Education Leadership Review

Volume 2, Number 2 Fall 2001

Same Old Path, FamiliarBumps: Educational Administration's Response to the Challenges ofthe 21 st Century ., 1 RaymondA. Horn

Repairing the Bumps in the Road: A Reaction to "Same Old Path, Familiar Bumps" 10 Neil J Shipman

Bumps or Roadblocks: A Pessimistic View 14 RaymondA. Horn

But the Emperor Has On No Clothes! 16 Charles M Achilles and Charles P Mitchel

You Say You Saw What? Which Veil Did You Lift? 22 Fenwick W English

Standards-Based Preparation for the Principalship: Iowa State University's Approach to ISLLC 28 Donald G Hackmann andJanice D. Walker

Standards-Based Preparation for School Principals: A Contrast to the Iowa State Program Modifications ...... 35 Donald G Coleman

The Overlooked Threat: Parental Agression Against School Administrators , .40 Charles M Jaksec III and Robert Dedrick

The Seven Stresses Suffered by Superintendent Spouses 45 E.E. (Gene) Davis and M Donald Thomas

A nationally refereedj ournal sponsored by the Department ofEducational Leadership and the Center for Research and Doctoral Studies in Educational Leadership Sam Houston State University Education Leadership Review Volume 2, Number 2 Fall 2001

Editor Theodore B. Creighton, Sam Houston State University

Production Editors Inga Pinson, Sam Houston State University Melinda Gonzales, Sam Houston State University

Editorial Advisory Board John Hoyle, Texas A & M University Genevieve Brown, Sam Houston State University Fenwick English, University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill Fred Dembowski, Lynn University

Editorial Review Board Donald Coleman, California State University Fresno David Stader, University ofWyoming Charles Achilles, Eastern Michigan University Patti Chance, University ofNevada Las Vegas Deborah Copeland, California State University Fresno Rosemary Papalewis, California State University Sacramento Paul Terry, University ofMemphis George Perreault, University ofNevada Reno Joe Savoie, McNeese State University Gary Jones, Idaho State University Neil Shipman, University ofMemphis

Editorial and Publication Office Education Leadership Review Sam Houston State University . Campus Box 2119 Huntsville, TX 77341 Phone: (936) 294-4981 FAX: (936) 294-3886 Email: [email protected]

Education Leadership Review is a nationally refereed journal published three times a year, in Winter (February), Spring (May), and Fall (October) by the Department ofEducational Leadership and Coun­ seling and the Center for Research and Doctoral Studies at Sam Houston State University. Though the editorial review board represents faculty from major universities, editorial and publishing assistance are provided by active doctoral students in educational leadership at Sam Houston State University. Au­ thors may reproduce their work for personal use but others must acquire written or oral permission to photocopy material for any purpose. Copyright 2001 by Education Leadership Review Sam Houston Press 2001. Vol. 2. No.2. 1-9 ISSN 1532-0723

Same Old Path, Familiar Bumps: Educational Administration's Response

to the Challenges of the 21st Century

Raymond A. Horn

stephen F. Austin state University

The field ofeducational administrationfaces external andinternal challenges in the 21" century. These challenges are explored through an examination ofthe proceedings ofthe 54th Annual Na­ tional Council ofProfessors ofEducationalAdministration conference. External challenges con­ sist ofthe regulation ofeducational leadership by non-educators, the challenge ofprofessional certification and accreditation, and the challenge ofeducational standardization and account­ ability. Internal challenges consist ofa tension between the practitioner and non-practitioner; the development ofa commonground. andthe needto develop apolitical action committee. A conclu­ sion suggests a redefinition ofthe role ofeducational leadership.

Introduction nials ofaccreditation will increase. Schneider concluded with the question that asked, "Ifso, will weak departments simply The theme ofthe 54th annual National Council ofPro­ choose to absorb humiliation and operate as ifnobody knows fessors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) was the 21 st their shame?" century challenges to educational administration. The appro­ The title of this paper is a play on the title of priateness ofthis theme and the urgency for the field to iden­ Schneider's handout, "New Path, Familiar Bumps: Schneider tify and address these challenges was personified in a pre­ touted the performance standards of NCATE as a new path sentation by E. Joseph Schneider, deputy executive director and identified those who did not comply as familiar bumps. of the American Association of School Administrators, con­ Undoubtedly, all standards, their accreditation processes, and cerning adherence to the National Council for Accreditation the attitudes ofthose in charge ofthe processes are some of ofTeacher Education (NCATE, 1997) standards and accredi­ the 21,t century challenges to all educational administration tation process. Before an audience ofapproximately 200 edu­ and educational leadership programs. However, after reflect­ cationalleaders representing educational leadership programs ing on the NCPEA theme, in relation to the content and out­ nationwide, Schneider caustically explained the newpath (the comes ofthe conference, it is apparent that, besides the chal­ NCATE process) an~ the bumps in the road (the poor perfor­ lenges generated by forces outside ofthe educational leader­ mance rate of many institutions in the NeATE process). ship community, there are internal issues that also present Schneider proceeded to excoriate the programs that did not significant challenges as well as exacerbate the challenges receive NCATE accreditation and refused to continue the from outside the profession. process. Schneider's harsh condemnation concluded with The purpose ofthis paper is to examine the 21 11 cen­ an overhead transparency of nine institutions ofhigher edu­ tury external and internal challenges facing educational lead­ cation identified as "bumps" in the "new path." He admon­ ership. To provide a context for this discussion, these chal­ ished those in attendance by stating that the new standards lenges will be viewed in relation to how they challenge the being developed will be even tougher and that, without proper ability ofeducational leadership to be an effective and autono­ complianceto the process, deferrals ofaccreditation and de- mous participant in educational practice and change.

Fall 2001 1 ELR External Challenges to Educational Leadership text of their effect on the ~tate mandates. Therefore, on the practitioner level ofpublic education in Texas, educational lead­ Nationwide the profession ofeducational leadership ers make no primary policy decisions, and are severely con­ is challenged by the activity ofothers. This activity poses chal­ strained in any other decision-making situations. At best, there lenges in many forms; however, the most significant are the are few policy decisions in which these leaders can act au­ regulation ofthe profession by non-educators, the professional tonomously. accreditation movement, and the standardization and account­ In the case ofTexas, educational leadership prepa­ ability movement. These three are obviously interrelated but ration programs must be concerned with preparing educa­ also are phenomena that contain distinctly different challenges. tionalleaders for this type ofleadership environment and with In addition, the ongoing culture wars between right wing and meeting the state mandates placed upon the preparation pro­ left wing ideologies greatly influence educational leadership. grams. In Texas, preparation programs are regulated by The Each of these will be discussed in relation to their effect on Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) educational leadership. (THECB, 2001) and the State Board for Educator Certifica­ tion (SBEC, 2001). As in the K-12 level of education, educa­ The Regulation of Educational tionalleadership programs must adhere to all ofTHECB and Leadership by Non-educators SBEC's mandates concerning educational standardization and accountability. Unlike the K-12 level, teacher and admin­ Concerns about the regulation of educational lead­ istrator preparation programs are allowed a greater degree of ership by non-educators can be expressed in this question. latitude in matters ofcurriculum and instruction; however, the Howare educational leadership practitioners and preparation autonomy of1hese preparation programs is limited by their programs controlled through regulations imposed from the students' performance on a high-stakes exit level test. Despite outside, and what is the effect of this control on educational the students' successful completion of program and univer­ leadership? The educational initiatives of the state of Texas sity requirements, students must pass this standardized test provide the best context thatcan be used to explore this ques­ in order to be certified to be a principal or superintendent. tion. Preparation programs are held directly accountable for their Education in Texas is tightly controlled by the state students' test performance by the ability of SBEC to place a legislature, the governor, the regUlatory agencies empowered program under review (probation) or declare the program "not by the legislature, and educational advisory commissions es­ accredited," that means the program has lostthe ability to certify tablished by the legislature and the governor. The power of students as administrators. Because of this degree ofaccount­ policy making resides in the state legislature, which contains ability, the decisions made by preparation programs about all individuals who entered politics from professions other than aspects oftheir program (Le., curriculum, instruction, assess­ education. The governor's office is regUlarly filled with indi­ ment, and entrance requirements) are constrained bythe test. viduals who are business people or career politicians. The Once again the state and its regulatory agencies make the educational commissions are predominately filled with busi­ basic policy decisions, and the educational preparation pro­ ness people or politicians, and the regulatory agencies are grams must react to them. In other words, higher education staffed with educators whose job security depends on their professors and administrators have minimal participation in compliance to and promotion of the mandates of the state. In the major policy decisions that effect all the dimensions of otherwords, non-educators set educational policy in Texas. policymaking, and their policymaking is limited to an imple­ The Texas Education Agency (TEA, 2001) is the mentation context. primary regulatory agency concerned with K-12 education. In states that tightly and rigorously control educa­ Educational leaders must adhere to all of TEA's mandates tion, the challenge to educational leadership is whether the conceming educational standardization and accountability. Job field wants to participate in making policy or merely manage security and salary increases are directly tied to student per­ the decisions made by politicians and business people. Who formance as measured by theTEA. School administrators re­ sets policy has an enormous impact on the direction of edu­ tain their autonomous power only within the limits established cation and the role ofeducators. As the history ofAmerican by the state, limits that restrict administrator decisions to the education clearly shows, we are starting the 21"1 century on fulfillment of the primary policy decisions made by the state. the same path that was followed in the 20th century-the con­ The decision making of these educational leaders is tightly trol of education for economic and political purposes. Be­ focused on fulfilling the mandates ofthe state. Even decisions sides scholarly discourse, educational leaders play limited roles about non-academic issues must be made in the con- in the establishment ofeducational policy.

ELR 2 Fall 2001 The Challenge of Professional 1989). The differing conservative, liberal, and radical views of Certification and Accreditation the purpose of education are well documented (Bennett & LeCompte, 1990; Beyer & Liston, 1996; Kliebard, 1995). As Another challenge to the ability ofeducational lead­ historical studies ofeducational policy indicate, these differing ership to be an effective and autonomous participant in edu­ purposes represent the differing political and economicagen­ cational practice and change is the influence of regional and das ofinterest groups trying to achieve their agendas through national certification and accreditation programs on educa­ the control ofeducational policy. tionalleadership preparation programs. NCATE, the South­ This ongoing ideological conflict is now manifest in ern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS, 2001), the the standards and accountability movement, and through this Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC, movement the participation of educational leadership in set­ 2001) and other certification and accreditation programs fur­ ting national or local policy is greatly constrained, Besides pro­ ther constrain educationalleaderships' ability to make policy moting the conservative view's that the purpose ofeducation decisions within their own practice. Together, programs like is to support the economic development of our society and SACS, NCATE, and ISLLC are comprehensive in what their that an assimilationist rather than pluralistic view of society guidelines cover and educational leaders are left with little policy needs to b.e fostered through education, the fact that govern­ to make. NCATE alone invades all aspects ofan educational ment regulation subsumes local policy making greatly reduces leadership department. The NCATE categories that a depart­ the influence of educational leaders (Cortez, 2000; Horn & ment must address deal with the design of professional edu­ Kincheloe, 2001; McNeil, 2000). The political context of the cation, the candidates in professional education, the profes­ standards and accountability initiative is evident in the type of sional education faculty, and the unit for professional educa­ standards that are proposed, the way the standards are as­ tion (NCATE, 1997). Department decisions about everything sessed, and in the accountability structures and procedures from a professor's syllabus to faculty office space need to created to enforce the standards and assessment process. consider the NCATE guidelines. However, unlike the state There is a political component to the type of standards em­ regulatory agencies, national and regional certification and ac­ ployed (i.e., technical or complex [Kincheloe, 2001]), the type creditation agencies are largely constituted and influenced by of assessment (I.e., a high-stakes exit-level test or multiple educators. In states like Texas that maintain complete and rigid measures ofassessment). and the accountability relationship control over the licensure of educators, these accreditation between the schools and external agencies. and certification agencies are subordinate to the state man­ The challenge to educational leadership involves the dates and, therefore, are, to some degree, irrelevant. degree of their political participation in the determination of the type ofstandards and in the type of assessment and ac­ The Challenge of Educational countability structures that constrain the policy making poten­ Standardization and Accountability tial ofall educators. Unfortunately, this challenge ofparticipa­ tion is first preempted by the initial challenge of constructing Even though the challenges posed by state regula­ an ideological common ground within the field of educational tion and professional agencies are within the context of the leadership, and second in the construction of a politically ori­ standardization and accountability movement, the idea ofedu­ ented educational leadership lobby that can effectively partici­ cational standards and accountability poses a significant chal­ pate in policy debates. lenge to educational leaders ofthe 21 at century. However, why In order to influence basic educational policy, the this movement is a challenge becomes evident when stan­ profession of educational leadership needs to influence the dards and accountability initiatives are viewed in the context political process concerning educational issues on the state of ideology and economics. The tension between the political and national levels, and to provide a critical critique ofthe na­ right and left has always been evident in the determination of ture and pu'rpose of the standardization and accountability educational policy. Issues concerning local autonomy and movement in education. As suggested, this only can be done government regulation, the purpose ofeducation, and the kind if the profession can internally find common ground in their ofsocietythatwe wantto create through education have been ideology and pedagogical philosophy and practice, and con­ and will continue to be intensely political and economic in na­ struct a political lobby that can influence state and national ture. In the determination of educational policy concerning governmental educational policymakers. Through the devel­ these issues, the term "culture wars" connotes the ideological opment of a common ground, educational leadership as a conflict between the right and the left (Dionne, 1991; profession can create a political lobby that can provide an ef­ Grossberg, 1992; Marchak, 1991; O'Neil, 1971; Spring, fective bridging and buffering function between the profess-

Fall 2001 3 ELR ion and the external influences on the profession. A review of posed that the knowledge base needs to be narrowed or re­ the proceedings of the 54th Annual NCPEAconference indi­ duced to just practice-practice validated through research cates that there are internal challenges to finding common and testing. He further asserted that the textbooks used in ground and constructing an influential political lobby. educational administration courses are inadequate because they have little to do with schools and represent a disparity The Internal Challenge to Educational Leadership between what practitioners say and what the textbook theory proposes. Achilles proposed the need to focus the education The 21 0t century challenge to educational leadership of educational leaders on "informed professional jUdgment that emerged from an analysis of the NCPEA proceedings is (IPJ)."IPJ comes from experience, local knOWledge, and le­ framed by a paradigmatic difference in how the profession gal knowledge, and tightly focuses on what to do, how to do should be viewed. This difference of view manifests itself in it, and the skill and criteria needed to judge and to evaluate visible tensions between professors who were administrative situations. Inherent in the position espoused byAchilles is the practitioners and those who were not administrators, between focus on the professor as former administrator, the training of a purpose to educate leaders versus a purpose to train ad­ administrators in an exclusive context of practice, a modernis­ ministrators, between the modernists and postpositivists, and tic focus and methodology of reductionism and expertism, and between theory and practice. These enervating and divisive a continuation ofthe bifurcation oftheory and practice. dichotomies represent two distinctively different perceptions Cecil Miskel, disagreed that the theory movement in ofthe profession. Collapsing these dichotomies is the real in­ educational administration had little ifany effect on the field. In ternal challenge ofthe 21 0t century to the field of educational fact, Miskel characterized the theory movement as a non-event. leadership. However, Miskel warned that educational leadership is highly institutionalized and resistant to change. These two charac­ Practitioner Versus the Non-Practitioner teristics would exacerbate two current trends in education that and Theory Versus Practice are affecting educational leadership in a deleterious way. He identified the accountability movement in kindergarten through The paradigmatic tension appeared early in the con­ twelfth grade as one challenge to educational leadership, and ference during a panel discussion focused on the conference the deregulation ofthe administrator certification process as theme. As a member of the panel, Patrick Forsyth titled his another trend. Miskel saw a link between the weakening of comments, 'Looking Backward, Looking Forward." During his certification requirements in some states and the ability ofedu­ presentation he asked two questions concerning educational cationalleadership to produce effective leaders. He suggested administration. What events from our past have shaped where that as we produce less effective leaders, there would be more educational administration is today? What is happening that deregulation. In addition, he maintained that ifwe can't pro­ now shapes our history? Conceming the present, Forsyth iden­ mote the accountability issue by producing higher scores and tified four phenomenon that are shaping the future ofeduca­ closing the difference gap, there will be more competition from tional administration: educational administration programs are outside the field. being abandoned, the rise of privatization, the decoupling of In his parting thoughts on leaving the NCPEA presi­ licensure from departments ofeducational leadership, and the dency, Michael Martin (Martin 2000) recapped the message subordinate role of educational administration in colleges of presented by the panel. He stated that the panel "urged us to education. Forsyth indicated that a major contribution to this collect better information and use our existing knowledge base erosion of educational administration was the installation of of theory, research and exemplary practice to address and the non-practitioner as professor. Forsyth hypothesized that help solve the intransigent problems facing leaders and allowing the inclusion of academics without benefit of prac­ schools. This includes collecting data to drive decision mak­ tice paved the way for irrelevant research for the practitioners. ing about our programs and teaching our administrator can­ The direct outcome was the abandonment of practice knowl­ didates to understand and use data in improving their schools edge from our programs, which, in turn, led to the poor prepa­ and educating their communities about school improvement ration of the practitioners. and enhanced learning outcomes for students" (Martin, 2000, Chuck M. Achilles, another panelist, continued this p.2). focus on practice and practitioners by proposing that nothing Martin's comments correctly capture the panel's call has changed in the field since 1983 when the social science for a disciplined use ofresearch to establish a knowledge base movement entered educational administration. Achilles chal­ that practitioners and administration educators can use in es­ lenged the audience to center the field on practice. He pro- tablishing effective leadership in the field and in the university

ELR 4 Fall 2001 classroom. The conundrum lies within how research and "participants who are willing to learn, reflect, and participate in knowledge are defined. The paradigmatic tension occurs when critical discussion" (Masden & Fiene, 2000, p. 2). In relation this question is raised. What constitutes research and knowl­ to the predominately reductionist and expert-driven rhetoric edge that is appropriate in producing effective educational ofthe panel discussion, Young's comments called for a broader administrators? The answer will greatly differ between educa­ and more inclusive definition of educational leaders, leader­ tors of administrators who are more modernistic than ship preparation, and political action in the face ofthe external postmodern, and more practice focused than theory focused. challenges. This difference appeared in an exchange prior to the confer­ Kenneth Leithwood's Corwin Lecture (2000) further ence between Fenwick English (1997, 1998a, 1998b, & 1999) detailed the complexity ofthe demands society makes on edu­ and Don Willower (1998). cationalleaders and administrative preparation programs. In a lecture on school leadership and educational accountability, Meeting the Complex Challenges Leithwood identified four approaches to increasing the ac­ through Common Ground countability of schools to the stakeholders in educational sys­ tems and to society in general: market approaches, decen­ In relation to the more traditional/modernistic views tralization, professional, and managerial. As Leithwood men­ espoused by Forsyth and Achilles, Michelle Young provided a tioned, "each approach places unique demands on school broader view. Young, the president of the University Council leaders that require at least partly distinctive responses to be for Educational Administration, was a general session confer­ 'effective' (2000, p. 8). He also added that having to answer to

1 ence speaker who characterized the 21 • century challenges all four approaches creates significant leadership dilemmas, as challenges dealing with the quantity and the quality of edu­ and pulls school leaders in many different directions simulta­ cationalleaders. She discussed the predictions of a large-scale neously (Leithweed, 2000). According to Leithwood, the com­ shortage of administrators within the next five years and the plexity of what educational leaders need to do and to know in

1 diverse attributes of a quality educational leader for the 21 • order to respond to this situation includes "buffering staffs from century. These attributes included haVing vision and passion, their conscientious tendency to feel they must respond com­ being a skilled communicator, a prudent manager, a technol­ prehensively to demands for policy implementation from gov­ ogy wizard, and a student advocate. Her position concerning ernments," "provide individualized support to staff," challenge what constitutes a quality educational leader was expanded "them to think critically and creatively about their practices," and supported by a comment from the audience that recog­ build collaborative culture, develop "structures that allow for nized the difference between the training and the education collaboration to occur," and foster "parent's involvement in the ofschool leaders. The distinction was made that training im­ education of their children" (2000, p. 9). To meet these di­ plies the technical "nuts and bolts" knowledge about finance, verse and challenging demands requires an understanding law, facilities, etc., and education implies a deeper knowledge of"school leadership as a distributed network of relationships and understanding of how education works. The implication within and across people and organizations," and "represents ofthis comment is that both are necessary in the preparation a major new challenge for those engaged in research on ofquality educational leaders. school leadership" (Leithwood, 2000, p. 11). Young's argument was that meeting these quantity When faced with this degree ofcomplexity, how can and quality challenges would be a difficult task unless stron­ educational leadership preparation programs prepare effec­ ger ties are developed between the professional organizations tive practitioners? Obviously, it is necessary to ''train" and "edu­ within the field of educational leadership. She explained that cate" students to seek broad and deep understanding of their these stronger ties are imperative because ofleadership, in­ complex workplace through the utilization of numerous and tellectual, and political reasons. Young emphasized the lead­ diverse methodologies and epistemologies, To provide broad­ ership and political imperatives for building stronger ties within based knOWledge and methodological expertise requires the the profession by mentioning that in fourteen states universi­ profession to seek common ground that will collapse the mod­ ties are no longer the sole providers of licensure for educa­ ernistic methodological and epistemological binarisms. A col­ tionaIleaders (Masden & Fiene, 2000). Young maintained that laborative pedagogical effort within the field could create a this could have been avoided if first, common ground could synergy that has the potential to address the challenges and have been achieved within the profession and second, ifthe complexity described by Young and Leithwood. However, an profession would have been a part ofthe conversation about additional responsibility ofthe field is to politically organize and the licensure of educational leaders. Young characterized the critically engage the diverse demands for accountability that development of common ground as conversations between pUll school leaders and leadership preparation programs in

