-Learning: The tradeo between richness and research in higher education. Change,
33(5), 10-15.

1.3 Best Practices in Online Teaching - During Teaching - Promote

Active Learning

1.3.1 What to Do?

Figure 1.1: Perpetual Motion Machine, Created by Karl Leitzel, Penn State World Campus

Eective online instructors challenge their students' thinking and foster active, constructive participation in

1.3.2 How to Do It?

• Emphasize the importance of learning by playing an active role in the learning process, not from direct
instruction or lecture as in a traditional classroom.
• Provide opportunities for the students to critically critique and/or reect upon certain course topics.
• Encourage your students to use the Internet for researching on course topics; however, remind them
to be critical about the information they will share with peers. (For more information, see Intellectual
Property Guidelines module
23 )
• Encourage your students to be proactive in their learning by doing the following:

· Regularly logging into course site

· Submitting assignments on time
· Completing quizzes within required timeframe
· Reading messages posted and replying within required timeframe

22This content is available online at <>.

23"Best Practices in Online Teaching - Pulling It All Together - Follow Intellectual Property Guidelines"

· Cooperating with teammates, etc.

• Provide opportunities for your students to be actively involved in information seeking and problem
• Provide opportunities for your students to interact, to collaborate, or to review a peer's work.
• Encourage your students to participate in online discussions actively by:

· Designing thought-provoking discussion questions: see Crafting Questions for Online Discussions
from ITS
· Encouraging students to respond to questions at a deeper level
· Using discussion forums eectively by posting messages that weave several strands of conversation
into a summarization that may prompt people to pursue the topic further" (Berge, 1995)
· Pointing out opposing perspectives, dierent directions, or conicting opinions" (Berge, 1995)

• Use dierent discussion formats listed below to cultivate students' critical thinking (MacKnight 2000,

· Small group discussions

· Buzz group: two people discussing for a short period of time
· Case discussions using real-world problems for analysis and suggested solutions
· Debating teams wherein students present ideas, defend positions, and argue against opposition's
· Jigsaw groups where subgroups discuss various parts of a topic and report to the others
· Role play mocking real settings

• For more information about facilitating online discussions, please see Ten Tips for Generating Engaged
Online Discussions
25 by Donna Reiss.
• For more information about self-regulated learning components, please go to Encourage Students to
Regulate Their Own Learning Module

1.3.3 Why Do It?

It is critical to understand the pedagogical potential of online learning for providing active and
dynamic learning opportunities for learners. Faculty can employ strategies and activities that
will engage students in `producing learning' (Barr & Tagg, 1995) for active learning (Vonderwell
& Turner, 2005, p.66).

"Learning occurs in a social context through collaborating, negotiating, debating, peer reviewing,
and mentoring; Collaboration requires a level of reection that promotes knowledge construction
and a deep understanding of the subject matter (Grabinger & Dunlap, 2000).

1.3.4 References
Berge, Z.L. (1995). Facilitating Computer Conferencing: Recommendations From the Field. Educational
Technology, 35(1), 22-30.
Grabinger, R.S. & Dunlap, J.C. (2000). Rich environments for active learning: A denition. In Squires,
D., Conole, G. & Jacobs, G. (Eds.). The changing face of learning technology (pp.8-38). Cardi, Wales,
UK, University of Wales.
MacKnight, C.B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. EduCause Quarterly, 4,
26"Best Practices in Online Teaching - During Teaching - Encourage Students to Regulate Their Own Learning"

Vonderwell, S. & Turner, S. (2005). Active learning and preservice teachers' experiences in an online
course: A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 65-84
Chapter 2

Mentorship and Leadership Practices

2.1 A Study of Social and Political Acumen in Dynamic Educa-
tional Leadership and the Implications for Leadership Development

Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration.

Purpose of Study
This paper studies the need for leadership development programs to integrate elements of social and
political acumen. In the course of the study, the role of mentorship was identied as an essential element of
any leadership program.

2.1.1 Denition of Dynamic Educational Leadership

As dened in this study, the essence of dynamic leadership is to support and facilitate positive initiatives and
change. It is the dynamic leader who creates an environment for change that enables and supports progress
and evolution. Because the leader's role is one that encompasses human relationships and exists within an
organizational structure, this study has identied social and political acumen as important elements that
support the essence of dynamic leadership.
Review of the Literature
Review of the literature on educational leadership supports this denition of dynamic leadership and the
need for the leader to understand and integrate social and political acumen in order to achieve dynamic
Today, the dynamic educational leader is responsible for more than meeting expected standards. As
a dynamic leader, the principal is accountable for ensuring that eective teaching and learning occur in a
learning community (Robertson & Webber, 2002; Shellard, 2003). To ensure that this happens, the dynamic

1 This content is available online at <>.


educational leader must possess the skills and knowledge that support the evolution and growth of this
learning community (Czaja, Livingston Prouty & Lowe, 1998; Mitchell & Sackney, 2001). For educational
leaders to be dynamic, therefore, they need to be able to support and implement change that enhances
eective teaching and learning and has ongoing benet for the student (Lieberman & Miller, 1999).
Dynamic educational leaders need to ensure that there is a structure in place that supports eective
teaching and learning, and allows productive change to occur (Dimmock, 1996; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).
This structure must involve the engagement of students, sta, and parents within that community (Lambert,
2003). In order for educational leaders to be able to support and enhance these structures in a dynamic
manner, they require particular skills and knowledge (Reynolds & Stoll, 1996). These skills need to include
the abilities:

• to build a sense of community (Deal & Peterson, 1999),

• to create a sense of ownership (Kouzes & Posner 1999),
• to establish shared vision and values (Sergiovanni, 2000),
• to provide insights, identify strengths and areas for growth (Reiss, 2007),
• to empower, enable, and build capacity (Lambert, 1998, 2003),
• to implement strategies that share knowledge with others to ensure evolution of the system (Luna &
Cullen, 1995).

The knowledge of the leader requires:

• understanding good pedagogy (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000),

• being familiar with local and global inuences (Courchene, 2001),
• recognizing innovations that positively impact teaching and learning (Manzer, 1994),
• identifying the elements that support eective leadership (Fullan, 2003, 2006; Goleman et al, 2002),
• comprehending the strategies that build leadership capacity (Lambert, 2003) and leadership density
(Chenoweth & Everhart, 2002).

Many elements impact the culture of the teacher and learner. These involve inuences at a local level that
include students, sta, and parents. Yet they also involve inuences at a more global level that reect the
needs of society. It is essential that leaders understand the necessity to understand and think proactively
as a leader (Gardner, 2007). In addition, culture is subject to change due to political and social inuences
(Manzer, 1994). In fact, there is a direct connection between the identied needs and changes in society and
the expectations of the educational leader (Evans, 2000).
The primary responsibility of educational leaders, therefore, is to ensure that their learning communities
are functioning eectively (Shellard, 2003; Robertson & Webber, 2002) within the local and global spheres
(Manzer, 1994). Whereas the expectation of the educational leader is clear, the attitudes held about ed-
ucational leaders are not always unambiguous. The structure of our society involves formal and informal
leaders. Aristotle's (322 BC/1986) discussion of the need for society to function with leaders is still valid.
Although society recognizes this, there is at the same time an attitude of cynicism and skepticism regarding
leaders' motives. In addition, increased democratization has increased society's expectations of educational
leaders (Manzer, 1994). The role of accountability has increased at local and more global levels. There is an
expectation that parents need to be able to exercise their rights as primary educators of their children and
to play a signicant role in the educational decision-making process (Devereaux, 2000). At the same time,
there is a public expectation that the costs involved in education are an investment and that benets and
prots for society must result (Mandel, 2000).
Diverse inuences have impacted the prole of the dynamic educational leader and resulted in the leader
needing to be more than an instructional leader of a community of learners (Dufour, 2002). These inuences
include new understandings about teaching and learning, as well as societal and political elements. Edu-
cational leaders need to stay informed about the political structure and expectations of education (Roher
& Wormwell, 2000). If educational leaders are to function in a dynamic manner, they need to be able to
meet the needs of their culture and, at the same time, work within the organizational structure at all levels
(McBride & Shields, 1997).

All of this has implications for leadership development programs. It is important that such programs rec-
ognize the complex elements involved in dynamic educational leadership. Plans for leadership development,
therefore, need to include the diverse elements that inuence and compose the prole of the educational
leader. Extending and evolving leaders' knowledge about pedagogy must be an essential part of leader-
ship development. In addition, leadership development needs to increase leaders' understanding of societal
inuences and the impact they have on how leaders fulll their roles and responsibilities.
Educational leaders need to understand the heightened political reality in which they function. Concerns
regarding education are often the center of attention for the media and politicians and they are a focus
of government planning and budgeting. This attention to education has meant that education and the
educational leader are forefront in the public eye. Consequently, educational leaders need to understand the
political context if they are to function eectively (Kneebone & McKenzie, 1996).
Indeed, the political context of education is unavoidable. Government, at a local and more global level,
envisions education as a platform to achieve its goals. This results in education being shaped and inuenced
by social and political factors. Leaders, therefore, need to have the skills and knowledge to understand the
societal and political inuences on the structure within which they work. They need to be condent about
their ability to meet the needs of the individual student and at the same time meet the social and political
expectations of their educational structures. Indeed, a school leader lives in a shbowl (Figure 1).

Figure 2.1

Figure 1. Fishbowl Existence of the Educational Leader

Role of Social Acumen
An important element of the dynamic leader's ability to build productive relationships is the possession
of social acumen that supports eective communication and relationships. Indeed, there is a close connection
between eective communication skills and productive relationships (Gladwell, 2002; Villiani, 2006). It is
essential, therefore, that leaders develop skillful communication if they are to be dynamic leaders. These skills

require the leader to understand the signicance of making connections (Wheatley, 2000). It is also essential
that the leader understand how to support a strong culture (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Hesselbein, 2002),
facilitate eective team dynamic (Lambert, 1998), and build a shared vision (Sergiovanni, 2000). In addition,
the dynamic leader needs to hone the conict-management skills that ensure functioning relationships (Fisher
& Ury, 1991; Stone, Patton, & Heen, 1999). Particularly, the eective use of one-on-one communications,
dialogue, group interaction, and the written word is essential for the dynamic educational leader.
The success and failure of leaders can directly relate to problems with communication skills (Spady
& Schwahn, 2001). These skills, however, include more than verbal and written communication. Body
language, eye contact, interpretation of body posture and even clothing can make a dierence to the delivery
and interpretation of communication (Dyer & Carothers, 2000).
Dynamic leaders need to be able to communicate that they are operating with a shared vision and values
(Aristotle 322 BC/1986; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1986). It is not enough to have a shared vision; the
leader must also be able to articulate this shared vision. By communicating a sense of shared vision and
values, the leader is able to create a sense of shared ownership. This common base strengthens relationships
and contributes to a positive culture that is productive and this will support dynamic leadership.
In particular, the leader's communication of values and vision needs to be transparent, authentic, and
consistent with decisions and action (Evans, 2000; Leithwood, 2002).
Successful leadership involves establishing a sense of shared values. It is important, therefore, that leaders
are able to communicate the value base from which they operate and understand the value base of others
(Lambert, 2003). The dynamic leader is able to take this shared value base and use it as a means to bring
about change and contribute positively to society.
Role of Political Acumen
Much educational leadership supports the need for dynamic leaders to know how to use the structure
within which they operated (Bolman & Deal, 2002; Deal & Peterson, 1999; Fullan, 2000, 2006). In this study
I refer to this knowledge and skill as political acumen.
Aristotle (322 BC/1986) dened politics as the interactions of a group of human beings who strive
to attain certain standards. Because educational leaders need to interrelate with many dierent people
at many dierent levels, their work by necessity involves politics. In fact, there is a distinctive political
element of educational leaders' roles because they are working with individuals and groups within local and
global spheres that involve organizational structures (Bolman & Deal, 2002). By knowing the role of this
organizational structure, dynamic educational leaders can understand and use the power of relationships to
inuence, persuade, and impact action.
Due to the fact that educational leaders are an integral part of the social organization, they are therefore
an integral part of the political process (Manzer, 1994). The dynamic leader, who strives to attain progress
through high standards, needs to understand and embrace this political dimension of leadership.
Making Connections
Ignoring the political aspects of leadership is unproductive and damages the potential of the leader's role.
Consequently, it is important that educational leaders understand such factors and possess the knowledge
and ability to work eectively within these political parameters. The political acumen to build a network at
micro and macro levels will support dynamic leaders in eectively fullling their roles. Educational leaders
must therefore understand the iterative and interactive role that they must play in their connections with
the elements that make up the organizational structures at local and global levels. In particular, these
connections depend on productive relationships.
The skills involved in political acumen will support dynamic educational leaders in maintaining productive
relationships that sustain the systemic structure within which they operate. Through understanding how
connections function within the structure of the system, dynamic leaders are able to sustain the system (Senge
et al., 1999). This requires leaders to be politically aware at all levels and to understand the relevance of
relationships within the structure. In fact, dynamic leaders also need organizational skills to make the
necessary changes to sustain relationships and the system.
Understanding the structure within which educational leaders exist will support leaders in fullling their
roles and responsibilities in a dynamic manner. Such understanding brings insight and a greater level of

awareness regarding the inuences on the leaders' positions. The ability to make connections within the
structure in which leaders work will enhance relationships that support a productive network and allow
leaders to function at a more optimum level of capacity.
Research Method
In this study I aimed to understand the nature of dynamic educational leadership and the role of social
and political acumen in supporting dynamic leadership. A further aim of the study was to make deductions
from this understanding of leadership in relation to planning and implementing leadership development
programs. In order to achieve this aim, an attempt has been made in the research component to examine
the role of social and political acumen in the educational leadership of a specic group of school principals.
The focus of the research study, therefore, was to explore an identied group of dynamic principals'
experiences as leaders and explore the structure of the consciousness of their experiences. Because the study
involved human exploration, the exibility of qualitative research techniques (Cresswell, 1998) supported the
investigation. Qualitative techniques in collecting and analyzing the data from the research provided the
ability to guide the investigation and interpret the data to support the purpose of this study. For this reason,
the analysis of the data collected from this group of principals, involved mostly qualitative techniques that
were supported by some quantitative analysis.
Analysis of the data aimed at identifying an understanding of the role of social and political acumen in
the reality of dynamic educational leaders fullling their roles and responsibilities. In addition, the research
aimed at identifying the extent to which social and political acumen were essential invariant elements of these
principals' leadership. The research component provided the participants the opportunity to provide their
views about what characteristics of leadership support dynamic leadership. In addition, the participants
were able to provide their views on appropriate leadership development activities.
In the analysis of the research data, therefore, the invariant elements and structure within which these
principals functioned were identied. The analysis also included an assessment of how these elements reected
this group of principals' development and exercise of social and political acumen and the research participants'
views on leadership development in general and their leadership development in particular.
The quantitative component of the analysis investigated whether there was any relationship between these
leaders' understanding of the signicance of the role of social and political acumen in eective leadership
and their exercise of social and political acumen. In addition, the analysis investigated the relevance of these
principals' experiences in leadership development and their exercise of social and political acumen.
Selection of the Participants
Two school districts from Alberta, Canada that included schools in rural and urban areas agreed to
participate in the research and collection of data. After fullling each school district's research application
process, I requested nominations for identied dynamic leaders from the three hundred school communities in
these two districts. School stas and parents from the two selected school districts were invited to nominate
a principal who fullled one or more of the following descriptors of a dynamic leader. These criteria included:

• Principals who had successfully implemented a change or initiative.

• Principals whose style of leadership had increased the capacity of those with whom they work.
• Principals whose communication and interpersonal skills had improved the culture of the school envi-
• Principals who had eectively created an environment in which others were successful.
• Principals who were dynamic for other reasons.

I communicated with the thirty-ve nominees, explained the purpose of my research, and requested
that they respond to a survey. The questions in the survey focused on their leadership experience, their
understanding of the role of social and political acumen in their leadership, their ideas about the role of
social and political acumen in leadership in general, and their participation in leadership development.
The questions were grouped according to subject of content. Responses to the survey involved a Likert
scale. A pretest to test for internal consistency was carried out with ve principals from another school
district. The pretest indicated the need to group questions under number and then letter, rather than in

a long series of numbers. Also, the pretest indicated the need to use bold lettering for emphasis. These
revisions were included in the nal survey that was distributed to the thirty-ve nominated principals.
Follow-up communication with the nominated principals was used to ensure maximum level of participation.
Qualitative and quantitative analysis was used in completing the report on the data from the surveys.
Face-to-Face Interviews
Eight nominated leaders from each of the school districts were randomly selected for face-to-face inter-
views. Two additional senior high principals were randomly chosen from the group of junior high and senior
high principals to provide a better balance of elementary, junior high, and senior high principals' involvement
in the interview part of the research. The nal total of 10 principals represented:

• three senior high school principals,

• two junior high school principals,
• ve elementary school principals,
• ve male principals,
• ve female principals.

Focus Group
The ten principals who participated in the face-to-face interviews were invited to participate in the focus
group, which in the end was composed of ve of these principals. I provided supper for the focus group and
we ate as we talked. This helped to provide a convivial atmosphere for our meeting.
Topics for the focus group involved discussion statements about the role of social and political acumen in
leadership and further development of the questions included in the survey and the face-to-face interviews.
The focus group questions made a specic connection to each principal's individual experiences. Questions
also probed how leadership development programs might support leaders in their exercise of social and
political acumen. There was also an opportunity, however, for open discussion about their perceptions of
what social and political acumen contribute to dynamic leadership and leadership in general. The focus-group
session lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes, and it was taped and transcribed.
Observational notes were made immediately after the focus group and summaries and charts were made
from the transcript and the observation notes. As the moderator of the focus group, I had the opportunity
to help guide the discussion. Krueger (1988) described this role as facilitating multiple interactions amongst
the participants in the group. Through open-ended questions, individuals in the group were encouraged to
communicate their opinions about their own exercise of social and political acumen. These questions also
led to discussion about the role of social and political acumen in general in educational leadership.
In addition, artifacts regarding leadership, leadership requirements, and leadership development were
gathered and analyzed from the two selected school districts. These included information for potential
administrators; professional development plans for educational leaders, and the stang descriptors and
criteria for administrative applications. Content analysis of the artifacts was made through categorizing,
coding, and identifying specic characteristics (Cresswell, 1998).
Results from the Research
Three hundred schools from two school districts were involved in the research study. Nomination forms
were sent to the sta and school council of each school. From these schools, a total of 35 principals were
nominated as dynamic leaders. These nominated principals were then sent a letter explaining the research
study and their nomination. They also received a letter of informed consent that asked them to agree to
participate in the study and respond to the survey. Thirty surveys were returned completed. From the 35
principals nominated, every fourth one was requested to participate in a face-to-face interview. This group
of eight consisted of ve elementary principals, two junior high principals, and one senior high principal.
From the group of junior high and senior high principals remaining, two were randomly chosen to increase
representation beyond the elementary level. This resulted in two additional senior high principals being
included in the group. All 10 principals agreed to participate in face-to-face interviews, and the 10 principals
interviewed were invited to participate in a focus group. All were willing to participate, but because of time
commitments, only 5 of the 10 principals nally participated in the focus group. In addition, artifacts from

the two school districts that related to the principal's role were reviewed in relation to the exercise of social
and political acumen.
Summary of Artifacts
The leadership artifacts from the school districts involved in the research study were reviewed for content
that related to leaders' social and political acumen. This included information that related to an application
for leadership development programs, the content of leadership development programs, an application for
school administration, and the criteria for the prole of the school principal.
From the analysis a commonality identied in all of the districts' artifacts was a focus on the need for
the educational leader to be an instructional leader. These artifacts did not refer specically to social and
political acumen, nor did they identify the need for leaders to possess social and political acumen. They did,
however, refer to some of the skills and attributes that this study has identied as elements of social and
political acumen.
The artifacts indicated that the principal competencies needed to include more than instructional lead-
ership. The competencies outlined in these school districts' artifacts recognized the need for principals as
leaders to:

2.1.2 foster learning,

2.1.3 engage people,
2.1.4 resolve issues,
2.1.5 manage conict,
2.1.6 organize work,
2.1.7 possess critical inquiry,
2.1.8 communicate eectively,
2.1.9 promote cooperation between school and community,
2.1.10 build vision and shared commitments,
2.1.11 optimize resources,
2.1.12 facilitate change,
2.1.13 optimize systemic thinking.
All of these elements reected the denitions in this study for leaders' exercise of social and political acumen.
That is, leaders must have the ability to function with eective interpersonal and communication skills, as
well as the ability to know how to function within the micro and macro structures within which they exist.
There were also specic references in the artifacts to systems thinking and operating within the district's
governance model. There was not, however, a signicant focus on the leader's development of political
It is interesting to note that a review of the districts' artifacts had a more direct focus on the need for
leaders' personal attributes to reect social acumen and a lesser focus on the attributes that this study
connects with political acumen. Some of the attributes included:

• professional knowledge,
• critical thinking,
• team orientation,
• community orientation,

• personal qualities (integrity, respect for others, collaboration, courage, intuition, creativeness, risk
• responsibility for personal learning,
• problem-solving abilities,
• conict-management abilities,
• system orientation.

Summary of Survey Results

2.1.14 Although the study was in general a qualitative study, the use of quan-
titative data supported the overall ndings of the research. The quantitative
element of the research involved analysis of a survey that included a number of
multiple-choice sections involving a Likert scale. The data from these questions
were analyzed through use of Open Oce and R[U+2011]Language, Version 1.7.1.
Quantitative analysis was also used to identify these principals' opinions about
the role of leadership development in their exercise of social and political acumen.
Pearson Chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a relationship
between the success of a group of identied dynamic principals and their exercise
of social and political acumen. The Pearson Chi-square test was used because
it determines whether there was a relationship other than chance. In fact, this
test tells the strength of the association between two variables, as well as the
probability of any association being due to chance factors (Neuman, 2000).
The results from the survey did indicate that there was a connection beyond that of chance in the principals'
responses regarding the connection between their exercise of their skills involving social and political acumen
and their belief that eective leaders needed to possess these skills.
Some of the results of the Chi-square data included:

2.1.15 cultural leadership:p-value = 0.0423

2.1.16 instructional leadership:p-value = 0.0234
2.1.17 understanding political dimensions beyond the school: p-value = 0.012
• political acumen:p-value = 0.0137

The data analysis of the survey indicated that communication skills, interpersonal skills, and social acumen
were most highly regarded by the principals as contributors to their leadership and necessary to educational
leadership in general. The data did not indicate any specic skill that these principals thought was necessary
for leadership but that they did not possess. Indeed, the skills that the principals identied as necessary
for leadership were also the skills that these principals believed they possessed at varying levels. The skills
that the principals identied as important for eective leadership were all skills involving social and political
acumen. The data therefore reinforced this study's premise that social and political acumen are integral to
leadership development programs. In addition, the data supported the idea that leadership development is
important for leaders and has the potential to support leaders' exercise of social and political acumen. An
implication for leadership development is the need to ensure that the skills identied as necessary by these
principals should be part of leadership programs; this is discussed in the implications section of this study.
Summary of Face-to-Face Interviews
All of the transcripts clearly reected the principals' articulation of their commitment to fulll their role
in an eective way. They also reected a group of people who had a clear understanding of their roles and
responsibilities as leaders. These principals were able to talk about the challenges of their positions but also

the joy and satisfaction that their leadership roles gave them. There was a clear indication that social and
political acumen are integral to leadership. In addition, it was evident that these principals believed that
leadership development plays an important role in supporting leaders and should involve the development
of social and political acumen. In particular, the transcripts indicated that mentors played a signicant role
in the lives of all these principals and should be a part of leadership development programs.
Summary of the Focus Group
It was exciting to watch the dynamic of the focus group. The participants were obviously building on
each other's comments. There was a sense of the concepts and ideas evolving as the discussion progressed.
This group proled as a highly committed and enthusiastic group of leaders, and their comments reected
a high level of involvement in their own growth as leaders and their sense of responsibility to support and
mentor other leaders. In addition, there was clear evidence of a common belief that their rst responsibility
was to their own community but that they also needed social and political acumen to be systemically aligned.
All of the members talked about the need to be able to take risks as leaders, but these risks need to be
intelligent risks. They agreed that the eective exercise of social and political acumen by the leader would
support success in this area. In particular, they emphasized the need for leadership development to recognize
the intertwining nature of the exercise of social and political acumen.
All of the participants in the focus group talked about the need to be able to fulll the role and respon-
sibilities of leader and agreed that the eective exercise of social and political acumen supported being a
successful leader. They discussed the fact that social and political acumen have become a greater necessity
for the eective leader. Indeed, the entire group was committed to the idea that leadership development
can support a leader's development of social and political acumen. There was agreement that leadership
development should give leaders a heads up on the expectations of leadership so that the leader understands
how to develop social and political acumen.
Also, however, all ve of the participants expressed concerns that leadership development should authen-
tically meet the needs of potential and seasoned leaders and that it should be ongoing. They also agreed
that leadership development programs should recognize talent and develop talent and that there needed
to be a process for self-reection.
In addition, all members of the focus group believed that the role of mentor was key to the success of
leaders and that mentors should be trained to support leaders in their development and exercise of social and
political acumen. There was a general concern that there should be enough time allocated for the mentorship
relationship and that this should be a structured part of leadership programs. This reects Young, Sheets
and Knight's work of 2005 when they emphasize the need for principals and mentors to have time to observe,
question and reect.
There was also a consensus in the group that leaders' exercise of social and political acumen can be
supported through formal and informal networking with colleagues. The entire group agreed that such
networking should also be part of the structure of leadership development programs.
The focus group participants' willingness to share experiences, opinions, and ideas meant that the dis-
cussion was rich and productive. Members of the group often initiated questions or probed other members
for more details. This meant that the ow of discussion did not require or closely follow the focus group
interview questions at all times. On the other hand, it also meant that there was a natural dynamic within
the group that allowed the members to share their personal experiences. Indeed, the focus group further
developed the information gained from the survey and the face-to-face interviews.
Throughout the focus group discussion there was a high level of synergy. The fact that there were only
ve participants in the focus group encouraged all members to participate. At the same time, this limited
number may have contributed to the commonality of opinion and may not have nurtured the expression of
more diverse opinions and ideas. Nevertheless, there were numerous insightful comments about the role of
the leader:

• All of the experiences I have had in life and the people that I crossed paths with have made a dierence
to how I lead.
• Principals should be asked what are the areas of growth they need to focus on and these should be
included in the leadership development program.

• If you can't rise to the challenge of exercising social and political acumen, then you're not ready to be
a principal.
• You have to be able to function with people because the system is made up of people, and social and
political acumen will help this.
• I have worked in a remote community where social acumen was more important. Then I moved to
a larger urban district where I was closer to central oce, and it meant the need for more political
• It is a concern that if once you are a leader you do not participate in leadership development.
• A real growth for me was the timing of nishing my master's degree. . . . I could count on one of my
strong mentors. I would get constructive criticism or feedback that wouldn't veil it in soft terms.
• It is worth investing time and energy into leadership development programs and they should share the
internal expertise.

Summary of the Triangulation of Data

All of the principals recognized the importance of the exercise of social acumen in eective leadership
and, at the same time, displayed a high level of condence in their ability to successfully exercise social
acumen. The triangulation of data indicated that these principals had mixed feelings about the role of
political acumen in educational leadership and did not exhibit a high level of condence in their exercise of
political acumen.
Common in all of the research data was a clear indication that these principals were committed to fullling
their roles and responsibilities and that they enjoyed their positions as leaders.
Implications for Leadership Development Programs
Leadership development programs need to be planned and implemented to support dynamic leadership
by providing leaders with opportunities to develop and hone the skills connected with the characteristics,
attitudes, and actions associated with the nature of dynamic leadership (Figure 2). The evolving nature
of dynamic leadership makes it essential that leadership development programs be constantly revised and
updated. In this way, leadership development can keep pace with the evolving nature of the educational
leaders' roles and responsibilities. It is also important that educational leaders' participation in leadership
programs is ongoing and that they meet their immediate and future needs to support the skills and knowledge
required by dynamic educational leaders.

Figure 2.2 Figure 2. Identied Components Required in Leadership Development

Role of Mentors
Other relevant information from the research component was the fact that the role of the mentor was
regarded as an essential part of leaders being able to operate eectively. In fact, in all areas of the research,
mentors were identied as contributing to leadership capacity. Eight of the 30 principals referred to the
importance of the role of mentors in the open-ended questions. There was no question in the face-to-face
interview relating to mentors, and as the interviewer I did not prompt or request a comment on mentors.
Nevertheless, all 10 of the principals participating in the face-to-face interviews emphasized the role of
mentors in their lives. In the focus group, I did discuss the feedback from the face-to-face interviews in order
to discuss in depth the focus group's perception of the role of mentors. All members of the focus group
agreed that the role of mentors had great signicance in their lives and that it is essential for leaders to have
mentors in order to be able to build their capacity in exercising social and political acumen.
The data from the face-to-face interviews and focus group also indicated that the role of the mentor was
seen as an important factor contributing to and ensuring leadership density. This was regarded as important
in an environment that has had a high turn over of administrators and few veteran administrators.
The participants in the face-to-face interviews and focus group were concerned about the lack of validation

for informal mentors and the need for time to be designated to ensure that the mentor-mentoree relationship
was successful (Figure 3). In addition, the focus group data indicated a need for adequate preparation and
training of mentors. These factors need to be integrated when planning leadership development programs.
Figure 3. Impact of role of mentor.
The data from the research component were very much aligned with this study's conceptual and theoret-
ical framework and the information cited from the leadership literature. From these data came very specic
recommendations regarding the skills and activities required to support the role of social and political acu-
men in dynamic educational leadership. The required skills for dynamic educational leadership identied in
the research component include:

2.1.18 interpersonal relationships,

2.1.19 communication skills,
2.1.20 ability to share and enable a common vision,
2.1.21 ability to share and realize common values,
2.1.22 knowledge regarding the learning process,
2.1.23 ability to empower others,
2.1.24 ability to create a team,
2.1.25 ability to create a network,
2.1.26 understanding of the elements of the structure,
2.1.27 ability to work within the structure,
2.1.28 ability to see the big picture.
The suggested leadership development activities identied in the research data (Figure 4) include:

2.1.29 practicum,
2.1.30 informal and formal networking opportunities,
2.1.31 sessions addressing self-identied needs,
2.1.32 book groups,
2.1.33 formal mentorship,
2.1.34 ongoing leadership development,
2.1.35 time for self-reection.
2.1.36 The data also indicate that leadership development programs need to:
• Build knowledge and hone skills related to social and political acumen.
• Support the role of mentors.
• Integrate postgraduate activities.
• Provide opportunities to build knowledge of self and others.
• Build knowledge of the elements of leadership.
• Involve the participants in the planning and implementation of leadership development.

