The University Preparation Program Initiative is sponsored by the Wallace Foundation. For the seven universities selected by Wallace for redesign, work from the Initiative is projected to foster programmatic advancements by offering support to address critical questions and improve professional practice (Spiro in Young & Spiro, 2016 Webinar). Wallace’s leadership initiative generates reports for wide consumption in line with their mission to foster improvements in learning and enrichment for disadvantaged children and the vitality of the arts for everyone (The Wallace Foundation, 2016).
As part of this grant initiative, UCEA will be supporting the seven university sites selected for program redesign.
More information about this Initiative can be found on the links below.
Links to Wallace/Press
The purpose of the UCEA Program Design Network (PDN) is to support collaborative engagement by education leadership faculty in leadership preparation design, redesign, and improvement efforts and aligns with UCEA’s commitment to continuous improvement.
UCEA Program Design Network (PDN) Site Visits
If you would like to participate in a site visit to one of the institutions that have received the Exemplary Educational Leadership Preparation Program (EELP) award, spring 2020 is your chance. The EELP award is sponsored by The Wallace Foundation and given by UCEA to a program within colleges and departments of education that demonstrates exemplary educational leadership preparation. All site visits start on the first date listed (arrive the night before) and conclude by early afternoon of the second day. The agenda is developed to allow faculty to learn from faculty about the excellent work at the hosting institution, with a focus on the topic of the visiting networked improvement community (NIC).
Site visits are open to any UCEA member faculty. Contact Sara Dexter for further information at sdexter@virginia.edu.
Facilitator: Casey Cobb (University of Connecticut)
Knowledge Worker: Wesley Henry (University of Washington)
University Programs:
Florida Atlantic University
Iowa State University
Michigan State University
Portland State University
University of Iowa
University of Texas
Facilitator: David Eddy-Spicer (University of Virginia)
Knowledge Worker: Amy Reynolds (University of Virginia/UCEA)
University Programs:
Fordham University
Loyola Marymount University
Oklahoma State University
University at Buffalo
University of Georgia
Facilitator: Richard Gonzales (University of Connecticut) and Mónica Byrne-Jimenez (Hofstra University)
Knowledge Worker: Gopal Midha (University of Virginia/UCEA)
University Program:
Auburn University
Northern Illinois University
St. Louis University
University of Illinois-Chicago
University of Virginia
Facilitator: Mariela Rodríguez (University of Texas at San Antonio)
Knowledge Worker: Catherine Robert (University of Texas at San Antonio)
University Programs:
George Mason University
Penn State University
University of Houston
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Washington State University
Facilitator: Karen Sanzo (Old Dominion University)
Knowledge Worker: Bryan VanGronigen (University of Virginia/UCEA)
University Programs:
Florida State University
New York University
The Ohio State University
Sam Houston State University
University of Utah
Roles (UCEA, Facilitators, Knowledge Workers, Faculty)
Improvement Science: Based on a framework devised by the Carnegie Foundation for launching a viable networked improvement community, PD-NICs will begin their work with the following domains of activity:
National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Standards
Changing school conditions, shifting school populations, increased expectations for student learning, and expanding knowledge on effective leadership have created new challenges and expectations for educational leaders. Clear and consistent leadership standards can assist all educational stakeholders in understanding these expectations. Over the last three years the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) have led a significant effort to revise standards that guide preparation and practice for educational leaders in the United States. The standards, named the National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) standards, provide guidance around education leader preparation – particularly program design, accreditation review and state program approval.
These standards were developed by a committee comprised of educators from across the country. (See committee members below) The NELP standards are aligned to the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders that detail the skills expected of school leaders; however the NELP standards provide greater guidance to novice and developing leaders.
Two sets of standards were created to provide more specific guidance based upon whether individuals are preparing for a principalship or a superintendency. Unlike the previous standards, the NELP standards were expanded to include a standard for ethics and professional norms, equity and cultural leadership and community leadership and engagement. In writing the NELP standards, the committee consulted research on preparation and practice, as well as school and district leaders, state education officials, researchers, higher-education leaders and faculty and other policy-oriented constituents.
In November of 2015 the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) were approved by the NPBEA. The PSEL Standards will be adopted or adapted by many states to guide policies concerning the practice and improvement of educational leaders (e.g., licensure, evaluation and professional learning policies). In December of 2015, a committee comprised of essential stakeholder communities from across the country was convened to develop a set of leadership preparation standards that align to the PSEL. (See committee members below) These preparation standards, formerly known as the Educational Leadership Constituent Council or ELCC standards, have been renamed the National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) standards and will be used to guide program design, accreditation review, and state program approval.