Fall 2001 5 ELR many different directions simultaneously. objectives but in the interpretation and enactment ofthe inter­ The postmodern complexity of leadership practice pretations. A redefinition ofthe knowledge base and applica­ detailed by Young and Leithwood requires a broader under­ tion oftheory and research can imply a regression to the train­ standing ofthe relational nature oftheory and practice and of ing/managerial leadership orientation found in the factory the relationship between practitioners and non-practitioners. model ofeducation, or an evolutionary synthesis of modernis­ The exigencies ofa postmodem society require a pedagogi­ tic and postmodernistic theory and practice informed by the cal and methodological common ground between those who multiple contexts provided by our postmodern society. Advo­ espouse a more modernistic or postmodemistic view. An un­ cating for professors ofeducational administration can imply derstanding ofthe complexity surrounding education requires merely working to implement or react to the basic policy deci-. the collapse of any modernistic binarisms into a critically re­ sions made by non-educators, or to facilitate the significant flective common ground that is inclusive ofall methodologies participation of educational leaders in the creation of policy. and epistemologies. Acting as an authority on critical issues can imply a modernis­ Another panelist, Elaine Wilmore, used two meta­ tic scenario in that "experts" create a knowledge base that is phors in her commentary-the metaphoric question, "Who promoted to educational leaders as a formalistic "best prac­ will drive the bus?" and her challenge to the field to "step out tice." Or, it can imply educational leaders, not as modernistic of the box." The complex nature of our increasingly diverse authorities dispensing validated data, but leaders who inter­ and rapidly changing society that poses external challenges act with the complexities oftheir educational context in a criti­ to educational leadership requires both polarities in the cur­ cally reflective manner utilizing a plethora of methodologies rent dichotomous thinking within the field to step out of the and epistemologies-leaders who pass their critical view of box and together drive the bus. authority along to their students and teachers. Establishing standards used to certify and accreditate can imply the cre­ Implementing the Organizational Philosophy ation of a hierarchical, hegemonic and rigid system that de­ nies the richness oflocal idiosyncrasies and adaptations, or it Organizations like NCPEA appear to have a philoso­ can imply a system that seeks a balance between generalized phy that is aligned with the practice needed to meet the com­ best practice and localized effective practice. The challenge plexity ofour postmodern society. In his address Martin (2000) oforganizations like NCPEA is to first engage in a conversa­ succinctly identified the need to create common ground and tion that creates a common ground in how their goals and political activity. He identified six themes that NCPEA needed objectives are defined, in the inclusion of the systemic and to focus on in the coming year-focus on quality, find a cen­ local aspects of the complexity in our educational systems, ter, partner up with educational agencies, shape state policy and in how diverse individuals interpret and respond to this regarding administrative preparation, use data Wisely, and complexity. continue national level collaborative efforts With other practi­ tionerorganizations. The Changing Role of Educational Leaders Besides Martin's proposed actions, the goals and objectives of the NCPEA also speak to the issue ofcommon At the 54th Annual NCPEAConference, James Kelly, ground and political action. Those goals most directly related a retired president and CEO ofthe National Board ofProfes­ to the issues ofthis paper are: sional Teaching and Standards, delivered the Walter D. Cock­ 1. Redefine the knowledge bases for preparing prac­ ing Lecture. In keeping with the theme of 21 8t century chal­ ticing administrators and professors of educational lenges to educational administration, Kelly detailed the com­ administration. plex demands placed upon education and proposed what 2. Promote the application oftheory and research in education needed to do to meet these demands. the field to the practice ofeducational administra­ Kelly identified three basic factors that pull and push tion. education and provide the impetus for educational reform and 3. Serve as an advocate for professors ofedu­ improvement. The first factor is the dutyto educate every child. cational administration and as an authority on criti­ According to Kelly, this is a humanistic precept that is troubled cal issues. by pUblic school performance over the years. Diversity is the 4. Establish standards by which educational admin­ second factor, especially as the challenge for people ofdiffer­ istration programs become certified, accredited or ence to live together. Finally, our constantly changing society, approved (Fiene & Masden, 2000, p. 2). primarily in an economic context, pulls and pushes education The importance is not in the listing of these goals and to improve.

ELR . 6 Fall 2001 To respond to these factors, Kelly suggested that Kelly's concern about the creative inclusion and pri­ education needs to adapt school organizations, provide more mary emphasis on technology manifested itself later in the effective teaching, and to a greater extent utilize technology in conference in a vote by the NCPEA membership. At issue the schools. Kelly argued that the basic organizational struc­ was whether the technology committee ofthe NCPEA would ture of schools has not changed despite the pull and push of move from ad hoc committee status to a standing committee the culture wars. Kelly described current schools as the an­ status. The NCPEAleadership and membership voted to main­ tithesis ofthe organization ofnon-educational entities that are tain technology's lower status in the organizational hierarchy. characterized as decentralized, as empowering workers, as The NCPEA resistance to this change is ironic in relation to achieving technological literacy among its stakeholders, and Kelly's comments during the lecture and in relation to the strong as adaptive organizational structures with a new capacity to admonishment by Rosemary Papelewis (2000), the previous perform. Regarding the effectiveness of teaching, Kelly de­ year's Cocking lecturer, to ignore technology at your peril. In scribed teaching as a context in which teachers are put in addition, a stated goal of the NCPEA is to "develop the ad­ boxes with no role differentiation between the best and the ministrative application oftechnology in the preparation and worst. Incentives are few and the best teachers become ad­ renewal of educational leaders" (Fiene & Masden, 2000, p. ministrators and never teach again. According to Kelly the hi­ 2). erarchical structure ofschools is inflexible and therefore main­ The comment's by Kelly in relation to those of the tains a rigid separation ofteaching roles and supervision roles. other lecturers and panelists require a reevaluation ofthe dis­ Kelly proposed that the organization ofschools must allow all tinction between the terms educational administrator and edu­ professionals, including administrators, to teach every day. cationalleader. Throughout this paper the terms were used School organization must move beyond the thinking that ad­ interchangeably; however, to achieve an understanding ofthe ministrators don't teach and that their primary role is to control complexity of the 21 st century challenges to education, per­ teachers. Concerning technology, Kelly went beyond the ad­ haps a distinction is necessary. Perhaps this distinction will dition of computers in schools by emphasizing that learning help us understand how the activity of organizations like goes on around and outside the schools, and therefore, it is NCPEA is actually movement down the same old path and essential that the organizational structure ofschools and teach­ that they perceive these external and internal challenges as ing must change to allow learning to take place at any time. In merelyfamiliar bumps, instead ofas monumental challenges orderto effectively respond to the conditions that pull and push to their participation in educational policy making. education, Kelly's position can be summarized through his statements that we need to develop "the capacity to rethink Same Old Path, Familiar Bumps school as an organization," that more ofthe same will not al­ low the survival ofeducation as we now know it, and that we This paper began with a synopsis ofSchneider's sim­ "need to learn how to grow more leaders that can open up plistic determination that the new path in educational adminis­ our thinking about the systemic nature ofeducation." tration is represented bythe standards and accountability pro­ Even though Kelly's main emphasis was on kinder­ cess as exemplified by the NCATE accreditation process. Af­ garten to twelfth grade schools, the factors that pull and push ter an examination ofthe external and internal challenges to education and education's response to them also applies to educational administrationneadership as a vital participant in educational administration preparation programs. Kelly chal­ educational policy making, a more complex picture has lenged the audience to "imagine schools in which the pyra­ emerged. As indicated by the key speakers in the 54th Annual mid is upside down and the roles are changed"-a school NCPEA conference, the real issue is whether the field can structure in which teacher educators (i.e., professors ofteacher effectively engage these challenges through the establishment education and educational administration) actually teach of common ideological and epistemological ground, and school. He provided the example of his asking his surgeon through the creation of education administration/leadership when he last performed the surgical procedure and felt reas­ political action. sured in the person's competence when the surgeon replied The resolution ofthis complex issue may require a last Monday. Kelly then asked when was the last time teacher distinction between the terms educational administration and and administrator educators actually taught in a K-12 setting? educational leadership. It seems that the term educational Kelly further maintained that the answer is not in the creation administration connotes a modem hierarchical and hegemonic of more hierarchy but is actually a humanistic answer in the organizational and leadership structure where the role ofthe releasing ofthe competence, inventiveness, and creativity of administrator is traditionally defined as the policy decision people-in freeing them to experiment. maker and manager ofthe other stakeholders. It further may

Fall 2001 7 ELR imply a tightly defined and limited role that constrains the Fiene, J., & Masden, P. (2000). Goal and objectives ofNCPEA. administrator's potential in creatively "stepping out ofthe box." National Council ofProfessors ofEducational Ad­ In relation to this traditional characterization, can an educa­ ministration Reporter, 54 (4), 2. tional administrator be an effective leader in the face of the Grossberg, L. (1992). We gotta get out ofthis place: Popu­ complex challenges described by the NCPEA speakers? lar conseNatism andpostmodem culture. New Conversely, the term educational leader could de­ York: Routledge. scribe a new leadership profile that inclusively represents di­ Horn, R.A., & Kincheloe, J. L. (Eds.). (2001). American stan­ verse individuals in a variety of leadership roles employing dards: Qualify education in a complex world-The unique and creative strategies to face the postmodern com­ Texas case. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. plexity that challenges education. A new perspective on edu­ Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium(2001). [On­ cationalleadership needs to be constructed that is flexible, line] Available: http://www.ccsso.orglisllc.html adaptive, and political. Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). "Goin' home to the Armadillo"; Mak­ The field of educational administrationlleadership ing sense ofTexas educational standards. In Hom, needs to engage in a critically reflective and reflexive dialogue R. A. (Ed.), American standards: Quality education concerning the redefinition of their role in educational deci­ in a complex world-The Texas case. (pp. 3-44). sion making, in how educational leaders will function in the New York: Peter Lang. workplace and in the university classroom, and in how univer­ Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The struggle for the American cur-­ sities will prepare these new leaders. This ongoing reflective riculum: 1893-1958 (2nd Ed). New York: Routledge. process is the only new path that has the potential to reinstate Leithwood, K. (2000). School leadership andeducational ac­ educational leadership as a relevant participant in the contro­ countability: Toward a distributed perspective. Pa­ versies and challenges surrounding education in the 21,t cen­ per presented at the 54th Annual National Council of tury. The bumps along this path will be familiar. They will be Professors of Educational Administration, Ypsilanti, recognized as the thoughts and attitudes of the past that now Michigan. have limited application in the 21 11 century. Marchak, M. (1991). The integrated circus: The new right and the restructuring ofglobal markets. Montreal: McGiII­ References Queen's University Press. Masden, P., & Fiene, J. (2000). General session 1 confer­ Bennett, K. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1990). The wayschools ence speaker Dr. Michelle Young, president ofUCEA. work: A sociological analysis ofeducation. New National Council ofProfessors of Educational York: Longman. Administration Reporter, 54 (5), 2. Beyer, L. E., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Cuniculum in conflict: Martin, M. (2000). Parting thoughts on leaving the NCPEA Social visions, educational agendas, and progres­ presidency. National Council ofProfessors ofEdu­ sive schoolreform. New York: Teachers College. cational Administration Reporter, 54 (5), 1-2. Cortez, A. (2000). Why better isn't enough: A closer look at McNeil, L. M. (1988). Contradictions ofcontrol: School TAAS gains, IDRS Newsletter, 28(3), 1-2, 6-9,12). structure and school knowledge. New York: Dionne,Jr., E.J. (1991). WhyAmericanshatepolifics. New Routledge and Kegan Paul. National Council for Accredita­ York: Touchstone. tion ofTeacher Education. (1997). Standards, pro­ English, F. W. (1997). The cupboard is bare: The postmodern cedures & policies for the accreditation ofprofes­ critique of educational administration. Journal of sional education units. Alexandria, VA: Educational School Leadership, 7 (1), 4-26. Leadership Constituent Council. English, F. W. (1998a). The postmodern tum in educational O'Neil, W. L. (1971). Coming apart: An informal history of administration: Apostrophic or catastrophic develop­ America in the 1960s. New York: Times Books. ment. Journal ofSchool Leadership, 8 (5),426-447. Papalewis, R. (2000). Cocking lecture: Asynchronous part­ English, F. W. (1998b). Musings on Willower's "fog": A re­ ners: Leadership for the millennium. In P. M. Jenlink sponse. Journal ofSchool Leadership, 8 (5), 464­ & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.). Marching into a newmillen­ 469. nium: Challenges to educational leadership (pp. 1­ English, F. W. (1999). Post modernism in educationalleader­ 15). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. ship. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe National Southern Association ofColleges and Schools. (2001). [On­ Council ofProfessors ofEducational Administration, line] Available: http://www.sacs.org Jackson, Wyoming. Spring, J. (1989). The sorting machine revisited: National

ELR 8 Fall 2001 educational policy since 1945. New York: Leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University in Longman. Nacogdoches, Texas. He teaches in the Educational Leader­ State Board for Educator Certification. (2001). [On-line] ship Doctoral program and in the Secondary Education Mas­ Available:http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/ ters Program. Texas Education Agency. (2001). [On-line] Available:http:// Prior to teaching at SFASU, Dr. Horn taught for 30 www.tea.state.tx.us/ years for a public school in Pennsylvania, provided educa­ Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2001). [On­ tional consulting for school districts, and taught professional line]Available: http:www.thecb.state.tx.us/ development courses for teachers. Willower, D. J .. (1998). Fighting the fog: A criticism of postmodernism. Journal ofSchool Leadership, RaYlllond A. Horn may be contacted at: 8 (5),448-463. SFASU The Author Box 13018 - SFA Station Nacogdoches, Texas 75962 Dr. Raymond A. Horn is an Assistant Professor in Phone: 936-468-1813 the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Email: [email protected]

Fall 2001 9 ELR Copyright 2001 by Education Leadership Review Sam Houston Press 2001, Vol. 2, No.2, 10-13 ISSN 1532-0723

Repairing the Bumps in the Road: A Reaction to "Same Old Path, Familiar Bumps"

Neil J. Shipman

Commendations to Professor Ray HornforfUrthering the needforprofessors ofeducational lead­ ership to be accepting andproactive in dealing with the "challenges ofthe 21't century. " Although much ofwhat is written by Professor Horn is a summary ofwhat others spoke about at the 54th annual NCPEA Conference. he manages to summarize well andprovides the readers with valu­ able insights about interpreting andreacting to the speakers'comments. His thoughts mayeven be helpfUlfor those who want to have a higher level ofdialogue about this profession to do so.

Proactive is THE word from which I will be critical as grams by the Educational Leadership Constituency Council well as encouraging of the profession of educational leader­ (ELCC) was, "...will weak departments simply choose to ab­ ship professors. As a rule, the National Council of Professors sorb humiliation and operate as ifnobody knows their name?" of Educational Administration (NCPEA) and other professors (Horn, 2001, p. ) in this field who may not be members of NCPEA have not Professor Horn's response to this question could been proactive and now find themselves constantly in the have been, "Probably, yes, because state departments ofedu­ position of playing "catch-up." This is a major "challenge of cation refuse to shut down ineffective programs. There are the 21 11 century" that Hom failed to address adequately in his presently no consequences for the shameful programs that fine article, and this will be the focus ofmost ofmy comments exist in some colleges ofeducation in most states. These pro­ about his thoughts. grams are mostly cash cows that should sufferthe same fate Atthe beginning of his article, Professor Hom refers as those unfortunate beasts who were destroyed becausethey tothe audience at the 54t~ annual NCPEA conference as "edu­ had foot and mouth disease." Itwas with this absence ofrec­ cationalleaders." Sadly, professors ofeducational leadership ognition ofvarious roles that I began to sense Horn had missed and educational leaders are not synonyms. In fact, profes­ a central point. As with most professors, there is this sense of sors, many ofwhom were at one time truly "educational lead­ political naivete coming in again. ers," quickly become removed from that role almost as soon The author continues through inference that the Na­ as they enter academe. Many professors are the antithesis of tional Council forAccreditation ofTeacher Education (NCATE) leadership and, more often than not, are obstructionists to and other standards groups are" forces outside ofthe edu- necessary reforms in the preparation of school leaders. cational leadership community " If Dr. Horn could take a Continuing with his opening statement, Dr. Horn discusses broader perspective ofeducational leadership, he would not the remar1<:s made by Joe Schneider, deputy executive direc­ be able to support such an inference. The work of NCATE tor oftheAmerican Association ofSchoolAdministrators, and and ofthe Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium an outspoken critic of preparation programs for school lead­ (ISLLC), the leading school leaders standards group, is clearly ers. Horn wrote that Schneider's concluding question about and strongly supported by the National Policy Board for Edu­ the new standards for national recognition ofpreparation pro- cationalAdministration (NPBEA), which includes, among its

ELR 10 Fall 2001 ten memberorganizations, the National Association ofElemen­ Texas colleagues, many ofwhom are my friends and are lead­ tary School Principals (NAESP), the National Association of ers in educational administration, that contrary to your state­ Secondary School Principals (NASSP), the Association for ments, the entire United States does not think or behave all of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), andAASA. the time like Texas. Much of the opening first half ofyour ar­ Surely, even professors must accept that these organizations ticle is based on parochial experiences in the state ofTexas. are powerful forces within the educational leadership com­ This is yet another sign of the failure of professors to look at munity. These are the national voices ofreal school leaders to national issues from a national perspective. Can the negative whom Dr. Horn has turned a deaf ear. experiences that are perceiVed in Texas be generalized to the Clarification of a couple points made by the author whole country? Would examples from other states strengthen in his section entitled "External Challenges to Educational Dr. Horn's arguments? Leadership" is needed. What does he mean by "standardiza­ Professor Horn's material on "The Regulation of tion?" Is he referring to the standards movement or does he Educational Leadership by Non-educators" is again demon­ mean an attempt to assure that everyone follows the same strative of higher education's continuing fear of high stakes procedures, Le., standardizes? Ifhe means "standards," then exit level tests. Why are higher education folks so afraid of a definition of standards as statements of values to which accountability? Is it arrogance, as many policy makers believe? school leaders should aspire could help to clarify his position. Is it a subconscious realization that preparation programs for In the same paragraph he refers to"...the regUlation school leaders are really not very effective? Or worse, is it a ofthe profession by non-educators.... ," defined as politicians conscious realization, and thus, simply a need for self-per­ and members ofregulatory agencies. A rather lengthy section petuation? Is there any degree ofhypocrisy in preparation pro­ explaining Professor Horn's position on this is included in his grams that emphasize data driven decision making for pre-k article. Ifhis rationale were true, my response would be why to 12 school leaders, but have preparation program faCUlty has this been allowed to occur? Who is to blame? Could it be themselves who do not want to use data to determine pos­ that these politically naive professors missed an opportunity sible program strengths and weaknesses? Richard Elmore's again to be heard, to be in control? "We have seen the en­ position that, "Evidence from evaluations ofteaching and stu­ emy and they is us!" Many educational leadership professors dent performance should be used to improve teaching and are still operating as they were taught 30 years agothat school learning and, Ultimately, to allocate rewards and sanctions; leaders should not be politically active or involved. Thus, they (Elmore, 2000, p.4) is applicable to higher education as well are hesitantto be proactive on any issue that has political over­ aspre-kt012. tones. Ray Horn's position that higher education profes­ NCPEA until a couple of years ago clearly did not sors must react to established policies because they"...have understand the politics ofeducation and how policies are de­ minimal participation in the major policy decisions..." may be veloped in practice. Although, as noted by Dr. Horn in his sec­ true (in Texas, at least). However, I submit to our readers that tion speaking to the challenge ofeducational standardization this difficult position occurs because professors have selected (standards?) and accountability, professors have a concep­ to be non-players. Professors have made this decision freely tual understanding of how politics should work, in practice, and oftheir own accord, while the pre-k t012 educational lead­ they appear to be babes in the woods. I posit that ifthis con­ ers have consistently been a presence in policy formulation. tinues to be the mode of operation among professors, they In his discussion of certification and accreditation, will, indeed, lose total control of their profession. It is not too Horn mentions ISLLC as a certification and accreditation pro­ late to become proactive, and there has been noticeable move­ gram. ISLLC in and of itself is neither. The Interstate School ment by NCPEA to correct this deficit. Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) is a consortium of Dr. Horn's comments about the ongoing culture wars states and leadership associations that has developed stan­ between the right and left ideologies is an indication of this dards, assessments, and professional development processes conceptual understanding. There will be many opportunities for school leaders. ISLLC's work has had a significant influ­ overthe next four years ofthe Bush administration to see just ence on licensure and reform of preparation programs, but it howstrongly these ideologies can impact education and edu­ has no official capacity to license, certify, or accredit. Other cationalleadership, and whether they will do so positively or agencies, such as state departments and NCATE, are utiliz­ negatively. Will NCPEA be activists and move beyond mere ing the ISLLC Standards and assessments as components of conceptual understanding or continue their passive behavior, their licensure and accrediting processes. and then whine when they lose more control? Professor Horn goes on to say in this context that Professor Horn, I plead with you and yourwonderful certification and accreditation agencies"...constrain educat-