As indicated, the data from the research component has signicance for planning any leadership development
program that will support the exercise of social and political acumen and therefore contribute to dynamic
Concluding Comments
This study supports the need for educational leaders' professional development to include elements of
social and political acumen. The research data reected the need for the educational leader to be able to
exercise social and political acumen in order to function as a dynamic leader. Indeed, it is the combination
of social and political acumen that enables leaders to function at a higher dynamic level.
This study also stresses the necessity of ensuring that leaders understand the potential of leadership
programs in supporting them and that they need to become engaged in the leadership development process.
Leadership development, therefore, needs to be planned with the input from the participants, there needs
to be opportunities for choice in development activities, and there needs to be guidance by the leadership
development planners to ensure that the identied necessary aspects of leadership development are included.
In particular, the data indicated the need for leadership development programs to involve the role of mentors
and the integration of postgraduate activities to ensure that leadership development activities are eective,
meaningful, and relevant for the participants.
Leadership development should not involve knee-jerk planning that responds only to an immediate need.
Rather, the research supported the idea that those developing leadership programs need to understand
not only the needs of current reality, but also the needs of the future (Reiss, 2007; Stein, Schwan Smith, &
Silver, 1999). In addition, leadership development program planners need to understand the backgrounds and
abilities of those participating in these programs. To plan and implement eective leadership development,
therefore, the planner needs to focus on the purpose of leadership development that will involve the short term
and the long term (Guskey, 2000). In addition, the planners of leadership development need to understand
and focus on the backgrounds, abilities, and requirements of the participants involved.

Figure 2.3

Figure 4. Implications of Data for Leadership Development

Most importantly, leadership development programs will better engage the participants when these pro-
grams are planned in a consultative and collaborative manner with the participants. Components of lead-
ership development programs need to support the exercise of social and political acumen; therefore, these
components need to include knowledge and skill building to enhance the participants' social and political

acumen. There also needs to be a clear connection between the leadership development activities that en-
hance leaders' exercise of social and political acumen and the aim to support dynamic leadership meeting
current needs.
This study does not attempt to defend the concept of leadership; rather, it recognizes the reality of our
world that needs leaders in order to function and evolve. Also recognized is the responsibility of individuals
who assume leadership positions to fulll their roles in a dynamic manner. This requires the leader to
introduce and/or facilitate initiatives and make changes that bring benet. Certainly, the understanding
of what is benecial is related to context and can change according to developments in societal ethos. In
any case, it is the responsibility of the leader to develop an awareness and understanding of self, hone
the necessary skills and knowledge related to leadership, and strive to fulll the leadership role to make a
dierence that is positive for the current reality. The dynamic leader will exercise social and political acumen
to meet the needs of the present and support the direction of the future. As such the dynamic leader who
exercises social and political acumen to make a positive dierence to education will have contributed to their
immediate community and to the evolution of humanity.
Aristotle. (1986). Aristotle's politics (H. G. Apostle & L. P. Gerson, Trans.). Grinnell, IA: Peripatetic
Press. (Original work published 322 BC)
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2002). Reframing the path to school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Chenoweth, T. G., & Everhart, R. B. (2002). Navigating comprehensive school change. Larchmont, NY:
Eye on Education.
Courchene, T. J. (2001). A state of minds. Montreal: Institute of Research on Public Policy.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among ve traditions. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Czaja, M., Livingston Prouty, J., & Lowe, J. (1998). Mentoring and the context
for teacher leadership: A study of twenty-four professional development schools. Interna-
tional Journal: Continuous Improvement Monitor, 1(3). Retrieved September 4, 2000, from
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Devereaux, L. (2000). Principal training: The missing link for successful school councils. In-
ternational Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5. Retrieved September 20, 2001, from∼iejll
Dimmock, C. (1996). Dilemmas for school leaders and administrators in restructuring. In K. Leithwood,
J. Chapman, D Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership
and administration (pp. 135[U+2011]170). Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer Academic.
Dufour, R. (2002). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 12[U+2011]15.
Dyer, K. M., & Carothers, J. (2000). The intuitive principal. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Evans, R. C. (2000). The authentic leader. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on educational
leadership (pp. 287-309). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes. New York: Penguin.
Fullan, M. (2000). Leadership for the twenty-rst century: Breaking the bonds of dependency. In M.
Fullan (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 156-164). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. London: Routledge Falmer.
Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Gardner, H. (2007). Five Minds for the Future. Harvard Business School Press.
Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point. Boston: Little, Brown.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Revitalizing the power of emotional
intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.


Hesselbein, F. (2002). The key to cultural transformation. In F. Hesselbein & R. Johnston (Eds.)., A
leader to leader guide on leading change (pp. 1-7). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kneebone, R. D., & McKenzie, K. J. (1996). Swallowing frogs and herding cats: The conjunctural forces
behind the Alberta budget cuts. Calgary: University of Calgary. Dept. of Economics, 1996. Discussion
papers series no 96-03.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1999). Encouraging the heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus group. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leithwood, K. (2002). Introduction. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international hand-
book of educational leadership and administration (pp. 815[U+2011]821). Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer Aca-
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers: Transforming their world and their work. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Luna, G., & Cullen, D. L. (1995). Empowering the faculty: Mentoring redirected and renewed. ERIC
Digests. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED399888)
Mandel, D. R. (2000). Recognizing and encouraging exemplary leadership in America's schools: A
proposal to establish a system of advanced certication for administrators. Issues and Insights: American
Association of School Administrators. Arlington, VA: National Policy Board for Educational Leadership,
pp. 2-11. Retrieved November 7, 2001, from
Manzer, R. (1994). Public schools and political ideas. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
McBride, S., & Shields, J. (1997). Dismantling a nation. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.
Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2001). Building capacity for a learning community. Winnipeg: University
of Manitoba.
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Reiss, K. (2007). Leadership Coaching for Educators. Corwin Press.
Reynolds, D., & Stoll, L. (1996). Merging school eectiveness and school improvement: the knowledge
bases. In D. Reynolds, R. Bollen, B. Creemers, D. Hopkins, L. Stoll, & N. Lagerweij (Eds.), Making good
schools (pp. 94[U+2011]112). London: Routledge.
Robertson, J. M., & Webber, C. F. (2000). Cross-cultural leadership development. International Journal
of Leadership in Education, 3(4), 315-330.
Robertson, J. M., & Webber, C. F. (2002). Boundary breaking leadership: A must for tomorrow's
learning communities. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational
leadership and administration (pp. 519[U+2011]553). Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer Academic.
Roher, E. M., & Wormwell, S. A. (2000). An educator's guide to the role of the principal. Aurora, ON:
Aurora Professional Press.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change. New
York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shellard, E. (2003). Dening the principalship: A principal's instructional and managerial responsibilities
should complement and support each other. Principal, 82(4), 56[U+2011]60.
Spady, W., & Schwahn, C. (2001). Leading when everyone goes back to zero. Principal Leadership, 2(4),
Stein, M. K., Schwan Smith, M., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional developers.
Harvard Educational Review, 237-269.
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Dicult conversations. New York: Penguin.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for dierentiating schools and classrooms. Alexan-
dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Villiani, S. (2006). Mentoring and Induction Programs that Support New Principals. Corwin Press.
Wheatley, M. (2000). Good-bye command and control. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on
educational leadership (pp. 339-348). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Young, P.G.; Sheets, J.M. & Knight, D.D. (2005). Mentoring Principals. Corwin Press.

2.2 Mentors' Views of Factors Essential for the Success of Beginning


Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration.

2.2.1 Introduction
Croasmum, Hampton, and Hermann (2000) documented that mentor programs have been developed
throughout the nation's schools in an eort to address the attrition rate of rst-year teachers in American
schools. The ecacy of these mentoring programs is still under investigation. Gold (1999) documented that
the teacher attrition rate for beginning teachers in his school district was 18% when they did not have an
assigned mentor and only 5% when they had a school district assigned mentor. Evertson and Smithey (2000)
reported that pairing mentors who had undergone training to be a mentor with beginning teachers yielded
beginning teachers with higher-level teaching skills. Beginning teachers who were not paired with mentors
lacked these higher-level teaching skills. Darling-Hammond (2003), in an examination of the eectiveness of
mentoring programs, wrote that beginning teacher retention rates were increased.
Recent research into teacher induction, of which mentor programs are the primary method of teacher
induction (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999), has documented its ecacy in (a) making the transition of beginning
teachers easier, (b) reducing teacher turnover, (c) and increasing work satisfaction (Andrews & Quinn, 2005;
Archer, 2003; Bullard, 1998; Feinman-Nemser, 2003; Fuller, 2003; Holloway, 2001). It is clear that beginning
teachers need time to become procient teachers. Researchers (e.g., Claycomb & Hawley, 2000) have reported
that 3 to 7 years of experience in teaching is needed before teachers attain a level of prociency. It is the rst
years of teaching that are the years where beginning teachers gain the most prociency. Rivkin, Hanushek,
and Kain (2005) documented that beginning teachers make important gains in teaching quality in the rst
year and smaller gains over the next few career years (p. 449).
What exactly is meant by mentoring? Mentoring can be said to occur when a senior person (the mentor
in terms of age and experience) provides information, advice, and emotional support to a junior person (i.e.,
the mentee) in a relationship lasting over an extended period of time and marked by a substantial emotional
commitment by both parties (Bowen, 1985). Several characteristics appear to be present in eective mentors.
These components include: (a) a generosity of time; (b) a willingness to learn; (c) a complete trust; (d)
an ability to praise and encourage; and (e) an openness to recognize the limitations of others (Madison,
Watson, & Knight, 1994). More recently, Brown, Hargrove, Hill, and Katz (2003) remarked that quality
mentors are approachable, able to listen, maintain a high degree of integrity, and have sincerity. Mentors
also display a willingness to spend time with their protégés while being enthusiastic and positive about their

3 This content is available online at <>.


role. Other characteristics included being exible, tactful, experienced in teaching, being trustworthy, and
able to maintain condentiality between themselves and the mentee (Brown et al., 2003). Mentors need to
be trained in the roles and responsibilities of being mentors, rather than being assigned that role without
being trained (Holloway, 2001).
Five stages have been documented in the process for developing a mentor teacher program (Sindelar,
1992). The ve stages include: (a) establish a rationale; (b) select mentors and protégés; (c) train mentors;
(d) monitor the mentor process; and (e) evaluate and revise the program (pp. 13-17). Sindelar wrote that
school districts might want to examine the process and customize it to t their own needs based on their
own resources. More recently, best practices have been developed regarding mentoring programs. Regarding
as best practices for mentoring programs are: (a) selecting mentors with the same certication and in close
proximity to their mentees (Conway, 2003; Serpell & Bozeman, 1999), (b) providing mentors and mentees
schedules that allow common planning time and opportunities to observe each other (Andrews & Quinn,
2005; Conway, 2003; Gilbert, 2005; Mills, Moore, & Keane, 2001; Villani, 2002), (c) reduced workloads for
mentees (Feinman-Nemser, 2003; Moskowitz & Stephens, 1997; Renard, 2003; Serpell & Bozeman, 1999),
and (d) providing orientations for both mentors and mentees (Odell, 1990; Serpell & Bozeman) (cited in
Flynn & Nolan, 2008, pp. 173-174).

2.2.2 Statement of the Problem

Several challenges in mentorship programs that need to be addressed were determined from an extensive
review of the research literature. Davis (2001) wrote that denite criteria must be present for the selection of
eective mentors. Another challenge is the retention rate in the profession (Krantrowitz & Wingert, 2000).
An estimated 2.2 million teachers will be needed in the next decade to teach over 48.1 million students
(Protheroe, Lewis, & Paik, 2002). This demand for teachers, along with an increased need for accountability
and an assumption that teacher quality is high on the list of variables inuencing student achievement, have
presented school administration and policy-makers with a formidable challenge (Protheroe et al., 2002).
Consistent with the national problems of teacher attrition, the teacher attrition rate and the expected
student population growth rate in South Texas have forced an abundance of teaching vacancies for the
upcoming school years (Sanchez, 2003). According to Sanchez (2003), student education is aected by the
high teacher turnover rate and unstable educational programs that resulted from teacher loss. In developing
a mentoring practice of support, Scherer (1999) thought the needs of the novice teacher should be examined
so that quality assistance could be provided. The cost of high attrition in teachers is directly reected
in lower levels of student achievement, the allocation of resources to recruitment and training rather than
to instruction, increased behavioral concerns associated with lack of continuity, and unstable educational
programs (Croasmum et al., 2000; State of South Dakota, 2000). As a result, many school districts have
implemented teacher-mentoring programs.
School districts and individual campuses throughout Texas provide mentorship programs for rst-year
teachers. Although mentorship programs are provided, the incidence and the inuence of the experiences
of what/when vary by districts and by campuses. The initial purpose of the programs was to provide new
teachers with the skills and knowledge to be successful and remain active in the profession. Mentoring
programs would be examined periodically to assess whether or not the needs of beginning teachers were
satisfactorily met. Needs of beginning teachers and successful teacher mentoring programs in South Texas
have not been assessed as well as other regions (Sanchez, 2003).

2.2.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to examine, in the South Texas region, the views of mentors of rst-year
teachers regarding the teacher mentoring programs in their school districts. In particular, two areas of
emphasis were investigated: (a) the characteristics or practices associated with teacher mentoring programs
in South Texas secondary schools; and (b) the needs of beginning teachers in relation to mentoring programs
in South Texas.

2.2.4 Research Questions

The following questions guided the study:

1. What teacher involvement/support factors are perceived as necessary for mentors to be successful in
preparing rst-year teachers?
2. What sta development training factors are perceived as necessary for the instruction of mentors?
3. What administrative support factors are perceived as necessary for mentors to in preparing rst-year
teachers successfully?
4. What resource materials factors are perceived as necessary for the success of mentors in preparing
rst-year teachers?

2.2.5 Method
The target sample for this study was mentors of rst-year secondary teachers in South Texas public
secondary schools. A systematic sample population was used in the study, with every fourth campus listed in
the Region One directory selected. Responding to the Mentor Survey were 46 participants, all of whom were
mentor teachers. Of this sample of 46 mentors, 18 (39.1%) were male and 28 (60.9%) were female. Thirty-one
of the participants were Hispanic (67.4%), with 13 participants were White (28.3%). One participant was
African-American and another participant was of Other ethnic membership. Twenty-ve mentor teachers
indicated they were responsible for high school grade levels (54.3%), with 21 participants stating their
responsibilities were at the middle school grade levels (45.7%). Concerning teacher preparation programs,
33 mentor teachers reported a traditional teacher preparation program (71.7%), with12 (26.1%) stating an
alternative certication program and 1 participant reporting a Deciency Plan. Mentor teachers were queried
regarding the subject area in which they taught. Seven participants responded math (15.2%), 8 teachers
reported science (17.4%), 10 teachers indicated English (21.7%), 7 teachers stated social studies (15.2%),
and 14 teachers responded elective (30.4%) as their subject area.
A self-administered survey instrument created by the senior researcher was used to collect data. The
instrument was developed by reviewing the extant research literature and then creating a matrix of key
terms associated with successful teacher mentoring programs. Mentor teacher responses to the 27 survey
questions were measured on a Likert-format scale with a range of scores of 4 (absolutely essential), 3 (mostly
essential), 2 (somewhat essential), 1 (not essential) and d (uncertain) to the retention of beginning teachers.
For the variable of teacher involvement/support, the following factors were examined: (a) Positive role
models; (b) Collaboration with rst year teachers; (c) Lessons and materials; (d) Active participation with
the mentor; (e) Meetings regarding student discipline; (f ) Communication through newsletter, memos, and e-
mails; (g) Support from other teachers who serve as informal mentors' (h) A climate that encourages seeking
assistance; (i) Year round support that started before school year; and, (j) Professional materials (articles or
newsletters) to help grow professionally. Concerning the variable of sta development, the following factors
were investigated: (a) Classroom management included in sta development; (b) Working within a team for
collaboration and support; (c) Review assessment practices; (d) Review motivational strategies; (e) Training
on dealing with dicult students; (f ) Received sta development on teaching strategies; (g) Involved in
sta development activities designed for rst-year teachers; (h) Sta development in how to work with or
conference with parents; (i) Assistance in developing my professional goals; and, (j) Provided orientation to
include procedures for doing tasks and guidelines.
In this study, the variable of administrative support consisted of the following factors: (a) Monitor
the rst-year teacher; (b) Frequent walk throughs are accomplished; (c) Assist with hallway monitoring;
(d) Assist with student discipline; (e) Allow time for mentee to do classroom observations; (f ) Carefully
select mentors and match mentor/mentee grade levels and subject area; (g) Assign fewer professional re-
sponsibilities to mentees; (h) Mentees are given the opportunity to observe the practices of highly eective,

experienced teachers to learn from them; (i) Mentees received helpful support from central oce administra-
tors; and, (j) Mentees must have an experienced teacher or administrator to observe. Regarding the variable
of resources/materials, the following factors were investigated: (a) Technology training to incorporate into
lessons; (b) Assistance in the creation of student learner lessons that engage students; (c) Teaching supplies
that aid for hands on lessons are available; (d) Review the teacher handbook of all district/campus policies;
(e) Information about what to expect from mentoring program; (f ) Provide printed materials about employ-
ment and school regulations; (g) Received important resource/materials to begin my teaching experience;
(h) Have been part of an induction program that has well dened goals about what it is intended to do; (i)
My mentee and I have coordinated schedules so we can meet regularly; and (j) Have had help creating a
portfolio for my professional growth.
Along with the 27 closed-ended questions, respondents were asked four open-ended questions. These
questions were designed to evaluate support provided in the teacher-mentoring program, the most dicult
duty of the program, and what areas they would have appreciated more support in the teacher-mentoring
program. In this qualitative portion of the study, data were collected through open-ended questions from
the survey instruments that were distributed to the rst-year teachers.
Validity. To ascertain the validity of the Likert-format questionnaire items, the survey was initially
reviewed by experts (n = 17). This group consisted of the dissertation chair, (n = 1), dissertation committee
members (n = 2), a human resource director (n = 1), secondary school principals (n = 3), and secondary
veteran teachers (n = 10). Each expert evaluated the instrument for content, clarity, and appropriateness
(Patton, 2001). Amendments were made in wording and arrangement and construction of response options,
as recommended by committee members.
Reliability. The most frequent method for improving reliability for surveys is to work towards rening
questions, clarity, and instrument design. Good development procedures should result in a reasonably reliable
survey instrument (Creswell, 2003). To ensure reliability of responses to the scale items, a reliability analysis
was conducted. For the 27 survey questions measured on the factors being viewed as essential or not, the
Cronbach's coecient alpha was .86, with the range of corrected item-total correlations ranging from a
low of .14 to a high of .67. Concerning the six survey items that comprised teacher involvement/support,
Cronbach's coecient alpha was .66. For the six items that constituted the sta development cluster,
Cronbach's coecient alpha was .77. The internal consistency of the administrative support factor that was
comprised of seven items was .75. Finally, the last factor, resource materials, had a Cronbach's coecient
alpha of .65. As such, all four factors yielded suciently high reliability for research purposes.
The list of practicing rst-year teachers and their mentors, obtained from the Education Service Center,
Region One, Edinburg, Texas, was used to create a database in which every fourth secondary campus was
selected as the sample for the study. A self-administered survey instrument was mailed out to the mentors
of all rst-year middle school and high school teachers identied in the sample, with the permission of
the district's school superintendent. A pre-contact post card was sent to the identied mentors in the
districts. A pre-contact involves the researchers identifying themselves, discussing the purpose of the study,
and requesting cooperation (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). A follow-up contact was sent out to non-respondents
a few days after the deadline. The response time for the survey was a 30-day window. A few days after the
time limit specied, non-respondents were contacted by mailing a follow-up letter along with a copy of the
questionnaire and another self-addressed envelope (Heberlein & Baumgartner, 1981). All participants were
sent notes thanking them for their participation in the study.

2.2.6 Results
Research Question One
What teacher involvement/support factors are perceived as necessary for mentors to achieve success in
training rst-year teachers?
Teacher involvement/support items were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as shown in Table 1. A teacher-mentoring
program that has well-dened goals was believed to be absolutely essential by 95.7% (n = 44) of mentor
teachers. The following factor, creation of a climate that encourages teachers to seek assistance when needed,

was given as absolutely essential by 91.3% (n = 42) of mentor teachers. On item 2, creating a professional
portfolio that demonstrates growth as a teacher, 30.4% (n = 14) of mentors believed this factor to be
absolutely essential.
Table 1
Mentor Responses to Teacher Involvement/Support Items by Percentages

Absolutely Essen- Mostly Essential Somewhat Essen- Not Essential

tial %age %age tial %age %age

1. A teacher- 95.7 2.2 2.2 0.0

mentoring pro-
gram that has well
dened goals.

2. Creating 30.4 41.3 26.1 2.2

a professional
portfolio that
demonstrates pro-
fessional growth
as a teacher.

3. Discussing with 73.9 21.7 4.3 0.0

peers skills neces-
sary to be success-
ful in the teaching

4. Creation of 91.3 8.7 0.0 0.0

a climate that en-
courages teachers
to seek assistance
when needed.

5. Being part 43.5 41.3 13.0 2.2

of a support
group made up of
other beginning

6. Having a men- 82.6 13.0 4.3 0.0

tor who provides
support in coach-
ing with needed
strategies for stu-
dent success.

Research Question Two

What sta development training factors are perceived as necessary for the instruction of mentors?
Sta development training factors were given in survey items 7 through 12 as shown in Table 2. Mentor
teachers rated the highest percentage of responses to item 10 to be absolutely essential for the retention
of beginning teachers. Sta development that provided strategies and activities to better serve students in
populations was regarded to be absolutely essential by 60.9% (n = 28) of mentor teachers. Mentor teachers
rated social functions to help beginning teachers build relationships with colleagues to be absolutely essential
by 26.1% (n = 12). This item was the lowest rated item of the sta development survey factors that were
absolutely essential to the retention of beginning teachers.

Table 2
Mentor Responses to Sta Development Items by Percentages

Absolutely Essen- Mostly Essential Somewhat Essen- Not Essential

tial %age %age tial %age %age

7. Sta devel- 56.5 41.3 2.2 0.0

opment that
included instruc-
tional strategies
that inuenced
student outcomes.

8. Quality sta 56.6 39.1 4.3 0.0

development that
addressed instruc-
tional strategies.

9. Social functions 26.1 28.3 41.3 4.3

to help beginning
teachers build
relationships with

10. Sta de- 60.9 23.9 15.2 0.0

velopment that
provided strate-
gies and activities
to better serve
students in special

11. Workshops 54.3 37.0 8.7 0.0

or conferences
that provided
professional de-
velopment in
teacher's area of

continued on next page


12. Provided 30.4 50.0 17.4 2.2

with federal, state
and local pol-
icy changes in

Research Question Three

What administrative support factors are perceived as necessary for mentors to successfully train rst-year
Administrator support factors were given in survey items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, as shown in Table
3. Mentor teachers responded evenly to items 16 and 17 by 52.2% (n = 24) perceiving as absolutely essential
for the retention of beginning teachers. Mentoring program was explained of my duties and responsibilities
and condentiality laws between teachers and students were explained were deemed to be absolutely essential
by 52.2% (n = 24) of mentor teachers. Item 18, time was provided at the end of each grading period to
evaluate the teacher mentoring program, was deemed absolutely essential by 30.4% (n = 14) of mentor
Table 3
Mentor Responses to Administrative Support Items by Percentages

Absolutely Essen- Mostly Essential Somewhat Essen- Not Essential

tial %age %age tial %age %age

13. Allowed time 50.0 32.6 15.2 0.0

to visit as a team
(mentors, mentees,
administrators) to
reect and evalu-
ate on the school

14. Given the 47.8 37.0 13.0 2.2

opportunity this
year to collabo-
ratively analyze
what was observed
in the classrooms
of experienced

continued on next page


15. Planning was 47.8 39.1 4.3 6.5

provided that
focused on teacher
expectations for
mentor training.

16. Mentoring 52.2 37.0 8.7 2.2

program was ex-
plained of my du-
ties and responsi-
bilities in the pro-

17. Condential- 52.2 26.1 17.4 2.2

ity laws between
teachers and
students were

18. Time was 30.4 39.1 21.7 4.3

provided at the
end of each
grading period
to evaluate the

19. Teaching 43.5 34.8 17.4 2.2

assignments, re-
sponsibilities and
teacher duties
were based on
teacher experi-

Research Question Four

What resource materials factors are perceived as necessary for the success of mentors in training rst-year
Survey items 20 through 27, as shown in Table 4, comprised the resource materials factors. Orientation on
PDAS was provided by the district to rst-year teachers on the method of evaluation was seen as absolutely
essential to 82.6% (n = 38) of mentor teachers. Next, requirements for a teacher certicate as an educator
has been fullled were given as absolutely essential by 73.9% (n = 34) of mentor teachers. Technology
(e.g., computers, TV/VCR, overhead projectors) was provided to assist in implementing technology into the
classroom was deemed as absolutely essential by 71.7% (n = 33) of mentor teachers. Mentors rated item 25
the least essential. An Educational Organization informed me of my rights as an educator and oered legal
support was believed to be absolutely essential by 37% (n = 17) of mentor teachers.
Table 4
Mentor Responses to Resource Materials Items by Percentages

Absolutely Essen- Mostly Essential Somewhat Essen- Not Essential

tial %age %age tial %age %age

20. Requirements 73.9 21.7 2.2 0.0

for a teacher cer-
ticate as an ed-
ucator have been

21. Information 47.8 39.1 8.7 2.2

was provided by
the school dis-
trict about the

22. The dis- 58.7 21.7 13.0 4.3

trict provided
nancial or com-
pensatory time
for mentors par-
ticipating in the

23. Technol- 71.7 23.9 2.2 2.2

ogy (computers,
TV/VCR, over-
head projectors)
was provided to
assist in imple-
menting tech-
nology into the

continued on next page


24. Regular com- 56.5 34.8 2.2 4.3

munications about
the district and
campus occurred
through vehicles
such as newslet-
ters, memos or

25. An Edu- 37.0 41.3 15.2 0.0

cational Organiza-
tion informed me
of my rights as
an educator and
oered legal sup-

26. The district 63.0 32.6 0.0 4.3

provided a cur-
riculum guide with
clear objectives
and timelines
required to teach.

2.2.7 Mentor Teacher Responses to Open-Ended

When asked to respond to the following statement, My school has been most supportive of me this year in
the following areas, mentor teachers gave the following answers:
I was given the time needed to evaluate the new teacher.
The new teacher was assigned fewer students in the classroom with fewer responsibilities.
I was selected to be a mentor based on proximity, class subject, and given time to spend with the new
I was given a schedule that allowed the new teacher to have the same conference period to work together
on planning and to provide the needed support for the new teacher.
I was given the time to observe and give feedback to the new teacher.
We had excellent communication between the mentor, mentee and administrator to work on issues and
nd solutions.
I was given praise and appreciation for what I did as a mentor.
According to mentors, their school was most supportive in giving them time to evaluate the new teacher.
Mentors reported they were selected to the program based on criteria of proximity, class subject and allowed
time to visit with the new teacher. Mentors also felt appreciated for the work they provided to new teachers.
They had excellent communications with the new teacher, and administrators to work on issues and nding
Concerning the question, What has been the most dicult part of your duty in the teacher-mentoring
program?, mentor teachers responded that:
Conicting schedules with mentee, and administrators providing information on how I would be compen-
At times I felt little support from my administrator since they were more concerned about TAKS scores.
I was not given any guidelines or training for what I was to do or what was expected of me.
I was given too much paperwork on the program and was provided sta development for the mentor and
mentee that was not benecial.

Mentors commented that the most dicult duty of the teacher-mentoring program was conicting sched-
ules between the mentor and the mentee. It made meeting time dicult for both. Mentors stated that they
did not know how they would be compensated for their time and felt little support from administrators
because they were more concerned with TAKS scores. Other mentors also reported they were not given
guidelines, training, or expectations of what the program was about.
Regarding the question, In what areas would you have appreciated more support from your school for
the teacher-mentoring program?, mentors commented:
More scheduled formal meetings with new teacher to review classroom management, grading polices and
procedures, and time for planning lessons would have been appreciated.
Increase in benets for the mentor and better coordination for planning from the certication program
would have helped.
More instruction on curriculum alignment, observation time to evaluate the new teacher, and more time
for the new teacher to observe the mentor were needed.
Communication between mentor, mentee, and administrators needed to occur.
Expectations of my responsibilities as a mentor should be explained.
Mentors would have felt more appreciated from their school if administrators had scheduled more formal
meetings. They would have liked more time to review classroom management, grading policies and proce-
dures, and more time for planning eective lessons. Mentors responded that better communication between
the new teacher, administrators, and the mentor was needed for the teacher-mentoring program.
Finally, mentors were encouraged to contribute additional comments on the current teacher-mentoring
program at your school. The following additional comments were made:
There was a time when mentors had the time to help the new teachers. New teachers were allowed
a few years to improve. Now with the state measures school accountability through TAKS scores, it has
become dicult to help new teachers with no experience. New teachers who have low TAKS scores from
their students are at risk of not getting their contract renewed. The state testing has hurt our schools.
Schools do not have the time to nurture a new teacher.
I have trained over 24 student teachers in my 27 years of teaching experience. My administrators are
highly competent and allow me to take charge of new teachers. I was allowed to train new teachers on PDAS
evaluation with my administrators providing support.
There was a lack of administrative support, resource materials, and no curriculum guide or explanation
of what was expected of me as a mentor.
District administrators should meet regularly with mentor and mentee to discuss progress, setbacks, and
Alternative certication program was confusing with multiple requirements and too much paperwork.
Mentors added that state testing had harmed their schools. Administrators are too concerned with state
exam scores and have little time to support new teachers. According to mentors, new teachers are at risk of
not getting their contracts renewed if their students have low TAKS scores. Other mentors added comments
and stated that there was a lack of administrative support, resource materials, and no curriculum guide or
explanations of what was expected of the mentor. Mentors reported that district administrators should meet
regularly with mentors and mentees to discuss progress, setbacks, and concerns.

