Pipeline to Preparation to Advancement: Graduates’ Experiences In, Through, and Beyond Leadership Preparation

Abstract

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.

Do Principal Preparation Programs Influence Student Achievement Through the Building of Teacher-Team Qualifications by the Principal? An Exploratory Analysis

“…In addition, research has indicated that preparation programs located in doctoral and research institutions simply have more institutional capacity to prepare leaders effectively than other institutions (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007). Furthermore, principals from preparation programs located at doctoral and research institutions were more likely to become employed as school leaders and had faster rates of career advancement than those from other preparation programs, suggesting differences in principal effectiveness (Fuller & Orr, 2006;Orr, 2011).…”

Mentoring Matters: An Exploratory Survey of Educational Leadership Doctoral Students’ Perspectives

“…A broader scope of methodological tools have been used to examine the quality and effectiveness of educational leadership preparation programs by conducting program evaluations using survey (Buskey & Karvonen, 2012;Orr, 2012) mixed methods (Huang et al, 2012); case study (Hernandez & McKenzie, 2010); and action research (Orr, Doolittle, Kottkamp, Osterman, & Silverberg, 2004). Also, survey design has been used in a general way to capture an overall picture of faculty who teach in educational leadership preparation programs (Hackmann & McCarthy, 2011), while Rusch (2004) used survey design more specifically to hone in on faculty's perceptions and discourse about gender and race in educational leadership classrooms.…”

“…While important work has been done in schools of education (Creighton, Creighton, & Parks, 2010), research specific to educational leadership graduate students' gendered experiences is relatively sparse (Mansfield et al, 2010). While there are ongoing discussions evaluating educational leadership preparation programmatic quality (Orr, 2012), few scholars examine mentoring approaches (Sherman & Grogan, 2011). Importantly, researchers are increasingly calling for an expansion of intentional conversations concerning gender identity in educational leadership preparation programs (Killingsworth, Cabezas, Kensler, & Brooks, 2010;Mansfield et al, 2010), along with work that looks at gender and other identity complexities such as race/ ethnicity within academe as a whole (Davis, 2008;Harden, Clark, Johnson, & Larson, 2009;Mansfield et al, 2010;Reddick, 2011;Schlosser & Foley, 2008).…”

An Analysis of 2013 Program Evaluation Proposals for the School Leadership Preparation Program

“…A greater awareness of impact and outcome measures has guided conversations around these grants in recent years. The 2011The , 2012 national conferences sponsored by the School Leadership Program Communication Hub (now School Leadership Preparation and Development Network [SLPDN]) dedicated a significant amount of time to program evaluation and the impacts of the program features. The SLPDN is an organization that connects all current and past SLP grantees in a variety of ways, including through national conferences, webinars, and collaborative research and publications.…”