Fall 2001 11 ELR ionalleaderships' ability to make policy decisions..." (Horn, ger ties must be developed among the professional school 2001, p. ) To the contrary, these agencies provide guidelines leadership organizations. This is especially true for NCPEA which, when given thoughtful consideration, provide multiple which, although a formal entity within NPBEA, in reality, has opportunities for those effected to make policy decisions within little clout or recognition among the larger and more influen­ their own milieus. tial school leader associations. There is a flicker of hope Let us take this opportunity to also attempt, once through the leadership of past President Mike Martin that again, to clarify between the terms certification and licensure. NCPEA, at least and at last, recognizes this importance and Unfortunately, state regulatory agencies use these words in­ value of becoming politically involved and assertive with its terchangeably, but, in reality, they have different meanings in colleague leadership groups. our profession. "Licensure" should be identified as permis­ As Dr. Horn notes, Martin proposed several goals at sion granted by.an official regulatory agencyto practice a spe­ the NCPEA meeting to guide NCPEA members on the issues cific profession; e.g. state departments ofeducation or stan­ at play through political action. Two ofthese goals could have dards boards issue a license to be a school leader. "Certifica­ profited from a more critical examination by the author, but by tion" is the recognition by an association or peers that one is including them in his article, they will now be on the table for exemplary in one's practice ofa profession, e.g., The National more thoughtful discourse. Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) (Kocher The first of Martin's goals that I would challenge is & Tannenbaum, 1996, pp 1-2). It is particularly important to the notion that the knowledge base needs to be redefined. make and to use this clarification now that the NPBEA is at­ The knowledge base does nQ1 need to be redefined. Rather, tempting to create a "certification" process for school leaders. professors need to come to agreement about the common­ This proposed "certification" process is yet another policy is­ alities of the various knowledge bases that have been identi­ sue that will leave the members of NCPEA in the dust, ifthe fied over the last 50 years. Redefinition ofsomething that pro­ organization does not move quickly and assertively to become fessors continue to argue among themselves is characteristic part ofthe development. ofhigher education professionals talking and talking, but rarely Hom's section entitled "The challenge ofeducational taking any action. Time would be better spent synthesizing standardization and accountability," is, for the most part, an the meaningful work offive decades, then using this synthe­ interesting analysis of the ideologies that brought us to the sis as the content base for revising outdated curriculum and standards movement. The only statement isthis section that I pedagogy, and linking the result to a common set of stan­ would seriously challenge is, "The political context ofthe stan­ dards such as ISLLC and NCATE. In turn, this could be mea­ dards and accountability initiative is evident in the type of stan­ sured through a high stakes accountability program. dards that are proposed, the waythe standards are assessed, This segues into the second goal mentioned by then and in the accountability structures and procedures created President Martin that I would challenge: "Establish standards to enforce the standards and assessment process." (Horn, by which educational administration programs become certi­ 2001, p. ) This may be true in Texas. I honestly do not know. fied, accredited, or approved." School leader standards have But it is a giant leap to make this generalization to the rest of been identified and accepted by overtwo-thirds ofthe states the country, and it is doubtful that it could be supported. as well as NCATE for licensure, accreditation, and/or approval Nearly halfway through the article Dr. Horn finally ofpreparation programs. IfNCPEA should attempt to "estab­ identifies the key issue: "In order to influence basic educa­ lish" another set of standards, it will again appear to be the tionalpolicy, the profession ofeducational leadership needs infamous higher education stall, thus reinforcing among state to influence the political process concerning educational is­ departments ofeducation and the serious school leadership sues on the state andnationallevels..... (italics added) (Horn, organizations that professors should not really be taken seri­ 2001, p.) Yes! Yes! Yes! Therein lies the crux ofwhy profes­ ously. Would NCPEA profit by changing the wording to this sors ofeducational leadership have not been majorplayers at goal to "implement" rather than "establish?" the state and national policy levels. They have self-selected to Hom's fine thoughts in his final paragraph ofthe sum­ not participate. The remainder ofDr. Horn's article is an excel­ mary ofMartin's speech are exceptionally clear. He states that lent summary ofseveral NCPEA speeches along with several implementing standards"...can imply a system that seeks a critical insights that will help the reader understand the impor­ balance..." (Horn, 2001, p. ) Right on, Ray! This is exactly tance ofpolitical involvement. what the NCATE standards can help IHEs to do. This is ex­ One way to become politically involved is to follow actly what NCPEAshould have done a decade ago instead of Michelle Young's advice as summarized by Horn and with standing idly by while others took control, and then whining which I am in strong agreement. Young suggests that stron- for ten years about the unfairness of it all.

ELR 12 Fall 2001 Dr. Horn goes on toward the close of his paper to References touch upon the key challenge for professors of educational leadership in the 21 81 century when he states, "...the activity of Elmore, Richard F. (2000). Building a new structure for organizations like NCPEA is actually movement down the school leadership. Washington, D.C.: The Albert same old path and that they perceive these external and in­ Shanker Institute. ternal challenges as merely familiar bumps instead ofmonu­ Horn, R.A. (2001). Same old path, familiar bumps: Educa­ mental challenges to their participation in educational policy tional administration's response to the challenges of making." (italics added) (Horn, 2001, p.) I believe that most the 21" century. Education Leadership Review, 2 policy makers had no strong desire to take away from profes­ (2),1-9. sors their rightful place in formulating educational policy. In Kocher, G.G. & Tannenbaum, R.J. (1996). Licensure testing: fact, I think their expertise and potential positive contributions A review ofthe literature. Princeton, N.J.: Educa­ would have been clearly recognized and their participation tional Testing Service. would have been welcomed. However, far too many of them chose to follow the road of"familiar bumps' and thus allowed The Author themselves to be excluded through indifference, procrastina­ tion, and/or political unawareness of the reform efforts that Dr. Neil Shipman served as Directorofthe Interstate are going on all around them. Horn reiterates the real issue in School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and worked his plea to the field to engage policy challenges through politi­ closely with the Council of Chief State School Officers in the cal action. development of"Standards for School Leaders." This docu­ I fear for the future of our profession. If universities ment, published in 1996, serves as the model for university do not accept standards-based reform, and quite soon, they preparation program standards. will be out of business within a decade. Like it or not, stan­ Dr. Shipman is a recent faculty at the University of dards are here and they are notgoing to go away. Would it be Memphis and is currently consulting in the field ofeducation wise for professors and others to use the standards move­ administration. ment as a catalyst for change? The train carrying standards and assessments for stUdents, teachers, and school leaders left the station quite Neil Shipman may be contacted at: some time ago. Professors of educational leadership, who should also be among the educational leaders in the country, 117 Shadow Ridge Place can choose to still get on board or they can choose to miss Chaple Hill, NC 27516 yet another opportunity to be part of the process and allow Phone: 919-942-0602 the train to leave them on the platform. Email: [email protected]

Fall 2001 13 ELR Copyright 2001 by Education Leadership Review Sam Houston Press 2001, Vol. 2, No.2, 14-15 ISSN 1532-0723

Bumps or Roadblocks? A Pessimistic View of Educational Administration's Response to the Challenges of the 21st Century

Raymond A. Horn

Stephen F. Austin State University

One thing that I sadly and regretfully cannot agree I see standardization as a denigration ofthe unique­ with is Dr. Shipman's (2001) optimism, as suggested by his ness and idiosyncratic nature of all students, educators, and use of the word proactive and his faith in the ability of our educational preparation programs-a desire to constrain cre­ professional organizations to withstand the pressure to play ativity and personalization with the imposition ofan enervat­ the standardization game. Despite the other challenges to edu­ ing sameness. Conversely, standardization also ignores the cational administrationlleadership in the 21 81 century, I person­ simple fact that social and cultural conditions are not equal ally believe the standardization and accountability movement and that the rigid employment oftechnical standards, enforced presents the greatest challenge to our field. Like many ofthe by eit~er a high-stakes exit level test or non-contextually spe­ standards that guide or determine the educational activity of cific arbitrary regulations imposed by an external agency, fur­ kindergarten to twelfth -grade students in all disciplines, the ther .debilitate some individuals and groups while benefiting standards proposed by the organizations identified by Dr. others. Just as standards ofcomplexity and accountability pro­ Shipman (2001) represent a reasonable knowledge base and cedures based on equitable multiple assessments represent promote pedagogy that is considered best practice. As a ca­ the political interests oftheLeft, the technical standards and reer educator, who for thirty years performed a variety ofroles draconian accountability ofthe standardization movement rep­ in K-12 public education, I unfortunately experienced how the resent the political interests ofthe Right. There is a clear ideo­ benefits and efficacy ofthese standards are, in many cases, logical difference between the two camps and educational negated by the harsh realities of the real world. Inequitable leaders in all contexts must understand that their action or funding, inequitable resource allocation, the professional fail­ inaction serves one camp or the other. Indeed, leadership ure ofteachers and administrators, and educational and soci­ preparation programs that resist standards and accountability etal discrimination create an educational reality in which best based on equity and best practice will, as Dr. Shipman indi­ practice is redefined as something quite different from what is cated, contribute to the loss of control of our profession by proposed by educational research. reinforcing the trend in government agencies and in profes­ The discrepancy between the ideal and what is re­ sional organizations to embrace standardization. quired in real educational situations is the conundrum whose In schools, standardization often manifests itself in resolution is the real challenge for those who desire to pro­ teaching to the test, in the raising of entrance requirements vide equitable and effective quality education for all students that constrain participation by certain groups, and in redirect­ on any level. My pessimism that this challenge can be met ing the educational mission from facilitating student growth to increases as I see the insidious spread ofan enervating stan­ increasing test performance. In accreditation and licensure dardization and the accompanying myopic concept ofaccount­ organizations, standardization manifests itself in displays of' ability. I wish to propose a clear distinction between standards arrogance by those in positions ofpower, in an emphasis on and standardization and between a "rank and sort" account­ the "I gotch ya" mentality instead ofa facilitation ofgrowth and ability and an equitable and socially just accountability struc­ positive change, and the denial of pedagogical, epistemologi­ ture that seeks positive academic and psychological growth cal, and programmatic difference. The rank and sort account­ in all students. ability that accompanies standardization manifests itselfin an

ELR 14 Fall 2001 inordinate focus on the individual student, educator, and preparation programs, regardless oftheir NeATE status, show school. This type ofaccountability ignores the long-term per­ their dedication to their students and their profession by at­ sonal and societal human cost ofthis rank and sort mentality, tending to their own preparation and practice in a professional and denies the collective responsibility that our society as a manner. However, I become pessimistic not only about the whole must share forjust and equitable student achievement. ability ofeducational leadership to be a real player in the edu­ My pessimism deepens as I see individual educa­ cational policy game, but in its ability to survive as an indepen­ tors and professional organizations slide into this enervating dent force in education. As Dr. Shipman said, concerning the and deleterious standardization instead of rising to the chal­ practice of politics, professors (and I would include the pro­ lenge ofcreating and implementing a just and caring system fessional organizations) appearto be babes in the woods and ofstandards and accountability. A related aspect ofthis chal­ could very well lose total control of their profession. Finally, lenge, thatfaces educational leadership in the 21't century, is like Dr. Shipman, I also become pessimistic about the educa­ whether educational leadership can be assertive in resolving tionalleadership professors who are still operating pedagogi­ their internal differences, in forging a common center, and in cally as they did thirty years ago. However, my concern is even mobilizing as a political force to effectively participate in the greater when I see the professional organizations embracing determination ofeducational policy? a ritualized and decontextualized standardization that not only Even though I live by the credo of proactivism, my constrains uniqueness and creativity, but also reinforces the realist and pragmatic self concludes that it is too late to be reactionary agendas that are wholly inappropriate for the 21 It proactive. Due to the political blitzkreig ofbusiness and right­ century. Therefore, I must revisit my original title (Horn, 2001) wing interests that have taken the govemmental, financial, and and pessimistically replace "bumps" with "roadblocks. " moral high ground, educational leadership is firmly in a reac­ tive position. Dr. Shipman is correct in his conclusion that my interpretation is contextualized by myTexas experience; how­ References ever, the burgeoning nationalstandard(ization) and (rank and sort) accountability movement driven, by the conservative Horn, R. A., (2001). Same old path, familiar bumps: Educat­ political agenda of President Bush and conservative legisla­ ional administration's response to the challenges of tors of both parties, creates the ever growing possibility that the 21"t century. Educational Leadership Review 2 the current Texas situation is fast becoming the potential fu­ (2), 1-9. ture for other parts of the United States. Shipman, N. J. (2001). Repairing the bumps in the road: A I am thoroughly in favor ofjust, caring, and effective reaction to "same old path, familiar bumps: Educa­ standards and accountability, and I thoroughly support the tional administration's response to the challenges of efforts of professional organizations that also pursue this goal. the 21"t century". Educational Leadership Review Also, I sincerely believe that most educational leaders and 2 (2), 10-13.

Fall 2001 15 ELR Copyright 2001 by Education Leadership Review Sam Houston Press 2001, Vol. 2, No.2, 16-21 ISSN 1532-0723

But The Emporer Has On No Clothes

Charles M. Achilles Eastern Michigan University Charles P. Mitchel Seton Hall University

English S(2000) critique ofprevailingpractices, texts, andteachings in education leadership (EdL) has encouraged us to attempt a similarfeat. Our commentary is less a critique ofEnglish swork than a statement ofa diffiring view. We do however, use "Looking Behindthe Veil: Addressingthe Enigma ofEducational Leadership" both as afoil in the riposte and as a commonplatformfor a shadowy Harlequinade. In addition, byconnectingandcontrasting our conceptualizations to his foray "Behindthe Veil, " we hope to encourage readers ofEducation Leadership Revjew to enter the discussion and shine their light on the mysteries that the first two commentaries may have bared.

Introduction

In following his path to a conclusion that seems to is a leadership paradigm. Efficiency is about competency; be compatible with our own, English (2000) drew heavily from leadership is about character. An efficiency curriculum is about diverse fields and writings on "leadership in general" and at­ processing skills, organization, planning, evaluation, technol­ tended to theory and movements such as feminism, modern­ ogy, and school law. A straight "An efficiency student is, at ism, post-modemism, and critical theory. We prefer a simple, best, an informed, educational manager (Creighton, 1999). focused approach to education and to education leadership We contend, however, that the education administration cur­ Or EdL. In this discussion, we consider education as a pro­ riculum must also include leadership that embraces personal fession whose practitioners deal with people and "people prob­ principles, values, passion, character, commitment and cour­ lems" as they seek to improve the conditions/contexts, pro­ age. or what Mitchel refers to as the spirituality ofleadership. cesses, and outcomes of education itselfand of education's Knowledge without spirit is impotent to transform education. clients, the pupils and students. A central question that EdL persons need to ask is: "Howdoes Our perhaps less traveled path has side trips and who we are-our personal values, character, and integrity­ excursions to draw in and combine Achilles' interests in such affect our performance and to what degree can those per­ topics as the "humanities" in preparing administrators, com­ sonal characteristics be taught, learned and further developed? munication, change processes, and prior speculations about Only a knowledgeable leader illuminated by spirit has the po­ education leader preparation as setforth in manywritings from tential to lift the veil covering current EdL programs. Those 1987 to 2001 and Mitchel's interests in spirituality, values, and educating educational leaders must realize that competency vision as central to EdL. We concur with English that many alone, without a spiritual direction, is like the sound of one­ EdL programs are preparing large nunibers ofaspiring princi­ handed applause. pals with curricula that would delight Fredrick Taylor and Max Let's begin at the end of the journey, where we per­ Weber. They include skills orcompetencies more closely re­ ceive that both paths arrive at a consensual goal afterwend­ lated to managing the status quo of schools efficiently rather ing awhile in different parts of the thickets of EdL and along than effectively leading the current sterile bureaucracies to­ "The CalfPath-The Path ofBeaten Men" (a poem.by Samuel ward tomorrow's learning communities. Foss). Like English (2000) we lament that in education prac­ Efficiency is a management paradigm: effectiveness tice we see as a major problem that schools continue to be

ELR 16 Fall 2001 "under-led and over-managed. And we must face the fact or products. According to Ogawa and Bossert (1995): that professors are part ofthe problem instead of its solution" (p.7). Leadership is an organizational quality. The medium In arriving at conclusions similar to those offered, we of leadership and currency of leadership lie in the agree on some elements ofleadership that English expressed: personal resources of people. And, leadership leadership as stories, the role ofcommunication, and "dynamic shapes the systems that produce patterns of inter­ interactions" between and among humans. We agree less action and the meanings that other participants at­ heartily with other steps proposed for peeking behind the veil tach to organizational events. (p. 225) and offer some different reasons and strategies to "unenigmatize" EdL. But, ?gawa and Bossert discuss just leadership, the path that English (2000) chose for most of his article, even A Couple Points of Departure though the article title, beginning, and conclusion seemed to promise "educational leadership." English (2000) quickly moved from his title and prom­ We narrow the field and focus directly on education ised discussion of"educational leadership" to a discussion of leadership, or EdL. This distinction is important because in­ "leadership in generaL" He did, however close his specula­ stitutions, in the anthropological sense, have defining purposes tions with some implications about EdL practice. This ap­ that are carried out by the organizations, groups, and indi­ proach is suitable ifthe premise is that "leadership is leader­ viduals who are part of the institution and committed to its ship is leadership," and that situation, purpose, and goals are goals. Education has (broadly defined) schools and educa­ not especially important in leadership. tors; Economics has businesses, industries, (etc.), and busi­ Here our paths diverge. To address the education ness people. As Henry Ford is reputed to have said, "The leadership enigma professors and practitioners must march business of business is business." An education goal is to resolutely on the path of education leadership. A detour to guide the growth, development, and knowledge acquisition "leadership in general" maybe instructive and intellectually chal­ of people: "The business of education is education." Busi­ lenging! but it hardly improves education or makes schools ness deals in dollars and education deals in sense. better places. With goals ofthe institution firmly in mind, (e.g., to If leadership is leadership, then a General with ge­ improve the functioning and outcomes ofschooling, or to make neric leadership skills can just as easily run schools as can a education efficient and effective, or to make schools better school superintendent with generic skills run the army. Price places for kids, etc.) the leader has three driving questions. and Achilles (1999) questioned this idea in "Doctor, Lawyer, Conceming education, the education leader must know WHAT Military Chief: Superintendents for the New Millennium." Not to do, tlQW to get the job done, and Wl:iX something should, only must EdL heavily emphasize contexts and goals ofedu­ or should not be done. Leaders in business, military, politics, cation while building upon tenets ofleadership theory, but the religions, etc. have similar driving questions, but different an­ concept of leadership in a profession such as education is swers, at least to the WHAT and WHY questions. SUbstantively different from "leadership in general", oroflead­ The WHAT dimension is the professional knowledge ership in other specific settings such as business, an army, a ~ (KB). Elements here differ based upon the institution's gang, the union, hospital, prison, ship, church, etc. Leader­ or organization's purposes. ship lessons may be learned from "studies ofthe B-29 bomber The HOW dimension (which also includes responses crews over Korea" and from "the lives ofthose whochallenged to questions ofhow much, when, where) is the leadership KB the organizations oftheir times· (English, p. 6), but specifics that may include common sense, political and financial savvy, of EdL derive from studies and stories ofsuccessful leader­ communications, etc. ship in schools, or from those who challenged the schools of The WHY dimension adds morality, ethics, policy, their times (e.g., leaders ofprivatized education, such as char­ group dynamics, and the ideals ofmoral imperative and recti­ ters, vouchers, or in "alternative" schools). tude: The educator as "oughtitor." Table 1 provides a sche­ Although English (2000) claimed that "structures are matic view ofthe three driving questions. (Achilles, 199912000; QQ1 an important aspect ofeducational leadership," (p. 6), we 1994; 1986). demur. Leadership is a process that helps people reach de­ English's notion that important "concepts are dia­ sired goals within some structure (e.g., schools) and is typi­ metrically opposed to most ofthe dominant introductory texts cally considered along two dimensions: a) people-oriented or to the field ofeducational administration today..." (p. 6) strikes the human dimension and b) outcomes, initiation ofstrucxlure, home in our construct of EdL, too. Culbertson (1990) identi-

Fall 2001 17 ELR •

fied the same detrimental phenomenon, but linked the text substantive KB, knowledge of that KB, and leadership skills issue to a weak and questionable KB, not to "interiority." (e.g., spirituality, communication, visioning, human relations), EdLwill wallow in the slough ofdespair and be at the mercy of First, borrowed concepts tend to enter textbooks each project peddler, for as a former president of Harvard before they are adequately tested in school systems. said to the education faculty there: The result is that such concepts may be used indefi­ nitely in training programs even though their actual Because they have neither a strong profession nor relations to school management and leadership prac­ distinctive body ofknowledge to impart, education tices remain unknown. (Culbertson, 1990, pp. 102­ faculties have no firm anchorfor their programs or 103. Emphasis added) curricula. Instead,external forces push them first in one direction, and then in another. (Bok, 1987, p. Consider common admonitions to education lead­ 46. Emphasis added) ers. For example, to increase instructional leadership, princi­ pals might increase ·visible presence," a concept reminiscent Biography, as suggested by English (2000; 1995) of the business concept of management by walking around can be a useful and challenging way to consider leadership (MBWA), or the idea of"site-based management" (SBM) an­ efforts and put the personal touch back into EdL. Those in other panacea driven by the business "bi-polar" disease of EdL with long memories recall the "values and humanities" alternatively merging and spinning off, restructuring activities emphases in administrator training in the 1960s- 1980s, an seemingly promulgated to produce profits without new prod­ idea nurtured by one continuing interest group ofthe National ucts. Education leaders might combine visible presence with Council ofProfessors ofEducational Administration (NCPEA) SBM to generate "sight-based management," a newconcept from 1950-1992 (see Farquhar, 1970; Popper, 1995; Achil­ for education administration professors to put into texts and les, 1990; 1981). The vehicles ofbiography and the humani­ teach (see Culbertson above). ties, and the current consideration of"stewardship" and spiri­ The key issue, however, for EdL goes deeper than tuality in preparation programs all address the WHY element texts or processes and foci. A leader ofsubstance must ~ of "Ieaderships in general". According to Gutmore and Mitchel and use the KB of the field. The substantive KB of a field is (2000), the two parts ofa pair ofscissors needed to cut out an what the leader exerts leadership skills to getdone. Without a effective educational leader are Competence and Character.