2.2.8 Discussion
Mentor teachers responded to questions regarding four factors: teacher involvement/support; sta develop-
ment; administrator support; and resource materials. On the factor of teacher involvement/support, almost
all of the mentor teachers believed a teacher-mentoring program with well-dened goals was absolutely es-
sential to retain beginning teachers. On the factor of sta development, slightly more than half of the mentor
teachers considered that sta development that provided strategies to serve students in special populations
better was absolutely essential to the retention of beginning teachers. Concerning administrator support,
slightly more than half of the mentor teachers believed that mentors needed to have their duties and re-
sponsibilities in the mentoring program to be absolutely essential for the retention of beginning teachers.
Regarding resource materials, almost three-fourths of the mentor teachers deemed that requirements for a

teacher certicate as an educator had to have been completed to be absolutely essential to retain beginning
Concerning the open-ended questions, mentor teachers commented that they were given time to evaluate
the new teacher, and their selection to be a mentor was based on criteria such as proximity and class
subject. The most dicult part of their duty was conicting schedules with mentee, little support from
administration, and no guidelines or training in what they were expected to do. Mentors would have felt
more appreciated with more scheduled meeting time with the new teacher and an increase of benets for
their work. They would have liked more instruction on curriculum alignment and observation time with the
new teacher. The additional comments made by mentors consisted of the need for more time for the new
teacher to grow professionally with less emphasis on TAKS scores. They also stated that standardized state
testing was hurting schools because too much time was being spent on student test scores.
Implications of our ndings are that school districts need to prepare mentor teachers for their role in
the teacher-mentoring program. According to this research study, and the studies of other researchers,
mentors must be provided with certain criteria for a teacher-mentoring program to be successful. Mentors
responded that it was absolutely essential a teacher-mentoring program have well-dened goals. First-year
teachers must feel encouraged to seek assistance when needed, in an accepting school climate. Explanation of
duties and responsibilities assigned to mentors must be reviewed. According to mentors, time must be given
to allow observations of the mentor and mentee giving instruction along with administrators respecting
the condentially between the mentor and the rst-year teacher. Mentors responded that orientation on
PDAS, training on technology implementation into the classroom, and requirements for a teacher certication
fullled are absolutely essential for the retention of rst-year teachers. The incidence and inuence of the
factors given in the study are factors in a successful teacher-mentoring program, which relate to the retention
of rst-year teachers.

2.2.9 References
Andrews, B. D., & Quinn, R. J. (2005). The eects of mentoring on rst-year teachers' perceptions of
support received. The Clearing House, 78(3), 110-116.
Andrews, S., Gilbert, L., & Martin, E. (2007). The rst years of teaching: Disparities in perceptions of
support. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 4-13.
Archer, J. (2003). Increasing the odds. Education Week, 22(17), 52-55.
Berry, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M. (2002, December). Assessing and supporting new teachers:
Lessons from the southeast. Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from
Black, S. (2001). A lifeboat for new teachers: Without mentors and other support, new teachers are left
to sink or swim. American School Board Journal. [online].
Bowen, D. (1985). Were men meant to mentor women? Training and Development Journal, 39(1), 30-34.
Brown, T., Hargrove, S., Hill, R., & Katz, L. (2003). Promoting quality teachers through a supportive
mentoring environment for pre-service and rst-year teachers. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the
Association for Teacher Educators (Santa Fe, NM, August 9-13, 2003). ED 480 857.
Bullard, C. (1998). Qualied teachers for all California students: Current issues in recruitment, prepa-
ration, and professional development. Sacramento: California Research Bureau.
Certo, J. L., & Fox, J. E. (2002). Retaining quality teachers. High School Journal, 86(1), 57-75.
Claycomb, C., & Hawley, W. D. (2000). Recruiting and retaining eective teachers for urban schools:
Developing a strategic plan for action. National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching.
Washington, DC.
Croasmum, J., Hampton, D., & Hermann, S. (2000). Teacher attrition: Is time run-
ning out? University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (on-line). Accessed: November 2000.


Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd
ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.
Davis, O. L., Jr. (2001). A view of authentic mentorship. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 17(1),
Evertson, C., & Smithey, M. (2000). Mentoring eects on protégés' classroom practice: An experimental
eld study. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 294-304.
Feinman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 25-29.
Fideler, E., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction programs and practices
in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.
Flynn, G. V., & Nolan, B. (2008). The rise and fall of a successful mentor program: What lessons can
be learned? The Clearing House, 81(4), 173-179.
Fuller, E. (2003). Beginning teacher retention rates for TxBESS and Non-TxBESS teachers. Paper
presented for the State Board for Educator Certication, Austin, TX.
Fulton, K., Yoon, I., & Lee, C. (2005, August). Induction into learning communities. Retrieved May 15,
2006, from
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research; An introduction (7th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Gold, Y. (1999). Beginning teacher support. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of
research in teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 458-594). New York: Macmillan.
Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartener, R. (1981). Is a questionnaire necessary in a second mailing? Public
Opinion Quarterly, 45, 102-108.
Hirsch, E. (2006). Recruiting and retaining teachers in Mobile, Alabama:
Educators on what it will take to sta all classrooms with quality teachers.
Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from
Holloway, J. H. (2001). Who is teaching our children? Educational Leadership, 58, 1-3.
Holloway, J. (2001). The benets of mentoring. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 85-86.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? A Research Report. Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy and Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Washington, DC.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
Johnson, S. M., Berg, J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005, August). Who stays in teaching and why: A
review of the literature on teacher retention. Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved
May 15, 2006, from
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a sense of success: New teachers explain their
career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617.
Krantrowitz, B., & Wingert, P. (2000). Provide teacher mentoring at its best. The Master Teacher.
Retrieved on September 5, 2007 from http://
Madison, J., Watson, K., & Knight, B. (1994). Mentors and preceptors in the nursing profession. Con-
temporary Nurse, 3(3), 121-126.
Markow, D., & Martin, S. (2005). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Transitions and the role
of supportive relationships: A survey of teachers, principals, and students. Retrieved May 20, 2006, from 34996838801118758796V1FATS_2004.pdf


National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (2003). No dream denied: A pledge to Amer-
ica's children. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Protheroe, N., Lewis, A., & Paik, S. (2002, Winter). Promoting quality teaching. ERS Spectrum, 20(1),
Provasnik, S., & Dorfman, S. (2005). Mobility in the teacher workforce (NCES 2005-114). U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Reaves, B. (2002, January). Texas schools face continued shortage of certied teachers. Paper prepared
at the meeting of the Institute for School-University Partnerships, Byran/College Station, TX.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (1998). Teachers, schools and academic achievement.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper Number 6691.
Sanchez, S. (2003). Characteristics associated with successful mentoring and induction programs in South
Texas. Ed.D. dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityKingsville, United StatesTexas. Retrieved September
23, 2004 from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3099255).
Scherer, M. (Ed). (1999). A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sindelar, N. (1992). Development of a teacher mentorship program: High professionalism and low cost.
ERS Spectrum, 10(2), 13-17.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the eects of induction and mentoring on beginning
teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681-714.
State of South Dakota (2000). Administrative memorandum. Department of Education and Cultural
Aairs, p. 16. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from
Stedman, J. B. (2004). K-12 Teacher quality: Issues and legislative action. Congressional Research
Service. The Library of Congress. Washington, DC.
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and rst-year teachers' morale, career choice com-
mitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 861-879.

Chapter 3

The Role of the Principal

3.1 Toward a Leadership Practice Field

: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of the
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration

3.1.1 Toward a Leadership Practice Field: An Antidote to an Ailing Internship

by Theodore Creighton
The eld of education leadership has long been criticized for the ways in which men and women are
prepared for school leadership positions. In 1960, The American Association of School Administrators
(AASA) characterized the preparation of superintendents and principals as a dismal montage. Later,
Farquhar and Piele (1972) described university-based preparation programs as  dysfunctional structural
incrementalism. In 1990, Pitner discussed the zombie programs in education leadership. As recently as
1999, McCarthy addressed the issue of change in education administration by stating, Congeniality and
complacency are woven into education administration programs, and the majority of faculty do not perceive
a need for radical change that would bring about a transformation in education leadership. Now, forty
years after AASA's alert, Murphy (2001) points to the profession's continued focus on technical knowledge,
placing the university in the center of the eld. He posits, Trying to link theory and practice in school
administration has been, for the last 30 years, a little like attempting to start a car with a dead battery:
The odds are fairly long that the engine will ever turn over. Murphy identies the central problem as our
fascination with building an academic infrastructure of school administration, which has produced serious
distortions, in what is primarily an applied eld. The traditional internship presently serves as the vehicle
for aspiring principals to practice their problem-solving and instructional leadership skills. Though there has
been emphasis from the professional organizations (AASA, NAESP, NASSP, NCPEA, UCEA) for extending
the internship experience over more time (e.g., one-year) and weaving the internship throughout preparation
coursework, the internship still remains a weak experience with a minimal practice eld at best. For some

1 This content is available online at <>.


time, I have argued for the implementation of a leadership practice eld in our preparation programs.
The conceptual notion at work here is that of creating a bridge between the performance eld (working
in the system) and a practice eld (working on the system). This model is based on the work of Daniel
Kim, a colleague of Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline) and cofounder of the MIT Organizational Learning
Center, where he is currently director of the Learning Laboratory Research Project. Te central idea is
that a leadership practice eld provides an environment in which a prospective leader can experiment with
alternative strategies and policies, test assumptions, and practice working through the complex issues of
school administration in a constructive and productive manner.

3.2 The Long View

: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of Pro-
fessors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship
and practice in educational administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Con-
tent Commons, this module is published in the International Journal of Educational Leadership
3 and available as a Print on Demand copy.

2 This content is available online at <>.


Figure 3.1

Martha McCarthy
The Discipline of Education Administration: Crediting the Past
Rosemary Papa
The Standards Movements in Educational Administration: A Quest for Respect
John Hoyle
Reections:Crediting the Past
Betty Alford
Drama in Education administration: A Farce or a Morality Play?
Charles Achilles
Educational Leadership for Sale: Social justice, the ISLLC Standards, and the Corporate Assault on
Public Schools
Fenwick W.English
Strengthening Research on the Preparation of School Leaders
Joseph Murphy
The Future is Now
Robert Beach and James Berry
Taking Back Our Profession: Revisited
Theodore Creighton and Michelle Young
Epilogue: The Intersection of Past, Present and Future
James Smith
About the Authors

3.3 The Principalship: Manager to Leader

3.3.1 Bureaucratic Manager

Schools have traditionally been managed by a bureaucratic management style principal. In this method
principals rely on a rational set of structuring guidelines, such as rules and procedures, hierarchy, and a
clear division of labor (Allen 1998). Principals using this style receive lots of credit for an eciently run
school. Over time this style of management eventually backres as creative teachers and students become
unsettled. These types of principals tend to be control freaks who nd it dicult to let go of the detail and
are particularly threatened by the idea of empowering other leaders for fear of diminishing their own power
base. These principals soon forget that schools exist for students and not for administrators (Prideaux,

15 This content is available online at <>.

2001). As new decision making models emerge with research backing their success, the role of the principal
begins to change.

3.3.2 Changing from Manager to Leader

Principals are no longer strictly managers; they are expected to be leaders. Leaders that can take their
school to a higher level of academic achievement, where all students are successful learners and all teachers
engage their students in learning. To become such a leader, principals need to leave behind their bureaucratic
management styles and redene themselves as a moral leader. Principals that are leaders not just managers
will be able to move their school forward. These new principals allow teachers to be leaders in developing
better curriculums to reach the needs of all students. For a principal to maintain this type of leadership, he
will need to learn how to serve his sta not just manage it.
Principals are beginning to value the important role that teachers play in the success of their school.
Recognizing their value, principals are beginning to work with teachers to achieve goals that will contribute
to the schools success. Principals are looking for a leadership style that welcomes the cooperation of others
and values their input. One such leadership style is that of a servant leader. In servant leadership one serves
the needs of their sta (Sergiovanni, 2000). By serving one's sta instead of serving one's own needs, a
principal is able to create change within the school. Principals can practice servant leadership in the three
ways that Sergiovanni (2000) describes: purposing, empowerment, and leadership by outrage.

3.3.3 Purposing
In purposing it is the principal's responsibility to develop a set of core values that serves the school and
present these values to the school (Sergiovanni, 2000). The principal receives input from other sta members
so that everyone shares in the development of these values. Principals can receive input from sta members
by meeting with them in a variety of ways: as departments, as individuals, and as a whole. In these
meetings, principals should work to establish dialogue, stressing the point that we are in this together and
their opinions are valued. In these meetings the principal and sta can address the problems of the school
that need immediate attention, identify ways of improving the school, and ways to head o future problems.
Ultimately the goal will be to create a set of core values to serve as their purpose. When developing
these values do not forget to incorporate academics, moral and character values, history, tradition, and the
community. By establishing the purpose for the school, standards are being set to help guide the school's
vision. Equally as important as setting the purpose for the school, the principal is creating a collaborative
group that will be a valuable part of school decision making.

3.3.4 Empowerment
"Empowerment is exactly what happens in a collaborative group, in terms of how everybody's opinion is
valued and everybody is allowed to express themselves and be heard"(McMahon, 2001, p. 5). As a servant
leader a principal constantly incorporates ways to empower their teachers. Some of these ways include
freeing people to "do their thing," delegating with full responsibility, oering and receiving feedback, and
the encouragement of self-evaluation (McMahon, 2001). The more a principal uses these strategies the
more individuals become empowered and develop leadership qualities. This development becomes vital to
improving the school. With additional leaders to make right decisions in the interest of the school, the core
values will become the school norm.
For example, imagine the simple task of coming to school. Each teacher leaves from a dierent house
and drives down dierent roads. In time they arrive at school. Think of this in terms of reaching the shared
goals of the school. Each teacher may be at dierent starting points (homes) and may take dierent paths
(roads) to reach the goals, but each one has a vision of where to head (school) and arrives there. Imagine
the power of having all of these people working to achieve the same goal, working to change the school, and
working to make the core values a normal part of the school's culture. This is why the empowerment of a

sta becomes so valuable to a principal. A principal should allow his sta to make their own decisions for
reaching the schools goals, as long as they stay within the standards of the school's core values.

3.3.5 Dependency
Unfortunately in a principal's attempt to empower his sta, he will have teachers who think negatively. Some
teachers do not want to be involved, accept responsibility, or practice self-management. These teachers have
become dependent on the administrative sta to tell them what to do and how to do it. How did they
get this way? They learned it from a bureaucratic managing principal. "When a principal-rather than the
school community members- consistently solves problems, makes decisions, and gives answers, dependency
behaviors on the part of sta actually increases" (Lambert, 2003, p. 48). Remember the simple event
of coming to school, how getting everyone working towards a common goal is so powerful. A controlling
principal unfortunately obtains just the opposite, never achieving such power. Suppose the day before
school started the principal visits each sta member's house and give them specic directions on how to get
to school. He even tells them what time to leave, how fast to drive and what car to drive. Can you imagine
how insignicant the sta feels after this is done? Right away the principal is showing his sta that he has
no condence in their ability to make decisions. As a principal continue to control every aspect of the sta 's
job they become dependent on the principal to tell them what to do and when to do it. All self-initiative is
taken away.

3.3.6 Breaking the Dependency

In reality, a principal never controls how sta members come to work, just as a principal should not control
every aspect of the teacher's job. "Directive or command-and control behavior may get the immediate task
done, but it undermines the growth and development of those who are subjected to it, diminishing teacher
leadership and the leadership capacity of the school" (Lambert, 2003, p. 44). A principal never gives up
complete control, but needs to be acutely aware of ways that they increase dependency.
As the leader, the principal needs to break this dependency. To do this he should continue working to
empower the sta, ". . . releasing the full potential of [his] employees in order for them to take on greater
responsibility and authority in the decision-making process and providing the resources for this process to
occur" (Cartwright, 2002, p.6). The principal can ask individuals to take on the responsibility of researching
problems and coming up with possible solutions. People nd ". . . that challenge,signicance, and the
need to solve problems are important attributes of work that [they] nd interesting, enjoyable, and, in a
word, motivating" (Owens, 2004, p. 330). When teachers become a signicant part of the solution, their
motivation and enthusiasm rises. They regain their self-initiative and are less dependent.

3.3.7 Building Leaders

As teachers become less dependant they are no longer approaching the principal with problems that need
to be solved, but rather they are presenting him with solutions to problems they are experiencing. They
are asking for support and guidance rather than answers. A principal needs to continue to serve his sta
and build servant leaders among them. Spears list ten characteristics of a servant leader: listening, em-
pathy,healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth of
people, and building community. These characteristics are what a principal will try to build in his sta.
"Servant leaders will listen to what is being said and what is not being said"(Spears, 2002, p. 5). A servant
leader is not only aware of what is happening around them, but is also self-aware. Servant leaders should
rely on persuasion, rather than on one's positional authority to make decisions (Spears, 2002). A servant
leader needs to have vision and have a grasp of the "big picture". All of these things help prevent a school
from being stagnant and keeps it moving forward. Even with well-established core values, a school may
need to revisit and possibly update the core values in order for the vision to continue moving forward. A
principal needs to be aware of the importance of foresight to head o possible problems. The principal
should introduce the idea of stewardship to his leaders to reinforce the commitment of serving others and

helping others to grow. Together a principal and his leaders can work to build community within the school
by developing unity among the sta.

3.3.8 Leadership by Outrage

With more and more leaders in the school,norms are established. One of the greatest norms is the response
when the core values of the school are ignored. When this happens, the response of the school leaders and
the whole school community is one of outrage. If no one shows that falling short of the school's expectations
bothers them then the school, by default, lowers its values. This "leadership by outrage" stops the lowering
of values and keeps the school moving forward.

3.3.9 Conclusion
Setting the purpose of the school, empowering the sta to carry out that purpose, and being outraged when
that purpose is ignored should set the basis of a principals leadership style.
The link between servant leadership and moral authority is a tight one. Moral authority relies heavily on
persuasion. At the root of persuasion are ideas, values, substance, and content, which together dene group
purpose and core values. Servant leadership is practiced by serving others, but its ultimate purpose is to
place one self, and others for whom one has responsibility, in the service of ideals (Sergiovanni, 2000).
This ideal of serving the core values of the school is what leads a school. The administrators are rst
to embrace the ideal, then the teachers, and eventually the students. When the whole school community
starts serving the core values the school's climate changes. Students begin to care about their education,
and higher expectations are set and met. Teachers believe in students and work to provide them with the
best learning environment possible. Principals that follow servant leadership over a bureaucratic style of
management will lead schools to achieve their fullest potential.

3.3.10 References
Allen, G. (1998) Supervision: Management modern. Retrieved June 20, 2005, from
Cartwright, R. (2002) Empowerment. Oxford, United Kingdom: Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: Assoc. for
Supervision and Curriculum Development
McMahon, K. N. (2001). An Interview with Helen S. Astin. In Developing Non-hierarchical Leadership
on Campus (p. 8). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press
Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational Behavior in Education. (8th ed.) Boston: Pearson Education
Prideaux, R. (2001). The Eective and Democratic School Principal. Retrieved June 14, 2005, from
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005).The principalship: A reective practice perspective 5th ed. Needham Heights,
Maryland: Allyn and Bacon.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). Leadership as Stewardship. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Lead-
ership. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Spears, L. C. (2002). Tracing the Past, Present, and Future of Servant-Leadership. In Focus On Lead-
ership: Servant-leadership for the Twenty-rst Century (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons,

3.4 Preparing, Developing, and Credentialing K-12 School Leaders:

Continuous Learning for Professional Roles

Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration.

3.4.1 Introduction
Leadership in school organizations mattersjust as it does in most private or public enterprise. Educational
administration is not just a bureaucratic function and a left over convention of post-modern management
theory; rather, it is an evolving professional discipline with distinct elements of practice linked to the outcomes
of education, i.e. student learning. Recent bodies of research and meta-analyses of that research identify
specic ways in which leadership in K-12 education can be linked with student achievement at both the school
and district levels (Marzano, Waters, and Mc Nulty, 2005 & Marzano & Waters, 2007). As the eld engages
with the evidence that leadership not only matters, but constitutes a professional practice (Elmore, 2000),
state and federal policy makers are beginning to respond. The recognition of leadership as a distinct and
important element of educational reform and adaptation has become a highly noted and actively addressed
issue in K-12 education renewal and reform work at the state, university, and local levels.
This focus has led to a rethinking of traditional means and processes for recruiting, training, developing,
and supporting school leaders for K-12 careers in educational administration. It has also led to a rethinking
about leadership as an essential element of a vital educational system and the link between organizational
outcomes and leadership capacity distributed across roles and responsibilities in K-12 organizations (Lambert,
2003). This paper examines how changing assumptions about K-12 educational leadership are playing out in
state level policies and practices shaping the training, development, and credentialing of K-12 school leaders.
New trends are emerging in K-12 administrator certication and endorsement systems nationwide, and these
trends have implications for those institutions that provide both initial training and ongoing professional
development for school leaders. Signicantly, many of these trends focus upon improving the quality of
educational administration training at the pre-service level at the university and include post-university
professional development throughout one's career as a practicing school administrator.

3.4.2 The Evolution of Administrator Certication

By 1701, the General Court of Massachusetts decreed that every grammar-school master to be approved by
the minister of the town, and the ministers of the two next adjacent towns or any town of them, by certicate
under their hand (Cole, 1957, p. 72). Woellner (1949) stated there were two main areas of competence that
were implied by certication: academic preparation and professional preparation (p. 251). A framework was
established early on by government in relation to standards of quality for teachers. In so doing, it reinforced a
responsibility that the state had in governing American education. A system of licensing qualied educators
to teach, and later administer, schools can be traced to the simple need to ensure competent teachers and
The certicated educational administrator was a slowly evolving state expectation for those who would
lead and manage K-12 schools and school districts. The issue of administrator certication was closely linked

18 This content is available online at <>.


to the rise of university preparation programs. Columbia University became the rst program of study in
educational administration at the beginning of the twentieth century. States, in establishing a credentialing
system for principals and superintendents in the early 1900's, turned to the newly emerging discipline of
educational administration to deliver the training component required of the certication system. By the
close of the 20th century, over 500 colleges and universities oered a course of study in the eld of educational
administration (Levine, 2005).

3.4.3 Requiring Professional Training in Educational Administration

Over the course of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, states gradually assumed responsibility for standards
of quality for teachers and administrators. It was during the 20th century, however, that administrator
certication became a requirement in all fty states. For a brief amount of time in the 1990s principals and
superintendents had to present state approved certicates in all 50 states that showed evidence of pre-service
university training before they could be hired in local public schools.
The certication of school administrators became a state monitored standard of quality that emanated
from the people through its state departments of education. What was once a local need to ensure mastery
of academic knowledge and professional ability in teaching became a comprehensive system of review that
grew with each state's widening responsibility to educate its citizens and insure educational quality. Local
communities were not equipped to handle the bureaucratic oversight of a credentialing system. Departments
of education centralized certication under the state umbrella at about the same time programs in educational
administration began to proliferate in order to support the state credentialing system.
Administrator certication had a very slow trajectory of growth and acceptance during the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. In 1854, only Pennsylvania required superintendents to have a certicate of qual-
ication. By 1900, it was still the only state with such a requirement. From 1900 to 1957, however, 45
states issued certicates for superintendents, 46 for high school principals, and 45 for elementary principals
(Howsam & Morphet, 1958, p. 79). As states embraced their responsibility to establish standards of quality
through certication of school administrators, programs of preparation were established within universities.
Universities were the logical source of training to ensure that the quality standards established by the states
were met through the educational administration curriculum. Columbia University began oering courses
within its teacher training program in 1899 (Teachers College Record, 1919, p. 276). Prior to that time,
educational administration was considered part of teaching and incorporated into a general responsibility
for managing the aairs of schooling. Thus, at the beginning of the 20th century, the eld of educational
administration existed as an idea that took shape as a specialized program of study. From this beginning
educational administration evolved and grew into a professional eld of study that shaped how principals
and superintendents approached the task of leading America's schools.
Establishing a program of preparation through the university was a logical, and practically speaking, the
only viable approach to training educational administrators as an extension of state certication. Educa-
tional administration followed the same path many other professions took to gain academic and professional
credibility by becoming a university-based program. Howsam and Morphet (1958) indicated that by the late
1950's, state certication regulations generally called for a person to have a teaching certicate, experience
in teaching or other educational work, and college courses in educational administration and supervision
before he can qualify for an administrative certicate (p. 81).
University preparation and increased credit requirements for state certication accelerated during the
1940's and 1950's spurred by the post war generation that emphasized education. By 1957, the bachelor's
degree had become the minimum accepted level for an administrative certicate, and only a few states accept
it as adequate. Most states are requiring the master's degree for the superintendent and approximately half
are requiring it for the high school and elementary school principal (Howsam & Mophet, 1958, p. 88).
The rise of the professional educational administrator can be linked to the intent of the state to create
the conditions for quality in the leadership capacity of educators who became principals of schools and
superintendents of K-12 school districts.
As more universities oered educational administration, the curriculum evolved and expanded to include
in-depth study of organization, nance, instruction, personnel, school law, and content related to leading

and managing schools. Courses in knowing how to perform the roles of principal and superintendent were
lled with practical knowledge and necessary skills which were then sanctioned by state certication.
Michigan, as the last state to adopt administrator certication in the United States in 1991, was the high
water mark for the singular pursuit of certicated administrators as an indicator of quality for educational
leadership. It was about this time, however, that educational administration certication, within the context
of educational reform across the U.S., was assailed as a state supported barrier keeping otherwise qualied
and successful leaders from serving as reformers in the nation's schools. Michigan became the last state to
adopt administrator certication in 1991 and, within ve years, it had repealed the requirement of state
certication for principals and superintendents. The ecacy of a closed credentialing system that focused
primarily upon the pre-service training of principals and superintendents was described by Levine (2005) as
an unworkable training model in need of reform. Thus, the stage was set for rethinking school administrator

3.4.4 Preparation in Educational Administration: New Expectations and Pres-

At the beginning of the twenty-rst century, the issue of certication by university preparation programs
in educational administration was being questioned in regard to its overall relevance to the job of lead-
ing complex educational organizations. Howsam and Morphet (1958) wrote that states had come to rely
completely upon evidence of satisfactory institutional preparation as the basis for granting administrative
certicates (p. 86). Although the university-based program of study was the foundation for educational
leadership training in the United States for over one hundred years, the issue of a relevant knowledge base
that could be transmitted to aspiring, as well as experienced administrators, challenged university programs
of preparation to look at course content and curriculum delivery. As educational administration entered its
second one hundred years as a professional eld there was a decided shift in thinking about the long term
career value of educational administration training with a pre-service focus.
A pre-service emphasis in training through university programs in educational administration (typically
at the Master's degree level) was never considered the comprehensive answer for preparing and continuing
the professional development of school leaders. With a national baby boom bubble of retirees in the rst
decade of the twenty-rst century from K-12 administration came unprecedented rates of turnover in building
and district level leadership positions. This turnover, and an increasing desire to reform education through
the board room, created opportunities for political agendas favoring the recruitment of school leaders from
business, military, and other elds. The eld of educational administration was confronted with the challenge
of adapting a knowledge base for aspiring educational leaders who came from both truncated career paths
within education and from alternative degree and experience backgrounds outside education.
As the ratio of experienced to inexperienced school administrators and educators tipped, the ranks of
school leaders became more diverse and the more traditional systems of internships, mentoring, and coaching
on the job began to falter. This, coupled with pressure for change in how school leaders performed their roles,
created a void in the ways and means for the profession to continue maturing beyond the foundation laid
down by university preparation programs. School leaders emerged from their university degree preparation
only partly prepared to assume their new roles in K-12 administration and with signicant need for ongoing
focused professional development to deal with the demands of their jobs. The jobs were becoming more
complex and the stakes for meeting those challenges driven by new state and federal accountability systems.
University preparation programs could only reach so far into school leaders' actual performance and were on
their own to apply a body of knowledge, theory, and practice in a constant state of ux.

3.4.5 Changing the Paradigm of Preparation

The need for training educators for lifetime roles as educational leaders has, thus, evolved beyond an emphasis
on merely preparing educators to assume roles in school administration to one of transmitting an evolving
and maturing knowledge base in educational administration practice. This required a model and process
for preparation and ongoing development that began with a solid foundation of research backed knowledge

skills, competencies, and dispositions (Waters & Grubb, 2004) and builds on that foundation in ways that
enhance the performance of educational leaders over a career. Educational leaders, however, were assuming
roles in schools that did not always conform to the traditional educational administration curriculum. School
administration and leadership were no longer uniformly dened sets of responsibilities designed for a stable
context; rather, they were an amalgam of dynamic and rapidly changing roles for a system under stress and
under signicant pressure for fundamental change. As a result, there were two main areas that the eld of
educational administration began to address to improve educational leadership training.
First, university-based preparation did not fully address meaningful ongoing professional growth over
the course of a career even when school leaders pursued post-masters level graduate work. University-
based educational administration programs, in the United States, were primarily designed for pre-service
introduction and academic overview of knowledge, skills, competencies, and dispositions needed by those
who aspired to move into, or advance to, a new administrative role in K-12 education. As such, university
preparation programs were organized around core elements of general school administration at the building
or district level but not tailored to given contexts, not agile at addressing current issues, and not designed
to follow, assist, and continue to develop school leaders in the course of actual professional practice in given
school leadership roles.
Second, states continued to rely on universities as the primary provider and venue for credentialing school
leaders; yet, they were also concerned about standards of practice, quality of performance, improving compe-
tency, increasing eectiveness, and stimulating continuous growth and adaptation among school leaders once
they entered the eld. These concerns rose directly out of the needs of school districts facing unprecedented
challenges and high-stakes accountability. University-based courseware and programs were well suited for
preparing individuals (especially trained educators) for specic levels and functions of school administration,
but they were not designed to address the myriad ways in which school administrators with varied back-
grounds and career paths must adapt to and address increasingly unstable conditions in the specic contexts
and circumstances they administer. State level initiatives targeted at improving school leader eectiveness
in the eld were beginning to look beyond the universities for school administrator continuing education.
The traditional university graduate programs in educational administration assume a grounding in teach-
ing and learning and do not adapt easily to alternatively degreed and/or experienced individuals who were
making a career shift into school administration. These and other factors, such as high turn-over in ad-
ministrator positions and new research ndings linking principal and superintendent leadership to student
achievement (Marzano, Waters, & Mc Nulty, 2005; Reeves, 2006; Marzano & Waters, 2007), increasingly
demanded more pre- and post-credentialing options for training, updating, coaching, and mentoring school
leaders. The expansion of public school alternatives (charters) and a range of pressures for change, adapta-
tion, and reform in the public school system began to stimulate a rethinking of school leader recruitment,
training, development, and credentialing at the local, state, and federal policy levels (e.g. NCLB).
The eld of educational administration recognizes the importance of ongoing career training post-
master's, post-specialist, and post-doctoral in considering the education of our nation's school leaders. Local
boards and legislators look both within and beyond the ranks of traditionally prepared educators and educa-
tional leaders for the leadership needed to reform schools with poor student achievement track records. New
technologies and new research are reshaping the practice of school leadership, and state credentialing systems
are beginning to respond with both higher standards for initial certication and additional requirements be-
yond initial certication based on evidence of continued learning and, in some cases, actual performance in
the job.

