Growth in
Educational Leadership Development ProgrammingDuring the 1980's the field of school leadership development became a growth industry in the North America, Europe, Australia and parts of Asia (Hallinger, 1992). Prior to this time, professional development for school leaders was generally one or more of three basic types: attendance at the national convention of the individual's professional association, enrolment in university graduate courses taken to earn an advanced degree or to gain salary increments, or participation in staff development offered in conjunction with government curricula or instructional programs. None have proved to be powerful approaches for developing the leadership capabilities of school administrators. "They were not designed to enable administrators to thrive in the job, implement complex reforms or engage in ongoing, school-based improvement" (p. 301).
Under the leadership of Roland Barth, the Harvard Principals' Center was developed to meet needs expressed by principals for ongoing professional growth and development (Hallinger, 1992). This centre cultivated experiences and activities that were consistent with the problems, pressures and demands experienced by principals in their schools. Because of positive responses from participants, variations of the Harvard model were adopted by emerging leadership development centres in a variety of countries. These principal-led centres were characterised by high levels of client involvement in the identification of needs and goals, in formal governance, and in the design and delivery of training.
At the same time, administrative training also represented a potential solution for educational policy makers under siege. Research regarding organisational change was unequivocal concerning the critical initiation and support roles played by educational leaders. Policy makers came to view administrative training as an instrument for implementing education reforms, and they also began to initiate leadership academies in various states. In these state-initiated and funded academies, organisational needs rather than individual needs were the primary basis for program development (Hallinger, 1992).
The United States federal government invested over 30 million dollars in school leadership development between 1986 and 1990; by 1990 over 150 principals' centres, school leadership development units or state leadership academies had emerged. Programs were also being sponsored by school districts, research and development laboratories, universities, professional associations and private agencies. Similar growth was shown in other countries. Along with the growth in the number of service providers was an increased variation in program design and delivery. "Market pressure for instructional improvement led programs to focus on school improvement, instructional leadership, effective schools, and instructional supervision" (Hallinger, 1992, p. 305). Programs evolved away from a didactic model of instruction and were oriented toward the work of administrators.
Leadership
Development Program EvaluationIf skill development and implementation are the main goals of leadership development programs, then a particular form of summative evaluation is needed. If normative change and personal and professional renewal represent primary goals then quite a different evaluation is warranted (Hallinger, 1992). Questions which need to be addressed by all leadership development programs include: "how training interventions influence the development of school leadership, how that leadership is subsequently exercised in the workplace, and what is the impact of that leadership on the school" (p. 309).
Despite the growth in leadership development programming, little systematic research has been conducted on either the operation or outcomes of these programs. Policy makers have concentrated available resources for services to clients rather than on the evaluation of programs (Hallinger, 1992; Wallace, 1992). Generally, the effectiveness of these new approaches to school leadership development cannot be confirmed, despite their broadly-based support among practitioners and policy makers.
Researchers have described the issues and dilemmas that evaluators face in the field of educational leadership (Wallace, 1992). They have cited the difficulties in isolating the effects of leadership training on the local organisations in which principals work. "Evaluation of impact is even more problematic during a period of shifting priorities in the school's policy environment. Given the implementation of multiple policies and programs during this same period of time, it is possible that factors other than participation in the training program may better explain eventual developments" (Ekholm, 1992, p. 383). Empirical evaluations of administrative training programs, if undertaken at all, have generally been designed so that causal inferences concerning program effects are speculative at best. "This shortcoming has forced policy makers and practitioners to rely on preconceptions and faith that leadership development was actually making a difference in the lives of school administrators and their schools" (Hallinger, 1992, p. 300).
Considering the lucrative business perspective involved with educational leadership development, there may also be other reasons for limited evaluation. "In a field where there have been few documented cases of demonstrable performance improvement and accountability is low, there is no reason to expect service providers to seek formal feedback" (Wallace, 1992, p. 348).
Restructuring Educational Administrator Training
ProgramsAccording to some perspectives "a number of educational administration curricula have remained relatively unchanged for decades because these university departments are by nature conservative and inherently resistant to change" (Bjork & Ginsberg, 1995, p. 18). Scholarship in educational administration has tended to accept theories developed in nonschool contexts as appropriate for the study of school leadership (Greenfield, 1995). Although many of those ideas were useful, they were often very abstract and were not context sensitive. Common concerns related to traditional models of administrator training appear to transcend both national boundaries and the type of training approach used. Bjork and Ginsberg (1995) enumerated issues of concern:
the problem of matching training with practitioner needs; the lack of evaluation of individuals holding administrative positions; the success of training as measured by the satisfaction of the participants; the tension between academic versus practice-oriented content and materials; the lack of school experience of academics; the disparate quality of the curriculum; the lack of research in school administration outside of the United States, Canada and Australia; the tenuous assumption that good and effective administrators are good teachers of school management; the lack of a specification of qualifications and definition of duties of the principal. (p. 15)
Studies regarding traditional patterns of administrator training have found that innovations are needed in both the content and the process of the training (Begley, 1995; Marsh, 1992; Prestine & LeGrand, 1991).
Recently the professional preparation of aspiring principals has begun to reflect an increased responsiveness to the work that they are expected to perform. There appears to be a movement away from the managerial, authoritarian and top-down leadership styles that were typically associated with the science of educational administration. "The transition towards collegial and empowering forms of leadership has been catalysed by a reconceptualization of the principal's role, debates about the congruence between theory and practice, and efforts to link training experiences with school-based practice" (Behar-Horenstein, 1995, p. 18). Both theoretical and empirical evidence also have indicated the need for increasing the use of appropriate alternative instructional strategies, including simulations, case studies, practice-based and problem-based models, more complete integration of field-based activities and more student-centred rather than professor-centred instructional approaches in developing educational leaders (Bjork & Ginsberg, 1995). There is also a serious interest in establishing more formal relationships with school districts (Bjork & Ginsberg, 1995).
A number of researchers have shifted their attention to theories of human cognition as a better way of explaining the nature of educational leadership (Begley, 1995). Some professors of educational administration are experimenting with problem-based instructional approaches as one response to the challenge of situating administrative learning experiences within relevant contexts. Problem-based learning has been used as a cognitive apprenticeship in the educational administrator preparation program at the University of Connecticut (Cordeiro & Campbell, 1995). An extended apprenticeship with at least one practising expert administrator has been a key program component. "Other components include a reflective practicum, cohort learning involving research teams, and the integration of both simulated and authentic problem-based learning projects" (p. 11).
Recent efforts to align training and actual practice are being reflected by an emphasis on the development of group processing skills, collaborative leadership styles and communication skills, participatory decision making, consensus building, reflective thinking and mentoring (Behar-Horenstein, 1995). These changes are consistent with reforms in other professional preparation programs including medicine, business, law, architecture and pharmacy (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992; Novak, 1992).
In the United States, a group of universities have founded the National Alliance for Restructuring Graduate Education Administration Programs to focus on changing programs of principal preparation, assessing the applicability of the NASSP training material, and disseminating their findings among other universities to encourage departments to consider revising their programs (Behar-Horenstein, 1995). Newly reconstituted departments have been renamed departments of educational leadership, and redesigned programs have been formulated to promote an holistic approach. "Their vision for preparing prospective principals attempts to include a carefully conceived balance of knowledge and interpersonal skills that will enable leaders to effectively guide change, explore innovative ways to cope with the challenges posed by our changing society, and support individuals who are reluctant to move toward less traditional models of schooling" (p. 36).
Return to the Table of
ContentsGo to
the next section