Table 1: SummarY ofthe Three Legs Required for a Complete Concept ofEducatjon Leadership

Driving Questions Defining Elements Research Method (s) • Required Skills & Instruction

WHAT? Rigorous, Reliable, Replicable Quantitative Research Methods Research on Successful Schooling as Defined by Outcomes. Analysis and Critique

Professional Knowledge

HOW? HOW MUCH? Competition for Resources: Qualitative and Program Evaluation Finance and Economics (WHEN, WHERE) Quantitative (Q2) Research, Communication

Diversity, Change, Progress, Problem Analysis, Consensus

Outcomes. Local Knowledge "Leadership" in General

WHY? Inner Space (Achilles & Duvall, Qualitative Ethos/Ethics/Policy 1995, p. 133), Legal Requirements Humanities. Group Dynamics Lacan's Interiority (English, p. 5) Critical Analysis Spirituality (Mitchel)

• SeeAchilles (1994) for a detailed discussion ofthe Knowledge Base and research methods nexus.

ELR 18 Fall 2001 Competence in terms of the KB, but equally important ers as third persons being spoken to or about. All of these Character...the source of the EdL direction, strength, and elements, plus the skill ofsynthesis to meld potential areas of courage. In fact, this part of the leadership scissors, what conflict surely fit into Lacan's "model to re-establish interiority Mitchel calls the spiritual side ofleadership, provides the leader as the locus of leadership" (English, p. 5), where "interiority is with a sense ofstewardship to become resources and coaches a label given to leadership as rooted in language, culture, and rather than bosses and cops. Any EdL preparation program context" (p. 4). So, are schools better now? No. The English that neglects the spiritual (character) side of leadership may (2000) representation of leadership, although intellectually certify persons without a sense ofstewardship who inevitably challenging with its meta-narratives and marginalizing, is still will fail to evolve into agents for worthy goals, purposes, and incomplete, at least in the case ofeducation, and probably in causes (Covey, 1992). the case of "leadership in genera'''. If Bossert (1985) as reported in Glasman and Heck The model we propose for discussing EdL is con­ (1992) is correct in argUing that much of within-school and ceptually simple, but phenornenally complex (apologies to between-school effects on student achievement and outcomes Getzels and Guba. 1957!). It helps explain why and how pro­ can be traced to how valuable resources are allocated in the fessors are part of the "problem that schools are under-led schooling enterprise, then it seems clear that the education and over-managed" (English, p. 6). The model provides a leader must know what to direct those resources toward. The clear, cogent, con cise, compelling and useful framework to WHAT element, the substantive and technical-core KB of a structure corrective actions that will help educators lead in edu­ field, is what separates "leadership in general" (HOW) from cation and revitalize public confidence in public schooling. leadership in the specific field, that is, in this discussion, EdL. Ifwe follow English's (2000) advice, we'll look behind the veil and address not the enigma of EdL, but perhaps we'll see the Implications for Research, Preparation, leader. and Practice

Concluding the Conceptual Argument Sparks (1995) of the National Staff Development Council (NIDC) has argued for a paradigm shift in staff devel­ Understanding the enigma ofeducation (or business, opment driven by at least three forces: a) results-driven edu­ or military, etc.) leadership is not complete without consider­ cation (learning v. teaching); b) systems thinking (inter-relat­ ation ofthe WHAT dimension, the KB ofthetechnical core of edness), and c) constuctivism (competing with logical positiv­ the field. Understanding the WHAT dimension does not di­ ism and other theories). Sparks continued, "While the knowl­ minish the need to the HOW and the WHY (or WHY NOT) edge, skills and attitudes of individuals must continually be dimensions ofleadership. Omitting the WHAT dimension, as addressed, quality improvement expert W. Edwards Deming is currently done in EdL texts, lectures; preparation programs, estimates that 8'5% of barriers to improvement reside in the articles, and research is like building a tripod (or milk stool) organization's structure and processes, not in the performance with two legs or a triangle with two sides: Likewise, studying of individuals" (p. 3). Structure and processes reside in the the leader (education or otherwise) and "leadership in gen­ WHAT dimension ofleadership, the things to which one would eral" without studying the contextgoals for that leadership will allocate valuable resources, and the heart ofthe technical core be incomplete and of little value in providing avenues for im­ of a field or profession; herein lie many of the WHAT issues provement (e.g., assessment of outcomes), for research to that the education leader must know and address to improve advance a field, or for aligning the preparation of leaders with schools and the outcomes of schooling for kids. the technical core ofthe field. "Looking behind the veil" (En­ Although many recommendations could be gener­ glish, 2000) or even "under the carpet" (Edel, 1981 as cited in ated from the three-legged conceptual model, we offer only a English, 1995) may'sound exciting and venturesome, but such few under each heading: Research, Preparation, and Prac­ elective peeking only gets part way to understanding why "the tice, Others should add to the list and share their ideas. schools are under-led and over-managed".. Importantly, English (2000) affirmed the notion of Research "humanitas," of the human element in all leadership. Leaders a) Adopt a professional research model that have success stories and the ability to excite followers by their combines quantitative and qualitative ap­ skillful telling oftales. Biography, developing a sense ofBuber's proaches that will inform WHAT to do, I and Thou asthe first and second person in dialogue is far HOW to do it, and WHY. Achilles (1994, different from "we and they," a relationship that relegates oth- p. 168) called it Qualiquantitative, or Q2 .

Fall 2001 19 ELR b) Establish substantive professional educa­ b) Emphasis in practice should be on student tion KB that leads to improved schools and outcomes in four areas ofachievement, the conditions for kids, and that helps students ABC D's, with careful monitoring in all four achieve in the ABC D's ofschooling: ~ca· areas. This will balance the current testing demics, ,Eiehavior/discipline, Qitizenship craze with important assessments of and participation, and Qevelopment. (The schooling outcomes. WHAT). This will start with careful reviews (meta-analyses) of~knowledgeon Conclusion such variables as: school size, group size for leaming, class size, early childhood edu­ Leadership in a profession requires that a profes­ cation, homework, retention-in-grade, mo­ sional knowledge base be known and applied. In education, tivation, grouping, organization for leaming, the proper concern is EdL, not "leadership in general". Un­ use oftime, multiple intelligence theory, etc. less education administrators know, know how to use, and c) Establish research stratagems to determine then use the professional KB, no amount of "looking behind HOW to implement the KB of the WHAT. the veil" or even "under the carpet" will unenigmatize EdL. This may be policy stUdies, research on Unless the administrator knows and uses the KB in a com­ change, dissemination, implementation passionate way, all one can expect is to have schools over­ strategies, program evaluation. managed and under-led. And, ifthey generally do not know, d) Add to the WHAT KB with outcome stud­ and thus cannot teach the professional KB, professors ofedu­ ies with variables, such as use oftime, lead­ cation administration ~ part of the problem. ThUS, at the ership styles, parent influences, group size, end of a trail through the thickets of EdL, English and the retention, homework, teaching methods, present authors arrive at about the same place, but by follow­ etc. ing different paths. So, professors, and practitioners, ptlt-oft your feel elothe8! come on and get dressed up! Preparation References a) Part of every EdL preparation program must emphasize the professional KB Achilles, C. M. (1999-2000, Fall-Winter). Committingtocriti­ (Imagine preparation for medicine with.Q.Q cal inquire: Professional preparation for profession­ work in anatomy, immunology, etc.). Some als. Journal ofCritical Inquiry Into Curriculum and EdL professors must know, preach, and Instruction, 2 (1), 56-57. teach this KB. Achilles, C. M. (1998, Summer). How long? AASA Professor b) Any certification or "standards" must require 21 (1),9-11. a knowledge test of the professional KB. Achilles, C. M. (1994). The knowledge base for education No graduate should be licensed without a administration is far more than content. In J. Burdin demonstrated grasp of the WHAT dimen­ & J. Hoyle (eds), Leadership and Diversity in Edu­ sion: What makes schools "better?" cation. Chapter 18, pp. 164-173. Lancaster, PA: c) The HOW dimension seems well served Technomic. by any number ofexisting "standards" that Achilles, C. M. (1986). The key triad: What? How? and emphasize popular leadership ideas: vision­ Why? Paper at Southern Regional Council for Edu­ ing, facilitating, communicating, etc. Prepa­ cational Administrators (SRCEA). Atlanta, GA. ED ration will include elements of spirituality, 302957. stewardship, humanitas. Achilles, C. M. (1981) Quo Vadis? (Quo Vaduistivadesque?) Some approaches to the use of the humanities in Practice leadership preparation programs. Paper at the an­ nual American Educational Research Association a) Administrator contracts should depend (AERA) convention, Los Angeles, CA. ED 202166. upon successes in implementing and us­ Achilles, C. M. (1970, October). Employing the humanities in ing the established professional KB (The administrator education. UCEA Newsletter; XII (1), WHAT) with competence and character. 6-9.

ELR 20 Fall 2001 Achilles. C. M. & DuVall, L. (1995). Society's tectonic plates Authors will move; will education's. In P. V. Bredeson & J. P. Scribner (eds). The Professoriate: Challenges and Dr. Charles Achilles is Professor of Education Lead­ Promises. Third Yearbook ofthe National Council of ership, College of Education, Eastern Michigan University Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA). (EMU). He has served in various capacities in public and pri­ Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc. vate schools and universities. He is author/co-author/editor Bok, D. (1987, May-June). The challenge to schoolsofedu­ of 23 books, monographs and major research reports, nu­ cation. Harvard Magazine, 89(5), 47-57, et seq. merous book chapters, and more than 250 articles and ERIC Covey, S.R. (1992). Principle-Centered Leadership. New documents. Among his major research efforts, he was one of York, NY: Fireside. four Principal Investigators of Tennesee's Student Teacher Creighton, T. (1999). Spirituality and the principalship: Lead­ Achievement Ratio (STAR) class-size experiment (1985­ ership for the new millennium. Intemational Elec­ 2001). He received his AB, MA, EdS, and EdD all at the Uni­ tronic Joumal For Leadership in Leaming, 3, (11). versity of Rochester, Rochester, NY. http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/-iejll/volume3/ creighton.html Charles Achilles may be contacted at: Culbertson, J. A. (1990, FalllWinter). Tomorrows challenges to today's professors ofeducational administration. Education Leadership The Record in Educational Administration and Su­ 304 Porter Hall pervision, 11, (1), 100-107. Walter D. Cocking lec­ Eastern Michigan University ture to NCPEA, Kalamazoo, MI. 8/16/88. Ypsilanti, MI 48197 English, F. W. (2000). Looking behind the veil: Addressing Phone: (315) 789-2399 the enigma of educational leadership. Education Email: [email protected] Leadership Review, 1 (3), 1-7. English, F. W. (1995, May) Toward a reconsideration ofbiog­ Dr. Charles P. Michel is Associate Professor and raphy and other forms of life writing as a focus for Chair ofthe Department of Educational Leadership and Su­ teaching educational administration. Educational pervision, College ofEducation and Human Services, at Se­ Administration Quarterly, 31, (2),Farquhar, R. ton Hall University (SHU). For more than 30 years he has (1970). The Humanities in Preparing Educational served in K-12 and higher education as a teacher, principal, Administrators. State-of-the knowledge series #7. and superintendent. He is nationally recognized for his work Eugene, OR. University of Oregon. ERIC-CEM. at Franklin School in Newark, NJ, on creating a model of ef­ Getzels, J. W. & Guba, E. (1957). Social behavior and the fective schools research in an urban environment. AsAssis­ administrative process. The School Review, 65, 423­ tant Commissioner ofEducation for the State of NewJersey, 441. he revised and monitored the assessment system of New Glasman, N. S. & Heck, R. H. (1992). The changing leader­ Jersey Schools and directed the Academy of Professional ship role of the principal: Implications for principal Development. He consults nationally and internationally in assessment. Peabody Joumal dfEducation, 68 (1), personal and professional leadership development and spiri­ 5-24. tuality. He received his BS and MAfrom Seton Hall University Gutmore, D. & Mitchel, C. P. (2000). The supervisory trust and his EdD from Fairleigh-Dickinson University, Rutherford, account. NJASA Perspective, 16, (2), 25-30. NJ. Ogawa, R. & Bossert, S. (1995, May). Leadership as an or­ ganizational quality. Educational Administration Charles Mitchel may be contacted at: Quarterly, 31, (2), 224-243. Popper, S. H. (nd). An advocate's case for the humanities in College of Education and Human Services preparation programs for school administration. Min­ 400 SOllth Orange Avenue neapolis, MN: UniversityofMinnesota. Mimeo. (Circa, South Orange, NJ 07079 1995). Phone: (973) 761-9397 Sparks, D. (1995, Winter). A paradigm shift in staff develop­ Email: [email protected] ment. The ERIC Review3 (3), 2-4. Washington, DC: Access ERIC: OERI.

Fall 2001 21 ELR Copyright 2001 Education Leadership Review Sam Houston Press 2001, Vol. 2, No.2, 22-27 ISSN 1532-0723

You Say You Saw What? Which Veil Did You Lift?

Fenwick W. English

University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill The term "veil" was used to describe the topic ofleadership in educational administration in an earlierpublishedarticle in Education Leadership Review (20001, 1 (3), 1-7, Achilles andMitchell have joined in the discussion about the propriety ofthe metaphor and offer some concurrences and some differences. What is proffered here is that Achilles and Mitchell have looked under a different veil and not the one described in that article. This is another look behind the reasonsfor the erasure ofleadership in educational administration. It cuts to the heart ofthe response by Achilles andMitchell, i.e., as long as leadership is subordinated to structure we will continue to prepare efficient bureaucrats andtechnological managers. Furthermore their insistence on ground­ ingprospective school administrators in the extant knowledge base guarantees that there will be no radical changes in how schools have always performed in the larger society. Ifschools are currently good enough we neednot consider any changes. This view is rejected.

Introduction The Veil That Was Lifted

I am grateful for the response ofAchilles and Mitchell Here's what I see behind the veil which has hidden a to my earlier piece, "Looking Behind the Veil: Addressing the discussion of leadership and made it into such a mystery. Enigma ofEducational Leadership" in Education Leadership Exhibit 1 is a representation of how"the field" ofeducational Review (Fall, 2000, 1-7). While their response is thoughtful administration has been historically constructed. A "field" is a and includes many resonant thoughts and themes in my own body ofcontent which contains theories and practices which writing, I believe what they claim is a "simple, focused approach have been bound up into a domain loosely referred to as the to education" is the same old stuff and assumptions which knowledge base (or KB as Achilles and Mitchell label it). The prohibit any advance in our conceptual thinking. Without solid KB came into existence when claims were advanced that conceptual advances there can be no improvement of our knowledge derived from "research" defined that which was practices to substantially improve our schools. true about either concepts in use and the direct or derivative I want to take issue with the following concepts and practices which flowed from them. ideas which Achilles and Mitchell put forth in their article. Exhibit 1 shows the knowledge base (KB) support­ Among them are: ing the idea of a "field" whichis always defined as a unifying 1. that efficiency and effectiveness stem from different and comprehensive repository of concepts and applications. paradigms; A "field" is bounded, that is, some things "are" and somethings 2. the idea of"leadership in general" is a detourwhich will "are not" within it. A "field" is an historical construction and it is not improve education or make schools better places; assembled rather than discovered. Michel Foucault's (1988) 3. the idea that "structures" are an important aspect of re-construction of the psychiatric profession clearly enunci­ leadership; ates how logical positivism created a "field" and led to the 4. the substantive knowledge base (or KB) of a field is creation ofthe asylum (pp. 241-278). The creation ofa "field" what the leader exerts leadership skills to get done; is often accompanied by the creation of veils hiding its own 5. a "paradigm shift" must be driven by three forces; subjectivity (see Usher and Edwards, 1996, pp.33-55). 6. certification standards must require a knowledge test; The knowledge base is a potpourri ofprior research 7. educational administration must embrace the spiritual­ studies, derivative concepts from what was considered ac­ ity ofleadership. ceptable "scientific" literature and is itself embedded with

ELR 22 Fall 2001 Exhibit 1 The Hegemonic Modernistic Interlocking/Interdependent and Assumed Foundational Nature ofEpistemology and A Unitary Knowledge Base, a "Field" ofPractice with Accompaning Licensure Apparatus

State licensure/certification

The field (practice)

I The know ledge base ~ Line of demarcation

'Reality" (objective, verified, confirmed via correspondence or coherentism)

currents,themes, and ideas which are screened by the line of ation of the so-called know/edge base has been effectively demarcation. Lakatos (1999) spent an enormous amount of erased. Kuhn (1996) said it bestwhen he observed: time dealing with the problem ofdemarcation, that is, separat­ ing knowledge that was considered scientific from that which There is, I think, no theory-independent way to re­ was non-scientific. The fundamental problem with the know/­ constructphrases like' really there'; the notion ofa edge base is a problem ofepistemology. match between the ontology ofa theory and its Positivism held that the truthfulness of knowledge "real" counterpart in nature now seems to me illu­ and the theories which spawned them could be ascertained sive in principle. (p. 206) by observation. A correspondence between what we observed and what we postulated could be turned into a proof (Lakatos, Leadership vs. Management 1999, p. 14). This model had to assume that the "truth" was "out there" and one only had to work at "discovering it." The Now to my point about leadership. A discussion of conjecture which supported this "bridge" was one based on leadership occurs within a theoretical framework. When I in­ two assumptions. The first postulated that there was a "natu­ sisted that leadership be studied outside schools it is because ral" break between theoretical and factual observations, and once it is placed within schools it is transformed into man­ the second was that if a proposition could become observa­ agementvia organizational theory. In short our view of how tional it was true (Lakatos, 1999, p. 14). schools work as organizations transforms the leaders in them The collapse of the "bridge" occurred because as into bureaucrats. My criticism that schools were "underled Dan Griffiths (1988) noted, ".. it is virtually impossible to con­ and overmanaged" represents the nexus ofthis problem. It struct an observation statement that does not include theo­ was one ofmy primary criticisms ofJoe Murphy's 1999AERN retical concepts" (p. 40). What was occurring was that theo­ UCEA paper/monograph in which he subordinated leader­ retical statements were being verified by othertheoretical state­ ship to extant school improvement models which are the ments and not "pure observations." In short, there was no in­ epitome ofthe status quo (English, 2000d, pp. 445-463). Or­ dependent reality that could be hooked into, compared to, or ganizational/bureaucratic theory decapitates leadership, a verified apart from the theoretical network in which observa­ charge which is at least as old as T.B. Greenfield's original tions were embedded. The epistemology which led to the cre- work over twenty years ago (see Greenfield and Ribbons,