3.4.6 Redening Leadership Roles

As these responses take shape and translate into statutory changes in state credentialing systems, common
themes begin to emerge. States are beginning to expand the professional development requirements for
school leaders, at all levels, so that training is ongoing and continues throughout a career; thus supporting
change and adaptation as the American education system evolves. Additionally, the eld of educational
administration in the twenty-rst century is beginning to recognize the critical role of the teacher as leader
giving rise to teacher leadership as part of the continuum of recognized school leadership roles. Educational

administrationand especially the core of instructional leadershipconsists of training and skill development
around a knowledge base that has relevance for all educational professionals involved in decision-making for
the improvement of educational outcomes. Therefore, a dynamic knowledge base must be learned and
mastered by those wishing to enter the profession as leaders and by the teacher leaders who will play a
critical role in any reform and improvement eort. The notion that a leader from another profession could
assume the role of an educational leader without a thorough grounding in the educational administration
knowledge base was, and continues to be, a faulty assumption.
The information age has re-connected teacher leadership to the teacher's historical professional role as
a leader by providing teachers with access to better technologies, better strategies, better understanding of
the teaching and learning process, and better understanding of the educational organization. The reform
movement of the past forty years has broadened the role of the teacher to encompass instructional improve-
ment at both the classroom and school levels. Building and district administrators are no longer viewed as
the sole authority and source of leadership and direction in schools; rather, they are considered the shapers
of focus and the developers of capacity. They are expected to function as learning-leaders (Reeves, 2005)
who build a culture that supports inquiry discovery, professionalism, and collegiality all in the service of
student learning and unprecedented expectations for universal prociency in core learning competencies.
The concept of distributed leadership (Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond, 2004) has gained acceptance as a
practice that is stretched over the social and situational contexts of the school (p. 5). As such, a model
of school leadership training must encompass teachers, aspiring principals and superintendents, as well as
those transitioning into education from business, the military and other professions.

3.4.7 Emerging Continuous Models of Leadership Development and Credential-

On the heels of the charter movement, state policy makers became more ambivalent about school adminis-
trator preparation, licensure, and career paths. Pressures to open school leader positions to non-educators
and alternatively degreed and experienced candidates led to changes in state credentialing statutes to open
up the system. Shortly after 1990, a number of states altered or even eliminated their administrator licensing
and certication requirements. By 2001, ve states had dropped the licensure requirement altogether for
superintendents and two had repealed the requirement for building administrators to be state certied as
well (National Task Force on School Leadership, 2002). During the same time period, another seventeen
states amended their certication requirements to open the door for alternative preparation and experience
in lieu of degrees in education and education administration.
The Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law helped accelerate reform of state credentialing systems
because of the pressure to improve standardized test results. While some states implemented minimal or
relaxed administrator certication, other states began a round of state licensure amendments that included
expanded continuing education requirements, new or revised professional preparation and practice standards
for internships and/or mentoring (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2001). By the fall
of 2006, twelve states were classied as, mandating a two or three-tiered process that requires. . .provisional or
initial certication...another level or two in order to also receive advanced certication (Illinois Commission
on School Leader Preparation, August 2006).
As the trend continued, a few of the advanced certication systems even required performance based
evaluations (Alabama, Arizona, Illinois, and Ohio) while eight of the advanced certication states required
school leaders to develop a portfolio to qualify for either a continuing or advanced certication. As a
nal indicator in the trend to create advanced or enhanced state credentialing systems, four states (Illinois,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia) instituted an endorsement for teacher leaders as well (IL-SAELP Report,
Running parallel to the growing legislative support for two-tiered state credentialing systems was another
trend: revisiting the ways school leaders were recruited, trained, developed, and sustained or supported over
an entire career in K-12 administration. In 1987, the National Commission on Excellence in Educational
Administration (NCEEA) published its recommendations for credentialing systems to address the dierence

between entry-level preparation for successful performance in the eld of educational leadership and post-
training of practicing school administrators (IL-SAELP Report, 2006). This led many states to adopt
credentialing requirements in two phases or tiers, the second of which was linked to evidence of continued
education and (in a few cases) growth in areas of research supported and standards-based practice. These
two-tiered or advanced systems spawned a greater interest in state policy initiatives that picked up where the
traditional university preparation programs left o, i.e. intentional systems of continuing education coupled
with systematic accrual of performance evidence.
To implement these advanced systems of school leader licensure and credentialing, states turned to
funding and research partners for help in establishing policies, programs and processes whereby emerg-
ing, developing, and practicing school leaders could be engaged in a more intentional and coherent
continuum of professional training, development, and application experiences that yielded stronger per-
formance results. In the early 2000's, the Gates Foundation funded a major initiative for training
school leaders to utilize information technologies more eectively in carrying out their leadership roles
( The Broad Founda-
tion initiated a national program to recruit, develop, and place tested school leaders in some of the nation's
most challenged urban school districts.
Around the same time, the Wallace Foundation began its State Action Educational Leadership Project
(SAELP) working with state departments of education, major research and school administrator prepara-
tion university programs, and independent researchers to impact state policy and practice for developing and
supporting school leaders with high-yield leadership practices (including data-informed decision making) at
the building level. Future work will focus on district level leaders. Under Bill Gates' leadership, Microsoft
also stepped directly into the work of reshaping state level systems for school leadership development with
its Partners in Learning initiative utilizing leadership practices that correlated with raising student achieve-
ment and/or emulated proven leadership strategies from the private sector (MI-LIFE Project, Michigan
Department of Education, 2007).
These and other similar public/private partnerships surfaced around the countrysome aimed at creating
a national model for redesigning the way the educational system recruits, trains, continually develops, and
supports school leaders at all levels from the teacher ranks to the superintendent and board levels. Other,
more modest eorts are emerging at the state, regional, and local level to help practicing school leaders
create more coherence between the requirements of federal and state accountability systems and the systems
and processes that are shaping local schools. These emergent school leader development projects have some
important common elements that distinguish them from the historical model of (1) preparation through
university programs (i.e. MA, EdS, EdD, and PhD); (2) permanent certication through state credentialing
systems, and (3) varied state continuing education requirements resulting in disconnected, widely varied,
and inconsistently accessed professional development experiences and opportunities thereafter. Some of the
new elements are:

• Increased partnerships and coordination between universities, regional service centers, departments of
education, local districts, regional laboratories, and private foundations and corporations (Darling-
Hammond, et al, 2007).
• Stronger coherence and coordination around state leader preparation and practice standards, national
accreditation standards, and research ndings (Darling-Hammond, et al, 2007).
• Greater emphasis placed on identifying and recruiting potentially stronger and more eective leaders
(Knapp, et al, 2006).
• Greater emphasis placed on the importance of leadership at all levels (teacher leaders, school leaders,
district leaders, and state leaders) coupled with an emphasis of continuous evolution and development
of leadership capacity (Knapp, et al, 2006 and Lambert, 2003).
• Stronger focus on instructional leadership and leadership for change, improvement, and reform (Leith-
wood, et al, 2004).
• Stronger use of both informal and formal internship and mentoring features as specic components of
both initial preparation and continuing education programs (IL-SAELP Report, 2006).
• Emphasis on acquisition and continued enhancement of knowledge, skills, competencies, and practices

(Grogan & Andrews, 2003).

• A greater emphasis on and stronger allocation of resources for applying the major ndings of research
that connects school leadership (teacher, principal, and superintendent) with positive changes in stu-
dent success (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Marzano and Grubb, 2004; Reeves, 2006).

In a special report prepared by the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute and commissioned by the
Wallace Foundation in 2007, the authors (Darling-Hammond, et al) identied ve ndings associated with
exemplary leadership development programs: (1) There are important common features for both pre-service
and in-service programs; (2) People who participate in exemplary programs are better prepared and engage
more consistently in eective practices; (3) Leadership, partnerships, and nancial support are all critical for
building exemplary programs; (4) Designing and delivering eective programs requires creative and exible
funding strategies; and (5) Both state and district policies inuence program design and impact.
The authors of this same study (Darling-Hammond, et al, 2007) go on to include the following in their
list of policy implications: Durable partnerships between districts and universities, as well as state sup-
ports, facilitate consistent, coherent professional development. . .where links are weak and where professional
development is not coordinated with preparation, the eects on leaders' attitudes and behaviorno matter
how eective the programare more likely to fade with time, particularly in challenging school contexts
(Executive Summary, p 21).
The assumption for expanding and improving educational administration professional development was
that universities would just expand their role past the initial credentialing and deliver additional tier cre-
dentialing requirements through the traditionally structured and delivered degree and certication system
, e.g. courses and credit hours. Perhaps the assumption was also, that universities would partner with
local districts and state departments to deliver academies and like experiences for continued professional
development. These assumptions make sense, as far as they go. But noticeably absent in such premises is
the natural role and untapped capacity associated with an educational administration training model that
shapes pre-service credentialing programs with continued or advanced credentialing programs that are not
Michigan's new certication and endorsement statute, for example, clearly recognizes the importance of
an agile and responsive, yet coherent and intentional continuum of recruitment, training, development, and
learning-in-practice experiences that accommodate a variety of career paths to positions of school leadership.
Moreover, the new Michigan credentialing system is grounded in the standards of practice that form the
basis for university preparation programs and the foundation for the state's school improvement system (the
Michigan School Improvement Framework). Between the standards that guide their initial certication and
the state accountability standards for leading their schools and school districts, school leaders in Michigan
now have a credentialing system that will follow teachers, principals, and superintendents throughout a
career in school administration and assist them in applying and rening leadership practices that translate
to improved results for their schools and the students they serve.

3.4.8 Summary
Educational administration has struggled to nd legitimacy and relevancy as a eld for most of the last
one hundred years. The problem was that relevancy was debated around the limits of a university-based
pre-service curriculum. It was within the roles of teacher, principal, and superintendent that the skills,
abilities, and knowledge, were acknowledged and practiced. That is, the profession long recognized a set
of skills and competencies for educational leadership that integrated knowledge utilized in performing one's
role after graduating with a degree from the university.
During the latest reform movement the importance of highly trained and competent educational leaders
became all too evident to the school districts seeking higher levels of student performance. School districts
quickly recognized that training for improved student learning was a necessary requirement for educational
leaders charged with making educational improvement. Appropriate training throughout one's career is the
missing component of educational administration that, in fact, complements the university-based pre-service

program of preparation. The eld of educational administration must recognize that educational leadership
preparation spans a career.
The dynamic environment associated with leading an educational organization demands a lifetime of
learning. More importantly, all educators must recognize this environment as a demanding venue that re-
quires professional development over the course of a career. One can no longer expect a school administrator
to know or understand all of the complexity associated with leading an educational organization upon com-
pletion of a university-based preparation program in educational administration. Educational administration
has become a profession of complexity that requires depth of study and continuous learning throughout one's
professional career.

3.4.9 References
Broad Foundation.The broad residency in urban education. Retrieved September 5, 2008 from
Cole, N. M. (Winter, 1957). The licensing of schoolmasters in colonial Massachusetts. History of Educa-
tion Journal, 8(2), 68-74.
Darling-Hammond, L. Lapointe, M., Meyerson, D. & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a
changing world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, CC: Albert Shanker
Gates Foundation. U.S. partners in learning. Retrieved September 5, 2008 from
20 .
Gousha, R. P., LoPresti, P. L., & Jones, A. H. (1988). Report on the rst annual survey certication
and employment standards for educational administrators. In D. E. Griths, R. T Stout, & P. B. Forsyth
(Eds.), Leaders for America's schools (pp. 200-206). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Grogan, M. & Andrews, R. (2003). Dening preparation and professional development in the future.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 (2), 233-256.
Howsam, R. B. & Morphet, E. L. (March, 1958). Certication of educational administrators, The Journal
of Teacher Education, IX(1), 75-96.
IL-SAELP (Illinois State Action for Educational Leadership Project. An advanced cer-
tication structure to improve student achievement. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from
21 .
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership inuences stu-
dent learning. A Report Commissioned by the Wallace Foundation. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied
Research and Educational Improvement.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Levine, A. Educating school leaders. Washington, D.C. EducationSchools Project. Retrieved September
5, 2008 from
22 .
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2007). School district leadership that works: The ef-
fect of the superintendent leadership on student achievement. A working paper available at
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School Leadership That Works: From Research
to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
NCSL Task Force on School Leadership (2002). The role of school leadership in improving student
achievement. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.


National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2001). Recognizing and encouraging exemplary
leadership in America's schools: A proposal to establish a system of advanced certication for administrators.
Arlington, VA: National Policy Board for Educational Administration.
Reeves, D. (2006). The learning leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., and Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: a
distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.
Wallace Foundation. State Action for Educational Leadership Project. Retrieved, September, 5, 2008
Waters, T. & Grubb, S. (2004). The leadership we need: Using research to strengthen the use of standards
for administrator preparation and licensure programs. Aurora, CO: McRel.
Woellner, R. C. (June, 1949). Teacher certication. Review of Educational Research, 19(3), 250-253.
Russell, J. E. (January, 1919). Teachers College Record, XX(1), 276.

3.5 Reality Check: Designing a New Leadership Program for the

21st Century

Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
the Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration.

School improvement cannot occur without good leadership, and leadership knowledge and skills cannot
be developed without sound school leadership preparation programs.Today, the best school leaders have
cultivated their craft through many years of experience, dependent upon trial and error and self-reection,
and professional development. However, this method does not meet the need to produce the quantity of
quality school leaders needed to turn around poor and failing schools and school districts. A report by the
Southern Regional Education Board (2006) stated, Given the urgency for increased student achievement,
it would seem that redesigning principal preparation programs around leadership practices that have a high
impact on students' learning would be a high priority at every university. Yet, it is not (p. 2). The No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2000) and research substantiates both a
scant supply of talented candidates to lead schools and the importance of these individuals in improving
student achievement (Mazzeo, 2003).
For the past decade, university school leadership preparation programs have been under vigorous scrutiny
by such researchers as Levine (2005) and Murphy (1992). For example, Levine (2005) claimed the quality of
most preparation programs for school leaders ranges from inadequate to appalling (p.24). In the Accidental
Principal, Hess and Kelly (2005) stated that when the contents of 31 programs across the United States
were studied, researchers concluded that principals are not mastering the skills necessary to lead school
improvement and increase student achievement in the 21st Century.
The Research Base of School Leadership Preparation Programs
Recent research has focused on the need to redesign principal preparation programs to select the best
and brightest teacher leaders, provide skills to lead teachers in increasing student achievement, and meet

24 This content is available online at <>.

the challenges of standards-based accountability (Grogan & Andrews 2002; Portin, Knapp, Murphy & Beck,
2003) According to Murphy (1992), the most potent forces for leadership development occur in the context
of ongoing eld work rather than formal classroom settings. When colleges teach subject matter in isolation
of eld experience, this knowledge has little or no transference to practice (Murphy, 1992). Consequently,
the concern of school leaders and researchers is that the knowledge graduate candidates learn in university
classrooms is inapplicable to real-life situations and challenges for school improvement.
In order to design an exemplary program, distributed and shared leadership must be practiced at all
levelsstate, university, and district. Shared/distributed leadership is neither a top-down nor a total grass
roots model. A shared decision making model is the best for total commitment and sustainability. This
has prompted the use and development of partnerships, especially at the university/district level. Successful
partnerships have been developed in places such as East Tennessee State University (West, 2003), University
of Kentucky (Browne-Ferrigno, 2004) and other universities across the country. During district partnership
sessions, East Tennessee based its program on themes rather than distinct subjects (West, 2003). The Uni-
versity of Kentucky Partnership identied the lack of knowledge and dispositions for instructional leadership
as one of the main needs of preparation and professional development programs (Browne-Ferrigno, 2004).
The goal of this paper is to discuss the lessons learned and challenges faced in developing a partnership
program at Southeastern Louisiana University in hopes of helping others in their quest to improve school
leadership preparation program.
Louisiana's Redesign of School Leadership Preparation Programs
In 2001, the state of Louisiana formed a partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB)
that has been instrumental in the development of school leader preparation programs. Support in new
program development and teaching strategies have been oered to help university/district partnerships. In
spring 2005 the Southeastern Louisiana Partnership began the recruitment, selection, and implementation
process for the new school leader preparation program and professional development of sitting school leaders.
This article focuses on the LEAD Southeastern Louisiana Partnership; LEAD is an acronym for Leading,
Engaging, Assessing, and Developing (School Leaders) in Southeastern Louisiana. A knowledge and skills
base for school leadership preparation has been developed and is constantly being reviewed and renewed with
the assistance of such groups as the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) and the
Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). Two major problems with respect to principal preparation exist:
(1) How to bring this new knowledge base to school leaders in the eld through professional development,
and (2) How to design and implement leadership preparation programs to eectively teach these skills. The
focus here is on the latter, concerned especially with examining the creation and implementation of the
new research-based program at Southeastern Louisiana University. The creation process began in 2001,
implementation with the rst cohort of students in fall 2005, and the collection of the rst assessments
and surveys in May 2006. An example of the design and implementation process of a new school leader
preparation program and the challenges of the change process are presented in this article. Until 2005, the
plans had only been on paper, and now the reality check is in the implementation.
Leadership Development Framework
Leadership occurs at all levels of the learning community. In England, Southworth and Doughty (2006)
describe the leadership development framework of the National College for School Leadership as ve stages
of leadership from the teacher stage to consultant stage. The ve stages are: (1) Leading from the Middle,
(2) National Professional Qualication for Headship, (3) Early Headship, (4) Advanced Leadership, and
(5) Consultant Leadership. Although not as highly developed as England's program, the new program in
Louisiana and at Southeastern Louisiana University has recognized three stages where leaders can benet
from knowledge and skill development: teacher leader, school building leader, and district leader.
Each stage of educational development trains school leaders during real eld-based experience with district
and university mentors. The goal is to prepare exemplary people who can make immediate use of their newly
learned skills in the school in which they are leading or in a new leadership position. The state of Louisiana,
the university, and school districts are working together to align every aspect of the process. Endorsements,
certications, and/or degrees result at the successful completion of each level, with ongoing support and
training guidance from the LEAD Southeastern Louisiana Partnership and the state. The purpose of LEAD

is to recruit and select exemplary educational leaders at all levels of leadership identied in our state. Three
core programs (described in full at the state's website, ) are designed to prepare teacher
leaders, entry-level principals, and superintendents.
Teacher Leader Endorsement
This endorsement reects the theory of shared and distributed leadership and is designed to assist teachers
improve eectiveness in raising student achievement and leading faculty teams. The goal is to create a
leadership team of two to four teacher leaders with in each school in our service area. At the completion of
the program each teacher leader has the option of continuing in the degree program or assuming the role
of leading school-based teams. The requirements include a teaching certicate, 3 years successful teaching
experience, and completion of a state-approved Teacher Leader Institute which incorporates:

1. A minimum of 6 graduate hours (90 contact hours).

2. A combination of face-to-face and eld-based professional development activities that may include the
use of a cohort approach.
3. Support from and mentoring by current outstanding administrators serving as mentors and facilitators.
4. An electronic component (online or compressed video) to ensure each participant's access to key re-
sources and to build a statewide network of qualied administrator candidates that may include the
development of cohorts.
5. The development and presentation of a culminating portfolio that provides evidence that knowledge
gained and skills acquired are aligned with national and state leader standards.

Educational Leader Certicate  Level 1 and 2

The Educator Leader Certicate  Levels 1 and 2 are mandated for all who aspire to school and dis-
trict leadership positions, assistant principal, and principal and includes on-the-job training and mentoring
from an advanced school leader. Components of the certicate include the completion of a competency-based
graduate degree preparation program in the area of educational leadership from a regionally accredited insti-
tution of higher education; a passing score (168 recommended)on the School Leaders Licensure Assessment
(SLLA); upon employment, enrollment in a 2-year Educational Leader Induction Program, which must be
completed within 3 years. At the successful culmination of this induction, a Level 2 Certicate is awarded.
Educational Leader Certicate  Level 3
Educational Leader Certicate  Level 3 is inclusive of Levels 1 and 2 and is requisite of those who aspire
to become a superintendent and may be enhanced by an earned doctorate degree (Ed.D.) from the new
Consortium for School Leadership, a joint program from Southeastern Louisiana University and University
of Louisiana at Lafayette. To earn this certicate, students must have 5 years successful experience at the
level of principal or above; a passing score (154 recommended) on the School Superintendent Assessment
(SSA); and a passing score on the School Leadership Licensure Assessment, which is a new certication test
from the Educational Testing Service School Leader Portfolio Assessment. To renew any certication, each
educator must complete a minimum of 150 Continuous Learning Units of Professional Development over a
5-year period that is consistent with Individual Professional Growth Plan and that includes updating the
educational leader portfolio.
How to Design a School Leader Preparation Program
The new school leadership program at Southeastern Louisiana University incorporates the Educational
Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC)standards and draws from the best practices of both the transforma-
tional and shared instructional leadership models in order to develop the leadership skills of aspiring school
leaders (Marks & Printy, 2003). The new preparation program combines the two models of leadership into
an integrated approach. Furthermore, the new program blends the critical mass of technical, human, and
educational forces, as recommended by Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003), into the professional content
(the what) and theory (the why) with practical skills (the how and when) through case studies, simulations,
and extensive eld-based experiences.
Following the creation of a partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) in 2003, the
state of Louisiana mandated that all universities redesign preparation programs for school leaders be based on

the new standards, which are reected in the state certication guidelines. In addition, all university degree
programs are required to be National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) certied.
The LEAD Southeastern Partnership diers from the other Louisiana university/district partnerships
in that it is composed of urban, suburban, and rural school districts with dramatic demographic dier-
ences. Leadership is context-specic, as the National College for School Leadership in England discovered
(Southworth & Doughtly, 2006). The program requires diverse eld experience throughout order to qualify
graduates to work in a variety of settings.
The plan provides professional development for existing school leaders and improving conditions at low
performing schools to increase student achievement. Located on the northern shore of Lake Ponchatrain,
Louisiana, populations within the partnership districts have grown since the natural disaster of Hurricane
Katrina and thus the need for highly qualied school leaders is of foremost importance. Current issues of
culture, diversity, social justice, and various socio-economic groups are prevalent in this area of the Deep
South and add to the many challenges faced in this era of high-stakes testing and high expectations. The
partnership has attempted to design a leadership preparation program that will foster conditions of success
for leadership in a variety of schools.
LEAD Southeastern Louisiana has allied with other leadership preparation programs, professional or-
ganizations, and related educational groups around the country to maintain a current knowledge base of
best practices in principal preparation, related policy issues, and licensure and professional development for
school leaders. These schools and organizations include LEAD Fairfax in Virginia, the National Association
of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), The Gallup Organization, and the SREB.
In 1975, Hills (cited in Murphy, 1992) stated that the educational administrator of the future should un-
derstand and be able to use the skills of developmental psychology, socialization, cultural variation, teaching
and learning, instructional methods and materials, and curriculum development. Murphy (1992) recom-
mended that the preparation program should becomprised of the creation of learning communities that
incorporate the understandings of the human condition; the infusion of content from a greater variety of
areas, especially the humanities; and the use of instructional approaches that promote cooperative eort,
dialog and reection (p. 146). According to Murphy, the goals for training school leaders should concentrate
on the development of model educators. Each school leader is able to articulate and model the use of (1)
an explicit set of values and beliefs, including a strong sense of social justice, to guide their actions; (2)
developmental psychology, socialization, cultural variation, and instructional and curricular methods and
materials; (3) problem solving and inquiry skills; and (4) shared leadership. Murphy (1992) has encouraged
universities to use dierent training models that are thematic-integrated seminars incorporating the capacity
to learn. Candidates should seek knowledge as a tool rooted in action and guided by cognition. Reading
material should be the most current gathered from original sources.
Creating the Plan for School Leadership Preparation
During the early stages of the redesign eort, EDL faculty conducted semi-structured informal interviews
with area principals. Many of the interviews took place at current practicum sites. The interviews were for
the purpose of soliciting specic input from principals, such as sequencing, scheduling, and delivery of courses,
the cohort concept, and the groups' perceptions regarding needed content, skills and eld-based activities
prior to assuming an educational administrator role. Principals were asked in which management/leadership
areas they felt most prepared as they assumed their rst administrative job and in which areas they felt
the least prepared. The purpose was to seek input on the sequencing of courses, scheduling and delivery
of courses, the cohort concept, and their perceived needs regarding needed content and activities prior to
assuming a school leadership role.
Following this, an advisory council was formed and this group conducted focus group interviews within
their districts. All levels of input were acquired and critiqued by the advisory council to decide which to
include in the plan. The draft of the new program and its rationale was presented by a team EDL faculty
and district leaders, followed by small-group activities through which participants helped to incorporate
standards into specic seminars and helped develop competency-based activities. (See Appendices A, B,
and C for interview questions and additional responses.)
Southeastern Louisiana University professor David Stader (2003) constructed and eld tested the Belief

Matrix instrument. It was designed to guide discussions of the importance of understanding beliefs in
decision-making and in formulating a shared school vision throughout the program. Candidates completed
surveys regarding their perceptions of self ecacy in school leadership by using the instrument in guiding
the clarication and articulation of their beliefs. The results of the study revealed that continued use of
the instrument could be of benet to the students and program. Continued research is being conducted on
the Belief Matrix (Stader, 2003) eectiveness of eld based skill development and impact on PK-12 student
The external critique of the plan for redesign of the school leader preparation program was administered
by consultants from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, Canada.
They also met with university and district school leaders and attended focus group presentations, and made
two recommendations: One, begin the graduate studies with instruction and eld based work in leading
teacher teams in how to review research data as a means of examining school context and selecting research
based strategies for school improvement. Two, introduce the methods for facilitating a high performance
learning culture and integrate these methods throughout the remaining seminars (Hill-Winstead & Stader,
2004). After 5 years of collaborative research and examination of best leadership practices, the new school
leadership preparation program was approved for implementation in fall 2005.
Master of Education Degree in School Leadership
Recruitment and Selection
The rst step of the LEAD program was to recruit experienced teachers. District leaders were requested
to nominate exemplary teachers with a minimum of 3 years of teaching experience whom they viewed as
possessing leadership capabilities as future school administrators. These teachers were invited to apply for
admission to the university and enroll in the rst seminar. During this semester, each candidate completes an
application portfolio consisting of letters of recommendation, writing samples, artifacts with corresponding
assessments from the rst seminar, Graduate Record Exam Scores, transcripts, and teaching and leadership
experiences. As part of our partnership with the Gallup Organization, each candidate also is assessed for
leadership dispositions online called Principal Insight. The selection process culminates with a formal group
and individual interview scored according to a rubric and the Belief Matrix (Stader, 2003). The interviewers
are a team of district and university leaders who make the nal selections after analyzing the participant
Structure of Seminars
As an integral part of the program is a series of seminars with embedded eld-based experiences, cul-
minating in a full internship so that graduates may immediately enter the principalship as turn around
change agents. Field-based experiences are planned by university professors with the students and their clin-
ical supervisors/mentors in order to design relevant activities that help the aspiring school leaders develop
leadership skills that produce improved teaching and learning. Through the seminar and eld experience,
each student maintains a reective journal. In addition, reections are self analyzed using the Belief Matrix
(Stader, 2003) which has proven successful for the purposes of dening one's growth and development of skills
and dispositions. Finally,rigorous, ongoing assessment is conducted throughout the seminars. For example,
students are required to lead a team of faculty members in several activities, which are observed and assessed
by the university instructors of record and/or district mentor, using a preset rubric for each. Who developed
the rubric and what are some key items on it?
Face-to-face class sessions are team taught with other professors and school district leaders. Students
proceed through the program as a cohort, sentence is too longmake it two sentences) mirroring the type
of learning community that they need to form in their schools as leader. The cohort model facilitates the
building of group and individual knowledge and the solving of problems from multiple viewpoints.
Thematic seminarsinclude research-based best practices from the Southern Regional Education Board
(SREB), ELCCStandards, action research, portfolio development, and technology utilization. The tradi-
tional knowledge base of leadership/management that features educational theory, history, management,
school/community relations, human resource management, nance and law are integrated throughout the
program. The curriculum spirals with reviewed concepts, new concepts, discovery, and reection. Each
seminar is infused with case study analysis and simulation exercises of technical leadership, instructional

leadership, and professional development for school improvement. The seminars build skills gradually, from
observing, participating, leading small teams to whole faculty, and nally to leading district teams.
Seminar I: Facilitating a high performance learning community. This establishes the foundation of aligning
core beliefs with strategic structures and mission and vision of establishing distributed accountability. Along
with these skills, candidates are taught to lead teacher teams in discussing school improvement. They
begin by deciding what kinds of data are needed to depict a clear picture of the school's present level
of achievement, collecting the data, and nally planning activities for school improvement. Some of the
data is readily available from standardized methods of collection. The teams decide what other data is
needed to examine school practices, what students are taught, how they are taught and what is expected
of them. The team analyzes data and studies research about teaching methods that have proven successful
for students. This provides an initial plan for school improvement so they will have the skills needed to
exercise the best practices of making data-driven decisions and building a vision. At this point, training in
technologyis infused to introduce integration of technology with teaching and learning, as well as to assist
with the establishment of a student's electronic portfolio. After successfully completing the rst seminar,
participants receive their Teacher Leader endorsement from the Louisiana Department of Education. This
is a new certicate endorsement awarded by the state.
Seminar II: Organizational management and legal issues. The focus here is on the legal and scal is-
sues of organizing the learning environment, building and leading eective teams, and coaching for school
improvement. At this point and throughout the program, candidates are required to complete eld-based
activities at a variety of school levels and central oce settings. Through these activities, the candidates
lay a foundation for the practices of collaboration and shared decision-making by leading teams through
problem-solving, consensus-building, and information-sharing. They are also expected to demonstrate e-
cient and eective use of time, space, people, and resources to maximize student learning. Through case
studies, students utilize federal regulations, state laws, and local policies to inform decision-making; through
simulations, they make ethical decisionsin various school management situations.
Seminar III: Human resources and school-community relations. Here participants explore communication
with the learning community, stang and induction, and needs-based professional development of teachers.
Developing eective interpersonal relationships with faculty, sta, and community is the focus of the course,
which lays the foundational skills needed for best practices such as developing relationships and commu-
nicating eectively. Throughout this seminar, students complete eld-based activities of human resource
management, including recruitment, selection, induction, and professional development.
Seminar IV: School leader as instructional facilitator. This program strand concentrates on leading
improvement in literacy and numeracy instruction, as well as methods of dierentiating instruction to meet
the needs of all students. The instructional program is explored through an analysis and evaluation of
curriculum, student assessment, and instruction. Emphasis is placed on the supervision of the teaching
and learning process as it relates to continuous school improvement. The candidates learn how standards,
teaching, and learning are dynamic structures in constant ux; thus, the best practices of mapping and
monitoring the curriculum are continuously practiced.
Seminar V: School leader as change agent. School improvement with an emphasis on the importance
of change and the best practices of action research and data analysis is the objective of this course. Each
candidate concentrates on leading change by understanding self and others, directing sta in the creation of
professional development, and working with others in creating a personalized learning environment. Students
make nal preparations for the action research project to be completed by the end of the nal semester prior
to graduation.
Seminar VI: The internship. The nal seminar is a full internship, with candidates participating in the
beginning and ending activities of the school year, totaling 150 hours of eld-based experience. During
this time, the action research project is completed, in which the students and their respective stakeholders
collaborate on a selected topic for school improvement. More advanced technology training is included in
this seminar; it is designed primarily to provide guidance in the renement of the candidates' electronic
portfolios and to support their action research projects. Leadership projects and artifacts are maintained
in an electronic portfolio that demonstrates individual growth. The prospective leaders work to rene their

electronic portfolios for the nal defense in their educational leadership master's degree program.

