Purpose: This study attempted to determine the influence of exemplary leadership preparation on what principals learn about leadership, their use of effective leadership practices, and how their practices influence school improvement and the school’s learning climate. The authors also investigated how the frequency of effective leadership practices related to the strength of district support and the extent of school problems and student poverty. Finally, the authors examined the contribution of exemplary leadership preparation to variations in school improvement progress and school effectiveness climate. Research Design: The study, using survey research conducted in 2005, compared 65 principals who had graduated from one of four selected exemplary leadership preparation programs to a national sample of 111 principals. The authors used structural equation modeling to find the best fit. Findings: Participation in an exemplary leadership preparation program was significantly associated with learning about effective leadership and engaging in these practices, particularly where stronger preparation program and internship quality existed. Frequent use of effective leadership practices was positively associated with school improvement progress and school effectiveness climate. Taken together, exemplary leadership preparation had a positive but mediated influence on variations in school improvement progress and school effectiveness climate; the relationship was even stronger when focusing on preparation program and internship quality measures. Conclusions: Faculty investments in preparation program and internship quality will positively contribute to the leadership knowledge of graduates and their leadership practices and school improvement progress. These results yield significant implications for policy makers, universities, and other providers of leadership preparation.
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to describe the nature of preparation among a nonpurposeful sample of 17 leadership preparation programs and to investigate the relationship of their participants’ characteristics, program experiences, leadership learning, and initial career outcomes. The study was guided by prior research on innovative programs (Darling Hammond, Meyerson, La Pointe, & Orr, 2009; Leithwood, Jantzi, Coffin, & Wilson, 1996). Data Collection and Analysis: Faculty members from 13 institutions (two with multiple programs) surveyed their graduates between 2004 and 2007 using a common survey instrument developed by the University Continuing Education Association Learning and Teaching in Educational Leadership Special Interest Group Taskforce on Evaluating Leadership Preparation Programs. Of these, 471 had completed their program from 0 to three years prior; their responses were aggregated by program and analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlational analyses. Findings: The results show that programs had many recommended innovative program features, varied somewhat on content focus, challenge, coherence, use of active student-centered instructional practices, and internship length and quality. These were positively associated with the extent of graduates’ learning in five areas of leadership, their satisfaction with the program, and their beliefs about the principalship. Conclusions: The results confirm prior research that how aspiring school leaders are prepared influences what they learn and their career intentions. The results validate the survey measures in discriminating among programs, and identifying areas for improvement.
The increased emphasis on the role of educational leaders in the success of schools has led many schools of education to examine their leadership preparation programs. Ms. Orr presents some promising innovations and new directions in program design and delivery.
Purpose: This article sheds light on some basic questions about the distribution of educational leadership preparation degree programs among different types of institutions and the distribution of advanced degrees, by type, exploring change over time and the relationship to regional labor market estimates. Method: We used data from five major national data sets (Institutional Postsecondary Education Data System, Survey of Earned Doctorates, Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data, and Census data) to explore the production of graduate degrees in educational leadership by institutions of higher education and the distribution of graduate degrees across building level leaders in K-12 public education systems. We used two institutional classification systems— the Carnegie Classification and the U.S. News & World Report higher education classification—to group postsecondary institutions by resources and rank. The time period for our analysis is 1990 to 2003. Findings: On the production side, we found that the number of graduate degree programs and degrees granted in educational leadership increased considerably from 1993 to 2003, with master's degree programs increasing by 16% and the number of master's degrees granted increasing by 90%. Degree production shifted by institutional type, with the role of research universities in producing master's, specialist, and doctoral degrees declining dramatically and Comprehensive colleges and universities showing over a four-fold increase in the share. Degree production fluctuates widely among states, unrelated to school population estimates, suggesting areas for further research and policy analysis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.