Fall 2001 23 ELR 1993, pp. 1-22). Schools cannot be changed as long as the text and was centered in organizational sociology, that is, a leaders in them are placed in the conceptual prison of bu­ science of organizations which has long been dominate in reaucracy and must act in conformity to the characteristics of educational administration. There are no separate paradigms them. Murphy, Yff and Shipman (2000) did exactly that when for effectiveness and efficiency, they are of the same para­ they talked about the ISLLC standards and how they were digm. This quote from Barnard's text is illustrative: formulated to privileging "those dimensions that focused on shaping and directing the core technology"(p.23). The notion The strategic factorin cooperation generally is lead­ of core technology can be traced back to the work in bureau­ ership, which is the name for relatively high per­ cratic theory by James Thompson in 1967 (pp. 14-24) and to sonal capacity for both technological attainments earlier conceptual work by Frederick Taylor (KanigeI1997, p. and moral complexity...(p. 288.) 19). As long as we insist that leadership designed to change schools be examined through the dominant lens oforganiza­ Modernism is the paradigm which requires a center and si­ tional/bureaucratic theory, there will be no real changes in lences and/or subordinates alternatives and counterpositions schools because what leaders do will be defined by institu­ to the margins. Lyotard (1997) defined it as: tional constraints that are part oftheir existence. To imagine non-bureaucratic schools we must have ...any science thatlegitimates itselfwith reference leaders who can think outside of them. That is not likely to to a metadiscourse.. .making an explicit appeal to happen as long as we subordinate leadership to organiza­ some grand narrative...(p. XXiii) tional structure.That is why I insisted that "The proper study of leadership begins outside the schools in non-organizational Shown in Exhibit 1 modernism is that perspective contexts" (English, 2000b, p. 6). It is also why Achilles and which requires an epistemology that will separate truth from Mitchell cite Deming's notion that 85% of the barriers to im­ non-truth. Culbertson's (1988) periodization of the field of provement are not the fault of individuals but of the system. educational administration is instructive. Periodization is a Th~ reason is that the individuals have been subordinated to cornerstone of modernity. The various periods cited by the system. Taking causality outside of individuals removes Culbertson are actually searches for the "true" center by which the responsibility for anything but fidelity to conformance. Chris a field can be constructed. At one time it was believed that Argyris (1972) commented: such a prospect was quite bright and that educational admin­ istration could take its place upon respectable social science It (theories ofcasualty which are located outside of disciplines. The "theory movement" was a search for a field individuals] tends to create man as a reactive be based on science. The knOWledge base produced by it be­ ing with few proactive tendencies. The individual comes: becomes a sUbject, ifnot a prisoner, ofthe social strocture.(p.47) ...an end in itself. It is its ownjustification. It is total­ ized because itis pre-given and totalizing because A Paradigm Is Not a Paradigm Is it seeks to embrace within its compass all that there Not a Paradigm is to know. It is dominant because itbrooks no chal­ lenge to the authority ofits claims and dominating It's also why I believe that Achilles and Mitchell are because it positions leamers as completely sub­ mistaken when they separate leadership and management ject to it. (Usher and Edwards, 1996, p. 76) Without dealing with organizational context. When they say "Efficiency is a management paradigm; effectiveness is a lead­ It is modemitywhich requires a field as a totalizing discourse. ership paradigm" they fail to grasp the nature ofa paradigm. It becomes a mastersignifierwhich is required for an identity The paradigm at work is modernism itself. It's the paradigm in a specific place called the university. that is described itself in Kuhn's (1996) classic work on para­ digms, and not the vulgarized writings of a Stephen Covey In the discourse ofthe University scientific knowl­ (1990) who used the term 143 times in 340 pages of text to edge knows no bounds and no limitations. It is 8 describe everything from current managerial fashions to in­ self-perpetuating system ofknowledge which is its ternal mental and emotional states (English, 2000c). own end and andjustification. (Usher and Edwards, Chester Barnard's (1938) distinction between effec­ 1996, p. 76) tiveness and efficiencywas defined within organizational con-

ELR 24 Fall 2001 But that which remains in the so-called knowledge progress. base ofeducational administration is largely the flotsam and Take the case ofpeptic ulcers, which Le Fanu (1999) jetsam of positivism which even the most diehard advocates lists as the tenth on his list of a definitive moment in post-war have confessed to its intemal inadequacies. The paradigm of medicine. It is now known that peptic ulcers are caused by modemism is a selected perspective that governs more ofthe the helicobacter, a crescent shaped bacterium that attacks behaviors of those working "in the field" than anything else. the lining ofthe stomach. The presence ofthe helicobacter in The function of a paradigm is first and foremost to discipline the stomach was not believed to be possible, since the knowl­ the members working within it to conform. Once again Kuhn edge base ofthe times indicated that bacteria could not live in (1996) comments: the stomach because ofthe acids produced which would "de­ stroy" them. No part ofthe aim ofnormal science is to call Peptic ulcers were believed to be caused by either a forth new sorts ofphenomena: Indeed those that defective personality or undue stress, both ofwhich resulted will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do in excess stomach acid. There were elaborate psychoanalytic scientists normally aim to invent new theories and theories advanced to explain peptic ulcers in the 1930s and they are often intolerant ofthose invented by 1940s based on the idea that those suffering from them had others...thatenterprise [normal science] seems an dominant mothers and passive fathers (Le Fanu, 1999, p. attempt to force nature into justification the pre­ 151). It took a person who was not schooled in the knowl­ formed and relatively inflexible box that the para­ edge base to puncture the pseudo theories in it believed to be digm supplies. (p.24) true. Dr. Barry Marshall, working in an Australian hospital We will not obtain new models of schools from the was assigned to work with patients suffering from ulcers. knowledge base, norwill we learn anything more about lead­ Marshall had no experience with medical research. He simply ership than we already know. Using the knOWledge base as observed that one ulcerpatient who had been treated with an the leverto promote organizational changes is an oxymoron. antibiotic completely recovered. The knOWledge base was produced bya grand narrative which In commenting on Marshall's success Le Fanu was intolerant and antagonistic to anything but its own rules. (1999) observed, "It was precisely because he was young and So the value ofthe knOWledge base is limited to a perpetua­ inexperienced that he was able to think the 'unthinkable' that tion of current practices. And it actively subordinates people peptic ulcers might be an infectious disease. The knowledge to structures and will continue to do so until we educate lead­ base had worked against knowing the true cause of peptic ers who are not subordinated to them. In the words of Gandhi ulcers. The implication was humbling: in a writing of 1921 ,"I have discovered that man is superior to the system he propounds" (fyer, 1973, p.90). There was now no escaping the scale oftheir ear Iierself-deception, for not only had they failed to The "Exemplar" of the Medical Profession's see these bacteria even though they were present Knowledge Base in Virtually a/ltheirpatients, butthey hadsystemati­ cally misinterpreted the many clues pointing to the Achilles and Mitchel posit that the medical profes­ fact that peptic ul- cers must be caused by an in­ sion is an example of the need for a discrete knowledge base. fectious organism. (p.155) Such a knowledge base may be a defining characteristic of a professional preparation program, but it is not a defining char­ The current knowledge base in educational admin­ acteristic ofprogress within the profession. Iwill use their anal­ istration has not made schools any better, nor is it likely to. ogy of medical knOWledge as an example. We are preparing people to become managers of institutions In highlighting the "ten defining moments of mod­ which cannot be improved until the leaders in them can see ern medicine" beginning in 1941 with the identification ofpeni­ something different. The knOWledge base does not perform cillin, Le Fanu (1999) indicates that most ofthe dramatic break­ that function. It's major purpose is to continue the theories throughs happened "out of theory," that is, out of the extant and practices which are now known. Just as with the medical knOWledge base of the medical profession at the time. As Le profession and its knowledge base, it may perpetuate the pro­ Fanu (1999) notes, "...this scientific approach to drug discov­ fession, but it does not assure progress. Why should the ery could never have led to penicillin or cortisone" (p. 218). In knowledge base of educational administration be any differ­ fact, the knowledge base actively worked against making such ent than the medical profession? Ifnot one significant medi-

Fall 2001 25 ELR cal "defining moment" was anticipated by the extant medical Summary knowledge base ofthe day, what is different in our knowledge base that would? I submit there are none. Schools are as To summarize the main points. What is to be seen good as they are going to get with the knowledge base we when the veil is lifted? Again, I refer to Exhibit 1 as a referential have, period. Is anybody satisfied with that? And before my frame: notion of leadership is panned, it ought to have a chance to work. After all, the model proffered by Achilles and Mitchell 1. Leadership should first be examined outside of has had at least fifty years to do its thing and has yet to sub­ any structure before it is subsumed in it. How struc­ stantially improve schools. ture defines, shapes, and conditions leadership should be carefully examined. About Spirituality in Leadership 2. Organizational theory is of marginal value in the Finally, I want to comment on the idea ofthe spiritu­ preparation ofeducational leaders, though it may be ality of leadership. Some kinds of management theory and more important if a person is going to be a manger practice have roots in religious practice. Pattison (1997) has and a defenderofthe organizational status quo. examined newwave management theory and observed that, "Not since the earliest days of the Christian Church, if then, 3. The knowledge base (KB) ofeducational admin­ has the language of visions, missions, doom scenarios and istration has more epistemological holes in it than a the like had such widespread currency"( p. 68).The currency wedge ofSwiss cheese. The actual truth content of of management in such movements as TOM (total quality the knowledge base is dubious at best. The KB is management) can be seen to be a religious cult regarding the chiefly useful to see where we have been and not enshrinement ofthe doctrine ofperfectionism which have been very useful in developing the future where schools present in Christianity from its beginnings (Pattison, 1997, p. will be substantively re-defined. Using theknowledge 74>.. base to license practitioners reifies current practice While spirituality can be seen to be present in some and places conceptual and practical limits on the type leaders (I think here ofWeber's charismatic leaders), consid­ and content of possible change. In this respect the ering teaching spirituality in the confines of an educational ISLLC standards establish a ceiling on the nature of administration program is disturbing. So-called "faith based schooling. leadership" is newwave management's next hula hoop. It fits very well with"... Ianguage and metaphors drawn from reli­ 4. The only true "paradigm shift" in educational ad­ gion, particularly millennarian Christianity" (Pattison ,1997, p. ministration is postmodemism (English, 1998) All pre­ 68). vious "paradigms" fit into the schemata and assump­ Management contains a theology. Its concepts are tions of modernism and are compatible with historic theory laden and value-embedded. While it may posture itself methods ofverification within it, from correspondence in the neutrality of science, it is very much entwined with its to coherency theory. None of the latter have any own theology. Browning (1991) captures the essence of this thing to do with what is true (Lakatos (1999) calls idea: coherence theory simplicism (pp. 21, 46, 173-7).

By using the phrase theory-laden, I mean to rule The promise of postmodernism is that it de-reifies out in advance the widely held assumption that the past and places it in competition with alternative views of theoryis distinctfrom practice. Allourpractices have the future. To do this requires ending the mythological su­ theories behind and within them. (p.6) premacy ofthe scientific method as it has been inherited from logical positivism, which like some viruses has simply trans­ Teaching the spirituality ofleadership should proceed formed itself again and again in our discourse. The Achilles from a sound, theological perspective so that all sides ofthe and Mitchell perspective does not even deal with the problem. argument are presented. I doubt ifvery many educational ad­ I suspect the veil they lifted was not mine. ministration professors now feel comfortable dealing with a very deep theological perspective, even though they may have been trafficking in theology all along with much of new wave management theories advanced by Covey and Tom Peters.

ELR 26 Fall 2001 References Kanigel, R (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma ofefficiency. New York: Vi­ Argyris, C. (1972). The applicability oforganizational sociol­ king. ogy. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure ofscientific revolutions. Chi­ Barnard, C. (1938). The functions ofthe executive. Cam­ cago: University ofChicago Press. bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lakatos, I. (1999). The methodology ofscientific research Browning, D. (1991). A fundamental practical theology. Min­ programmes. London: CambridgeUniversity Press. neapolis, MN. Fortress Press. LeFanu, J. (1999). The rise and fall ofmodem medicine. Culbertson, J. (1988). A century's questfor a knowledge base. New Yor1<: Carroll & Graf Publishers. In N. Boyan (Ed.) Handbook ofresearch on educa­ Lyotard, J. (1997). The postmodem condition: A report on tional administration. New York: Longman, 3-26. knowledge. Minneap.olis, MN. University of Minne­ English, F.w. (2000a). What does one call a set of non-em­ sota Press. pirical beliefs required to be accepted on faith and Murphy, J., Yff, J. and Shipman, N. (2000, January-March). enforced by authority? [Answer: a religion, aka the Implementation ofthe interstate school leaders licen­ ISLLC standards] Intemational Joumal ofLeader­ sure consortium standards. International Journal of ship in Education, 2,159-167. Leadership in Education, 3, 17-40. English, FW. (2000b, Fall). Looking behind the veil: Address­ Murphy, J. (1999). The questfor a center: Notes on the state ing the enigma ofeducational leadership. Educa­ ofthe profession ofeducational leadership. Co­ tion Leadership Review, 3, 1-7. lumbia, MO. University Council for Educational Ad­ English, FW. (2000c) The eighth habit of highly effective ministration. people: A critical de-construction of Stephen R Pattison, S. (1997). The faith ofthe managers: When man­ Covey's best seller. Unpublished paper. University agement becomes religion. London: Cassell. Council for Educational Administration, Albuquerque, Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: New Mexico. 20pp. McGraw-Hili. English, FW. (2000d) A critical interrogation ofMurphy's call Usher. R, and Edwards, R. (1996) Postmodemism and for a new center ofgravity in educational administra­ education. London: Routledge. tion. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 445-463. English, F.w. (1998 September). The postmodern turn in Author educational administration: Apostrophic or cata­ strophic development? Joumal ofSchool Leader­ Dr. Fenwick W. English is a Visiting Professor of Edu­ ship, 8, 426-447. cational Leadership at the University of North Carolina at Foucault, M. (1988). Madness and civilization: A history of Chapel Hill. In January of 2002 he assumes the position of insanity in the age ofreason. New Yor1<: Random the holder of the Wendell Eaves Distinguished Professor of House. Education at UNC Chapel Hill. Greenfield, T.,and Ribbons, P. (1993). Greenfield on educa­ tional administration: towards a humane science. Fenwick English may be contacted at: London: Routledge. Griffiths, D. (1988). Administrative theory. In N. Boyan (Ed.) School of Education Handbook ofresearch on educational administra­ Campus Bx 3500 tion. New York: Longman, 27-52. Peabody Hall Iyer, R. (1973). The moral andpolitical thought ofMahatma University of North Carolina Gandhi. NewYork: Oxford University Press. Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Email: [email protected]

Fall 2001 27 ELR Copyright 2001 by Education Leadership Review Sam Houston Press 2001, Vol. 2, No.2, 28-34 ISSN 1532-0723

Standards-Based Preparation for the Principalship: Iowa State

University's Approach to ISLLC

Donald G. Hackmann Janice D. Walker

Iowa State University

This article shares the experiences ofIowa State University (ISU) educational administration faculty as they restructured their Masters levelprincipalpreparation program using the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards. Following a year of program analysis, thefaculty piloteda new program at the start ofthe 1999-2000 academic yearfeaturing the following components: (1) revised courses and newprogram sequence, (2) rigorous entrance requirements. (3) field experiences interconnected with coursework, (4) demonstration portfolios as the core ofthe oral exam, and (5) research-based instructional methods. Future needs includefurther analysis ofthe ISLLC standards relative to program revision and continuedfaculty dialogue.

Introduction

A growing sentiment that the nation's existing edu­ demonstrate in emerging leadership roles (Daresh, 1999). cational structures are failing to meet the needs and perfor­ Standards developed for school leaders, including the National mance expectations in the 21 st century has prompted the de­ Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA, 1993) velopment ofrestructured methods ofoperation based on new domains and the Skills for Successful 21st Century School values and principles (Murphy & Louis, 1999). Expectations Leaders (Hoyle, English, & Steffy, 1998), emphasize elements ofmultiple goals, diverse community groups, collaborative part­ ofreflective leadership, process knowledge, collaboration skills, nerships, a relatively high degree of teacher autonomy, and conflict resolution skills, and community-building skills. varied instructional strategies (Heck & Hallinger, 1999) char­ These attempts to define the skills and abilities acterize schools. A new role for the principal is needed to fos­ needed for more effective administrative practice culminated ter collaboration, facilitate the development ofcommon visions, in the creation of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure and support shared decision-making and consensus building Consortium (ISLLC) standards in 1997. Under the auspices in the change process (Hudson & Walker, 1996). These new ofthe Council ofChief State School Officers (CCSSO, 1997) demands represent significant shifts in roles and responsibili­ and the NPBEA, sixlSLLC standards were established to re­ ties of principals, who are expected to be change agents, ac­ define educational leadership and develop model standards countable for creating schools that improve academic perfor­ and assessments for school leaders. Designed to be used by mance. Higher education institutions are called upon to de­ school districts, state agencies. and professional organizations, sign programs that effectively prepare aspiring principals to the standards and 180 accompanying indicators delineate the assume these enhanced responsibilities. expectations ofa successful 21 st century school leader. This Beginning with a report of the National Commission article shares one educational administration faculty's experi­ on Excellence in Educational Administration (Griffiths, Stout, ences as they restructured their principal preparation program & Forsyth, 1987), several state and national initiatives have requirements using the ISLLC standards as their structural been launched to clarify the proficiencies administrators should framework.

ELR 28 Fall 2001 Stimulus for Reform the DFPPSP initiative, ISU's Preparation for Leadership (PreLEAD) program had undergone revisions in 1992, includ­ During the 1998-1999 academic year, several fac­ ing a rigorous screening process, a cohort instructional deliv­ tors prompted the Iowa State University (ISU) educational ery model, course content aligned with the NPBEA (1993) administration faculty to review the curriculum and structure domains, and a field-based component. The faculty validated of their principal licensure program. First, the ISU Department the existing program's strengths. expressed a commitment to of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies was develop­ maintain its successful components, and engaged in in-depth ing an integrated program of studies leading to the Doctor of curriculum analysis to ensure the program was adequately Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree, which included th~ program ar­ preparing aspiring principals to successfully lead 21 st century eas of Higher Education, Organizational Learning and Hu­ schools. man Resource Development, and EducationalAdministration. Upon reviewing the current program features (see There was a need to restructure core coursework for princi­ Table 1), the faculty expressed reservations regarding courses pal and superintendent licensureto incorporate it into the new varying from one to three semester hours ofcredit. This vari­ Ph.D. framework. ance had significant consequences. In addition to research In 1998 the Iowa State Department of Education and advising responsibilities, faculty could have uneven course began considering requiring the state's administrator prepa­ assignments ranging from four to nine hours each semester. ration programs to incorporate ISLLC standards, and a modi­ Inconsistent course assignments were exacerbated further by fied version, called the "Iowa Standards," will be mandated in the addition of off-campus sites and a desire to sequence summer 2001. The imminent adoption of these standards courses in a manner that best promoted student learning. stimulated a proactive examination ofcourse structures. This Three-hour courses would provide a more universal bench­ interest in ISLLC standards has coincided with the state's pro­ mark for calculating teaching loads and facilitate interdiscipli­ jection of an administrative shortage in 2003, when 435 of nary teaching. Iowa's 1,880 administrators retire (School Administrators of Cuniculum analysis disclosed a discrepancy between Iowa, 1999). This upcoming sCarcity parallels national projec­ the existing curriCUlum, the ISLLC standards, and the emerg­ tions of principal and superintendent shortages. ing faculty consensus related to knowledge and skills con­ The 1998-1999 academic year also brought a tained in an exemplary program. An additional issue was that change in the delivery of the Master's principal program, a the restructured program must satisfy both the Iowa standards first-time offering ofthe program at off-campus locations. As a and the existing state requirements for elementary and sec­ land-grant institution, ISU has a tradition of serving its con­ ondary principal licensure. stituents throughout the state. When funding was obtained for off-campus programming to address the projected admin­ Limitations of EXisting Program istratorshortage, three sites were established in locations 100­ 200 miles from campus. Students had access to the program In examining the PreLEAD program, severallimita­ through a combination offace-to-face instruction and distance tions became apparent. First, the program had distinct paths learning instruction offered through the Iowa Communications leading to elementary and secondary in licensure, reqUiring Network (ICN) fiber optics network. the delivery ofseparate principalship and curriculum courses, In consideration of Iowa's imminent ISLLC standards which was understandable, given the existence of separate adoption, faculty consensus was that these standards would elementary and secondary licensure requirements by the state be appropriate as an initial framework for examining the skills of Iowa. and knowledge base. However, it should serve only as a start­ The ISLLC standards address leadership within the ing point for program analysis and not be the only yardstick broader PreK-12 framework, not as distinct school level enti­ by which the program would be measured (English, 2000). ties. An informal review of the principal preparation programs ofnearly 50 member institutions of the University Council for Restructuring the Preparation for Educational Administration disclosed that fewer than one­ Leadership Program fourth offered separate elementary-secondary courses. addi­ tion, limited resources dictated that elementary/secondary Iowa State University was one of22 institutions par­ courses sometimes were delivered as combined courses.· ticipating in the Danforth Foundation Program for Prepara­ Since administrators need a comprehensive understanding tion for School Principals (DFPPSP), which encouraged sig­ of best practice at all educational levels, faculty agreed that nificant programmatic reform (Milstein, 1992). As a result of separate curricula provided a limited perspective. Courses