3.5.1 Selection and Assignment of Field Sites

Recent research (e.g., Bottoms, 2004; Davis, 2005) supports the use of practicing administrators in the
eld as role models to mentor and help close the gaps among leadership knowledge, theory, and practice.
Mentored experiences over an extended period of time provide the opportunity for greater understanding
on the part of those mentored and are designed to demonstrate the application of the knowledge and skills
emphasized in each instructional seminar.
In the School Leader Preparation program, worksites include public and private educational units. Those
schools and systems used in the preparation of candidates are diverse in community type, school type, enroll-
ment, grade conguration, race, income level, academic performance scores and/or performance designations.
According to Bottoms (2004), educational administration programs need to select knowledgeable, expe-
rienced administrators to serve as coaches and mentors. In the program, potential mentors are nominated
by their supervisors and/or superintendents. Each mentor is selected based on leadership experience, certi-
cation type and area, professional activities, personal qualities, successful use of technology, commitment to
mentoring interns, and successful participation in a mentor training seminar. The mentor training seminar
provides information on tools and strategies to support and supervise eld-based administrative experiences
and consists of a program overview, coaching techniques, shared decision-making activities, and assessment
and evaluation procedures for assessing program candidates.

3.5.2 Assessment of Candidates

Assessment of program participants is accumulated as artifacts in an electronic portfolio platform of PASS-
PORT, developed by the Louisiana Department of Education. Artifacts are documents that provide evi-
dence of a standards-based leadership experience and include traditional written narratives and tests, self-
assessments, and eld-based observation assessments. Periodically throughout the six semesters of the pro-
gram, candidates must successfully pass through a series of portals or gates in order to continue to the next
program component. They are required to submit a minimum of two artifacts per seminar for their portfolio.
These documents are evaluated using standards-based rubrics developed by university faculty and advisory
council members. Students are required to cite the relevant standards for school leaders with respect to the
evidence submitted. In addition, each portfolio artifact is accompanied by a reective summary describing
how it documents mastery of the related standard.
The portfolio documents become part of the formative and summative evaluation process. In addition to
traditional methods (e.g., written work, tests) for evaluating and monitoring student progress, the acquisition
of skills associated with each seminar is documented by the artifacts and evaluated through the use of rubrics.
As students progress through the program, each portfolio entry is evaluated by the professor of record. As
part of the summative program assessment, artifacts are formally presented for defense before a committee
of graduate faculty members and eld administrators serving as mentors.

3.5.3 Methods for Evaluating and Modifying Program Components

Program evaluation regarding the eectiveness of curriculum and eld activities in meeting the needs of their
respective school districts is being conducted through surveys completed by program participants, mentors
and/or clinical supervisors, and university faculty. Over time, school leadership success factors (e.g., pro-
fessional development opportunities, student discipline, and teacher satisfaction) that are not measured by
traditional accountability reports, notably standardized test scores, are examined to determine the longitu-
dinal impact of the school leadership preparation program and its prospective leaders. For each eld-based
project completed and implemented by candidates, a self-developed survey is distributed to stakeholders
(e.g., teachers, parents, students [as appropriate], administrators) to determine their level of satisfaction
with the overall performance of the candidates during that seminar. Additionally, follow-up surveys are

distributed to school and district administrators to determine their perceptions of the preparedness and
eectiveness of program participants involved in eld experiences and internships at their respective sites.
Each candidate is surveyed at the end of Seminars II and V to determine individual levels of satisfaction
with the program and the quality of instruction. These evaluations are used to provide the data necessary
to monitor, evaluate, and modify the program as needed. The data are collected through the PASS-PORT
electronic assessment system. Other data, such as student opinions of teaching and exit surveys are used to
provide additional information regarding the quality of the program.
Analysis of the results is conducted by the university sta and members of the advisory council, who
then carry on the processes of program evaluation, formal discussion and dialogue, and collaborative decision
making before making recommendations for program improvement. Approved changes are then systemati-
cally studied to measure their eects on the program and, consequently, on the leaders being produced by
this program.
Results from Surveys and Assessments
The rst two cohorts completed surveys, some individually and some in focus groups. Mentors and eld
site school principals completed an open-ended evaluation of the program. Superintendents wrote letters of
opinion. Professors completed an electronic evaluation.
Cohort Surveys and Assessments
When asked if the rst 6 hours met their expectations, students asked for more eld experiences and
less lecture (face-to-face) time, additional assessment during the semester, and extra eld time with their
mentors. They felt a lack of district and school recognition, support, and approval. Some felt afraid to talk
to their site principal, even when they had a school leader mentor from another site. Some reported that
other teachers who had completed another graduate program complained about the attention and release
time for cohort members. They reported the need for more communication with mentors and release time
for eld experience. The artifacts generated by each student in their electronic portfolios have been, on the
whole, judged to be of high quality. (See Appendix D.)
Evaluations from Mentors and Field Site School Principals
When asked about their impression of the program, school leaders notedthat they really appreciated
the attention and skill development for aspiring school leaders and wished that their preparation program
had been this intense. They expressed a concern for time spent away from the classroom to conduct eld
experience. A need for a thorough mentor preparation workshop was noted. Several respondents expressed
appreciation for the advanced learning they received as a result of site visits by the university mentor: as in,
You have made me think of my school and student achievement in new ways I never thought of before. I
have learned so much from this experience. One principal took the opposite point of view by criticizing the
program when he said, I will encourage any of my teachers who want to get a master of education degree in
school leadership to go to Mississippi. They don't have this crazy program there. Teachers should be able to
get a degree without all of this interference from the university. I don't have time to deal with this. Clarify
what this quote means
Letters from Superintendents
Superintendents expressed concerns of sustainability and wondered if their district could continue the
leadership program if funds were reduced. Others did not want their teachers out of the classroom and
thus were opposed to release time. Some expressed concern about nominating teachers for the leadership
program, resulting in perceived favoritism and complaints. One superintendent said, I am proceeding with
caution about this dierent way of preparing school leaders. I need to know more. She continued to explain
that she had not been active in the design of the program, and had sent a representative in her place. Now,
during implementation, she felt like she needed to be more involved in the decision making process.
Survey of Professor Views
Some professors believed that the new program could make a real impact on PK-12 student achieve-
ment and school leadership. A few felt that the most of the workload for design and implementation was
being placed on junior faculty, without compensation for tenure and promotion. Other professors were very
concerned about the amount of eld work and didn't know how they were going to have time to travel to
districts. These professors were concerned about their subject area being covered thoroughly due to the lack

of real lecture time. Lecturing about subjects such as law, nance, history of education, and other subjects
were a very important missing ingredient of the new program. Since the content and method of delivery of
many parts of the program had been mandated through the process of state approval and strict curriculum
alignment to standards, some professors believed that their academic freedom had been curtailed. Still,
others believed that their academic freedoms had been breeched due to the.
Reality Check: Lessons Learned and Challenges Faced
Change is dicult, especially in the implementation stages. Even though partnerships were formed
to create shared and distributed leadership for the development of the new preparation and development
program, at this time some resistance to change is being experienced. Perhaps those who chose not to be
involved in the design process may become involved now as the program is modied as an outcome of the
program evaluations.
Not surprisingly, this new process of preparing school leaders through eld experience was a major
paradigm shift for area school leaders, especially superintendents. Assurances that this was a partnership
and paradigm shift were dicult to accept by many area leaders. In addition, school district leaders were
reluctant to nominate exemplary teachers for the program fearing accusations of favoritism from teachers.
The shift to the new paradigm at the university level was met with the challenge to include more people in
the process.
Field experiences are a challenge to manage. Some clinical supervisors and mentors have to experience
additional professional development in order to provide appropriate guidance to candidates. During the
implementation of the program, the university initially struggled with providing appropriate training of
mentors as well as university sta. With training and additional support from SREB programs, such as the
Training Mentors for School Improvement module, this process was better facilitated.
Future plans include addressing the challenges of diversity and social justice, moving away from the status
quo, and nding new solutions to unanticipated problems. Murphy (1992) has stated that school leaders
were often former teachers residing within a 25 to 50 mile radius of the school they now lead. Additionally,
most schools seem to promote from within with little regard to skill. If a broader pool of leaders could be
tapped, the educational and skill level may increase. It is hoped that a more national and global leadership
community may be developed using the technology of distance learning and capstone experiences. In this
way, professors, administrators, and administrative candidates could share and benet from appropriate eld
experiences and unfamiliar perspectives in their region or state.
The authors believe that the new program of leadership development and preparation will be successful,
even though the program is in its infancy. However, according to a study conducted by Davis (2005), leader-
ship programs that were concept-driven, cohort-based, and eld-based scored higher on the School Leaders
Licensure Assessment (SLLA), received higher performance ratings by supervisors, and were perceived by
teachers as being more eective. It is hoped that this new leadership program will train new leaders to make
a notable dierence in school improvement and student achievement in Southeastern Louisiana University's
service area.
The recent focus on the importance of school leadership and its eects on school improvement has put
school leader preparation programs under scrutiny and prompted them to redesign. Even though new
research is being conducted, the task of preparing educational administrators has suered from a lack of
clarity and paucity of systematic scholarly inquiry. This examination of Southeastern Louisiana University'
new program contributes to the knowledge base for school leadership preparation because it is a leader in
the arena of state, university, and school district(s) collaboration to educate all students eectively and
A deeper understanding about the impact of school leadership as a means for promoting social justice
and democracy especially in the Deep South are needed. The ongoing outcomes of Southeastern Louisiana
University's school leader preparation program may provide better understandings of how to integrate pow-
erful transformative and instructional learning experiences into preparation program design, content, and
eld experience to develop leadership capacity. There is much to be learned as these new leadership prepa-
ration programs unfold throughout the nation. It is hoped that an ever-evolving research base will help all

institutions of school leadership preparation and professional development to learn from each other.
Bottoms, G., & O'Neill, K. (April, 2001). Preparing a new breed of principals: It's time for ac-
tion. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. (01V17) Monograph retrieved April 2, 2006 from
Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2004). Principals excellence program: Developing eective school leaders through
unique university-district partnership. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 5 (2), 24-36.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: De-
veloping successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute in conjunction with
the nance project commissioned by the Wallace Foundation.
Fry, B., O'Neill, K. & Bottoms, G. (2006). Schools can't wait: Accelerating the redesign of university
principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Grogan, M. & Andrews, R. (2002). Dening preparation and professional development for the future.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233-256.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reections on the practice of instructional and trans-
formational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351.
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, P. M. (2005, Summer). The accidental principal. Education Next.
(No.3). Hoover Institution, Leland Stanford Junior University. Retrieved May 17, 2006, from
Hill-Winstead, M. F. & Stader, D. (2004, April). Responding to the challenge of reforming leadership
preparation programs: A standards based preparation pyramid. Paper presented at American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.
King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 61-63.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership (Rev. ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Center
for Research in Human Development and Education, Laboratory for Student Success. Retrieved April 18,
2006, from
Levine, A. (March, 2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.
Louisiana Educational Leaders Network. (2005) Educational Leadership Certi-
cation Structure. Retrieved May 24, 2006 from
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of
transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Mazzeo, C. (September 12, 2003). Issue brief of the Educational Policy Studies Division, National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Washington, DC: Wallace Foundation, National Governors'
Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of principal preparation: Reframing the education of school adminis-
trators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Portin, B. S., Knapp, M., Murphy, J., & Beck, L. (2003). Self-reective renewal in schools. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: A reective practice perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Southworth, G. & Doughty, J. (2006). A ne British blend. Educational Leadership, 63(8), 51. Stader,
D. (April, 2003). A framework for reection and clarifying dispositions. Paper presented at the Louisiana
Association of Professors of Educational Administration. Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond,
U.S. Department of Education. (2002, January 8). No Child Left Behind Act of
2001. Washington, DC: Oce of Elementary and Secondary Education. [Online]. Available:
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What
thirty years of research tells us about the eect of leadership on student achievement. Au-
rora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved April 2, 2006, from
West, R. F. (November 7, 2003). Integrating the SREB modules into the principal preparation program at
East Tennessee State University: A progress report. Paper prepared for the University Continuing Education
25 Convention, Learning for Leadership and Leadership for Learning. Portland, OR.
Appendix A
Beginning Principals
It may have seemed like you were thrown to the wolves when you became principals. Tell us what we
need to teach new and aspiring principals.

1. What did you need to be successful?

2. What content in college classes did you need to use?
3. How should we address this content?
4. What types of eld activities do candidates need?
5. How can we best prepare candidates to pass the licensure test?
6. What type of support do you need from the university?

Appendix B
Survey of Region 2 Superintendents and Administrators in Louisiana
A rigorous system that chooses only the best candidates for principal preparation will encourage more
talented educators to seek out leadership programs, National Governors Association. How can universities
and school systems work together to tap or select the right individuals for leadership preparation? Here
are some ideas gathered from brainstorming sessions at the SREB Leadership Initiative summer conference.
Please check the ideas that you will support for recruitment and selection in your district.
_ Demonstrates success in raising achievement for all students
_ Shows leadership in coaching other teachers to raise student achievement
_ Recommended by high-performing principals
_ Implemented innovative learning strategies in their classrooms
_ Challenges all students through rigorous, standards-based teaching
_ Integrates technology into daily teaching
_ Good communications, human relations and organizational skills
_ Ability to motivate
_ National Board certied
_ won awards and recognition
_ earned a master's degree in a content area
_ Active in professional organizations
_ Provide professional development for other teachers
_ Worked collaboratively on teaching/learning issues
_ Written successful grant proposals focused on student achievement
_ Works successfully on teaching teams
_ Can analyze research and apply it to practice
_ Uses student data and work samples to make instructional decisions
_ Shows leadership in the larger community
_ Articulates and implement a vision
_ Committed to continuous improvement
_ Joint screening by university and school system leaders
_ Nomination by principals, peers and parents


_ Assessment tools like Myers-Briggs, leadership style inventories, 360-degree competency-based instru-
_ Self-assessment
_ Portfolios documenting teaching and leadership skills
_ Screening protocols based on the SREB leadership success factors
_ Direct interviews and conversations with peers
_ Observations and videos of classroom and peer teaching
_ Simulations and role plays
_ Biographical sketches
_ Demonstration of eective oral and written communications skills
_ Candidate analysis of case studies
_ Willingness to work in high-need schools
_ Mini-courses that expose potential candidates to the challenges of leadership
_ Gateway internships to gauge leadership potential
_ List other ideas

3.5.4 Block 1- Organizational Management

1. Bring the school vision to life by using it to guide shared-decision making about students and the
instructional programs enhancing sta/ school and community relations.
2. Monitor and evaluate school operations and use feedback appropriately to enhance eective-
ness/manage scal resources/time management.
3. Apply laws, policies, regulations and procedures fairly, consistently, wisely and compassionately that
promotes positive school environment.

Additional Activities: must have the ability to organize, oversee, and promote special education.

3.5.5 Block 2 - Building Management

1. Maintain open communication with the school community, and eectively convey high expectations
for student learning to the community.
2. Work collaboratively with the school community to develop and maintain a shared school vision.
3. Use research and data from multiple sources to design and implement professional dev. act.
4. Provide incentives for learning and growth and encourage participation in professional dev. activities
at national/ state and parish levels.
5. To eectively use teacher evaluation.

Additional Activities:

• · Scenarios to role play.

· Attend two similar parental involvement activities and compare.
· Add: Conict Resolution .


1. $$ - new limitations on funds.

2. Assessments: individual or group?

3.5.6 Block 3- Community Relations

1. Write a mission statement.
2. Communicate mission statement to school community.
3. Understand techniques/strategies for shared decision making and team building.
4. Identify organizational structure and team members and the role of each.
5. Develop an instrument to survey the school community foster and strengthen the vision.

3.5.7 Block 4 - School Leader as Instructional Facilitator

1. Analyze test scores  individual, grade level, school wide, district wide.
2. Observe, assess and evaluate instruction.
3. Analysis of lesson plans.
4. Knowledge in curriculum development by grade level and subject area.
5. Implement and follow through with the evaluative process.

Time/ support from the university

3.5.8 Block 5 - School Leader as Change Agent

1. Strategies for monitoring progress.
2. Methods of data collection.
3. Research, measurement, and assessment strategies.
4. Technological use.
5. Security and allocating resources.
6. Interview process for new teachers (design the school process0. Include interpretation of SAM.
7. Question: Timeline for cohorts.

3.5.9 Block 6 - Internship

1. Each system will be responsible for their own interns.
2. Concern over the number of contact hours: 2/6 hours.
3. Dierent setting important.
4. Involved in the opening and closing of schools.
5. Financing the interns?
6. How much involved in personal? Legal Question.

Appendix D
COHORTS 1 and 2
This is the protocol for your focus group discussion. None of your professors will be present. This ensures
that your discussion and responses will be private. You will need to select a facilitator and a recorder. Discuss
each question and provide your input. Thank you for your participation.
Did the rst seminar meet your expectations?

• need more practical, real-life eld experience

• need less lecture-type presentation of information  more hands-on
• we liked our mentors and appreciated eld experiences, especially shadowing
• can SLU do more to encourage district participation?
• more feedback from instructors throughout the semester

What does a Teacher Leader need?

• district recognition, support and approval

• district communication with principals
• principal support and encouragement (afraid to talk to their site principal)
• greater communication
• time o from teaching position (release time)

What would you like to learn in Seminar 2?

• focus on legal issues

• what is coaching?

What would you like to learn in remaining seminars?

• what I need to know to be an eective, licensed administrator

• we are concerned about being prepared for the position of administrator  our degree will imply
knowledge that we must have

What other comments do you have?

• additional assessment during the semester

• extra eld time with their mentors
• lack of district and school recognition, support, and approval
• other teachers who had completed another graduate program complained about the attention and
release time



Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
the Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration.

Schools and colleges around the world must be culturally competent in order to prepare students to succeed
in an increasingly diverse and globally interconnected environment. Generally dened, culturally competent
educational organizations value diversity in both theory and practice and make teaching and learning relevant
and meaningful to students of various cultures (Klotz, 2006).Educational leaders must be equipped with the
necessary tools to assess how well policies, programs, and practices align with the needs of diverse groups
and prepare people to interact globally.The culture audit is a valuable organizational assessment tool to
guide strategic planning for diversity and global competence. Potential domains of focus and data collection
strategies for schools and colleges are illustrated here. Cultural competence assessment strategies could

26 This content is available online at <>.


be included in graduate educational leadership programs to better prepare educational administrators to

eectively manage diverse schools and colleges.
What is a Culture Audit?
Researchers agree that school culture is an important, yet often overlooked, component of school im-
provement (Freiberg, 1998; Peterson & Deal, 1998). Wagner and Madsen-Copas (2002) stress the value of
culture audits in determining the quality and health of school cultures and recommends using a ve step
auditing process that includes: interviews, observations, surveys, checklists, and presentations to community
The concept of school culture is further complicated by the multiplicity of racial/ethnic cultures that are
typically represented in schools and colleges. For this reason, organizational culture assessments are essential
to ensuring the development of cultural competence in schools (Lindsey, Robins, & Terrell, 2003). Culture
audits examine how diverse cultural perspectives are reected in the values and behaviors manifested in the
overall school culture (National Center for Cultural Competence, 2005).
Just as a nancial audit reveals strengths and gaps in nancial procedures and practices to inform
strategic plans for nancial improvement, a culture audit focuses on how well an organization incorporates
perspectives of diverse groups to inform comprehensive school improvement.
Primary Domains of Analysis in School and College Settings
Practicing educational leaders frequently want to know what a culture audit really looks like. While
auditing formats may vary depending on the specic school, college, or district, there are some key areas
that can be examined to determine strengths and needs.
To help educational leaders visualize how a culture audit might look, the diagram below reects ten
potential domains of focus for conducting culture audits in schools and colleges. The domains are not meant
to be exhaustive and may be expanded or reduced to accommodate the needs and interests of the individual

Based on professional experience, research, and literature on organizational cultural competence and
prociency (Bustamante, 2005), examples of culturally competent practices are listed under each domain to
provide a better sense of the kind of factors that can be observed in a culture audit.

1. Vision/Mission

• Stated commitment to diversity.

• Integrated global perspectives.

1. Curriculum

• Literature selections reect a variety of cultural perspectives.

• Integration of world views, geography, and history.
• Linguistic and content objectives are addressed for second language learners.

1. Students

• Balanced racial/ethnic representation in advanced placement, honors, gifted programs.

• Regular meetings held with randomly selected groups to obtain feedback and consider student voice
in decision-making.

• Variety of student leadership development opportunities for all students.

• Observed inter-racial/inter-ethnic social integration among students.
• Support programs to promote achievement and retention of lower achieving groups.
• Student-initiated community service.

1. Teachers/faculty

• Conscious recruitment of diverse groups.

• Mentoring and support programs for new teachers.
• Vertical and horizontal teacher teaming according to individual strengths, leadership abilities, and
• Conscious integration eorts to diverse teacher teams.
• Professional development that addresses race, culture, and language opportunities and challenges.
• Focused, long term professional development.

1. Teaching and learning

• Dierentiated instruction.
• Researched strategies that account for various learning styles.
• Technology integration.
• Connections to student culture and prior knowledge.
• Second language learning and teaching strategies.
• Service learning.

1. Communities

• Outreach to various local community constituency groups.

• Inclusion of all potential stakeholder groups in community-building forums through use of parent
• Parent involvement programs for all culture groups.
• Established national and global ties through partnerships with similar organizations.
• Realization and utilization of the electronic community for relationship building and sourcing best

1. Conict resolution

• Recognition of the inevitability of intercultural conict.

• Peer mediation and proactive approaches to conict resolution.
• Practices to ensure classroom and school safety for all.

1. Evaluation and Assessments


• Authentic student assessments to complement standardized tests.

• Formative and summative program evaluations.
• 360 degree teacher and administrator evaluations.
• Ongoing organizational assessments aimed at continual improvement.

1. Sta

• Opportunities for sta input into policies and procedures.

• Professional development opportunities on attitudes and behaviors toward diversity.
• Recognition of informal leadership roles.
• Focus on sta growth and integration.

1. Events/celebrations/traditions

• Examination of organizational traditions to check for exclusive/inclusive practices.

• Diverse representation at events and celebrations.
• Celebrations that reect various cultures and introduce the community to new cultures.
• Integration of experienced and entry-level personnel in change management.

Data Collection Approaches

In conducting a culture audit, data collection methods would ideally include mixed methods that combine
traditional quantitative and qualitative methodology. Some suggestions for data collection include:

• Document Analysis of internal/external communications, written curriculum, policies, newsletters,

websites, correspondence, brochures, etc.

• Statistical analysis of demographic and achievement data (existing) to ID gaps and need areas.

• Checklists

• Focus Groups and Interviews with various stakeholder groups (include students).

• Structured Observations of meetings, gatherings, artifacts, décor, social events, to check out actual

• Diagrams of informal leaders (teachers, students, sta members) group interactions.

• Surveys combined with other methods to triangulate perceptional data.

Data collection may be periodic or ongoing and may be incorporated into already existing assessments (e.g.,
school climate surveys, community meetings, etc.). Culture audits do not require extensive time or resources.
They require the consideration of culture as a factor in student achievement and overall school improvement.
Educational leaders and organizations must make a paradigm shift in order to develop culturally compe-
tent and procient policies, programs, and practices. The paradigm shift involves recognition of the role of
culture in human existence and its inuence on organizational and individual values, attitudes, and behav-
iors. Culture audits help make cultural factors in schools more tangible so that appropriate and eective
school improvements can be more appropriately targeted.

Click Here to access The School-wide Cultural Competence Observation Checklist (Bustamante and
Nelson, 2007; all rights reserved)
Bustamante, R.M. (2005). Essential features of cultural prociency in American international schools in
Latin America: A Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of San Diego.
Freiberg, H.J. (1998). Measuring school climate: let me count the ways. Educational Leadership, 56(1),
Klotz, M.B. (2006). Culturally competent schools: Guidelines for secondary school principals. NASP
Journal, March, 11-14. National Association of School Psychologists (NASP).
Lindsey, R., Robins, K., & Terrell, R., (2003). Cultural Prociency: A Manual for School Leaders (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Center for Cultural Competence (2005). Cultural and linguistic competence: Denitions, frame-
works, and implications. Retrieved from
Peterson, K.D. & Deal, T.E. (1998). How leaders inuence culture of schools. Educational Leadership,
56(1), 28-30.
Wagner, C. & Madsen-Copas, P. (2002).An audit of the culture starts with two handy tools. Journal of
Sta Development, Summer, 42-53. National Sta Development Council.
Rebecca McBride Bustamante is an Assistant Professor in the Educational Leadership Department at
Sam Houston State University in Texas, USA.

3.7 A Mentoring Mindset: Preparing Future Principals to be Eec-

tive Protégés

Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration.

