Mandated University–District Partnerships for Principal Preparation: Professors’ Perspectives on Required Program Redesign

Abstract

University–district partnerships for preparing school leaders typically have well-defined organizational structures, established practices and procedures, and parity among partners—all of which can take considerable time and effort to achieve. Thus, is it realistic to expect that university–district partnerships will emerge simply through legislative mandate? The response to this question is embedded in perspectives shared by professors of educational leadership about new Kentucky policy requiring redesign of principal preparation programs. The mandate brings a new dynamic to partnership building, a process usually constructed by mutual need and perceived advantage, and raises concerns among those who must implement it to retain program accreditation.

Faculty Perceptions of Race to the Top Policy Influence on a University-Based Preparation Program Partnership

“…This approach allows for considerable state to state variation, which reflects and works within the federal structure of education policy in the United States. Indeed, we see efforts to improve preparation programs within the context of RTTT as being quite similar to many state-level efforts that were undertaken to stimulate mandated programmatic changes (Browne-Ferrigno, 2011Kochan & Reames, 2013;Mountford & Acker-Hocevar, 2013;Phillips, 2013aPhillips, , 2013bYoung, 2013).…”

“…An entire issue of the Journal of Research on Leadership Education was devoted to this topic (Phillips, 2013b). The existing research has chronicled the experience of faculty in Alabama (Kochan & Reames, 2013), Florida (Mountford & Acker-Hocevar, 2013), Kentucky (Browne-Ferrigno, 2011, 2013), New Jersey (Doolittle, 2013), and North Carolina (Phillips, 2013a). Across these studies, faculty have generally expressed concerns about the impact of state-mandated reforms.…”

“…Indeed, collectively, faculty offer negative critiques of state-mandated reforms and, much like national critiques of leadership standards (e.g., English, 2003, 2006), express concerns about the impact that such polices have on preparation programs, their curriculum, and more broadly on their faculty (Crow, Arnold, Witherspoon, Reed, & Shoho, 2012). For example, Browne-Ferrigno’s (2011) study of a Kentucky state policy provides one example of the ways in which state policy negatively affected principal preparation. She determined that faculty had strong reservations about the ability of state-mandated reform to bring about lasting partnerships that would result in positive programmatic changes.…”

“…Her analysis indicates that faculty concerns related to the cost of collaborative program redesign, the difficulty sustaining relationships between districts and universities, an absence of district-based mentors for prospective administrators, and difficulties associated with meeting the needs of varied district constituencies within the context of a single partnership. As she concluded, “forcing relationships” within the context of state mandates may serve to undermine the broader policy goals aimed at improving principal preparation programs (Browne-Ferrigno, 2011, p. 753). Her conclusions have been echoed in more recent studies investigating the impact of state-mandated program redesign in other settings, including Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, and New Jersey (Browne-Ferrigno, 2011, 2013; Doolittle, 2013; Kochan & Reames, 2013; Mountford & Acker-Hocevar, 2013; Phillips, 2013a).…”

The Role of the Educational Leadership Program Coordinator (PC) in University–K-12 School District Partnership Development

“…Evidence of partnership development within the confines of education and leadership and K-12 school districts is scant and warrants development in the literature (Barnett & Jacobson, 2012; Browne-Ferrigno, 2011; Crow & Whiteman, 2016; Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007; Kochan & Reames, 2013; Reames & Kochan, 2015). Others have suggested we know very little about how these partnerships develop or how they can be sustained (Reames & Kochan, 2015; Reames & Slear, 2018).…”