Fall 2001 29 ELR would be redesigned with a PreK-12 focus, with students en­ The admissions process is a selective approach to ensure couraged to target individual assignments to their respective that all qualified candidates are accepted; it is not competitive school licensure areas. The elementary and secondary cur­ nor designed to exclude individuals. riculum courses had focused on issues related to curriculum Upon admission, students formally are assigned to content. A proposed course, focusing on the principal as an a cohort. Cohorts provide support systems, foster a sense of instructional leader, would include principles related to the community among students and faculty, and nurture long-term design and delivery ofcurriculum and would address the na­ networking for graduates as they begin their tenures as edu­ tionwide movementtoward curriculum standards and bench­ cationalleaders (Hudson & Walker, 1996). Community build­ marks. ing and collaboration have become important components of Another limitation was that the existing program did the school leader's role (McCarthy, 1999), and this cohort not discuss critical issues identified within the ISLLC standards: approach models howschools can be transformed into adult the teaching ofethics, the effective uses offinancial resources, learning communities (Milstein, 1992). and training in instructional and administrative uses of tech­ nology. Also ofconcem was the need to address demographic Field Experiences trends. Iowa's minority student enrollment sUbstantially has grown from 2.5% in 1985 to 10% in 2000 (Reid, 2000). Afri­ An integral program component is the supervised can-Americans and immigrants, primarily Hispanics, have field experience, since theory-to-practice connections are vi­ become the fastest-growing segments ofthe state's popula­ tal to the applied field of educational leadership (McCarthy, tion. Efforts by state officials to recruit immigrants have signifi­ 1999). The ISU field-based experience matches students with cant implications for schools and aspiring principals, who must successful practitioners, providing on-site activities designed embrace diversity and these multicultural issues. to bridge the clinical gap between classroom and practice (Hudson & Walker, 1996). Students are engaged in this 400­ New PreLEAD Program Components hour internship experience throughout their program. Students initiate their field experiences by complet­ Following a year of analysis, discussion, and plan­ ing a self-assessment based on the ISLLC standards, which ning, a restructured program was implemented in the 1999­ is reviewed by the student, mentor, and supervisor. Using the 2000 academic year. The faculty refined the overarching pur­ self-assessment as a guide, students identify experiences to poses ofthe program, modified the candidate selection pro­ strengthen their skills and competencies. Course assignments cess and program features, aligned courses with ISLLC stan­ infuse the conceptual and knowledge base with the practical dards, and developed a course sequence within a cohort ap­ by affording students the opportunity to work with their men­ proach. These new PreLEAD components are described be­ tor or mentoring district on research projects, interviews, and low. a demonstration portfolio. Upon completing these experiences, students engage in a final self-ass~ssment, using the portfolio Selection Process and Cohort Model to focus on growth and areas of continued professional de­ velopment. Candidates undergo rigorous screening for program admittance. At the initial screening level, students submit a Course Restructuring resume, application, two essay responses, and three refer­ ence letters. Since the state recently changed the teaching The restructured program represents the ISU requirement for principal licensure from five years' experience faculty's beliefs regarding effective course delivery, while si­ to three, the faculty modified their entry requirement to a mini­ multaneously incorporating the ISLLC standards and indica­ mum ofone year ofexperience. Additionally, ISU requires stu­ tors. The program was revised from 13 courses and an 8­ dents to have graduated within the upper halfoftheir under­ hourfield-based experience to 10 courses and a 6-hour field­ graduate class for full admission to the university. based experience. The total number of semester hours re­ Provided students successfully advance through the quired for the Master's degree was reduced from 40 to 36. initial screening, the final screening involves a 3D-minute in­ Originally a two-credit course, EdAdm541 Principles terview, a 45-minute writing exercise, and a timed standard­ ofEducational Administration was expanded into three cred­ ized ability test. EdAdm 541 Principles ofEducational Admin­ its. including the content previously addressed i.n EdAdm549 istration also serves a screening function, since students' oral School Strategic, Operational, and Facility Planning. This and written communication skills are analyzed in this course. merger permitted instructional fleXibility, while promoting a fo-

ELR 30 Fall 2001 cus on school system organizational and administrative struc­ experiences, including investigative group projects, case stud­ tures. ies, simulations, problem solving activities, problem-based Designed to be second in the sequence, EdAdm552 leaming, role-play, practitioner guest speakers, and interviews. The Principalship combines content from the elementary and These activities allow students to demonstrate understanding secondary administration courses, introduces the ISLLC stan­ and to apply the knOWledge, skills, and habits of mind in a dards, frames the field experience requirement, and introduces variety of contexts (Marzano, Pickering, & McTighe, 1993). the portfolio. EdAdm559 Design and Delivery ofSchool Cur­ Finally, the faculty cross-referenced the ISLLC indi­ riculum combines elementary/secondary curriculum course cators, indexing them to each course and identifying redun­ content while emphasizing trends in PreK-12 schools to facili­ dancy or absence of indicators within courses. Although this tate a "seamless" model. activity led to an aligned curriculum with tight underpinning to EdAdm551 Supervision of Instruction was restruc­ the ISLLC standards, the faculty continues to revisit the "fit," tured to emphasize improved student achievement through revising course content as necessary. effective supervision of teaching and learning. Content from the former personnel administration course was added, in­ Demonstration Portfolios cluding personnel selection, mentoring, assessment ofteach­ ing and learning, personnel evaluation, and professional de­ The previous program required an oral examination velopment. EdAdm553Administrative Theory, which included with athree-member Graduate Committee as the culminating an overview of leadership styles and theoretical approaches, experience. Students presented their vision of the school of was expanded to include critical theory, poststructuralism, and the 21 st century, documenting the skills necessary to lead this postmodernism. EdAdm575 Fundamentals of School Law school. In the redesigned program, this examination is struc­ examines the constitutional, statutory, and judicial provisions tured around a portfolio used both for formative and summative as a basis for the legal operations of public schools, both assessment ofstudent growth. throughout the nation and in Iowa. The portfolio is a systematic collection of students' Since the ISLLC standards placed strong emphasis work to demonstrate their abilities and growth throughout their on community collaboration and decision-making, the public program experiences (Guaglianone, 1996). Portfolios allow relations course was restructured and EdAdm554 Commu­ the student and instructors to monitor growth continuously. In nity and Interagency Partnerships was instituted to focus on response to a state requirement that students must be evalu­ community partner ships and collaboration. ResEv550 Edu­ ated under multiple criteria and assessments, the faculty is cational Research, which includes both quantitative and quali­ identifying authentic class assignments to include in the port­ tative research, remained unchanged. The schools for ado­ folio. Consistent with the portfolio's intent, students are en­ lescence (EdAdm555) and special education (EdAdm580) couraged to add additional assignments reflecting individual courses were combined and expanded to embrace the full growth. Portfolio building requires that faculty interact differ­ scope ofdiversity, including the needs ofearly childhood, ado­ ently with students, treating their development in a more inte­ lescence, and special populations in the course EdAdm558 grated and cross-disciplinary manner (Muth, Murphy, Martin, Developmental Needs ofDiverse Learners. In consideration & Sanders, 1996). of Iowa's changing demographics, there needed to be in­ The portfolio, consisting of six sections organized creased emphasis on critical pedagogy, multiculturalism, and around the standards, includes in each section a written re­ cultural diversity, so EdAdm556 Cultural Analysis ofAdminis­ flection describing the rationale for the artifact selection, their trative Problems was developed to replace an educational meaning, how they demonstrate competence relative to the philosophy course. standard, and the student's future professional growth activi­ ties. The process ofselecting, refining, assessing, and reflect­ Changing Instructional Methods ing encourages ownership and provides powerfulleaming op­ portunities. As the faculty addressed restructuring issues, the The portfolio demands that the leamers "begin with need to more fully embrace a constructivist teaching frame­ the end in mind" (Covey, 1991) and take charge oftheir own work became clear, encouraging students to become active professional development in the pursuit of leadership skills. participants in their learning (Fosnot, 1996). The traditional This approach parallels the state of Iowa's latest proposals for lecture format long has been replaced in PreLEAD courses continuing licensure, in that practicing administrators will be by what Pitner (1988) terms "reality-oriented instructional required to use portfolios to document their professional growth methods" (p. 375). Authentic activities characterize course when applying for license renewal.

Fall 2001 31 ELR Learning Experiences Along the students were enrolled, in three on-campus cohorts and six Restructuring Journey other locations around the state. Approximately 1/3 of these students were completing the old PreLEAD program require­ As the faculty has implemented the redesigned pro­ ments, and managing their needs required careful attention. gram, obstacles have been encountered. The observations The faculty had no desire to expose perceived weaknesses of listed below share what the faculty has learned and experi­ the old program, yet they wished to promote the improvements enced to date with the new program. within the new model. These competing interests of"old" and 1. A close examination ofthe ISLLC indicators dis­ "new" students required a deliberate balancing act. closed not only a significant amount ofoverlap but also omis­ In addition, tripling the student enrollment and the sions in educational administration content. Although the infusion ofadditional faculty brought additional management standards were valuable in framing the programmatic modifi­ responsibilities. Handling the influx ofinquiries by potential stu­ cations, they proved to be somewhat frustrating. The six stan­ dents, additional screenings, and supervising field experiences dards appear to be relatively distinct, but the 180 indicators statewide brought additional challenges. are vague, subject to varied interpretations, and appear to be 4. Off-campus programming brought new instruc­ restatements of one another. This redundancy and lack of tional challenges. Distance-learning teaching was not a new clarity may explain why the number ofindicators addressed in experience for ISU faculty members, but it did require an ex­ courses ranged between 11 and 74. Addressing 74 indica­ amination of effective instructional methods. Since tors (or even 40) in one course is a daunting task, indicating constructivist teaching necessitates group interaction, these an ongoing review of ISLLC standards is warranted. activities must be planned carefully for distance courses. Dis­ English (2000) notes that the ISLLC standards, by cussions regarding effective instructional use ofdistance leam­ definition, must be envisioned as universal and exclusive, which ing technologywill continue so that program quality is ensured may preclude the inclusion ofadditional content deemed criti­ while addressing student convenience and learning needs. cal but not identified in the indicators. Further, a serious at­ tempt to address all 180 indicators competes with additional Future Restructuring Efforts content required by state or institutional mandates. Faculty are confronted with balancing content coverage (and mas­ The faculty continues to make modifications in the tery of ISLLC indicators) with limitations on instructional time. ongoing pilot program (the first cohort graduates in summer 2. The restructuring process required significant in­ 2001) as they continually learn from their experiences. One vestments of time. Time is needed for the faculty to reach change made for future cohorts was a re-ordering of the in­ consensus regarding their pedagogical beliefs. The ISU edu­ structional supervision and curriculum courses. The supervi­ cational administration faculty established a trusting environ­ sion course had been schedul~d first in the sequence, but the ment and are closely aligned relative to their beliefs. However, initial cohort's experiences led the faculty to conclude that it the importance of engaging in these discussions cannot be was logical for students to first gain an understanding ofcur­ overstated, since they serve as an opportunity to more fully ricular issues, then learn how instructional supervision and understand one another. leadership facilitate student achievement through effective lime also is required for discussions related to course curriculum delivery. revisions, content inclusion/exclusion, identification ofauthentic As the faculty continues to discuss course activities, activities, and formative assessment ofthe restructured pro­ it has become apparent that there is a some overlap in stu­ gram. Given the institutional demands placed on professors dent performance expectations. Though there may be peda­ for teaching, research, and service, it is. difficult, but neces­ gogical value in having students complete similar assignments, sary, for a faculty to focus on program quality. Program quality the purposes for each assignment should be clearly delineated is ofprime importance. and distinct from one another. Faculty discussions have helped 3. Simultaneous program expansion and restruc­ eliminate duplication of content and redundancy of student turing were possible, but required careful management. The performance expectations. Another benefit is a continual move­ ISU principal preparation program was expanding while si­ ment toward developing authentic activities that enhance stu­ multaneously delivering old and revised programs. Not only dent learning. Since students must include auth.entic perfor­ were they building a new plane, they also were flying a fleet of mance artifacts in their portfolios, the faculty must ensure that older models. At the beginning of 1998, approximately 40 stu­ they have a variety ofauthentic products from which to select dents were enrolled in the PreLEAD program, in three on­ their best examples. campus cohorts. In the Fall 2000 semester, approximately 125 As they engage in continuous improvement, the ISU

ELR 32 Fall 2001 educational administration faculty continues to examine their York: Teachers College Press. program and identify potential areas for change. Additional Guaglianone, C. L. (1996). Portfolio assessment ofadminis­ restructuring activities include the following: a) designing scor­ trators. In J. L. Burdin & J. S. Yoon (Eds.), Prioritiz­ ing rubrics to provide student feedback on performance ac­ ing instruction: The fourth yearbook ofthe National tivities and assessments, b) constructing and piloting rubrics CouncilofProfessors ofEducationalAdministration for the portfolio demonstration of the exit examination, c) cata­ (pp. 232-238). Lancaster, PA: Technomic. loging the authentic course experiences relative to the ISLLC Griffiths, D. E., Stout, R T., & Forsyth, P. B. (Eds.). (1988). standards, and d) aligning field experiences with courses and Leaders forAmerica's schools: The report and pa­ with the ISLLC indicators. The completion of tliese tasks will pers ofthe National Commission on Excellence in ensure that all components of the program are even more EducationalAdministration. Berkeley, CA: closely aligned. McCutchan. Heck, R H., & Hallinger, P. (1999). Next generation methods Conclusion for study ofleadership and school improvement. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook ofre­ Schools today, especially those in Iowa, serve a far search on educational administration (2nd ed.) (pp. more diverse population than they did two decades ago, and 141-162). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. the role of the school leader has changed dramatically. Ad­ Hoyle, J. R., English, F. W, & Steffy, B. E. (1998). Skills for ministrators must be strong ethical leaders, savvy political lead­ successful 21st century school leaders. Arlington, ers, highly competent managers, and able academicians with VA: American Association ofSchool Administrators. the ability to recognize excellence in teaching, learning, and Hudson, J., & Walker, D. M. (1996). The use of cohort groups research. Preparing skilled and effective leaders for the schools in principal preparation programs: A descriptive ac­ American society needs is a challenge facing all higher edu­ count of two designs for the organization and deliv­ cation institutions. Using the ISLLC standards, state licensure ery ofcollegial learning. In J. L. Burdin & J. S. Yoon requirements, and research into best practice as a founda­ (Eds.), Prioritizing instruction: The fourth yearbook tion, the Iowa State University PreLEAD principal preparation ofthe National Council ofProfessors ofEducational program boasts a highly successful program. Although the Administration (pp. 148-152). Lancaster, PA: restructured PreLEAD program continues to be a work in Technomic. progress, the educational administration faculty believe they Marzano, R, Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing have made great strides in providing a high quality program student outcomes. Alexandria, VA: Association for for aspiring principals. Supervision and Curriculum Development. McCarthy, M. (1993). The evolution ofeducational leader­ References ship preparation programs. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on educational ad­ Council ofChief State School Officers. (1997). Candidate in­ ministration (2nd ed.) (pp. 119-139). San Francisco: fonnation bulletin forthe School Leaders Licensure Jossey-Bass. Assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Milstein, M. (1992, October). The Danforth Program for the Service. Preparation ofSchool Principals (DPPSP) six years Covey, S. R (1991). Principle-centeredleadership. NewYor1(: later: What we have learned. Paper presented at Simon & Schuster. the Annual Meetins ofthe University Council for Edu­ Daresh, J. C. (1999). Preparing school leaders to "Break cationalAdministration, Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Ranks." Connections: NASSP Journal ofSecond Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355659) ary and Higher Education, 2, 1-6. Murphy, J., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook ofre­ English, F. W (2000). Pssssst! What does one call a set of search on educationaladministration (2nd 00.). San non-empirical beliefs required to be accepted on faith Francisco: Jossey-Bass. and enforced by authority? [Answer: a religion, aka Muth, R, Murphy, M. J., Martin, W M., & Sanders, N. M. the ISLLC standards].lnternationalJoumal ofLead­ (1996). Assessing knoedge and skills through port­ ership in Education, 3, 159-167. folios. In J. L. Burdin & J. S. Yoon (Eds.), Prioritizing Fosnot, C. 1. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory instruction: The fourth yearbook ofthe National of learning. In C. A. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Council ofProfessors ofEducationalAdministration Theory, perspectives, andpractice (pp. 8-33). New (pp. 216-231). Lancaster, PA: Technomic.

Fall 2001 33 ELR National Policy Board for Educational Administration (1993). The Authors Principals forourchanging schools: The knowledge and skill base. Lancaster, PA: Technomic. Dr. Donald G. Hackmann is an Associate Professor Pitner, N. (1988). School administrator preparation: The state and Program Coordinator of Educational Administrationand ofthe art. In Griffiths, D. E., Stout, R. T., & Forsyth, Dr. Janice D. Walker is an Assistant Professor in the Depart­ P. B. (Eds.). Leaders forAmerica's schools: The re­ ment of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Iowa port and papers of the National Commission on Ex­ State University in Ames, Iowa. They may be contacted at: cellence in Educational Administration (pp. 367-402). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Reid, K. S. (2000, October 6). Iowa grapples with growing N229D Lagomarcino Hall diversity. Education Week, 20, 1, 22-23. Iowa State University School Administrators of Iowa. (1999, October). Iowa admin­ Ames, Iowa 50011-3195 istratorretirement intentions study. Executive sum­ Phone: 515-294-4871 mary. Des Moines, IA:Author.Avaiiable Internet: http:! hackmann@iastate Iwww.sai-iowa.org [email protected]

Standards for Administration Preparation Programs? Perhaps We Have the Cart Before the Horsel

Creighton and Jones (2001) have just finished a comprehensive meta-analysis of over 450 university principal preparation programs' criteria for candidate selection. They argue that perhaps the emphasis on program standards (e.g., ISLLC, NCATE) for education administration programs will be difficult at best, and likely meet with limited success, until we first address the issue of strengthening the procedures used to identify and select students into education administration programs by recommending that entrance standards be "dramatically raised to ensure that all candidates possess strong analytical ability, high administrative potential, and demonstrated success in teaching" (NPBEA, 1989, p.5). A review ofthe empirical research related to candidate selection in education administration programs reveals: (a) a scarcity of compre­ hensive studies and (b) the utilization of excessively small sample sizes (e.g., Murphy, 1999; Pounder & Young, 1996). With over 500 universities and colleges (and others appearing overnight via distance learning), a dire need exists for a meta-analysis of selection criteria used in principal preparation programs. The present study is one of the first large-scale investigations of existing selection criteria and procedures in university principal preparation programs. Over 450 university master's degree and principal certification programs in education administration were reviewed. The results are discouraging. Except for a few bright spots revealing rigorous and quality selection procedures, the majority of university preparation programs utilize criteria neither remarkable nor characterized by validity and reliability. In a field (education administration) where great energy is expended to develop "best practices" and "innovative strategies" for schools and stUdents, it is noteworthy that assumptions behind current selection criteria for principals and other administrators are not only underdeveloped, but basically unchallenged. The present use of GRE scores, undergraduate grade point averages, and letters of recommendation for the selection of candidates for school administration in isolation are not in question - they have their place - but when they are the sole basis for selection, they are and have been f?und to be only partially effective (Sarason, 1999). Although various selection criteria are used, the dominant one is Graduate Record Examina­ tion scores; only limited attention is given to factors associated directly with administrative potential (Creighton & Jones, 2001). The lack of rigorous selection procedures has several potentially negative effects: 1. Weak selection processes lower the quality of instruction offered, since courses and instruction are often geared to the back­ ground and intelligence ofthe stUdents; 2. Easy entry diminishes the status ofeducation administration programs in the eyes of the public; 3. The candidates themselves realize that anyone can get the credential ifhe or she keeps paying for credits: (Cooper & Boyd, 1987, p.14)and 4. Low standards of admissions permit and encourage enrollment of candidates interested only in a master's degree in education with little intent ofvigorously pursuing an administration position. (Creighton & Jones, 2001)

Complete results ofthe above study and implications for university preparation programs will be presented at the 2001 NCPEA Conference in Houston, Texas.

ELR 34 Fall 2001 Copyright 2001 Education Leadership Review Sam Houston Press 2001, Vol. 2, No.2, 35-39 ISSN 1532-0723

Standards Based Preparation for School Principals: A Contrast to the Iowa State Program Modifications

Donald G. Coleman

California state University, Fresno

With publication ofthe ISLLC standards, many universities have begun to reorganize their pro­ grams to accommodate these standards. Iowa State University (ISU) is one ofthose that has adopted these standards. Along with incorporating ISLLC standards into their program and administrative needs to makeprogram changes, the ISUfaculty has recently modified the Educa­ tion Administrationprogram design. This article calls into question modifYingprograms without research that suggests a needfor change and additional research that suggests that the changes will improve academicprogramming. ISUandCalifornia State University, Fresno were two ofthe five universities accepted into cohort 5 ofthe Danforthfunded initiative during the late eighties to improve their principalpreparation programs. This article compares and contrasts the results from the two programs a decade later based on their earlier program changes as part ofthe Danforthproject.