Much has been written about the importance of mentoring for newcomers to school leadership positions
(Daresh & Playko, 1992, 1994). However, a review of the literature on mentoring reveals that much of
the written discussion is from the mentor's point of view or for the benet of the mentor. Research exists
on what makes a good mentor (Galbraith, 2001; Johnson, 2006), the stages and phases of the mentoring
relationship (Chao, Walz & Gardner, 1997; Kram, 1985; Mertz, 2004), and successful mentoring programs
(Kochan, 2002; Sprague & Hostinsky, 2002). There appears to be less emphasis placed on helping a protégé
prepare for a mentoring relationship (Daresh & Playko, 1995; Mullen, 2006).
Many newly hired principals can expect to enter into a mentoring relationship. At least 32 states cur-
rently have legislative policies that support mentoring programs for new administrators (Alsbury & Hackman,
2006). Some will be assigned to a more experienced principal in a formal mentoring program. Others will
informally pair up with someone they look up to in their district. As they enter into mentoring partner-
ships, they will need to be prepared to be successful as protégés in those relationships. It is essential that

29 This content is available online at <>.

educational leadership courses prepare future principals for those mentoring relationships. Traditionally,
educational leadership professors instruct students in leadership theories, decision-making, school law and
nance, curriculum design, public relations, and school management basics. However, it is questionable
whether the traditional curriculum in educational leadership preparation programs provide future adminis-
trative candidates with the tools for being successful as protégés in their future mentoring relationships.
Zachary (2000) has characterized mentoring as a mutual learning partnership; however, she emphasizes
the importance of the protégé taking the initiative in the relationship. In her book, The Mentor's Guide:
Facilitating Eective Learning Relationships, Zachary encourages the protégé to intentionally pursue a men-
tor. She provides reective activities that help the protégé identify the qualities desired in a mentor, as well
as articulating the protégé's learning needs. The learning partnership proposed by Zachary suggests a move
away from the concept of `mentor as superior' and `protégé as passive subordinate' to more of a two-way,
power-free, and mutually benecial relationship. In this conceptualization, the mentor's role shifts from sage
on the stage to guide on the side. The mentor takes the role of a facilitator. The protégé takes responsi-
bility for outlining the learning goals, setting priorities, and becoming increasingly self-directed. Mentor and
protégé share accountability and responsibility for achieving the protégé's learning goals (Zachary, 2000).
Rationale for Mentoring Aspiring Principals
Highly skilled school leaders are not born, nor do they emerge from traditional graduate programs in
school administration fully prepared to lead (Southern Regional Education Board, 2007). It is generally
recognized that they will need guidance from a more experienced school leader in their early years of admin-
istration. The National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP, 2003) in Making the Case for
Principal Mentoring, reported that principals are traditionally thrown into their jobs without a lifejacket
(p. 8), unprepared for the demands of the position, feeling isolated and without guidance. Workplace men-
toring is critical for inexperienced school leaders so as to provide a bridge between theory learned in graduate
school and the complex realities of contemporary school leadership. Although formal mentoring processes
are often designed primarily to fulll organizational needs, mentoring is essentially about learning. Zachary
(2000) states one of the principal reasons that mentoring relationships fail is that the learning process is not
tended to and the focus of learning goals is not maintained (p. 1). There is a need to help aspiring princi-
pals cultivate the disposition of embracing mentoring as an opportunity to further their professional learning
goals. Furthermore, it is imperative that educational administration students understand that they play a
critical role in preparing themselves for this future adult learning partnership called mentoring (Zachary,
From a learning perspective, future principals need to have the ability to assess both the strengths and
weaknesses of their leadership skills, reect on these, and then make adjustments as needed. As they enter
into the mentoring relationships that will assist them in this process, they should demonstrate the self-
direction that is characteristic of adult learners (Knowles, 1980). A healthy mentoring relationship is a
prime example of adults engaging in a learning endeavor together. As Zachary (2005) points out:
Mentoring is the quintessential expression of self-directed learning. At the heart of self-directed learn-
ing (and mentoring) is individual responsibility for learning. Self-responsibility means the learner accepts
ownership and accountability (individually and with others) for setting personal learning objectives, devel-
oping strategies, nding resources, and evaluating learning. In a mentoring relationship, the responsibility
is mutually dened and shared (p. 225).
I believe that future school leaders, as adult learners who know their own learning needs best, should
take the initiative to engage in mentoring relationships and I emphasize this to graduate students preparing
to be school principals. In the course titled Mentoring for Educational Leadership, one of my goals was
to focus on the importance of mentoring relationships in the life of a leader. I discovered through class
discussion that students held two common opinions of how to nd a mentor: (a) one should wait to be
assigned a mentor in a new job, or (b) there would be someone who would seek them out and volunteer
to mentor them. My own knowledge of adult learning, combined with this eye-opening feedback from the
students, strengthened my rationale for creating an assignment in this course that would prepare the students
to be proactive protégés, taking the initiative to seek their own mentors. I reorganized the curriculum in
a Mentoring for Educational Leadership course in the educational leadership preparation program at the

University of XXXXXX in an eort to assist future school principals in developing the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions of eective protégéship.
The Assignment: Seek A Mentor
Students in the Mentoring for Educational Leadership course, oered during the 2007 summer term were
informed that their major assignment was to (a) choose someone they would like to have as a mentor, (b)
approach that individual with the request for mentoring, and (c) conduct an initial mentoring session. When
this assignment was announced on the rst evening of class, the looks on the faces of the students, and their
ood of questions, told me that they never predicted such a requirement in the course.
The syllabus description emphasized that they would be learning about mentoring new teachers. However,
I chose to teach this course around the concept of the mentoring constellation (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).
Stanley and Clinton propose that every individual should have a mentoring constellation, which includes an
upward mentor, peer mentors and a downward mentoring relationship with a protégé. Thus they believe
that we all need a mentor and we all need to be mentoring someone. When it comes to peer mentors, we
need two types: an ally within our organization, and a condant who is outside our organization (Searby,
2007). Based on this model, I organized each class session to address the various levels of the mentoring
constellation. One third of the class time was devoted to preparing the students to approach their upward
mentor. One third of the time was spent in peer mentoring sessions with pairs of students in the class using
prompts designed to help them gain self-knowledge and to be reective. The remaining time was spent on
material pertaining to downward mentoring, specically, mentoring new teachers. This article, however, will
focus only on the portion of class that prepared students to ask for a mentor and become eective protégés.
The Protégé Preparation Process
Students were made aware that there are preparations they should make before entering into a mentoring
relationship. In order to take the initiative in forming a learning partnership, students needed to be armed
with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that would enable them to be eective protégés (Searby &
Tripses, 2007). Daresh and Playko (1995) suggest that the skills of protégéship can be acquired. In
the Mentoring for Educational Leadership course, I addressed the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that
students should develop in order to be eective protégés through a variety of learning activities. The
framework for protegeship developed by Searby and Tripses (2007) and illustrated here, gave guidance to
the process.

Characteristics for Eective Protégéship

Knowledge Basic understanding of the teaching processBasic

understanding of school leadershipUnderstanding of
various types of mentoringAwareness of potentials
and pitfalls of mentoring

Skills Goal settingCommunication skillsCapacity to seek

out and act upon feedbackReection

Dispositions Willingness to learn. Self-knowledgeDemonstration

of initiativeMaintaining condentialityAwareness of
ethical considerations

Adapted from Daresh & Playko, 1995; Mullen, 2005; Portner, 2002; Searby & Tripses, 2006; Zachary,
Developing Knowledge for Protégéship
In the area of knowledge acquisition, the students in this course gained an overview of the various
mentoring models, an awareness of the potential benets and pitfalls of mentoring relationships, and how-
to information for approaching someone to be a formal mentor. Dr. Mark Searby, whose expertise is
mentoring in the business and non-prot sector, delivered the initial overview lecture. He covered the
history of mentoring, the need for mentoring, the crucial dynamics of mentoring, what mentoring is and is
not, the challenges to protégés, and an overview of the mentoring process. This lecture set the stage for the

course (Searby, 2007). In an online discussion on Blackboard following this introductory lecture, students
almost unanimously said that they had not previously considered their need for a mentor until this lecture,
but afterward nearly all expressed a change in perspective and an awareness of their need for a mentor.
Subsequent class sessions focused on gaining additional knowledge of the mentoring process and the nuts-
and-bolts of mentoring. Students learned how to set ground rules for the mentoring relationship, how to
identify when a mentoring relationship has become dysfunctional, and how to accomplish closure to the formal
arrangement. They prepared a mentoring agreement that would be signed by their mentor and themselves.
As mentioned previously, material from Zachary's (2000) book, The Mentor's Guide: Facilitating Eective
Learning Relationships, provided helpful activities for preparing for the process of mentoring.
Developing Skills for Protégéship
Skills necessary for becoming an eective protégé include goal setting, communication, the capacity to
seek and act on feedback, and reection (Searby & Tripses, 2007). Special attention was given in class to
the development of these skills.
Goal setting was an important component for the students preparing to enter a formal mentoring rela-
tionship. Before setting their personal and professional goals, students practiced their reective skills as they
conducted two self-assessments. They took the DISC personality inventory and reected on how it compared
with a Myers-Briggs personality inventory previously taken in another course. They conducted a personal
strengths and weaknesses inventory and discussed it with their peer partner to bring forth areas that could
be addressed in the future upward mentoring relationship. After these activities, they composed their goals
for the mentoring relationship that they were about to enter.
Several class sessions focused on learning the skills of Cognitive Coaching (Costa & Garmston, 1997)
which emphasizes active listening and giving reective prompts. Students practiced these skills with their
peer mentors in class using structured scenarios, and oered feedback on the eectiveness of one another's
coaching skills. This exercise provided additional practice with the skills of seeking feedback and rening
communication skills.
Constant personal reection was an element of each course activity. Zull (2002) emphasizes the im-
portance of reection in the learning process. He states that while experience is necessary for learning,
reection is required because reection is searching for connections -literally. Thus, dialogue that promotes
reection is a natural way of learning (p. 164). Zachary (2005) also point out the importance of reection
in the mentoring process, stating that transformational learning is facilitated through a process of critical
self-reection (p. 225). As protégés become aware of their existing assumptions, self-awareness begins. As
their existing assumptions are challenged, increased self-understanding can prompt them to let go of self-
limiting and often unrealistic assumptions that may be holding them back. When this transformation takes
place, the protégés have experienced learning which results in more productive thoughts and behaviors. In
this leadership course, then, reection was crucial for protégés to develop and practice. Every assignment
included a requirement of written reection of the students' emergent learning about mentoring. In addition
to the important reective activities, however, there were also some key dispositions that the protégés needed
to develop.
Developing Dispositions for Protégéship
The dispositions necessary to become an eective protégé are willingness to learn, self-knowledge, taking
initiative, maintaining condentiality, and being aware of ethical considerations in the mentoring relationship
(Searby & Tripses, 2007). In the Mentoring for Educational Leadership course, students had an opportunity
to participate in a number of exercises designed to enhance self-awareness. As mentioned previously, they
took the DISC personality inventory and wrote a reective paper on the relationship of their personality
prole to their future role as a protégé. Each student kept a reective journal on the peer mentoring sessions
conducted in each class period. In Blackboard online discussions, they were asked to share their personal
reections on each class assignment.
Students demonstrated their willingness to learn through practice of the newly introduced Cognitive
Coaching skills. In addition, they were assigned to read and discuss articles pertaining to mentoring, and
were asked to apply each reading to their present life situation or identify how their perspectives had changed
as a result of exposure to new knowledge.

The disposition of `taking initiative' was demonstrated by students' willingness to be courageous by

approaching a person they respected and admired and asking that person to enter into a mentoring rela-
tionship with them. This proposition, without a doubt, was daunting for nearly all the students, and many
admitted they would not have completed this task had it not been a class assignment. As a part of the
mentoring agreements formed with their mentors, and also with their peer mentors in class, the disposition
of maintaining condentiality was discussed and condentiality pacts were made.
Ethical dilemmas that could arise in the mentor-protégé relationships were covered in class and in online
discussions. Examples included how to handle a breach in condentiality, what to do if a mentor starts to
take advantage of the protégé's subordinate status, how to handle issues regarding cross-gender mentoring,
and how and when to graciously back out of a mentoring relationship that has gone sour or is no longer
Discussion of the Results of the Mentoring Assignment
Students were very responsive to the in-class activities designed to help them develop their knowledge,
skills, and dispositions for eective protégéship. However, despite their preparation for seeking a mentor,
students still had reservations about the major assignment which was to seek out and approach a mentor
and participate in an initial mentoring session.
Protégés Have Fears
When this assignment was explained on the rst night of class, looks of fear and apprehension were
observed on the faces of the students. Some students shared candidly that they were being asked to move
out of their comfort zones. However, as the students learned that they would be led through a process
of preparation for approaching a desired mentor, their initial reticence appeared to subside. Each student
began sharing names of leaders they admired, considering those they could approach as a mentor.
Although the students were apprehensive of engaging in a possible mentorship in the beginning of this
course, they were generally surprised that the mentors they approached were so willing to meet with them.
The following comments are excerpts from their reective papers:
I was really nervous before making the initial phone call. I wasn't sure that my mentor would have time
to really sit down and talk with me this summer. I am happy that I chose her as my mentor. She was very
excited about the process and I feel that it will be a rewarding experience.
I was immediately apprehensive when I learned that I had to approach someone to become my mentor.
I remember feeling very vulnerable at the thought of having my insuciencies exposed during this process.
Nevertheless, I had to complete the assignment. When I made my initial contact with Dr. Parker about
meeting with me concerning this assignment for class, she was very glad to be of assistance.
I was feeling a little nervous because our meeting had to be more structured than informal. I arrived 10
minutes early, as I remembered my mentor's favorite quote was to be early means to be on time, to be on
time means to be late, and to be late is unacceptable. I did not want to start o on the wrong foot. When
I arrived at his oce, he was smiling, pointing to his watch. He told me he was glad that I remembered his
biggest pet peeve. I then recited his being on time quote and he laughed. My nervousness seemed to go
away. After about 15 minutes of small talk, I brought up the purpose of our meeting. He told me he felt
honored that I chose him to be my mentor.
Because we had a history of working together, I had mixed emotions about approaching Diane to be my
mentor during this next phase in my career. To say I was afraid is truly an understatement! As I sat and
pondered this idea, I came up with every excuse why I did not need a mentor. I was afraid that she would
turn me down, or think that I wanted her to be my mentor to assist me in getting a job.
Selecting a mentor was not as easy as I thought. For fear of rejection, I did not ask my potential mentor
directly. I emailed her. She replied and agreed to meet with me, but had to cancel for good reason. I had a
second person in mind, so I immediately called my second choice. She graciously accepted and told me she
was honored that I asked her because she values the mentoring process.
The First Mentoring Session
After participating in several class activities designed to clarify their professional learning objectives,
each student entered the rst mentoring session with a list of thoughtful and specic goals for the mentoring
relationship. Examples of the goals are too numerous to list here, but in general, it was noted that goals

centered on each student's desire to receive guidance from an individual who had proven to be eective in
leadership. Students were also required to discuss the protocols for future mentoring sessions with their
mentors and suggest ground rules for the meetings. Using the template found in Zachary's (2000) Mentor's
Guide, students and their mentors lled out a Mentoring Agreement Form which outlined the agreed upon
protocols and ground rules. Students were not required to continue the relationship beyond the initial
meeting for the class assignment, but the majority did ask for and arrange regular mentoring sessions for a
specied time, ranging from 6 months to 1 year.
The Benets to the Protégé
Toward the end of the course, students were asked to write a reective paper about their mentoring
experience. When asked what the mentoring experience had meant to them and what they learned about
becoming a better protégé, the students in the course responded with comments that revealed new insights
about mentoring. There were three major themes that emerged in their reections: (1) seeing their need for
a mentor and facing their fears about obtaining one, (2) developing new knowledge, skills and dispositions
of protegeship, and (3) gaining awareness of the mentor's role and the protégé's role. Each of these themes
will be explained briey and illustrated with excerpts from the students' reective journals.
Theme 1: Seeing Their Need for a Mentor and Facing Their Fears.As a part of the Mentoring for
Educational Leadership course, students were asked to identify their own learning goals as they prepared
themselves to be administrators. This activity heightened each student's awareness of his/her need for a
mentor. However, this awareness did not come without the realization that there was a somewhat daunting
assignment that their professor was asking them to complete. There were some initial fears expressed about
approaching someone to be a mentor to them. After completing the assignment, however, students realized
the growth that had come as a result of facing their fears. A sample of their reections follows:
As a protégé, the class has caused me to see the need for a mentor. It has also helped me in addressing
the fears of approaching a prospective mentor and in developing a professional attitude of interacting with
someone in a mentor relationship.
I recognize the fact that I need help and I am willing to accept this assistance.
Having to do the assignment decreased some of my apprehensions about securing a prospective mentor.
I now understand that mentors usually have a sincere desire to help the protégé.
Theme 2: Developing New Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions of Protégéship. In the Mentoring for
Educational Leadership course, I designed the learning activities in agreement with Daresh and Playko's
(1995) premise that protégéship skills and dispositions can be learned. Knowledge about the many aspects of
mentoring was shared in a variety of formats such as lectures, text readings, and guest speakers. Development
of skills such as goal setting, learning to communicate eectively, and seeking and reecting on feedback
became the objectives for class assignments and in-class peer mentoring and role playing. Throughout
the course, students demonstrated their increasing acquisition of the dispositions of protégéship such as
willingness to learn, self-knowledge, taking initiative, maintaining condentiality, and becoming aware of
ethical considerations in a mentoring relationship. Sample journal entries reveal this:
This class helped me to become a better protégé by allowing me to achieve a greater understanding of
myself and the impact I have on others in a leadership role.
This class taught me to listen more eectively.
This class provided me an increased awareness of how to seek mentors for a specicgoal or direction
for professional and personal growth.I now have added conrmation that "risk-taking" can be enriching in
relationships and
knowledge development.
I will make sure that I set ground rules along with the length of time of the mentoring relationship.
I have learned valuable information that I can use in every facet of my life.
Theme 3: Gaining awareness of the mentor's role and the protégé's role. Students were required to
conduct an initial mentoring session with a chosen mentor, and all did so. Most students stated that they
planned to continue meeting with their mentor, and that they were pleased with the prospect of developing a
longer term relationship with the mentor. Several students expressed a new understanding of mentoring and
an appreciation of what mentoring could mean to them in their professional careers. Fresh insights emerged

from seeing themselves in the role of proactive protégé in relationship to a new-found mentor:
I will make sure that I follow the leadership of my mentor and know that she will lead me in a positive
I have advanced tremendously by choosing an inuential mentor who has helped me have a more positive
impact on the performance, motivation, job satisfaction and self-esteem of those with whom I work.
I have learned that the mentor is not responsible for me; the decisions I make are ultimately mine.
The mentor is not God and is not perfect; not omnipresent; not omnipotent; not omniscient. So, I must
be honest, transparent, and willing to move on if the trust gets breached.
There is a need to help future school leaders learn how to become empowered, eective protégés. One
way to aid students in this process is to intentionally design educational leadership course activities that will
prepare them to initiate mentoring relationships. There are several benets to facilitating the development
of the skills of protégéship with educational leadership students. First of all, the students gain an awareness
of the dierent types of mentors, learning that there are often multiple mentors in their lives. Second, they
come to understand the dierent responsibilities of a protégé and a mentor. A third benet is that students
become aware that not all mentor-protégé relationships are productive, and therefore the students learn how
to bring closure to such relationships. Fourth, a productive mentoring relationship helps graduate students
bridge theory from educational leadership courses to practice in the real world of school leadership. Finally,
empowered protégés ideally take more and more responsibility for their own learning (Searby & Tripses,
2007). Intentional training in protégéship provides graduate students with greatly enhanced capacities to
engage in what could be their most powerful learning experience.
Implications and Conclusions
Educational leadership preparation programs are in a position to make a dierence in a critical aspect
of the learning and development of future principals. All new principals will need mentoring, and all will
need to know how to be eective protégés. We can enhance their preparation for this role. Although the
identied knowledge, skills and dispositions of protégéship (Searby & Tripses, 2007) may be found between
the lines of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards for educational leadership,
intentional teaching about mentoring and the responsibility that students have as protégés in the mentoring
relationship may not occur to the extent that would be benecial to students. In revising the content of this
leadership preparation course, I became intentional about teaching future principals about the importance
of preparing themselves to be eective protégés as they transitioned into school administration.
Students who were in the Mentoring for Educational Leadership course hopefully now have a mentoring
mindset. They have learned how to prepare themselves to be eective protégés and have overcome reser-
vations associated with acquiring and maintaining a mentor-protégé relationship. As protégés, they are no
longer in a passive role, waiting for the mentor's call. They are now positioned to be proactive in seeking
a mentor. Armed with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of eective protégéship, they are ready to
capitalize on the benets that can be obtained in a mentoring relationship. I oer my own experience in
preparing educational leadership students for mentoring relationships as a possible model for other graduate
courses, and would welcome dialogue with others involved in mentoring in higher education, as these concepts
apply to other professional elds.
I would like to close with the comments of one student, whose reections captured the common perspective
conveyed by students in the Mentoring for Educational Leadership course. The student said:
This particular mentoring experience has been absolutely invaluable to me. I have learned so much about
the ways to improve my own leadership abilities, as well as how to eectively communicate by using trust
and honesty in a mentor/protégé meeting situation. This experience gave me the opportunity to step outside
of myself and reect on several ways to improve my abilities and skills. I ultimately ascertained that we can
all learn a great deal from those who have gone on before and `know the ropes' if we will simply be willing
to open our eyes.
Author's Note: IRB approval at the University of University of Alabama at Birmingham has been given
for using student quotes which appear in this article.

Alsbury, T. L., & Hackmann, D. G. (2006). Learning from experience: Initial ndings of a mentor-
ing/induction program for novice principals and superintendents. Planning and Changing, 37(3/4), 1690189.
Retrieved May 13, 2008, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 1224424311).
Chao, G. T., Walz, P.M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on
mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentoring counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619-636.
Coerdeiro, P. A. & Smith-Sloan, E. (1995). Apprenticeships for administrative interns: Learning to talk
like a principal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 385 014).
Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1997). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools, 3rd Ed.
Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1995, April). Mentoring in educational leadership development: What
are the responsibilities of the protégés? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco. ED 381 874.
Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1994). Mentoring for school leaders: A status report. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1992). Leaders helping leaders: A practical guide to administrative
mentoring. New York: Scholastic, Inc.
Galbraith, M. (2001). Mentoring development for community college faculty. Michigan Community
College Journal: Research and Practice, 7(2), 29-39.
Hertting, M., & Phenis-Bourke, N. (2007). Experienced principals need mentors, too. Principal, 86(5),
Johnson, S. (2006). The neuroscience of the mentor-learner relationship. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, No. 110, Summer 2006.
Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education (revised and updated) Chicago, IL:
Chicago Association Press.
Kochan, F. K., (Ed.). (2002). The organizational and human dimensions of successful mentoring pro-
grams and relationships. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.
Mertz, N. T. (2004). What's a mentor, anyway? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40 (4), 541-560.
Mullen, C. A. (2006). Making the most of mentoring: A graduate student guide. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Education/ Rowman & Littleeld.
Searby, L. and Tripses, J. (2007, August). Preparing future school administrators for meaningful men-
toring relationships: A comparison of processes in two universities. Paper presented at the National Council
of Professors of Educational Administration. Chicago, IL.
Searby, M. A. (2007, June). Mentoring: Investing in our future. Lecture delivered in Mentoring for
Educational Leadership graduate course, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2007). Good principals aren't born  they're mentored: Are we
investing enough to get the school leaders we need? Atlanta, GA: Author.
Sprague, M. & Hostinsky, V. (2002). Model mentoring. Principal Leadership High School Ed. 3(1),
Stanley, P. D. & Clinton, J. R. (1992). Connecting: The mentoring relationships you need to succeed in
life. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress.
Zachary, L. (2005). Creating a mentoring culture: The organization's guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zachary, L. (2000). The mentor's guide: Facilitating eective learning relationships. San Francisco:

3.8 An Imperative for Leadership Preparation Programs: Prepar-

ing Future Leaders to Meet the Needs of Students, Schools, and

Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship
and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content
Commons, this module is published in the International Journal of Educational Leadership Prepa-
31 , Volume 4, Number 1 (January - March 2009).

3.8.1 Introduction
Public dissatisfaction with student learning outcomes in PK-12 educational programs has resulted in calls for
improvement in the quality of educational leaders serving students, schools, and communities. This dissat-
isfaction with the state of US educational systems has resulted in demands for change and accountability in
school administrator preparation programs at the university level. The Elementary and Secondary Education
Act: No Child Left Behind of 2001 responded to these demands by requiring greater accountability in the
performance of school administrators (U.S. Government, 2002). Universities have responded by analyzing
and implementing changes in educational leadership preparation programs. Professional organizations such
as the American Association of School Administrators (AASA, 1993), Council of Chief State School O-
cers (CCSSO, 1996; CCSSO, 2008), National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA 1993;
NPBEA 2002a; NPBEA 2002b; NPBEA 2008), National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE, 2002), and the Education Leaders Constituent Council (ELCC, 2002) among others, along with
individual state education agencies have responded by reviewing and revising standards for practicing school
administrators and educational leadership preparation programs.
The high unemployment rate and downsizing of industries has prompted the increased development of
alternative educational executive leadership programs with an eye on providing positions in schools for the
newly unemployed. These movements are blurring the lines of professional preparation between schools,
business, industry, nonprot, and governmental agencies. One result of questioning the eectiveness of
educational leadership preparation programs has been a philosophy adopted by some that the training of
corporate leaders and military personnel to ll leadership positions in schools will result in improved school
operation, instruction, and student learning outcomes. An example of this type of program is The Broad
Foundation's Superintendents Academy which prepares CEOs and senior executives from business, nonprot,
military, government, and education backgrounds to lead urban public school systems. As explained by Quinn
Nontraditional superintendents, who are accomplished leaders in other arenas, bring critically needed
strengths and experiences to the job, including:

• Experience managing large, complex, diverse operations;

• Experience leading large-scale systems change and culture changes;
• Skills in strategic visioning, planning and accountability;

30 This content is available online at <>.


• Expertise in nancial management; and

• Skills in systems and operational management (p.5).

Executive management programs such as those oered by The Broad Foundation are also blurring the lines
of professional leadership preparation between education, business, industry, nonprot, and governmental
agencies. Educators question whether the lack of pedagogical knowledge in instruction and learning will
have a negative eect on the ability of non-educators to be a success as a school administrator; they ques-
tion the ability of corporate and military personnel and retirees to lead schools and educational systems;
and academicians have both challenged and accepted the rationale of integrating educational theory with
organizational management theories in the training of educational leaders (Beyer, 2006).

3.8.2 Structure, Philosophy, and Curriculum of Preparation Programs

University programs directed toward the preparation of candidates for roles as educational leaders should be
instrumental in the development and implementation of preparation programs that have prepared graduates
to serve the unique needs of students and the communities which they will serve. They should be trained
to understand, interface with, and incorporate parent and community resources in support of PK-12 educa-
tional programs. One way to accomplish this is through the integration of programs, courses, and preparation
content that combines the best of educational, business, public sector, social service, and nonprot leader-
ship theory and practice. Combining these entities in leadership preparation and professional development
programs enhances the ability of school and community leaders to work together more eectively toward
the support and improvement of educational systems and the development of integrated services for children
and youth.
Theoretical preparation of educational leaders has long been based in general organizational management
and leadership theory. As pointed out by Owens and Valesky (2007), theories of educational administration
have their roots in the study of public administration. Administrative practices in public governance such
as those of the Egyptians, Chinese, and Greeks; military leadership practices from Alexander the Great and
Caesar to modern day military organizations; and the far-reaching and international organizations such as
the Roman Empire, Catholic Church, United Nations, World Bank, and the European Union, are all pointed
to by Owens and Valesky (2007) as models of public and nonprot administration practices that form the
foundation for the study of educational leadership and administration.
Only by knowing the contributions of those who came before us, those who pioneered in building the
knowledge that we have for thinking about organizations and leadership, can you prepare yourself to make
the strategic and tactical decisions that will undergird your leadership with steadfast purpose, consistency,
and eectiveness (Owens & Valesky, 2007, p.84).
The incorporation of historical leadership and management theory in literature and in leadership class-
rooms used as a basis for the preparation of educational leaders, supports the premise that schools like other
service organizations utilize a shared knowledge base of organizational management and leadership theory in
the development and maintenance of administrative practices. This can be seen in the similar bureaucratic
and management practices of these organizations such as the chain-of-command, hierarchy of authority,
rules and regulations, application of organizational behavior theories, product development, quality control
through assessment and evaluation of products and processes, the use of power and inuence to reach orga-
nizational goals, maintenance of records, organizational change processes, development and maintenance of
organizational cultures, and in human resources management.
How the structure, philosophy, and curriculum of educational leadership preparation programs are devel-
oped and presented has a profound and long-lasting impact on how schools will function and how future ed-
ucational leaders will address the varied and unique needs of students and the communities they serve. Most
university programs oer three types of educational administration preparation programs: one to prepare as-
pirants for PK-12 school administrator roles; one to prepare school administrators for educational leadership
roles in school district central oce positions; and, another to oer professional development opportunities
for practicing school administrators. PK-12 administrator preparation programs generally encompass orga-
nizational administration topics such as human resource management, budgeting and nance, management

and leadership skills, legal and regulatory issues, curriculum planning and development, problem-solving and
decision making, ethics, applications of technology, school and community relations, assessment of learning,
and program evaluation. Programs in central oce leadership build upon this knowledge base and stress the
development of a knowledge and skill base in a variety of areas related to organizational leadership, organi-
zational structures and development, strategic planning and needs assessment, policy and governance, public
relations, organizational change processes, facilities management, labor relations, instructional management,
resource allocation, and research, measurement, and evaluation of educational programs.
Educational leadership preparation programs can be enhanced by integrating theories, courses, and stu-
dents from educational, government, nonprot, and social service organizations together in the same program
(Beyer, 2006; Rodriguez, 2000). Professional development programs for practicing administrators can also
benet from the integration of information and practices of those organizations that have an impact on
schools and schooling. University inter-departmental and inter-college collaboration between education,
management, business, and public policy schools can result in a better understanding of how each area of
research and study inuences organizational knowledge and practices and the management of school systems.
This integration of programs provides present and future school administrators with a better under-
standing of the interrelationships of schools and the community and gives them the added opportunity to
develop networking relationships that can be utilized in future collaboration between schools and community
agencies. Hugh Price (2008) suggests enlisting the support and involvement of local businesses, nonprot
agencies, community organizations, the media, and faith-based groups in such areas as nancial assistance,
celebration of student accomplishments, and providing educational opportunities and support for students
that can result in improved student academic achievement and preparation for employment and the world
beyond school.
Generally, preparation programs remain segmented in topical categories such as nance, leadership,
law, and curriculum. Life does not proceed that way, nor does the day-to-day job of a school administrator.
Administrators seldom have the luxury of segmenting their day and spending one hour strictly on legal issues
and then the next on student issues, curriculum, or personnel concerns. All these topics are intertwined in the
fast-paced administrative problem-solving and decision-making processes of the day. For university programs
to relate more closely to actual administrative practice there should be an integration of topics across the
curriculum and the incorporation of actual eld experience assignments throughout the program, as opposed
to only the use of case studies in the classroom setting, or when a student is assigned to an internship in a
local school or district upon completion of required program coursework.