Introduction

As at many universities across the nation, the faculty the former program changes provides opportunity to contrast at Iowa state University (ISU) has recently modified their pro­ outcomes ofthe two Danforth institutions. While the two fac­ gram to meet the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Con­ ulties chose completely different paths to follow in their re­ sortium (ISLLC) standards. Noteworthy is the fact that Iowa spective Danforth reorganization efforts, this article supple­ State University (ISU) and our institution, California state Uni­ ments the report from ISU, contrasting the results from CSUF versity, Fresno (CSUF), were selected by the Danforth Foun­ in the intervening years. dation in 1989 to participate in a multi-year effort to improve university principal preparation programs at our respective The Danforth Initiative institutions. In a five-year period from the mid-to-Iate eighties, Danforth funded 22 different universities to participate in this The Danforth initiative was, in part, a response to endeavor (Millstein,1993). The group to which ISU and CSUF the 1983 publication A Nation at Risk and a subsequent Na­ belonged was the last to receive funding, in the fifth and final tional Commission on Excellence in Educational Administra­ year. The ISU and the CSUF faculties, along with those from tion publication (Griffiths, 1988) calling for reform in the way Central Florida, Brigham Young, and Old Dominion, reorga­ education administrators were being prepared. As a result, nized their programs beginning in 1989 and continuing until the Danforth Foundation funded a limited numberofuniversi­ each university completed its organization effort. The CSUF ties to assist them in modifying principal-preparation programs reorganization was complete in 1990 when the new program to determine ifa better way of preparing administrators might was implemented on a trial basis. The ISU program reorga­ be found and instituted. As indicated above, both ISU and nization took a bit longer, being completed in 1992, but the CSUF received funding to assist in this process. recent article reveals that the ISU faculty has again changed The recent article published by the ISU professors the principal preparation program extensively to still another describes not only the reorganization they completed in 1992, conceptualization. According to the article, the latest revi­ but the second, begun only sixyears later. The latter occurred sions that began in 1998 were completed in 2000. during 1998 and 2000. The reason given in the article for the The fact that the ISU program underwent a second reorganization was because the faculty needed to "integrate" extensive reorganization after only six years experience with the Higher Education, Organizational Learning and Human

Fall 2001 35 ELR Development and the Educational Administration program el­ 665 students have begun the program since the program ements into a single unit leading to the Ph. D. Moreover, they changed, 573 have completed the degree or credential re­ also desired to incorporate ISLLC standards, now identified quirements (some already had a master's degree), but only as "Iowa Standards," into their program. A third reason given 294, thus far, applied for the credential after program comple­ was to accommodate an impending crisis caused by a large tion. (Note: California now requires a credential applicant to number of administrators retiring by the year 2003. No men­ be in a position that requires the credential before a credential tion is made in the article of any research into the quality ofthe is issued.) The faculty estimates that about 20 to 25 per cent graduates during the intervening years or district satisfaction of the stUdents, who finish the program, change their minds with graduates from the 1991 program. The reorganization about becoming an administrator and another sizable group decisions appear driven primarily by administrative rather than delays applying for the credential until later. by essential programmatic deficiencies encountered. Of the 294 certified during the period, 251 are em­ By contrast, in May of 2001, the faculty from CSUF ployed as administrators in the six county area near the uni­ met and examined data gathered from the 11 ensuing years versity. Ofthis number, eight have become superintendents, and affirmed continuation of the program as originally insti­ three assistant superintendents, 91 principals, 80 assistant or tuted with two additional initiatives added in the intervening vice principals, and the remainder are employed in other posi­ years. A full-time intemship option was added to the field work tions requiring an administrative credential. Ofthe 91 princi­ component and a doctoral degree added. The essential pals, 14 (15 %) administer schools that scored in the top decile changes made in 1989, but initiated in the 1990-91 school in 2001 on the state's academic performance index using the year including refocusing the entire Master's degree program Stanford Achievement Test 9th Edition as the academic mea­ on the Principal as an Instructional Leader, met faculty ap­ sure. proval and unanimous support. The program as conceptual­ We could provide additional evidence of predictive ized has also met with widespread acceptance by local dis­ validity, but these data do not reveal that the success ofthese tricts. The faCUlty believes the local support results primarily schools occurs frequently in districts with 80, 90, and some­ because local district superintendents and their administra­ times 100 percent of the students are on free and reduced tive teams worked with the faculty at the time ofthe Danforth lunches. Likewise, in many situations, an equal percentage reorganization. The local superintendents have remained ofstudents speak a native language other than English. We continually involved tweaking courses and program elements have several districts nearby with 100 percent Hispanic en­ with faculty. Secondarily, ofcourse, the decision to focus the rollment and nearly all children possessing Limited English program on instructional leadership has proved fortuitous given Proficiency. Likewise, many students enrolled in Fresno Uni­ the current wave ofteacher and administrator accountability fied School District, the fourth largest in the state, come from movement with high stakes testing. This movement, of course, homes where English is a second language. The children in plays into the strengths ofCSUF graduates. the district represent over 120 different native languages spo­ A local superintendent advisory group led the CSUF ken. Language acquisition, therefore, is a major part of the reorganization initiative in 1989 because ofwhat was consid­ university's advanced psychology course for administrators ered as serious deficiencies in administrator preparation in the and is studied again in advanced curriculum courses for ad­ aforementioned commission reports. The superintendents ministrators. urged the university to prepare principals who could provide In another district, one high school principal, in an instructional leadership in classrooms while administering other especially impoverished community, and whose school scored activities for an entire building. The superintendents were at the 7th decile on the recent academic performance index, adamant that student achievement be the major focus of the told us recently that, when he became principal seven years work of principals and that all of the other tasks essential to ago, the school had one AP course, that no one could pass .running a building complement the instructional task. and only six of the 160 students graduating from the school Consequently, the entire CSUF master's degree (and planned to go to college. This year, another 160 students will entry-level credential program) in Education Administration graduate, but this year, the school offered eightAP courses, focuses on the Principal as an Instructional Leader. Courses that students pass and 65 students plan on attending college. are arranged sequentially in the program, each course build­ Incidentally, our faculty marveled at the Iowa professors ex­ ing on earlier ones, in a carefully integrated, seamless fashion pressed concern that their minority population had grown from that student cohorts complete in a two year cycle. Twenty-five two and a half to ten percent in recent years. Our minority cohorts have completed this. program in the ensuing years populations are by far the majority and poverty a way oflife for and six more are still in various stages ofcompletion. While many public school students and their families. The major

ELR 36 Fall 2001 obstacle our graduates face is institutionalized mediocrity that true when the standards, like ISLLC, conceived and touted has prevailed for years. Ourhigh performing principals report by individuals preaching the gospel of repentance to profes­ increased motivation by teachers as they see that the students sors ofeducation administration, appear deficient in a research can achieve at an increasingly higher rate as programming base. Hello??? and instruction becomes focused and improved. The problem is, of course, that by the time the na­ In contrast to the CSUF program that focuses en­ tion discovers that the ISLLC standards will not lead to quality tirely on the principal as the "instructional leader," the revised schools, even if adopted, all of the perpetrators will be long ISU program introduces a new course focusing on instruc­ gone-out of office, retired, or deceased. tionalleadership. In this course, accordingly, the faculty in­ Let us be more specific. Our research shows that, if cludes curriculum design and delivery that addresses the na­ ISU teaches students the ISLLC performance indicators and tional movement toward curriculum standards and oench­ the students, indeed, put the performances into practice, they marks. By contrast, the advanced curriculum course for ad­ still may not be able to meet the·standards. The reason? The ministrators at CSUF teaches students how to disaggregate data show that the performances do not relate to the stan­ curriculum standards into meaningfull specific objectives. The dards recommended. students also learn to conduct task analyses using the objec­ In their article, the ISU faculty lament the difficulty in tives as performance indicators (benchmarks), to create level linking (crosswalking) all 180 performance indicators (and dis­ articulation sequencing, and to develop criterion referenced positions) into their courses, and well they should! We found tests measuring specific student performance on the indica­ that only 50 of the performances were valid, measuring 11 tors. These activities have resulted in the creation of a com­ instead ofsix standards. The 11 standards, however, did not prehensive curriculum for a K-6 Language Arts and Mathemat­ measure the six ISLLC standards as published. Indeed, our ics curriculum (inclUding California standards) soon to be pub­ data showed that the 96 original Performances produced 17 lished. standards, but by dropping out 23 Performances producing little unique variance, 11 factors reSUlted with only 50 legiti­ ISLLC Standards mate Performances remaining. This means that eleven stan­ dards may exist where six were reported by ISLLC. Likewise, California, like Iowa, is considering adopting the these 11 remaining standards did not coincide with the iden­ ISLLC standards. However, when the ISLLC standards first tity ofthe original six ISLLC standards. Simply stated, after all appeared in print, the CSUF faculty conducted research and of the hype ISLLC has foisted onto states and universities, found the performance indicators published with the standards like ISU, the effort most probably will not produce better ad­ to possess inadequate levels ofreliability and validity (Coleman, ministrators or improve schools. Obviously, we have encour­ Copeland, & Adams, 2000). We find it interesting, that the aged others to verify our data. To date, we have not seen any article by the ISU professors makes no reference to any re­ other stUdies. search their faculty completed on the quality of their gradu­ Having said this, our faculty, too, is currently faced ates that prompted program modification. Likewise, we see with the possibility that California may adopt the six ISLLC no evidence of research conducted on the ISLLC standards. standards, but with a revised set of performance indicators. Instead, the faCUlty appears to us to respond to state man­ Preliminary data show us that the 41 revised performances dates, using ISLLC standards based upon suspect assump­ being readied in California may be better than the 96 provided tions. by ISLLC, but the performance indicators appearto have only Achilles and Price (2001) take the field to task for four legitimate standards rather than six. Likewise, the perfor­ taking too much for granted in adopting ideas that cannot be mance indicators jump arolind in aligning with standards dif­ supported by research. A basic question, it appears, is why ferent from those proposed. However, we have much more would a faCUlty full ofacademicians adopt a set ofstandards research to complete before making final judgments and rec­ without questioning their authenticity? Why would they take ommendations. Even then, the state may choose to ignore the time to sprinkle the ISLLC performance indicators through­ the research, but professors ofeducation administration are out their courses without assurance that these indicators mea­ derelict in responsibility ifthey fail to document their own ac­ sure what the standards purport to measure? The answer, of tivities with research. course, comes from the politics ofthe situation. Nationalor­ ganizations, like the Chief State School Officers, must be held New NeATE Requirements accountable for their work in the same manner as they hold administrators and teachers accountable. This is especially NCATE has made clear that each institution must

Fall 2001 37 ELR document the performance of their graduates on essential ever, has been found to provide reliable and valid measures, knowledge and skills upon completing the program require­ and the state standards must be adhered to by the state ac­ ments. ISU may not be an NCATE institution, but the faculty creditation unit, unfortunately, irrespective of reliability and va­ at our institution supports NCATE and their research initiative. lidity. However, we believe that this documentation should be en­ Our research, as stated earlier, demonstrates to our trusted to each university, as a "learned society," not to pro­ satisfaction that regardless of accreditation agency standards, fessional organizations (or PAC groups with lobbyists). How­ knowledge and skills produce success on the job not the stan­ ever, the research design selected validate program adequacy dards. Standards are a part of the folklore that has grown up should be substantiated by outside consultants at the time of in education and require research authenticity. We encour­ initial program approval, and the results substantiated at the age ISU faculty to join us in this endeavor. time of re-accreditation. Again, we support, for example, the idea that universities should be accountable for demonstrat­ Shortage ofAdministrators ing the quality ofgraduates produced. This, obviously, includes predictive validity. At this point, however, our research also For some time now, we have heard warnings ofthe shows that standards do not improve administrator perfor­ high numbers of administrators retiring in the next few years mance but knowledge and skills do (Coleman, Copeland, & and that a critical shortage already exists. In California, like Adams, 2001; Achilles & Price, 2001). Iowa, the lament warning ofan impending shortage ofadmin­ Again, we use several assessment tools in our pro­ istrators caused by retirements has been heard. Our view is gram. For example. we use the current ten California Com­ that if the current schools are as bad as critics say that they mission on Teacher Credentialing standards and their accom­ are. we ought to welcome the retirements. This will open the panying indicators as measures each semester students are door for neWly minted administrators to take their place, pre­ enrolled. Students conduct a pre- and post- semester evalu-. suming university faculties like ours and ISU, have the good ation of their performance on the standards and in each se­ sense to prepare them adequately and NCATE enforces their mester offield work or internship, both the student and super­ high accreditation standards. A whole newcraft industry within vising principal use the indicators to conduct both pre- and universities might develop around program validation. post- assessments of performance. Each principal signs-off As to the shortage, a recent study completed in Cali­ documenting that the candidate as successfully meeting the fornia showed that between 1997 and 1999, 5,508 new cre­ requirements and state standards. This sign-off also provides dentials were issued by the state. enough to fill 65 percent of a means for holding principals accountable who do not take all administrative positions in the state. Likewise. 7,255 cre­ their supervisory responsibilities for interns seriously. dentials were renewed or reissued by the state, which is At the completion of the Master's degree and pre­ enough to fill 90 percent of all current administrative positions liminary credential. students must then acqUire a job that re­ (Kerrins, Johnstone, & Cushing, 2001). Some shortage! Re­ qUires the credential before entering an advanced program of search evidence reveals interesting concepts! 24 units. At the point ofentry into this program, students must Iowa has, according to the article, 1, 880 certified submit three data sets. One set represents scores achieved administrators. Assuming that they will all retire over an ap­ on a comprehensive "knowledge-based" test over 16 educa­ proximately 30 year period, about 62 or 63 can be expected tion administration courses taught at CSUF. The second set to retire each year through normal attrition. In the five year represents scores achieved on the 13 skills as measured by period from 1998to 2003, 435 were expected to retire, creat­ the Professional Development Inventory (POI) (the assess­ ing the perceived crisis. This number indicates that 87 new ment center sponsored by NAESP). The final data include administrators are n~eded each year during the crisis. If each the latest performance evaluation provided by their district su­ of Iowa's four universities with Education Administration pro­ pervisor. These data provide individuals quantifiable informa­ grams graduates 22 accredited candidates each year, accord­ tion for use when developing a Personalized Professional De­ ing to our figures, the crisis will abate and the supply can then velopment Plan, for the final phase of their university course be cut to 63 a year. Likewise, ifthe state's population contin­ work. These university units also may count toward the doc­ ues to decline, thought might have to be given to decreasing toral program in addition to receiving advanced certification . rather than increasing the numbers ofgraduates. from the state. The scores are collected and monitored by the Our position is, and has been confirmed in Califor­ faculty. The knowledge-base at the moment is inadequate in nia, that the shortage is not with the number of candidates terms ofreliability and validity as required the NCATE, but the graduating and seeking positions, but with the quality ofcan­ faculty are working to upgrade the measures. The POI. how didates required to lead contemporary schools. If this is the

ELR 38 Fall 2001 case. ISU might well reorganize their program by studying the ity of ISLLC standards. The AASA Professor. 23 (3) very best Iowa school administrators that can be found and 2-6. analyzing what they do differently from those who perform Griffiths, D. E., Stout, R. T, & Forsyth, P. B. (ed) (1988). Lead­ poorly. The next step in curriculum developmentwould be to ers for America's schools. Berkeley: McCutchan conduct a backward, stepwise task analysis mapping proce­ Publishing Corporation. dures how best to implement into the curriculum the knowl­ Kerrins, J. A., Johnstone, T, & Cushing, K. S(2001). Take edge and skills essential to graduate additional administrators this job and fill it. Leadership. 30 (5) May/June. 20­ as clones of the very best. In this way, the crisis of quantity 23. and quality issues might well disappear. This procedure, of Milstein, M. M.( 1993). Changing the way we prepare educa­ course, shifts program reorganization discussions from ad­ tionalleaders: The Danforth Experience. Newbury ministrative decisions as to how to streamline the program Par1t, CA: Sage Publications Co. that accommodate faculty loads to decisions focused on the quality of graduates needed as the impending hoards of im­ The Author migrants swallow the state. Dr. Donald G. Coleman is Professor of Education References Administration at California State University, Fresno. He has also held positions at Indiana University, Fort Wayne, North­ Achilles, C. M., & Price, W. J. (2001, Winter) What is missing east Missouri State University, and San Diego State Univer­ in the current debate about education administra­ sity. Coleman is a leading authority on issues ofrelaibility and tion (EDAD) standards! The AASA Professor. 24 validity especially in relation to administrative knowledge (2), 8-14. and skills. He is an active and supportive member of the Coleman, D. G., Copeland, D. G., &Adams, R. C. (Chapter in National Council of Professors of Educational Administration Press). University education administration program (NCPEA), having served as the organization's president. development: Administrative skills vs. administrative standards as predictors of administrative success. Don Coleman can be contacted at: In Kowalski, T J. (ed) 2001 NCPEA Yearbook. Coleman, D. G, Copeland, D. G, & Adams, R. C. (2000, California State University, Fresno Spring). Reliability and validity of ISLLC Standards. College of Education 357 The AASA Professor. 23 (3) 2-6. 5241 North MapleAvenue Griffiths, D. E., Stout, R. T., Coleman, D. G., Copeland, D. G, Fresno, CA 93710 &Adams, R. C. (2000, Spring). Reliability and valid- Phine: 559-278-0316 Email: [email protected]

Fall 2001 39 ELR Copyright 2001 by Education Leadership Review Sam Houston Press 2001, Vo1.2, No.2, 40-44 ISSN 1532-0723

The Overlooked Threat: Parental Agression Against School Administrators

Charles M. Jaksec III

Hillsborough County School District Robert Dedrick

University ofSouth Florida

The present study is one ofthe first large-scale investigations ofparental aggression directed at school administrators. Using a multidimensional conceptualization ofparental aggression. this studyprovides aframeworkfor understanding the school administratorfactors andschool level variables that may contribute to various forms ofparental aggression.

Introduction

School tragedies such as Columbine have piqued ated with these aggressive actions. societal concern regarding the safety ofschool environments for students and school personnel, including school admin­ Problem Three: Determine to what extent various types of istrators. While numerous studies (Cornell & Loper, 1998; aggressive actions (e.g., shouting/profanity) are directed Price & Everett, 1997) have focused on violence against stu­ against school administrators by parents and guardians? dents within the academic setting, there exists research (Margolis,1988;1990) albeitfar less research regarding vio­ Problem Four: Determine the relationship between the level lence against school administrators by parents or guardians. ofaggressive actions directed against school administrators Given the limited empirical research on parental aggression by parents and guardians and administrator characteristics directed at school administrators, more research needs to such as gender, race, age, and years as an administrator at be conducted that examines school administrators' experi­ the school? ElnCeS with aggression and the factors and ramifications as­ sociated with this aggression. Problem Five: What is the relationship between the level of aggressive actions directed against school administrators Statement of the Problem by parents and guardians and school characteristics such as location of school (Le., urban, rural, suburban), percent­ There are five research problems to be addressed age of students receiving free or reduced lunch, and size of in this study: the school?

Problem One: Describe the number and types of aggres­ Methodology sive actions directed against school administrators by par­ ents and guardians. Sample Selection

Problem Two: Examine administrator factors (e.g., gender, This study was conducted in a large west central Florida race) and school level factors (e.g., size of school) associ- school district. The district enrolls 163,317 students, and it's

ELR 40 Fall 2001 171 schools range in size from 6 to 2,949 students. The the respondents were employed at their current school be­ mean population is 955 students per school. The District tween 4 to 9 years. Forty-five percent of the schools had also employs 653 administrators. enrollments between 501-1000 students, 20% between Included in this study were 103 elementary, 34 middle, 1001-1500, and 24% over 1500; urban schools represented 19 secondary, and 35 other schools which could be described 42% ofthe sample. suburban 36%, and rural 17%. as alternative, early childhood/kindergarten, special school centers, adult centers etc. Surveys were sent to all full-time Research Design and Data Ana/ysis school administrators, Le., principals, assistant principals, and school coordinators. The School Administrator Parent Aggression Survey (SAPAS), a nine-item self-reported paper and pencil mea­ Procedures sure, was used to collect information about the frequency and type of aggression perpetrated by parents against school Three hundred and one questionnaires were completed administrators (see Table 1 for items and descriptive statis­ for a 46% return rate (135 elementary, 78 middle, 60 sec­ tics). Administrators were asked to indicate the number of ondary, 12 adult, 10 "other"). The sample was primarily white times each type of aggression was experienced during the (69%) and female (62%). Approximately 52% of the respon­ 1997-98 school year. The response scale was: 0 (Never), 1 dents were between the ages of 46 to 55 years, and 45% of (one occasion), 2 (2-3 occasions), and 3 (more than three).

Table 1: School Administrator Parent Aggression Survey en =299) Number of Occasions

Item M so o 2-3 3>

1. Parents threatened to contact "other authorities," i.e., school board. N) 2.13 1.00 8 19 23 48

2. Shouting or profanity was directed at me by a parent/guardian. (V) 1.49 1.15 27 21 25 25

3. A parent leveled false accusations against me. (V) 1.14 1.12 39 23 19 16

4. Verbal threatslintimidation were made against my physical well being by a parent. (V) 0.53 0.86 65 20 8 5

5. I was present when another school employee was physically confronted by a parent. (P) 0.53 0.90 68 13 11 6

6. A parent intentionally invaded my "personal space." 0.39 0.75 73 16 6 3 (N)

7. A parent physically blocked my path of entry or exit. 0.09 0.33 91 6 2 (N)

8. A parent threw an object (i.e., pencil. paper) in an attempt to injurelintimidate me. (P) 0.04 0.29 95 <1

9. A parent made actual physical contact with me. Le., hit, kicked, shoved. (P) 0.03 0.27 96 o <1

Note. V =Verbal Threats/Intimidation; N =Non-Contact Threats/Intimidation; P =Physical Contact.