3.8.3 Performance Standards and Expectations: Past and Present

Standards provide a guide to organizations, programs, and individuals. Great emphasis has been placed on
the development and maintenance of educational leadership standards which foster educational leadership
policy development, performance expectations for practicing school administrators, standards for preparation
programs, state educational leadership policy and standards, and tools for leadership assessment and evalu-
ation (Council of Chief State School Ocers, 2008). Examples of professional organizations that have been
instrumental in the development, review, and implementation of professional standards include the Coun-
cil of Chief State School Ocers, the National Policy Board for Educational Administration, the National
Council of Professors of Educational Administration, the American Association of School Administrators,
the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Council of Elementary School Princi-
pals, and state educational agencies. As stated by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration
upon publication of the new Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008,
Standards serve dierent purposes. The new standards are designed to serve as broad national policy
standards that states use as a national model for developing their own standards. The National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELLC) Program
Standards guide planning, implementing, and accrediting of administrator preparation programs (National
Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2008).
In 1993 the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) Commission on Standards for the
Superintendency developed a set of professional standards related to the roles and responsibilities of school

district superintendents that were categorized as: Leadership and District Culture; Policy and Governance;
Communications and Community Relations; Organizational Management; Curriculum Planning and De-
velopment; Instructional Management; Human Resources Management; Values and Ethics of Leadership
(American Association of School Administrators 1993). That same year, the National Policy Board for Ed-
ucational Administration (NPBEA) published Principals for Our Changing Schools: Knowledge and Skill
Base (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 1993; Thompson, 1993). Prominent educa-
tional leaders and practicing principals contributed to development of this publication, sharing knowledge
and expertise gained through research and practice. The knowledge and skill base as presented was de-
scribed as necessary for successful school administration and was categorized into the following four domains
of leadership with sub-sections:

• Leadership
• Information Collection
• Problem Analysis
• Judgement
• Organization Oversight
• Implementation
• Delegation

• Instruction and Learning Environment
• Sta Development
• Measurement and Evaluation
• Resource Allocation
• Application of Technology

• Motivating Others
• Interpersonal Sensitivity
• Oral and Nonverbal Expression
• Written Knowledge

• Philosophical and Cultural Values
• Legal and Regulatory Application
• Policy and Political Inuences
• Public Relations

(National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 1993; Thomson, 1993)

In 1996, the Council of Chief State School Ocers published the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders
(Council of Chief State School Ocers, 1996), containing knowledge, skills and dispositions for successful
school leadership, established a guide for state departments of education and university preparation pro-
grams in the development of educational leadership preparation programs and performance expectations for
practicing administrators. This was followed in 2002 by The Educational Leadership Constituent Council
(ELCC) Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership published by the National Policy
Board for Educational Administration (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2002a).
In 2008, the Council of Chief State School Ocers published the Educational Leadership Policy Standards:
ISLLC 2008 (hereafter referred to as ISLLC 2008). These standards are the result of the collaborative eort
of professional education organizations, leaders in the eld, a state education agency representative, and

members of university preparation programs, convened together to develop policy standards that can be
used to inuence leadership practice and policy. (Council of Chief State School Ocers, 2008, p.6). The
ISLLC 2008 utilized the 1996 ISLLC Standards for School Leaders as a foundation and guide for development
of the new Standards and Functions. In developing the new standards, CCSSO strongly points out that these
are policy standards that will contribute to a coherent vision and system of leadership that can guide state
policies and leadership programs and further states:
The following principles set the direction and priorities during the development of the new policy stan-

1. Reect the centrality of student learning;

2. Acknowledge the changing role of the school leader;
3. Recognize the collaborative nature of school leadership;
4. Improve the quality of the profession;
5. Inform performance-based systems of assessment and evaluation for school leaders;
6. Demonstrate integration and coherence; and
7. Advance access, opportunity, and empowerment for all members of the school community. (p. 8)

ISLLC 2008, Provides a framework for policy creation, training program performance, life-long career devel-
opment, and system support (Council of Chief State School Ocers, 2008, p.13). The standards have been
developed to inuence and drive system-wide change in training programs, licensing and induction, perfor-
mance evaluation, support of ongoing training and professional development, and improvement in working
conditions, with the desired nal outcome of, Eective instructional leadership that positively impacts stu-
dent achievement (Council of Chief State School Ocers, 2008, p. 13). A key change in the wording used in
ISLLC 2008 standards diers from the 1996 ISLLC Standards particularly in the phraseology used to state
the standard. The 1996 ISLLC Standards begins the description of each standard with the phrase, A school
administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by. . . ISLLC 2008 begins
each standard with the phrase, An education leader promotes the success of every student. . . (Council of
Chief State School Ocers, 2008, p. 18).
Following the publication of ISLLC 2008, The State Consortium on Education Leadership (SCEL), rep-
resenting state education agency personnel, convened under the auspices of CCSSO, and developed and
published Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders: An ISLLC-Based Guide to Im-
plementing Leader Standards and a Companion Guide to the Educational Leadership Policy Standards:
ISLLC 2008 (Sanders & Kearney, 2008). This publication is the result of collaboration between SCEL,
CCSSO, and representatives from state education agencies, the District of Columbia, and American Samoa.
This guide presents performance expectations and begins the description of each expectation with the phrase,
Education leaders ensure. . . rather than Education leaders promote. . . as used by ISLLC 2008. There
is a vast degree of dierence between promote and ensure. The expectation is higher. When one promotes
they encourage. When one ensures they guarantee that it will be achieved. As with higher expectations for
student performance, state agencies are seeking the same higher expectations for education leader perfor-
mance. The evolution of standards and guidelines has developed considerably from responses to the outcries
of A Nation at Risk in 1983 (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), to the NPBEA Prin-
cipals for our Changing Schools: Knowledge and Skill Base in 1993 (National Policy Board for Educational
Administration, 1993; Thomson, 1993), to clearly stated high performance expectations in 2008 to be met
by education leaders. As stated by Sanders & Kearney (2008),
Emphasizing performance expectations helps make policy standards operational by presenting them as
they might be observed in practicein dierent leadership positions and at dierent points of a career. The
performance expectations and indicators use observable and measureable language that describes current
responsibilities of leaders (p.2).
In a review of the performance expectations, there is no single expectation that holds any greater im-
portance than another. They are all important and become interwoven with each other as part of the
daily practice of educational leaders and their service to students and communities. Sanders and Kearney
(2008) have placed the six standards of performance expectations into the general categories of: Vision and

Goals; Teaching and Learning; Managing Organizational Systems and Safety; Collaborating with Families
and Stakeholders; Ethics and Integrity; and, The Education System. As stated by Sanders and Kearney
. . .the guiding principles used in developing the ISLLC Standards were important considerations for
developing the Performance Expectations and Indicators. Therefore, the performance expectations and

• reect the centrality of student learning

• acknowledge the changing role of the school leader
• recognize the collaborative nature of school leadership
• are high; upgrading the quality of the profession
• inform performance-based systems of assessment and evaluation for school leaders. (p. 10)

3.8.4 Meeting Needs of Students and Communities

In addition to the basic curricular topics oered in university preparation programs, strong consideration
should to be given to providing educational leadership candidates with a knowledge base that includes
skills to develop and support educational programs that will serve the special and often unique needs of
students and communities. The inclusion of addressing special student programs and services across the
graduate program curriculum in law, principalship, internship, budgeting, curriculum, strategic planning,
organizational development, and human resource classes is an imperative for programs when preparing
candidates for school leadership positions, to enable successful transition from the university classroom to
the school or school district administrative oce.
Currently, some states and university programs require one or more courses addressing compensatory
education and special services and programs to prepare candidates with a knowledge base that can be used
in service to the unique and individual needs of children and youth in schools. Texas is a good example of
one state that requires potential and practicing school administrators to possess knowledge of special and
compensatory programs and school student services, and how these programs can be eectuated in school
settings. Title I and special education laws and programs are often emphasized in university courses much
to the detriment of exploring and learning about other programs and services available to all PK-12 students
such as guidance and counseling, bilingual and ESL programs, student services and activities, dropout
and drug/alcohol abuse prevention programs, among many more that should also be part of the university
curriculum. Sadly, this is an area of study that graduates, when reporting back to the university, say they
had to learn on the job. It is important that educational leadership candidates gain an understanding of the
importance of all these programs and understand the planning, development, and implementation of special
programs to better serve the needs of students and communities. As stated by Beyer & Johnson (2005),
The role of educator has expanded beyond the original concept of student and teacher working together
toward academic achievement. [Supplemental services and programs] are essential to ensure that students are
ready to learn and that teachers, support sta, and school administrators are providing the essential services
and support systems to ensure that all students have the best opportunity possible to achieve academically
and become well-prepared, active, contributing members of society in the world beyond school (p. xii).

3.8.5 Performance Expectations and the Link to Special Programs and Services
Each policy standard presented in Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 (Council of Chief
State School Ocers, 2008) and as presented and detailed in the companion guide, Performance Expectations
and Indicators for Education Leaders: An ISLLC-Based Guide To Implementing Leader Standards And A
Companion Guide To The Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 (hereafter referred to as
the ISLLC-Based Guide) (Sanders & Kearney, 2008), carry equal weight and importance in informing policy
development, university preparation programs, and the assessment and evaluation of school site adminis-
trative practices. With this in mind, it is important to look briey at how meeting needs of students and
communities through special programs and services is linked to each standards and performance expectation.

3.8.6 Vision, Mission, and Goals

Standard 1
An education leader promotes the success of every student by facilitating the development, articulation,
implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders.
Element A. High Expectations for All. Sanders & Kearney (2008) state, The vision and goals establish
high, measurable expectations for all students and educators. (p.14). Indicator 4 under Element A states
a leader, Advocates for a specic vision of learning in which every student has equitable, appropriate, and
eective learning opportunities and achieves at high levels (Sanders & Kearney, 2008, p. 14). This indicator
does not say some students should receive these learning opportunities, it states all students. All students
encompasses a wide range of students in need of special programs and services including: ESL/bilingual
students; those identied in need of special education services; students at-risk of academic failure or dropping
out of school; abused, abandoned, and neglected children and young adults; those with health and human
service related issues; those falling within the identiable Title I category; as well as those identied as gifted
and talented.
Element B. Shared Commitments to Implement the Vision, Mission, and Goals, provides leadership
Indicators which address the importance of sta, community, and diverse stakeholders to be engaged in the
commitment to build shared understanding, decision-making, support, responsibility, and Advocates for
and acts on commitments. . .to provide equitable, appropriate, and eective learning opportunities for every
student (Sanders & Kearney, 2008, p. 14).

3.8.7 Teaching and Learning

Standard 2
An education leader promotes the success of every student by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school
culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and sta professional growth.
Teaching and learning opportunities are not only conned to the classroom but can also be provided
through programmatic development, support, and funding to encourage and support students to be involved
in athletics, student council, mentoring, Junior Achievement, work-study programs, development of school
policy, in eld trips, before and after school programs, focus groups, leadership challenge programs, com-
munity service, and in any number of other clubs and instructional related activities. The list is endless
and all can be eectuated through the collaboration of stakeholders utilizing school, business, parent, and
community support and involvement.
A function of teaching and learning as stated in Standard 2 of ISLLC 2008 is to, Create a personalized and
motivating environment for students (Council of Chief State School Ocers, 2008, p.14). The ISLLC-Based
Guide (Sanders & Kearney, 2008) provides indicators for practice which state, a leader. . .

1. Develops shared understanding, capacities, and commitment to high expectations for all students and
closing achievement gaps.
2. Guides and supports job-embedded, standards-based profession development that improves teaching
and learning and meets diverse learning needs of every student (p.17).

Once again the terms, all students and every student, stand out in the performance indicators as a reminder
that regardless of the disability, circumstance, or uniqueness of students' needs, in response to teaching and
learning standards and expectations, all must be served equally.

3.8.8 Managing Organizational Systems

Standard 3
An education leader promotes the success of every student by ensuring management of the organization,
operation, and resources for a safe, ecient, and eective learning environment.
Operational management is a broad category covering a myriad of overlapping and on-going functions
of education leadership and administration within educational systems. It is the area in which leadership

intermixes with administration and often draws the organizational leader away from pursuing the ultimate
vision and goal of instructional leadership and ensuring the academic success of every student. The important
questions for educators to remember when making operational decisions are how does a particular decision
relate to students, and how will a decision or action help every student achieve academic success?
Operational management encompasses tasks and responsibilities such as scheduling, budgeting and re-
source management, personnel selection and retention, legal and regulatory issues, transportation, food
services, facility management and maintenance, student and personnel safety and security, and human re-
source management and development. All these decision-making tasks must be directed toward meeting the
ISLLC 2008 Standard 3 goal of creating and maintaining an eective and ecient learning environment.
Keeping an eye on this goal contributes to eective administrative management in problem-solving and
decision-making. Sanders & Kearney (2008) remind us that,
Education leaders need a systems approach to complex organizations of schools and districts. In order
to ensure the success of all students and provide a high-performing learning environment, education leaders
manage daily operations and environments through eciently and eectively aligning resources with vision
and goals. Valuable resources include nancial, human, time, materials, technology, physical plant, and
other system components (p.19).
Ensuring quality instruction will positively impact the opportunity for every student to learn and advance
academically. It begins with the selection of quality teachers and support service personnel and providing
the time and funding for on-going professional development for everyone. Operational management activities
such as developing class schedules, strategic placement of students and teachers, and inclusion of opportu-
nities for student support programs and activities within the regular schedule provides a basic structure for
instruction and meeting students' special needs.
Management of the operational budget should include providing equitable funding for all instructional
programs and student service activities such as eld trips, before and after school programs, academic tutor-
ing, athletics, student counseling services and support programs, transportation to accommodate exibility
in program schedules, or funding and incentives for development of creative academic and student support
programs and activities. Seeking grant funding to supplement the budget can provide nancial support for
the development of special services and programs.
Legal and governmental considerations include meeting federal and state rules and regulations as they
related to areas such as ADA requirements, ensuring safety of students and sta, meeting special education
and Title I requirements, serving the needs of ESL and bilingual students, meeting the instructional require-
ments for migratory, delinquent, and at-risk student populations, or supporting due process for students and

3.8.9 Collaborating with Families and Stakeholders

Standard 4
An education leader promotes the success of every student by collaborating with faculty and community
members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
The development of collaborative partnerships with parents and community organizations provides an
additional support and resource for education leaders in schools and school districts as they move to de-
velop and implement special services and programs to meet the needs of every student. Collaboration and
development of partnerships with families and community service organizations can result in development
and support for programs serving students with special needs. The cultural, racial, socio-economic, and
ethnic make-up of communities served by schools are an important resource for education leaders in the
development of programs and services created or maintained to meet the unique needs of the families and
communities. Developing lines of communication with families and stakeholders in their native language can
result in better understanding of educational programs and partnerships in support of teaching and learning.
Both school district public relations programs and communication channels developed at individual school
sites help parents understand and support their student's learning. Schools are at the center of community
activities. Parents choose communities in which to live based on the academic achievement of students in

local schools. Families choose school districts based on the special services and programs available to meet
the educational needs of their children.

3.8.10 Ethics and Integrity

Standard 5
An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical
Education leaders are under public scrutiny as a group and are expected to foster and exhibit ethical
behavior in their day-to-day work. They are expected to exhibit ethical behavior through professionalism,
concern for and responsibility to others, and consideration of the community as a whole in their decision-
making (Beyer, 2004). The education leader functions set forth under this standard address accountability
for the academic and social success of all students, moral principles for self-guidance, democratic values, po-
tential legal consequences for unethical decision-making, and social justice for every student in meeting their
education needs (Council of Chief State School Ocers, 2008). It is imperative that university preparation
programs prepare all education leaders to act in an ethical manner in program planning, resource allocation,
curriculum development, human resource management, providing a safe and secure learning environment,
and oering the special programs and services that will support the academic and social success of every

3.8.11 The Education System

Standard 6
An education leader promotes the success of every student by understanding, responding to, and inuencing
the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
An understanding of local, state, and federal policies, rules, and regulations is essential to the successful
leadership of schools and school systems. Knowledge of laws pertaining to the social and academic success
of all students is required for successful leadership. Accurately interpreting policy and laws and acting to
inuence education policy in a way that will advocate and benet all students is an essential role of an
education leader. Performance expectations described by Sanders & Kearney (2008) state,
The education leader believes in, values, and is committed to:

• Advocate for children and education

• Inuence policies
• Uphold and improve laws and regulations
• Eliminate barriers to achievement
• Build on diverse social and cultural assets (p. 28).

This Standard speaks to the necessity of education leaders to engage in on-going inquiry and professional
development to remain current educational research and keep abreast of changes in policies and laws that
aect the educational rights of children and families to the programs, services, and opportunities that will
meet unique and special needs of every student.

3.8.12 Implications for Practice

How does all this relate to preparation and practice? Education leader practices suggested and discussed
under each standard are not unique and many are implemented each day in schools across the nation.
It is important for universities to regularly review the structure and curriculum of leadership preparation
programs to determine whether there are any gaps in the preparation provided to candidates. Are candidates
suciently prepared in the knowledge and skills necessary to develop and implement special programs and
services at the PK-12 school level that will ensure quality educational programs for every student? The
imperative and challenge for leadership preparation programs is to ensure that graduates have been prepared

to meet the special and unique needs of the students, schools, and communities which they will serve.
ISLLC 2008 provides a policy framework and guide for practicing administrators, school districts, university
preparation programs, and state and national education agencies that can be utilized in the evaluation and
assessment of education leadership across the nation. It provides a framework for university programs that
can be directed toward the preparation of candidates with the knowledge and skill base to meet the unique
needs of students and the communities they will serve. These skills can be applied to the development and
maintenance of essential special programs and services to ensure academic achievement and success for all
CCSSO clearly states that the ultimate goal of these policy standards and the nal outcome of the
implementation of the ISLLC 2008 standards is eective instructional leadership that positively impacts
student achievement (Council of Chief State School Ocers, 2008, p. 13). This intended outcome of
the standards should guide and drive decision and policy making in university education leader preparation
courses, in national, state, and local educational agencies, and must be the goal toward which every education
leader strives.

3.8.13 References
American Association of School Administrators. (1993) 1994 Platform and resolutions. Arlington, VA:
American Association of School Administrators.
Beyer, B. (2004). Applying Ethical Standards in Leadership Practice. NCPEA Educational Leadership
Review. National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Sam Houston State University:
Huntsville, TX.
Beyer, B. (2006). Combining forces in the development of programs and services: Bringing education,
government, and nonprot agencies together. NCPEA Connexions. The Connexions Project: Rice Univer-
sity. Available:
Beyer, B. M. & Johnson, E. S. (2005). Special programs & services in schools: Creating options, meetings
needs. Lancaster, PA: Pro>Active Publications.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. R. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. 3rd ed.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint.
Council of Chief State School Ocers (1996). Interstate school leaders licensure consortium (ISLLC):
Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author.
Council of Chief State School Ocers (CCSSO). (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC
2008 as adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). Washington, DC:
Author. Available:
Hoyle, J.R., English, F.W., & Stey, B. E. (1998). Skills for successful 21st century school leaders:
Standards for peak performance. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Milstein, M., & Associates (1993). Changing the way we prepare educational leaders: The Danforth
experience. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Oce.
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (2002). Professional standards for the
accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (1993). Principals for our changing school: The
knowledge and skill base. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2002a). The Educational Leadership Constituent
Council standards for advance programs in educational leadership. Washington DC: Author.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2002b). Professional standards for the accredi-
tation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2008). Educational leadership policy standards:
ISLLC 2008. Washington DC: Author. Available:
Owens, R. G. & Valesky, T. C. (2007). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and
school reform. 9th edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Price, H. B. (2008). Mobilizing the community to help students succeed. Alexandria VA. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Quinn, T. (2007). Preparing Non-Educators for the Superintendency. The School Administra-
tor. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from
32 .
Rodriguez, F. J. (2000, Spring). Interdisciplinary leadership in the Americas: Vision, risk, and change.
Journal of the Intermountain Center for Education Eectiveness. 1(2), 64-71.
Sanders, N. M. & Kearney, K. M. (Eds.) (2008). Performance Expectations and indicators for education
leaders: An ISLLC-Based guide to implementing leader standards and a companion guide to the educational
leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Ocers. Available:
Thompson, S. (Ed.)(1993). Principals for our changing schools: Knowledge and skill base. National
Policy Board for Educational Administration. Roman Littleeld Publisher.
U. S. Government (2002). The no child left behind act of 2001. (PL 107-110, 107th Congress). Wash-
ington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Oce.

3.9 It Takes a Village to Raise New Faculty: Implementing Triangu-

lar Mentoring Relationships

Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration.

Those who have torches will pass them on to others (Plato, Republic)
This scholarly essay features a formal mentoring program for new faculty in its rst and crucial year of
development in a research university culture. We are two mentoring leaders, a professor (program director)
and dean (program sponsor), who focus on the program's inception, implementation, and evaluation. Our
emphasis is on the collective support and growth that allowed the program to take root and transition into its
second year. The village of present is changing in the state of Florida and across the nation, with increased
expectations for faculty scholarly productivity, as well as relevance and impact, within America's major
research universities like our own: The point [has been] made clear: faculty who want tenure and promotion
must do (and publish) research, preferably research that meets the needs of the university (Brown, 2006,
p. 51).
Knowing that newcomers experience signicant challenges and dramatic change within the rst year of
their tenure-earning lives and that stress levels tend to escalate thereafter (Rice, Sorcinelli, & Austin, 2000;
Sorcinelli, 1994), we are invested in the belief it takes a village to raise new faculty. In order to help new
professors feel a sense of community in their workplaces and to learn how to maneuver the ambiguities of
tenure systems, we heed the lessons of salient studies that underscore this dual problem in the academy
(e.g., Boice, 1991; Rice, et al., 2000; Sorcinelli, 1994). Toward this end, mentoring and collegiality can go a
long way to support tenure-earning faculty in understanding their complex environments and in adjusting
and experiencing success more quickly (Bode; 1999; Ostro & Kozlowski, 1993). While formal mentoring

33 This content is available online at <>.

programs have increased in popularity nationwide, greater awareness and more documentation are denitely
needed (Gibb, 1999), a goal this writing supports.
The College of Education (COE) at the University of South Florida (USF) is a public doctoral/research
university. The primary aim of the New Faculty Mentoring Program (NFMP) is to promote the professional
development and academic success of new faculty in their rst two years. A second, equally important,
purpose is to provide seasoned faculty with opportunities to share their expertise with a new colleague and
within the college's rst mentoring network of new and established colleagues (for more information, consult
the COEUSF's NFMP website:
The COEUSF New Faculty Mentoring Program
Program Vision and Goals
The NFMP encapsulates joint decision-making, triangular mentoring relationships, and faculty leader-
ship. It grew out of Carol Mullen's initiative as a tenured faculty member and Dean Kennedy's enthusiastic
support of her proposed mentoring program for all new faculty. The program was rapidly developed by
consulting the literature on formal faculty mentoring programs and processes, and through interactive, joint
Specic goals of this formal mentoring program are assisting faculty members and departments in actively
mentoring new professors; enabling the scholarly development of newcomers through triangular mentoring
relationships that support the retention and advancement of all new faculty, and that sustain collegewide
mentoring through ongoing practice.
NFMP Structure and Activities
The new faculty who join us function as the center of a mentoring triad, assigned to both a mentor in
their department and another in the college. Academic protégés benet more from multiple relationships
focused on their interests and needs (Higgins, 2000), so we followed this established mentoring protocol.
Department chairs identify department mentors, and in addition, the mentoring director makes the college
matches, with input from the Dean's oce. The department mentor is likely to have close contact with the
new academic, serving as an invaluable resource and sounding board. The college mentor is a go to person
for discussing any concerns in condence and an outsider to the mentee's department, this mentor can oer
fresh perspectives.
For the inaugural year in which this piloted program was tested, the following activities were implemented:
fall orientation, meet and greet luncheon for new faculty, end-of-the-year luncheon, and a research and
scholarship panel. The current year of 20062007 of the NFMP is characterized by more sophisticated as
well as inclusive mentoring strategies, which will be outlined later. This brief report focuses on the processes
and outcomes of the rst year of 20052006 of this program.
What We Learned During the Pilot Phase
The 30 participating facultythat is, 10 new faculty participants joined by their department mentor and
their college mentor to form a triad were surveyed both fall 2005 and spring 2006. 2 For the preliminary
study, the 30 faculty members were surveyed twice (fall and spring) with 10 participants per group (new
faculty, department mentor, college mentor). The overall return rate of survey responses was 63% for the
fall semester and 57% for the spring semester. The new faculty response rate was 80% in both the fall and
spring. Department mentors had a 60% return rate in the fall, with 80% the following semester. Relatively
speaking, the college mentor response rate was modest50% (fall) and 30% (spring), but overall a healthy
return rate can be reported.
We learned that new faculty needs in our college typically ranged from entry-level concerns such as
learning the functions of key personnel, to academic agendas such as securing resources, to performance
reviews such as clarifying requirements for annual evaluations. Additional ndings concerning faculty mentor
support and improvements for the second year follow.
Faculty Mentor Support
Most established faculty members were willing to provide the new professors with much-needed guidance
and support. In relation to their academic careers, faculty mentors provided protection and visibility, for
example. Mentors also provided guidance and support in terms of psychosocial aspects, such as role modeling
and counseling functions as well as providing for their direct interests, such as grants development and

teaching feedback (see Kram, 1985/1988). The quality and regularity of mentoring varied across college and
departmental mentorships. Meetings with internal mentors were, as could be expected, less formal, more
frequent, and more unit-focused. Oce and campus proximity was identied as crucial to the regularity and
success of mentoring.
A dierent level of expectation should probably be held for the o-campus or college mentor role. The
college and department mentoring arrangements functioned somewhat dierently. As condantes, college
mentors mostly oered a safe haven, providing objective viewpoints on issues involving promotion and per-
sonalities, while department mentors focused on relationship-building and problem-solving. Over time, then,
the college mentors served more of a careerist, preparatory function embodying a long-term view, whereas
department mentors seemed more local in their emphasis, helping with daily or weekly survivalist approaches
to their work. However, the mentoring functions of both college and department eorts naturally overlapped,
regardless of physical location, with all serving as functional mentors, oering career and psychosocial benets
ranging from help with adjustment to a new place to assistance with scholarly development.
Certainly, both mentoring groups fostered the career and psychosocial functions of mentoring. Perhaps
because a mentoring mindset and climate were established in the college, nonappointed faculty and chairs
also provided assistance in at least two cases unocially assuming the role of mentor. Validation of the pro-
gram and its centerpiece, the triangular mentoring relationship, was conrmed and, signicantly, a budding
mentoring culture was established.
Importantly, both college and department mentors reported that a growing sense of collegiality with their
mentees signicantly inuenced the relationship. Mentoring parties located at a distance, then, could feel
genuine concern for one another, which in turn built a sense of collegiality and helped to ensure support.
On the other hand, physical distance and time stood out as signicant barriers to successful mentoring for
some parties. Distance had less to do with whether the mentor was situated outside the new professor's
unit, and more to do with whether this individual was located at a dierent campus. The new professors
who were situated at the regional campuses, as opposed to the main campus, were inevitably challenged. As
one solution, most of the newly hired regional faculty agreed to be mentored by three mentors, with at least
one from their own site and another from the main campus. Because promotion and tenure for all aliated
regional faculty are handled through the main campus, one of their mentors needed to be located centrally.
An end-of-year evaluation is too late to discover interpersonal problems and program pitfalls. Hence, we
incorporated new faculty only gatherings in the early fall along with survey assessments and follow-ups with
tenure-earning faculty. A policy of condentiality informed the mentoring director's communications with
all participants, ensuring privacy as well as anonymity.
Improvements for Year Two
For the transitional period at the end of the rst year and for the second year cycle of this program,
all recommendations were satised. The 2005 spring data were analyzed in time to satisfy the participants'
requests for recognition, information, and other program changes; some were made at the end of the inaugural
year with additional changes implemented for the second year.
The suggestion that mentor training be nancially supported was acted upon, with resources obtained
for a luncheon that drew together all mentoring parties. However, no specication for payment to mentors
was made.
Widespread commitment to support new faculty is also expected to evolve with combined eorts on the
part of the NFMP leaders and faculty more generally. Through exchanges with the rst year faculty as
to whether they wanted to continue in the program, recognition came that formal mentoring is essential
collegewide and prompted widespread buy-in. In fact, ninety percent agreed to extend their formal arrange-
ments. Certainly, one test of formal mentoring success in any organization is for new faculty to want to
continue to receive mentoring from senior faculty. These protracted arrangements will be examined at the
conclusion of the second year, along with the new mentorships formed. Based on this extended mentoring
opportunity, it will be possible to learn more about both formal and informal mentoring within a research
university culture and its evolutionary process.
Another strategy for soliciting and extending collegewide involvement was to continue some of the same
mentors into the second year, while some new mentoring triads were formed. Long-term goals are to involve

as many willing and capable senior faculty as possible and to reap the rewards of a robust culture of mentoring
not dependent on assigned relationships.
Additional improvements introduced in the second year of the NFMP were: (1) a training session identied
as a meet and greet work luncheon, complete with other inclusive social events); (2) a written mentoring
agreement for parties wanting to clarify what is expected, in addition to learning goal statements accompanied
by specic responsibilities for the mentors and their mentees; (3) a new survey item with best-match variables,
(4) library sessions focused on advanced database searches and citation indexes, and (5) conversion of the
fall and spring surveys into a user-friendly, online instruments.
Life in the Evolving Village
We found that this formal mentoring experience not only potentially spearheads faculty bonding, but
also better positions our village of scholars to generate widespread cultural change. The facilitation of
collegiality and interdependence via formalized mentorships can even be thought of as a cultural reform
strategy. Fullan (2006) persuasively argues in Turnaround Leadership that all successful strategies [aimed
at changing educational cultures] are socially based and action oriented (p. 44). Attention to mutual
commitment and interest, scholarly overlap, proximity, and diversity must be upheld in the making of good
faculty matches. Another goal is for us to include the faculty mentors in all events focused on new faculty
development, as well as to continue soliciting recommendations for improvement and, when advisable, acting
on these.
The New Faculty Mentoring Program is obviously evolving. Modications continue to be made based
on faculty input. A few recent hires in our College of Education have actually requested, as part of the
negotiating process, that they be allowed to participate in our collegewide mentoring program for tenure-
earning faculty only to learn that they will automatically become part of it. Universities that function as
mentoring organizations oer something that is relatively new (Forret, Turban, & Dougherty, 1996), yet
mentorprotégé relationships ensure a bright future so they must be encouraged and facilitated. Finally,
successful formal mentoring programs make a dierence to new academics and even to seasoned faculty.
Such support networks enable the exchange of experience and best practice, as well as desirable cultural
change. No doubt, universities implementing formal faculty mentoring should be encouraged to share ideas
and tips with respect to research-based faculty mentoring, so as to continue to improve the climate and
culture for tenure and promotion of new faculty.
Author Notes
1Academic publishers are now recognizing the value of formal faculty mentoring programs, especially as
concerns relevance for multiple university colleges, with the rst-ever book on this topic recently appearing
in print (Mullen, in press).
2This study received USF's Institutional Review Board approval in 2005.
This essay treatment is of a larger empirical work: Mullen, C. A., Feyten, C. M., Holcomb, C., Kealy,
W. A., & Keller, H. R. (in press). Birthing a new faculty mentoring program in a research culture. In C. A.
Mullen (Ed.), The handbook of successful faculty mentoring programs. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon
Bode, R. K. (1999). Mentoring and collegiality. In R. J. Menges and Associates (Eds.), Faculty in new
jobs (pp. 118-114). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boice, R. (1991). New faculty as teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 62(2), 150-173.
Brown, S. C. (2006). University research: Conict between federal and local interests? Florida Educa-
tional Leadership, 6(2), 51-53.
Forret, M. L., Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1996). Issues facing organizations when implementing
formal mentoring programmes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(3), 27-30.
Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Gibb, S. (1999). The usefulness of theory: A case studying evaluating formal mentoring schemes. Human
Relations, 52(8), 1055-1075.
Higgins, M. C. (2000). The more, the merrier? Multiple developmental relationships and work satisfac-
tion. Journal of Management Development, 19(4), 277-296.

Kram, K. E. (1985/1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Lan-

ham, MA: University Press of America.
Mullen, C. A., Kennedy, C. S., & Keller, H. R. (2006). Establishing new faculty mentoring programs in
research institutions. School Leadership News: The newsletter of AERA; Division A: Administration, Orga-
nization, & Leadership, 17, 12-15. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from
Mullen, C. A. (Ed.). (in press). The handbook of successful faculty mentoring programs. Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Ostro, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering processes
of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170-183.
Rice, R. E., Sorcinelli, M. D., & Austin, A. F. (2000). Heeding new voices: Academic careers for a new
generation. (Inquiry #7, working paper series). New pathways: Faculty careers and employment for the
21st century. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) and Stylus Publishing.
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Eective approaches to new faculty development. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 72, 474-479.
Tierney, W. G. (2001). Reforming tenure in schools of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 550-554.

3.10 Perceptions Within the Discipline: Exceptional Scholarship in

Educational Leadership and Administration

Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
the Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration.

This preliminary study asked, Who's the most exceptional living scholar in the eld of educational leader-
ship? Four scholar-practitioners who were the most frequently nominated by fellow academics from 2002 to
2003 were identied. The reasons given by nominators for their selections were analyzed, resulting in criteria
that can be used for characterizing exceptional scholarship at this time or pursuing a more comprehensive
study. The criteriasignicant and broad impact on scholarship and the eld, national spheres of public
inuence, and mentoring and multi-authoring systemsappear in table form, complete with representative
quotes. Importantly, issues of context and tension are raised as dierent perspectives were oered on the
survey question itself from both voting and non-voting respondents.
On the one hand, a survey respondent commented,
I realize the impossible task of selecting the greatest living scholar in our eld.
Some are naturalistic methodologists rather than mainstream educational administration scholars, while
others approach scholarship with very narrow or very broad perspectives.
On the other hand, another declared,
Some scholars do stand out. There is one who I think is simply the greatest mover `n' shaker in the
profession. This individual has done more than any to shape the direction of the eldhis work is widely read
by both scholars and practitioners, and his contributions to educational leadership are widely recognized.
For this study, academics in educational leadership and administration were asked, Who's the most
exceptional living scholar in the eld of educational leadership? The respondents (university faculty con-
stituents) were encouraged to provide an explanation for their votes. The focus here is on the perceptions

34 This content is available online at <>.


of nominators relative to outstanding scholarship in educational leadership. Not only the who, but par-
ticularly the why, served as the guiding framework for this analysis. Throughout this survey research
spanning 2002 to 2003, four scholar-practitioners in particular were most frequently nominated, leading to
their eventual identication. The reasons given by nominators for their selections were analyzed, resulting
in criteria that are discussed here; these can be used for characterizing exceptional scholarship at this time
or pursuing a more comprehensive study. The criteriasignicant and broad impact on scholarship and the
eld, national spheres of public inuence, and mentoring and multi-authoring systemsappear in Table 1,
complete with representative quotes from the data.
Importantly, issues of context and tension were raised as dierent perspectives were oered on the survey
question itself from both voting and non-voting respondents. The tension evident in the opening quotes
signies deep, unresolved issues that surfaced during the data analysis. The complexities of this picture are
also briey explored in this article and are open to further interpretation.
Conceptual Framework and Research Scaolds
In addition to my own curiosity as a professor in this area, four sources inspired this preliminary ex-
ploration: (1) the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration's (NCPEA) Living Legend
Awards, recognized annually since 1999 (; (2) Kiewra and Creswell's (2000) study
of highly productive educational psychologists, which identied living legendsRichard Anderson, Richard
Mayer, Michael Pressley, and Ann Brownthrough nominators' eyes; (3) Culberton's (1995) seminal work on
the University Council for Educational Administration's (UCEA) history that provides insight into the cre-
ation of this organizational inter-university system and those pioneering scholars involved; and (4) Murphy's
(1999) self-portrait of the profession, informed by professors in school administration programs.
Kiewra and Creswell's (2000) study beneted from their ongoing research on productive scholars. They
combined a eld-based survey approach with dialogic case study methods, interviewing the most successful
nominees. Adapting but also modifying this approach to satisfy my own objectives, I surveyed practicing
educational leadership professors in their role of peer nominator. To obtain as many responses as possible
and to dilute the inuence of any particular lter on the outcomes, I did not seek sponsorship from an
association or funding agency, instead accessing dierent venues over time.
Murphy's (1999) study also explored professors' concepts of important markers in the academy over one
decade (e.g., reform eorts and publications and presentations within the eld). Interestingly, those authors
and works cited as seminal from 1987 to 1996 overlapped with the results of my own study carried out seven
years later.
Of the top four nominees in my own studyin alphabetical order, John Goodlad (University of Wash-
ington, retiree), John Hoyle (Texas A&M University), Joseph Murphy (Vanderbilt University), and Thomas
Sergiovanni (Trinity University)
all but one (John Hoyle) were listed in Murphy's results. Since my survey question did not specify what
congures a living legend, the possibilities for naming new and dierent individuals extended beyond the
use of publications and citations as a traditional marker of excellence in the academy. The results outlined
in Table 1 support this perception, as criteria generated by nominees for making these decisions were much
more comprehensive and show value for theory/practice links. However, despite these dierences between
the two studies (e.g., my own pool of participants was greater, list of nominations longer, and survey question
open-ended), the core selections of Murphy's respondents mirrored my own. This suggests outcomes beyond
the scope of either of the studies, each reinforcing the other and, perhaps, enhancing validity. However,
neither Murphy's study nor my own claim to have comprehensively sampled the discipline, opting instead
for a purposeful sampling, consistent with a preliminary exploration. This is also the case for Kiewra and
Creswell's study.
Participant Pool and Study Method
Nominated Scholars
The many persons forwarded as exceptional by faculty peers may all qualify as scholar-practitioners
for whom their academic productivity inextricably links to impact and application within the eld. While
most can be described as full-edged scholars who have signicantly inuenced national trends and policies
in addition to local contexts, others were selected for their leadership roles within school districts and the

community. However, the majority of exceptional scholars nominated work within the academy in various
disciplines, primarily educational administration, in one of two respects: (1) broadly representing educational
studies within such areas as business, politics, humanities, and philosophy, or (2) specializing in educational
leadership with a focus on school leadership, higher education, or teacher education, and in such areas as
supervision, schooluniversity collaboration, leadership preparation, policy, and reform.

3.10.1 Survey Methods

Pilot and group discourse. For the survey  `The Greatest' Living Scholars of Our Time (that some quipped
to be a tough assignment) recipients were asked to take a moment to make a dierence by answering this
question, to nominate one person, and to briey jot down the reason(s) for your choice. The form alluded
to the necessity of being able to make an informed judgment (this survey assumes that you're in the eld
of educational leadership). It was established that any feedback would be anonymously reported. A pilot
sampling, conducted in 2002 at a doctoral research-extensive metropolitan university in Florida, involved
eight educational leadership professors. The question was openly tested and the interest level gauged. This
process further veried the value/importance of the question itself, so I broadened my data collection eorts.
I also learned that some faculty wanted either to nominate more than one person or to vote with reservations,
an outcome that foreshadowed an emerging pattern on a larger scale for some respondents.
Fuller sampling and distribution. Turning to listserves of professional associations, I accessed those most
relevant to my study, including university-based educational leadership departments located through Internet
searches. Conference councils and educational leadership editorial teams also received the survey. My goal
was to obtain 200 surveys214 (6%) complete responses were received; additionally, 19 electronic messages
were returned explaining why a nomination was not possible. In all, 233 (7%) responses were analyzed.
Approximately 3,500 individuals would have received the survey (some more than once), but this number
proved impossible to accurately track.
While the goal set for the completed surveys was met, the very low return rate needs to be addressed,
especially when one considers that a good response rate of 50 to 60% is generally considered accepted for
survey research (Diem, 2002). However, at least one social science research team has found that its traditional
paper survey yielded a higher response rate (60%) than the same questionnaire distributed electronically,
which dropped signicantly to 27%; this led them to question whether e-surveys are a reliable means of
collecting data from a targeted population (Fraze, Hardin, Brashears, Smith, & Lockaby, 2003). In the long
list provided by Newman (2002) for increasing one's response rate from surveys in general, I used most of
the suggestionsprovide a salient question, indicate why the respondent's answer matters, keep the survey
short and simple, use university identication and a personalized note, and follow up with a reminder. I did
not make many telephone calls or oer monetary incentives, both optional strategies for maximizing one's
response rate.
While I do not know why for certain why the response rate was low, several possibilities do come to
mind. For one thing, the tensions evident in some of the responses (and non-votes) received suggest that the
nature of the topic itself is controversial. Asking who the most exceptional scholar in educational leadership
is today may seem confounded for those who question the very notion of greatness, especially among one's
living contemporaries, or those who can think of more than one person, or those who can think of no one
at all deserving of such status. As Renzetti and Lee (1993) acknowledge, researching sensitive topics poses
conceptual, methodological, and imaginative challenges, an explanation that describes my own experience.
As another possibility, there is little control that can be exerted over a study that is conducted electron-
ically and where the recipients, although from a targeted population, may question the survey focus or the
researcher's motives. This is why I spent additional time collecting the data, re-stating the purpose of the
study, eliciting some responses in-person, and emailing reminders to non-respondents, all as strategies for
seeking a higher response rate.
Specically, the survey was electronically circulated to the American Educational Research Association's
(AERA) Division A (Administration), which had 820 members in 2002, and AERA's Division K (Teaching
& Teacher Education), which had 1,004 ( Additionally, representatives of UCEA's
executive council and member institutes were recipients (, along with NCPEA's 1,622

members ( Thirty-ve leadership professors also represented the Florida Association
of Professors of Educational Leadership Association (FAPEL).
Deviation from KiewraCreswell study. Unlike Kiewra and Creswell (2000), who generated a list of
names based on AERA's Division C (Learning and Instruction) membership, I did not preselect scholars to
be rated. I strove to avoid tying the results to particular associations and their star leaders, which could
have limited and even biased the data. And I did not want to presume what living scholar might mean
to others, so I avoided dening this term. Those respondents who forwarded the names of two exceptional
scholars, explaining their reasoning for this decision, had both votes counted. Also, in contrast with Kiewra
and Creswell's focus on cognition and learning for their survey and recipient pool, my own form provided no
premapping or compartmentalization relative to educational leadership. Reasons for selecting any particular
area, such as supervision or policy, seemed arbitrary, serving only to privilege one at the expense of another.
I opted for openness, hoping this would promote greater inclusion or representation of the educational
leadership eld and hence provide a rich data set of interest to readers.
Finally, the Kiewra and Creswell results were based on 41 (out of 113) responses. The 233 I received
from nominators also compares with the 105 that Murphy (1999) collected.
Saturation and data analysis. The scholars recognized as exceptional in this study achieved this status
once the data (i.e., votes cast and reasons provided) revealed clear patterns. Also, the response data (reasons
given for selections) were coded, and key words and phrases highlighted, in search of potential themes,
applying Miles and Huberman's (1994) qualitative procedures for data management and analysis.
Discussion of Survey Results
In supplying the reason(s) for their choice, respondents generally emphasized areas of importance, specic
contributions, and lines of work, even areas that personally inuenced their own scholarship. Others noted
publications and further scholarly contributions.
Four scholars have been identied as exceptional in this article. Although many more names were
forwarded, some with obvious and consistent support by the voting body, a demarcation became evident
based on the sheer number of tallies over time. A top tier consisting of four individuals had emerged in
addition to a second and third tier.
Those nalists identied here are all white males. A number of females and a few minorities were nom-
inated (and some were nominators), but not to the point of selection. Although there has been a dramatic
increase of women in educational leadership, school leadership certication programs, and leadership posi-
tions in national level associations (e.g., UCEA, NCPEA, and AERA), male scholars may be publishing more
frequently (Engstrom, 1999). As McCarthy (1999) speculated, women as a group have been faculty in this
eld for fewer years than men, and so have not yet hit their stride in terms of scholarly productivity and
impact (p. 202). As another possibility, male scholars may be receiving greater recognition for works dissem-
inated and scholarly eorts made. The same trend probably applies to minority scholars. Obviously, such
trends and possibilities should be closely examined in the context of equity, ethics, and policy development
in academe, as recommended by Haring (1998) and other scholars.
Dierent Readings of the Question
The survey question was interpreted in various ways. While some viewed it from a national policy
perspective, others considered contribution to the scholarly eld, schools, or novice leaders.
Selection Criteria and Reasons
The criteria of selection and reasons given were numerous; these are summarized in Table 1. The entries
(appearing on the left) represent the themes that emerged from the response data and each quote (on the
right) provides support from two or more respondents for the corresponding theme; these all characterize
the typical comments received.
The four scholars selected as leading academics do not evenly fulll all of the criteria listed, perhaps
because each is known for particular spheres of inuence (e.g., leadership standards, administrator program
preparation reform, ethics and moral leadership, K12 institutional partnership). Nonetheless, all were
associated with such dimensions as signicant and broad impact on scholarship and the eld, national spheres
of public inuence, and mentoring and multi-authoring systems. The reasons provided extend beyond the
traditional association with publication rates and impact via frequency of citation as markers of scholarly

excellence. The proliferating criteria also t with some of the emerging contemporary trends in our eld,
such as the increase since 1986 of university faculty committing to improving relationships with schools and
practitioners, developing eld-based components in preparation programs, and focusing more on ethics in
professional practice (McCarthy, 1999; Mullen, Gordon, Greenlee, & Anderson, 2002).
However, the recurring reasons that were forwarded virtually bypassed contributions in the areas of diver-
sity and social justice as well as alternative paradigms, such as feminism, critical theory, and postmodernism.
Perhaps these and other philosophically critical locations will emerge in a more exhaustive sampling or a
future one. A critical reader of a draft version of this article asserted that the results reect a chasm in the
eld, which is still very traditional while moving ahead.
Going Wide/Deep as Reformers
Those who functioned broadly in their work and impact received more tallies within the discipline than
scholars who functioned more narrowly. This pattern suggests that those receiving an abundance of votes
were perceived as having a higher value. However, those who have made signicant inroads in an educational
leadership domain, such as administrator program preparation reform, were simultaneously associated with
specic change agendas. Going wide/deep was a salient pattern, then, associated with living legend.
Generally speaking, nominees had appeared to construct their own meaning of exceptional, seeing this
as a comprehensive eort closely related to particular reform agendas. Fullan (1999) explains that large
scaleness is only possible where human contact has been fully established and a multilevel system has
been managed on a continuous basis (p. 74). Although Fullan was addressing large-scale reforms per se
rather than particular reformers, these can be linked as I have done in this discussion.

3.10.2 Tensions in the Data Analysis

As is evident from Table 1, the results proved productive for identifying criteria that some academics currently
associate with outstanding scholarship. In contrast, a minority (19 individuals) oered powerful insights into
why nomination was simply not feasible to them. For a few, the very use of our eld in the survey question
was problematic: I see a problem with your question vis-à-vis your use of the label `our eld. ' Respondents
doubtless thought about the heroes in their own areas of study.
Granted, the concept of eld is very tricky. English (2003) critiques eld and its cousin knowledge
base as leftovers from modernism, denying a plurality of realities, truths, and interpretations. Postmod-
ernism brings context, human agency, and multiplicity into the foreground: Educational leadership, similar
to leadership studies, incorporates a broad range of perspectives, from descriptive to social scientic to
humanistic and drawing upon the interpretive methods of history, literature, philosophy, and education
(Johnson, 1996, p. 13). Another perception is that educational leadership is changing: The intent to bridge
theory with practice has created an emerging discipline that transcends the academy precisely because it is
more than mere scholarship; it is scholarship plus (Born, 1996, p. 47).
The hybrid or borrowing nature of educational administration has produced a composite eld, arous-
ing concern. Someone shared, I've been deeply troubled by the many contradictions between American
democratic ideals and the theories and notions borrowed from business, the military, and the social sciences
being subsumed within the eld of education administration with little scrutiny. Because of the increasingly
amorphous nature of educational leadership, another argued in favor of actually creating a eld that has
boundaries and a distinct identity: Without clear, substantive dierences from other academic departments,
educational administration as a eld of serious scholarly inquiry has no legitimate grounds on which to defend
its continued existence within academe, particularly while higher education is being downsized.
For still others, the use of living scholar understandably incited confusion and controversy, as thought-
fully articulated: In good conscience I must say that I nd the term living scholar something of an oxymoron.
My denition may be out of style these days, but I believe before one can be considered a scholar that person's
writings or orations must have withstood the tests of time. Interestingly, this decision evoked considerable
diculty. Every time I visit your email the same questions prevent an answerdoes `greatest living' mean
most frequently cited by other scholars? Most followed by practitioners? Contributed the greatest theoretical
insights about leadership?

Done most to redirect the eld of study? Or, added most to the empirical base for understanding
My reaction to all of these pivotal concerns is that while the survey question is laden with datable,
slippery concepts (i.e., the eld, living scholar, exceptional, and even educational leadership), so is
the profession itself. Further, the question solicited valuable informationit is useful to see the multiple,
disjointed, and even contradictory viewpoints taken. Areas of consensus also surfaced from this mixed
response, as captured in Table 1. Accounting for the feedback of non-voting members as I have done here
has made visible issues of contention. Those who provided critiques about the nominating process and
suggestively about its validity performed a probing hermeneutic deconstruction that was treated as data and
thematically analyzed, with some attention given here.
Contextual Inuences and Background Issues
One crucial insight of survey respondents was, Who is outstanding in educational leadership and ad-
ministration or any scholarly eld is really framed by the times and the needs. In many respects, this
resounding message has greater worth than the criteria and even the participants' selections. Certainly, con-
text matters, a reality that keeps the idea of living legend and practice of hero-worshipping in perspective.
This admission of temporality and contextuality contrasts with the view that the living legend nalists
represent a static, noncontroversial choice.
The results, inevitably debatable from almost any angle, are also inuenced by the methods I have
selected and the venues surveyed. Regardless of my attempt to appraise the educational leadership eld as
comprehensively as possible, a disjointedly congured domain required piecemeal, pick and shovel sampling.
Because no single repository exists to which all leadership professors belong, it is currently not possible to
communicate with the complete constituency and at one time. Such systemic barriers make it clear that any
such study should not be construed as the last word on the subject of exceptional scholarship.
In addition to systemic barriers to data collection, other contextual issues included political alliances,
decision-making challenges, and generational biases. Some scholarly communities hold tight allegiances,
making it dicult to know the extent to which nominations were inuenced by loyalty rather than informed
judgment. In a few instances, junior professors confessed that they had nominated their former major
professors. Perhaps more exhaustive sampling procedures would have better monitored the inuence of
political entanglements; on the other hand, these seem inherent in the psyche of any discipline. Other
contextual inuences underscore how challenging it proved for some respondents to make a single selection.
This struggle emphasizes just how demanding this decision-making process can be as well asthis is the good
newsthe high number of outstanding leaders from which to select. A few participants even postulated that
no such scholars currently exist, except as experts within their own domain. But most persons did provide a
nomination, even where disclaimers had been announced, an admission that supports the contentious notion
that leading scholars for contemporary times can in fact be identied, even where tensions and uncertainty
are embedded in the conclusions and where debate is inevitable and ongoing.
As mentioned, a generational bias entered into the results but once again the degree of inuence is
unknown. More senior professors generally know the older or more established generation of scholars, whereas
those younger have familiarity with the newer stars. Several nominees addressed this phenomenon, as in:
The more scholarly respondents might tend to select someone who is treasured within their eld for the
writing they have done. Personally, I am not as up-to-date with names because my own heroes are mostly
retirees; in fact, I am ignorant of the mid-career hotshots who are making good waves.
Final Remark
The issues of complexity raised herein suggest that while nominations of living legends seem possible,
especially where constituents have formulated criteria, deeper issues prevail. Nominators forwarded useful
and revealing criteria supporting their decision makinga process thoughtfully undertaken, particularly by
those sharing reections and caveats. And the dissenting critiques proved invaluable as well. Nominators
provided clues about the patterns of educational leadership they most value, the individuals to whom they
have looked for guidance, the status of the eld, and emergent trends.
Further research is needed that continues work on the controversial topic of exceptional scholarship in
educational leadership. Debate is also encouraged about the topics of signicance raised: The critical tensions

explored herein that capture the thinking of some university faculty in addition to the self-identifying criteria
for the votes cast would benet from a community-wide response.
Born, D. (1996). Leadership studies: A critical appraisal. In P. S. Temes (Ed.), Teaching leadership:
Essays in theory and practice (pp. 45-72). New York: Peter Lang.
Culbertson, J. (1995). Building bridges: UCEA's rst two decades. University Park, PA: The University
Council for Educational Administration.
Diem, K. G. (2002). Maximizing response rate and controlling nonresponse error in survey research.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Cooperative Extension/Resource Center Services. [Online]. Available:
English, F. W. (2003). The postmodern challenge to the theory and practice of educational administra-
tion. Springeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Engstrom, C. M. (1999). Promoting the scholarly writing of female doctoral students in higher education
and student aairs program. NASPA Journal, 36(4), 264-277.
Fraze, S., Hardin, K., Brashears, T., Smith, J. H., & Lockaby, J. (2003). The eects of delivery mode
upon survey response rate and perceived attitudes of Texas agri-science teachers. Journal of agricultural
education, 44 (part 2), 27-37.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer.
Haring, M. J. (1998). Response to A woman's name: Implications for publication, citation, and tenure.
Educational Researcher, 27(8), 43.
Johnson, P. F. (1996). Antipodes: Plato, Nietzsche, and the moral dimension of leadership. In P. S.
Temes (Ed.), Teaching leadership: Essays in theory and practice (pp. 13-44). New York: Peter Lang.
Kiewra, K. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2000). Conversations with three highly productive educational psy-
chologists: Richard Anderson, Richard Mayer, and Michael Pressley. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1),
McCarthy, M. M. (1999). The changing face of the educational leadership professoriate. In J. Murphy
& P. B. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational Administration: A decade of reform (pp. 192-214). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mullen, C. A., Gordon, S. P., Greenlee, B., & Anderson, R. H. (2002). Capacities for school leadership:
Emerging trends in the literature. International Journal of Educational Reform, 11(2), 158-198.
Murphy, J. (1999). The reform of the profession: A self-portrait. In J. Murphy & P. B. Forsyth (Eds.),
Educational Administration: A decade of reform (pp. 39-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Newman, M. E. (2002). `Rounding up' responses to mailed questionnaires. [American Evalu-
ation Association/Extension Education Evaluation]. [Online]. Available:
Renzetti, C. M., & Lee, R. M. (Eds.). (1993). Researching sensitive topics. London: Sage.
Author Notes
The respondent quotes appearing on this chart (and in this article) have been synthesized and slightly
altered, rendered gender-neutral where possible and anonymous, protecting both the nominees and the
nominators. I am grateful to the faculty nominators who generously shared their perceptions. Also, I
appreciate the helpful critique provided by the editor and the two reviewers.
Acronyms for national standards used by nominators:
Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC); Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)

Index of Keywords and Terms

Keywords are listed by the section with that keyword (page numbers are in parentheses). Keywords
do not necessarily appear in the text of the page. They are merely associated with that section. Ex.
apples, Ÿ 1.1 (1) Terms are referenced by the page they appear on. Ex. apples, 1

. H Higher Education, Ÿ 3.8(88)

instruction, Ÿ 1.2(8)
instructional design, Ÿ 1.3(14)
administration, Ÿ 1.2(8)
Leader, Ÿ 3.3(50)
administrative support, Ÿ 2.2(33)
leadership, Ÿ 1.2(8), Ÿ 3.7(80), Ÿ 3.8(88),
assessment, Ÿ 3.6(75)
Ÿ 3.10(102)
audit, Ÿ 3.6(75)
Leadership by Outrage, Ÿ 3.3(50)
B Best Practices in Online Teaching Course, leadership preparation, Ÿ 3.4(54)

M Manager, Ÿ 3.3(50)
Ÿ 1.3(14)
blended learning, Ÿ 1.3(14)
Mentoring, Ÿ 3.7(80), Ÿ 3.9(98)
Building Leaders, Ÿ 3.3(50)
Bureaucratic, Ÿ 3.3(50)
N ncpea, Ÿ 1.1(1), Ÿ 2.1(17), Ÿ 3.7(80), Ÿ 3.9(98)


O online learning, Ÿ 1.3(14)
Change, Ÿ 3.3(50)
online pedagogy, Ÿ 1.3(14)
online teaching, Ÿ 1.3(14)
credentialing, Ÿ 3.4(54)
CREDITING THE PAST, 50 P policy, Ÿ 3.6(75)
cultural competence, Ÿ 3.6(75) preparation, Ÿ 3.10(102)
Curriculum, Ÿ 3.8(88) Preparation Programs, Ÿ 3.8(88)

D Dependency, Ÿ 3.3(50)
principal preparation, Ÿ 3.7(80)
professional development, Ÿ 3.7(80)
distance, Ÿ 1.2(8)
protegeship, Ÿ 3.7(80)
distance education, Ÿ 1.3(14)
Purposing, Ÿ 3.3(50)
diversity, Ÿ 3.6(75)

E education, Ÿ 1.2(8)
S scholar-practitioner, Ÿ 3.10(102)
school culture, Ÿ 3.6(75)
educational administration, Ÿ 3.9(98)
school improvement, Ÿ 3.5(62), Ÿ 3.6(75)
Educational Leaders, Ÿ 2.1(17)
school leaders, Ÿ 3.4(54)
educational leadership, Ÿ 1.1(1), Ÿ 3.6(75)
Social and Political Acumen, Ÿ 2.1(17)
Empowerment, Ÿ 3.3(50)
Standards, Ÿ 3.8(88)

G global, Ÿ 3.6(75)
T teacer mentors, Ÿ 2.2(33)
technology, Ÿ 1.1(1), Ÿ 1.2(8)


Collection: Mentorship for Teacher Leaders

Edited by: Fred Mednick

Module: "e-Based Professional Development (e-PD) for Eective Teaching and Leadership"
By: Mary Harris-John, Sherri Ritter
Pages: 1-8
Copyright: Mary Harris-John, Sherri Ritter

Module: "Utilizing Distance Education in Your Professional Development"

By: Ed Cox, William Sharp
Pages: 8-13
Copyright: Ed Cox, William Sharp

Module: "Best Practices in Online Teaching - During Teaching - Promote Active Learning"
By: Larry Ragan
Pages: 14-16
Copyright: Larry Ragan

Module: "A Study of Social and Political Acumen in Dynamic Educational Leadership and the Implications
for Leadership Development Programs"
By: Andra McGinn
Pages: 17-33
Copyright: Andra McGinn

Module: "Mentors' Views of Factors Essential for the Success of Beginning Teachers"
By: Arnold Barrera, Richard Braley, John Slate
Pages: 33-46
Copyright: Arnold Barrera, Richard Braley, John Slate

Module: "Toward a Leadership Practice Field"

By: Theodore Creighton
Pages: 47-48
Copyright: Theodore Creighton

Used here as: "The Long View"
By: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration
Pages: 48-50
Copyright: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration

Module: "The Principalship: Manager to Leader"

By: Angus MacNeil, Michael Yelvington
Pages: 50-53
Copyright: Angus MacNeil, Michael Yelvington

Module: "Preparing, Developing, and Credentialing K-12 School Leaders: Continuous Learning for Profes-
sional Roles"
By: Patricia Reeves, James E. Berry
Pages: 54-62
Copyright: Patricia Reeves, James E. Berry

Module: "Reality Check: Designing a New Leadership Program for the 21st Century"
By: Bob Smith, Rayma Harchar, Kathleen Campbell
Pages: 62-75
Copyright: Bob Smith, Rayma Harchar, Kathleen Campbell

By: Rebecca M. Bustamante, Ph.D.
Pages: 75-80
Copyright: Rebecca M. Bustamante, Ph.D.

Module: "A Mentoring Mindset: Preparing Future Principals to be Eective Protégés"

By: Linda Searby
Pages: 80-87
Copyright: Linda Searby

Module: "An Imperative for Leadership Preparation Programs: Preparing Future Leaders to Meet the Needs
of Students, Schools, and Communities"
By: Bonnie Beyer
Pages: 88-98
Copyright: Bonnie Beyer

Module: "It Takes a Village to Raise New Faculty: Implementing Triangular Mentoring Relationships"
By: Carol Mullen, Colleen Kennedy
Pages: 98-102
Copyright: Carol Mullen, Colleen Kennedy

Module: "Perceptions Within the Discipline: Exceptional Scholarship in Educational Leadership and Ad-
By: Carol Mullen
Pages: 102-110
Copyright: Carol Mullen
Mentorship for Teacher Leaders
A set of research modules to help selected Teachers Without Borders members best prepare for their active
role as mentors for those teachers participating in the ve-course Certicate of Teaching Mastery program

About Connexions
Since 1999, Connexions has been pioneering a global system where anyone can create course materials and
make them fully accessible and easily reusable free of charge. We are a Web-based authoring, teaching and
learning environment open to anyone interested in education, including students, teachers, professors and
lifelong learners. We connect ideas and facilitate educational communities.

Connexions's modular, interactive courses are in use worldwide by universities, community colleges, K-12
schools, distance learners, and lifelong learners. Connexions materials are in many languages, including
English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Vietnamese, French, Portuguese, and Thai. Connexions is part
of an exciting new information distribution system that allows for Print on Demand Books. Connexions
has partnered with innovative on-demand publisher QOOP to accelerate the delivery of printed course
materials and textbooks into classrooms worldwide at lower prices than traditional academic publishers.