Fall 2001 41 ELR Items contained in the SAPAS consisted of three tary, middle, and secondary schools (Note. Mean levels on types ofaggression/intimidation: Verbal Threatsllntimidation the total score from the SAPAS and the Verbal subscale were (e.g., A parent directed shouting or profanity atme); Non-Con­ highest for middle school administrators followed by second­ tact Threats/Intimidation (e.g., A parent intentionally invaded ary and elementary school administrators). Overall, the stron­ my "personal space"), and Physical Contact (e.g., A parent gest relationships between the administrator characteristics threw an object in an attempt to injure/intimidate me). The and parental aggression were observed at the middle school Cronbach alpha coefficients for the Verbal Threatsllntimida­ level. Twenty-three percent ofthe variance in Verbal Aggres­ tion, Non-Contact Threats/Intimidation, and Physical Contact sion was explained by the four demographic variables. Fe­ subscales were .81 (4 items), .68 (2 items), and .63 (3 items), male teachers (beta;:: -.221) and younger teachers (beta;:: ­ respectively. Analyses were conducted using these subscales .340) experienced statistically significant (p < .05) more acts and an overall score, which had a Cronbach alpha of .80 (9 of verbal aggression. Administrators who were at the school items). The correlations between the three subscales ranged for longer periods oftime also experienced more verbal ag­ from .43 (Verbal Threatsllntimidation and Physical Contact) gression (beta;:: .346). Multiple regression analysis was con­ to .50 (Verbal Threats/Intimidation and Non-Contact Threats/ ducted and the R2 values for the Non-Contact Threatsllntimi­ Intimidation). dation and Physical Contact subscales and the Total were .157, .099, and .235, respectively. Interestingly, female administra­ Results tors reported more incidents ofverbal and non-contact threats/ intimidation while male administrators reported more incidents Types of Parental Aggression of physical contact.

Table 1 lists the types and frequency ofvarious acts Parental Aggression and School Level Characteristics ofaggression/intimidation directed at school administrators by parents or guardians; these acts are listed in descending or­ School level characteristics (urban, rural, SES/per­ derottrequency (measured by the mean response). The most centage of students on free and reduced lunch, size of the frequent form ofaggression/intimation involved verbal threats student popUlation) were also examined as predictors ofthe (subscale M ;:: 1.32, SO;:: 0.83). Approximately 71 % of the three subscales of the SAPAS and the total score. Overall, administrators received a threat by parents/guardians to con­ the set of four predictors were weakly related to the various tact "other authorities" (Le., school board, attorneys) on two types of parental aggression. The R2 values ranged from or more occasions. Approximately 50% of the respondents .015 (Non-Contact Threats/lntimidation at the elementary level) reported that shouting or profanity was directed at them by a to .123 (Physical Contact at the secondary level). SES was parent during the school year. Fifty eight percent of the ad­ significantly related to Verbal, Physical, and overall acts of ministrators (n;::159) reported that parents or guardians lev­ aggression at the middle school level. Administrators from eled at least one false accusation against them. lower SES schools (Le., greater percentage of students on The second most frequent type of aggression in­ free and reduced lunch) reported more incidents of parental volved non-contact threats (M ;:: 0.24, SO ;:: 0.48). Fifteen aggression. percent ofthe administrators reported at least one incident of aparent intentionally invading the administrator's personal Limitations space and 9% reported being physically blocked. The least frequent type of parental aggression/intimation directed at First, data collected in this study was gleaned from school administrators involved actual physical contact (M ;:: school administrators exclusively. A study that included input 0.20, SO;:: 0.39). School administrators reported 13 instances from parents and guardians could have possibly provided of thrown objects intended to injure/intimidate as well as 10 much needed information regarding additional reasons for ag­ incidents of physical contact by parents or gressive acts toward school administrators. This is an inter­ guardians. The overall mean on the 9-item School Adminis­ esting area offuture research. trator ParentAggression Survey was 0.71 (SO;:: 0.51, Skew­ A second limitation is that the information was accu-, ness;:: 0.88, Kurtosis;:: 0.68). mulated from a self-report. This type ofresponse may possi­ bly lend itselfto non-response by the administrator due to the Parental Aggression and Administrator Characteristics sensitivity of subject matter. A self-report can also be consid­ ered a limitation due to the possible omission of events due to Analyses were conducted separately for the elemen- events that occurred during the previous school year. The

ELR 42 Fall 2001 elapsed time between event and response may negatively af­ parental aggression on school administrator performance. fect recall accuracy. Secondly, mean levels on the total score from the A third limitation is the absence ofa mechanism that SAPAS and the Verbal subscale were highest for middle school discerns the total parent interactions with administrators and administrators, It was discovered that the stronges,t relation­ the total number ofthreats perpetrated by these parents. For ships between parental aggression and administrator charac­ example, one parent on a single occasion, may make three teristics (gender, race, age, years at school) were verbal threats culminating in an instance of physical contact evident at the middle school level. It could be reasoned that with the school administrator. These events occur during one the increase in parental aggression at the middle school level encounter with the administrator, however they may consti­ could be due to the parent's newfound sense of frustration tute several incidents of parental aggression. with their child:s adolescent issues and subsequent academic A fourth limitation is the absence of a mechanism or behavioral difficulties. that discerns the magnitude of instances of parental aggres­ It was discovered that administrators who were at sion over an expanded time period. In the current study, re­ schools for longer periods of time experienced more verbal sponses were gathered for events only occurring during the parental aggression. This, possibly due to the parent's famil­ 1998-99 school year. iarity with the administrator and their possible perception of the individual's reputation as an ineffective administrator. It Discussion can also be reasoned that administrators who had served at schools for a longer period of time become less tolerant of The present study is one of the first large-scale in­ issues facing parents and their children, subsequently vestigations ofparental aggression directed at school admin­ resulting in more verbal confrontations with parents. In addi­ istrators. Using a multidimensional conceptualization of pa­ tion, it was discovered that female administrators reported more rental aggression, this study provides a framework for under­ instances ofverbal and non-contact threats/intimidation while standing the school administrator factors and school-level male administrators encountered more instances of physical variables that may contribute to various forms of parental ag­ confrontations. While instances ofphysical aggression were gression. This study was not intended to provide an in-depth not extensive, any incidence ofcontact may warrant a district explanation ofthe causes and effects of parental aggression provided training in orderfor administrators to effectively deal toward administrators. While this is an area for further investi­ with physically hostile parents. gation, it remained beyond the scope ofthis initial, exploratory, Finally, the present study revealed that school level investigation. predictors (urban vs rural, SES, size of school) were weakly This study did produce several interesting findings. related to the three types of parental aggression, however, Most notable was the discoverythat school administrators were the study also revealed that SES was significantly related to experiencing significant amounts of verbal aggression from verbal, physical, and overall acts ofaggression at the middle parents and guardians. The Verbal Threats/Intimidation school level. It was also discovered that administrators from subscale scores ofthe instrument used in this study (SAPAS), lower SES schools reported more instances of parental ag­ were higher than the two remaining subscales: Non-Contact gression. This finding is an interesting area for further research. Threats/Intimidation and Physical Contact. Verbal aggression Additional research using qualitative approaches toward administrators was evident in the form of threats, ac­ (e.g., in depth interviews and focus groups) will be used to cusations, and profanity. This finding raises the question, 'To elaborate on this framework and provide additional insight into what extent does the presence ofverbal intimidation nega tively parental aggression directed at school administrators. This un­ affect the work performances of school administrators?" Ex­ derstanding may lead to strategies for effectively dealing with amples of negative effects could include; increases in work orpreventing these situations. The results ofthis study should absences, premature exits from administrative positions, ca­ also implore school districts to consider the benefits of pos­ reer changes, health related concerns, etc. While various fac­ sessing a measure that indicates school administrator attitudes tors may result in decreased work performance, parental ag­ toward actual or perceived parental threats. If an instrument gression may function as a vulnerability factor in combination could indeed gauge school administrator attitudes toward with othervariables (Le., time employed as an administrator)­ hostile or aggressive parents, school districts may be more that combined, mediate work performance. Future studies adequately prepared totailortrainings and in-service programs may provide an in-depth examination of the ramifications of that address this critical issue.

Fall 2001 43 ELR References The Authors

Comell, D. G., & Loper, A. B. (1998). Assessment ofviolence Dr. Charles Jaksec is a School Social Worker for and other high-risk behaviors with a school survey. the Hillsborough County School District in Tampa, Florida and School Psychology Review, 27, 317-330. also a memberofthe School District's Crisis Intervention Team. Margolis, H. (1988). Resolving conflicts with parents: A guide In addition, Dr. Jaksec is an adjunct professor at St. Leo Uni­ for administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 72(506), 1-8. versity. Margolis, H. (1990). What to do when you're verbally attacked: The critical moment. NASSP Bulletin, 74(523),34­ Charles Jaksec may be contacted at: 38. Price, J. H., & Everett, S.A. (1997). Teacher's perceptions of 3805 Kenwood Avenue violence in the public schools: The MetLife survey. Tampa, Florida 33611 American Journal ofHealth Behavior, 21, 172-177. Phone: 813-837-9056

Dr. Robert Dedrick, is an Associate Professor in the Measurement and Research Department at the University of South Florida.

Robert Dedrick may be contacted at:

University ofSouth Florida Tampa, Florida 33620 Phone: 813-974-5722

The authors would like to thank the Florida Educational Research Council

ELR 44 Fall 2001 Copyright 2001 by Education Leadership Review Sam Houston Press 2001, Vol. 2, No.2, 45-47 ISSN 1532-0723

The Seven Stresses Suffered by Superintendent Spouses

E. E. (Gene) Davis

Idaho State University M. Donald Thomas

Nova Southeastern University

This article is not about the limited research regarding the impact on the spouse ofa superinten­ dent, although afew references will be made to the little literature available. No, this article is about the real life observations and experiences oftwo former superintendents who have both experiencedandwitnessed the stresses on the spouses ofsuperintendents, male andfemale. The observations andexperiences are the result ofover 35 years in the superintendency; phone calls in the deadofnightfrom superintendents requesting assistance with unruly andunreasonable boards ofeducation andcommunity activists; conducting innumerable superintendent searches with quality individuals seeking a position that would enable them to do what they were preparedfor. educa­ tion leadership; and an increasing number ofconversations with superintendents and spouses about strategies for living in the uncertain, insecure, troublesome world ofthe superintendency. The authors want to publicly thank their spousesfor offering insight andadvicefor this article and forputting up with the "stresses" ofa superintendent sspouse.

Introduction

"As a newspaper photographer once reminded me, spouses - male or female. 'I need you to step into the background since I want shots of your husbandand the board members.' Stress One: Sympathy Sickness (Sharp, 1998, p. 24)" The superintendent comes home from a stressful There are in the historical literature many concep­ board meeting. He or she hasbeen bruised and sandpa­ tions ofthe number seven. It all began with the Seven Deadly pered with trivial items and outlandish criticism. The time is Sins. Then came the Seven Wonders of the World. More late and the superintendent has a headache. The spouse recently we have the Seven Habits forwhatever you wish. In immediately d~velops the same symptoms: A migraine, a feel­ some sections of our country there are the Seven Secrets of ing of depression, some anger, and an inner desire to leave Successful Gambling. At the extreme we find the Seven Most town. This is what physicians label "sympathy sickness." Powerful Sex Positions. None of these, however, is more Spouses suffer this all the time, when reading letters to the important to superintendents than the Seven Stresses Suf­ editor, when assisting in tax levy campaigns, when changing fered by Superintendent Spouses. school boundaries, or when closing schools. It is enough to These seven stresses are like the seven sisters ­ make one dream of retirement. alike, yet separate from each other. In total, they sometimes bring joy; but often they produce pressures on spouses suf­ Stress Two: Stress ifSeparation fered by few non-spouses. Let us discuss these seven tribu­ lations that the heavens have designated for superintendent As the superintendent dives into the workload, there Fall 2001 ------45 ELR is often separation from the spouse. The superintendent at­ "Nepotism abounds in the district. The superintendent hires tends conferences, counsels the misinformed, speaks at con­ only relatives. What a shame?" ventions, and keeps trying to hide as much as possible. The The spouse of a superintendent must recognize they spouse, in the meantime, is often left at home. Soon loneli­ will suffer frequent job relocations. Each relocation incident ness sets in. The separation becomes stressful, and often will require the spouse to "reinvent" themselves in a newcom­ the spouse becomes resentful and wishes they were in an­ munity. Unfortunately, even in a society of ever increasing other profession, perhaps a mortician. two career marriages, the public still perceives a spouse with A study conducted by the Nebraska Council for a career as "double dipping" - taking dollars twice from the School Administration confirmed the "stress of separation." community. The stUdy reported that ofthe 575 spouses of administrators The remedy is to live modestly, buy a modest home, completing the study survey over ninety percent indicated that drive a modest car, leave modest tips, dress modestly, and do night activities associated with administrativejobs contribute whatever you wish when traveling in Italy or Japan. Also con­ to the stress oftheposition. Survey respondents also reported tribute heavily to your 401 (K) plan. that critical family activities (birthdays, anniversaries, etc.) were frequently missed because of the demands of the job. Stress Five: Intellectual Seclusion (Bruckner, 1998, p. 27) One remedy for separation is that the spouse attends This stress is potentially the most dangerous. As board meetings, sometimes referred to as "bored" sessions. the superintendent grows intellectually, the spouse may find In addition, the spouse accompanies the superintendent to himselffherself, particularly ifthey do not have a career oftheir conventions, conferences, and mental health retreats. Fur­ own, focused exclusively on the issues faced by the superin­ ther, the superintendent can schedule family activities on their tendent or pursuing activities entirely foreign to the calendars like they schedule meetings. When requests are superintendent's job responsibilities - Le. hospice work, stained made for the superintendent to attend a particular function glass design, the USAToday must read book list, any intellec­ he/she can legitimately say they have a previous commitment. tual pursuits the superintendent doesn't have tir,le for. Soon the two are light years apart in intellectual is­ Stress Three: Stress ofSilence sues. While the superintendent talks about brain research and learning, the spouse wants to talk about other issues of a A spouse goes shopping on a Saturday afternoon broader interest. at Piggly Wiggly. In the checkout line, a lady recognizes the After years in intellectually differentworlds, the spouse spouse and asks, "Why are you shopping alone? Where is suffers the "whys" - Why can't we have a conversation? Why the superintendent today?" The spouse answers, "He (or she) are our interests so different? Why aren'twe as affectionate is working at the office." The lady is amazed. "Working on a to each other as we were? Why is this happening to us? And Saturday? Being a superintendent is such an easy job - one why do I feel ill so often? In many cases, intellectual seclusion works only a few hburs each day. He (or she) should be help­ leads to divorce or, if that is not acceptable, to independent ing you with the shopping." persons living in one house. The spouse has an urge to respond with appropri­ Successful spousal relationships in the field of edu­ atelanguage, but the stress ofsilence kicks in. Ifonly the lady cation leadership require a recognition that more than one knew how complex the work of a superintendent is. Not be­ world exists and that specific steps must be taken to ensure ing able to respond emotionally, the spouse politely says both partners have an opportunity to grow intellectually. One goodbye to the lady and suffers the stress of silence. This spouse purchased non-education books and magazines they happens in many situations: in church, at the opera, in res­ believed the superintendent would enjoy reading. The mate­ taurants, and at sporting events. rials were placed on the nightstand in the bedroom, in the bathroom, and in the superintendent's briefcase. Then the Stress Four: Stress of Dollar Signs spouse began asking how the superintendent enjoyed a cer­ tain book or article. Interestingly enough the spousal conver" If the spouse has a separate career, the stress of sation changed significantly. dollar signs soon becomes a companion. "Look at those two, Another key to the avoidance of intellectual seclu­ all they think of is money. The two together make $150,000. sion is to contractually require a specific number of vacation That's a shame." And ifboth work forthe same school district renewal days each year and use them. Superintendents are (as is the case in some districts) the criticism is more intense. by nature "workaholics." Our experience is that most will not

ELR 46 Fall 2001 take time off unless required to do so. Further, boards are The Authors notorious for continuing "business as usual" when one mem­ ber is absent but expecting the superintendent to always "be Dr. E. E. (Gene) Davis is a former district superin­ available." Specifying in the contract one day per month and tendent oftwo large school districts in Alaska and Virginia and a certain number of days per year for vacation or professional has been recognized as an Executive Educator 100. Davis is renewal, with a penalty for the baord for the days not taken, a professor of Education Leadership and serves as the Direc­ can do wonders for reducing intellectual seclusion. tor of the Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness (lCEE) at Idaho State University in Pocatello. The ICEE works Stress Six: Stress of Sameness with schools and school districts in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana., Davis has written two Phi Delta Kappa Fast­ The stress of sameness is possibly the easiest to backs with M. Donald Thomas; is co-editing a bookwith Tho­ suffer. The spouse cannot be different from "prevailing com­ mas on leadership and change; and is CEO of the School munity values." The spouse cannot become involved in con­ Management Study Group, a national education consulting troversial social issues, cannot engage in a serious debate firm. about abortion, health care, or minimum wage. The spouse must have the same political views espoused by the general E. E. (Gene) Davis may be contacted at: community. The superintendent is often judged (usually mis­ jUdged) by comments made by his/her spouse. The spouse Intermountain Centerfor Education Effectiveness must, therefore, be careful ofwhat he or she says. the groups Idaho State University he or she supports, and the ideas that he or she discusses Box 8019 with other community members. The spouse must be seen Pocatello, ID 83209 as the norm of the district. Phone: 208-282-3202 Email: [email protected] Stress Seven: Sequential Homes M. Donald Thomas is a former superintendent ofthe Superintendents move often. Some may work in Salt Lake City School District (1973-84) and former deputy several states in a short period oftime. This produces stress superintendent for pUblic accountability for the state ofSouth on the spouse in finding new friends, placing children in new Carolina (1984-1987). He has served as a consultant to gov­ schools, arranging for new health professionals, dealing with ernors in South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee. He newfinancial institutions, and decorating a new home. Where is the recipient of the NCMP Civil Rights Worker ofthe Year some may see this as a series ofchallenges, superintendent Award, the American Association of School Administrators' spouses (already burdened with six stresses) find this to be Distinguished ServiceAward, and the Don Quixote Award for just plain hard work. Especially stressful is packing and un­ services to special needs children. Thomas currently serves· packing ones household possessions. Often a favorite item as a national lecturer for Nova Southeastern University, as is lost or broken, or the furniture does not go well in the new President Emeritus of School Management Study group, and house. The remedy, of course, is simple - a six-year contract as director of the Network for Effective Schools. for the superintendent with a half-million dollarbuyout clause if termination is for any reason other than "just cause." In Don Thomas may be contacted at: addition to reducing the stress of sequential houses, such a contract may also lessen the other six stresses. 860 18th Avenue There you have it - the Seven Stresses Suffered by Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Superintendent Spouses. They may not be recorded in the Phone: 801-532-5340 historical literature ofour nation. They are, nevertheless, im­ portant considerations when one wishes to apply for superin­ tendency. Read about the mysteries of the number seven, and if that leaves you in a positive frame of mind - go for it! Become a Superintendent of Schools.

Fall 2001 47 ELR Education Leadership Review Subscription Form

Please enter a subscription to ELR for:

Name:

Insitution: _

Address:

E:mail

Individual Subscription ($15 per year) Number ofYears ------

Insitutional Subscription ($20 per year) Number ofYears ------TOTAL COST

MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: ELR SEND FORM AND CHECK TO:

Education Leadership Review Sam Houston State University Department ofEducational Leadership Campus Box 2119 Huntsville, Texas 77341 Education Leadership Review Information for Authors

Statement of Purpose

Education Leadership Review (ELR) is a refereed journal focusing on leadership in education. Though leadership is associated with principals and superintendents in K-12, ELR realizes the issue ofleadership permeates the entire education community. The ELR welcomes submissions relating to post-secondary, university preparation programs, and teacher education. The ELR encourages the submission ofarticles for review and publication which focus on educational change, theory and practices in education leader­ ship, the changing role of the principal and superintendent, school partnerships, and other areas of leadership in education.

Guidelines for Article Submissions

Submissions should be 2,000 to 3,000 words in length, excluding references. A 100 word abstract should precede the article. Articles, references, and abstracts must follow the guidelines in the Fourth Edition ofthe American Psychological Association Publication Manual. Submissions written in differ­ ent fonnats will be automatically rejected. Articles typed in Microsoft Word, Times or Times New Roman, size 12 font are desired. Submit one hard copy and a 3.5" floppy disk copy to: Education Leadership Review, Sam Houston State University, Department ofEducational Leadership and Coun­ seling, Box 2119, Huntsville, TX. 77341.

Editorial Review Board

Reviewers are nationally recognized education researchers and practitioners representing universities across the country. Each submission is blind-reviewed by members ofthe Editorial Review Board.

Editorial Advisory Board

The purpose ofthe ELR Editorial Advisory Board is to oversee the review and selection process. The Board makes the final decisions regarding publication content and the selection of accepted submis­ sions after recommendation by the Editor and Editorial Review Board. The Advisory Board reserves the right to refuse any material deemed inappropriate to the profession.