While aligned to the PSEL standards, the NELP standards serve a different purpose and provide greater specificity around performance expectations for beginning level building and district leaders. Whereas the PSEL standards define educational leadership broadly, the NELP standards specify what novice leaders and program graduates should know and be able to do as a result of their completion of a high quality educational leadership preparation program. Like the ELCC standards that preceded them, the NELP standards were developed specifically with the principalship and the superintendency in mind and will be used to review educational leadership programs through the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) advanced program review process. There is one set of NELP standards for candidates preparing to become principals and a second set of standards for candidates seeking to become superintendents.
The NELP standards address changes in the educational leadership field and respond to input from practitioners and policy leaders. In developing the NELP standards, the committee reviewed research on the preparation and practice of educational leaders and consulted with NPBEA member organizations, practicing school and district leaders, state education officials, researchers, higher-education leaders and faculty, and other policy-oriented constituents. Two other sources were highly influential in the development of the NELP standards: the 2015 Professional Standards for Educational Leadership (PSEL), and 2) CAEP requirements for Specialty Professional Association (SPA) standards.
Due to the important role that the new PSEL and CAEP SPA requirements played in the development of the NELP Standards, the committee’s work involved a number of significant design challenges.
Several other CAEP requirements for the review of specialty areas presented additional design challenges. For example, the NELP standards needed to be written so that each concept in an element appeared in the language of the standard. Additionally, each standard and element had to be both measurable and based on research. While the PSEL standards were developed using three sources of information (field knowledge, research and core educational values), the NELP standards are firmly rooted in empirical research. Finally, CAEP allows an eighth standard for specialty areas that is focused on the clinical experiences. As a result, both the NELP building and district level standards include an eighth standard that articulates expectations concerning a substantive and high quality educational leadership internship.
When compared to the 2011 ELCC standards there are several important differences.
Following the revision of the draft standards, the committee will present the standards to the NPBEA for their review and approval. If approved, a number of other activities will commence.
Over the last few years much discussion and activity has focused on the types of degrees that are granted by educational leadership programs. An important influence on this work has been the Carnegie Foundation’s Lee Shulman. In a symposium that focused on findings of Carnegie’s Initiative on the Doctorate, Shulman (2004) suggested that programs clarify and reframe the purposes of the Ed.D. and Ph.D. He argued that, We need Ph.D. preparation for scholarship and Ed.D. preparation for practice.
Scholars within the UCEA community have engaged with the Carnegie Foundations work as well as other issues and questions concerning the various degrees that leadership programs offer, as evidenced by articles within the UCEA Review, symposia and papers presented at the UCEA Convention, and the changes being made in many UCEA programs. The key issue within this debate is purpose—what is the purpose of each graduate degree? From this question, many others emerge. What should an individual expect to gain from attaining graduate education in educational leadership? What should we expect to find in such degree programs? Who should be teaching in these programs? What knowledge base should they draw upon? What kinds of research methods should be emphasized? What practical experiences should be built in to these programs, and what should the capstone experience involve? These and other questions are driving discussions, research and program change.
It would be misleading to say that there is consensus in our field around these questions. Indeed, there still exists much disagreement around whether district level leaders should earn an EdD or a PhD in their doctoral studies and whether these scholar practitioners should be required to carry out traditional dissertation research (see for example the point counter point between Andrews and Grogan and Prestine and Malen, 2005). However, it is accurate to say that within conversations and program conceptualizations a number of commonalities are emerging.
UCEA began tracking these conversations and program change initiatives several years ago, and one common idea is that the three degrees (i.e., MEd, EdD, PhD), particularly when offered within a single institution, should be clearly distinguishable along a number of key issues, such as degree objective, primary career intention, knowledge base, research methods, internship, and the capstone experience. The following table highlights one way of thinking about the key differences among the three degrees in educational leadership.
As you can see by scanning the three columns, each of the degree programs have been aligned to the purpose of the program, based on the probable intent of the individual seeking the degree. Thus, an individual who is interested in a school level leadership position would be offered a degree program that is distinct in important ways from an individual seeking a district level leadership position or a position as a faculty member at a college or university. For example, the curriculum of an EdD program might differ from that of a PhD program in several ways. The EdD curriculum would develop and apply knowledge for practice. Here, research-based content themes and theory would be integrated with practice emphasizing the application of knowledge. In the PhD program the curriculum would foster theoretical and conceptual knowledge. Content would be investigative in nature with an emphasis on understanding the relationships to leadership practice and policy. Likewise, the internship for an individual enrolled in a masters program, who is seeking a school level leadership position, would be designed to provide candidates with an opportunity to apply new knowledge and develop administrative performance skills appropriate for their intended professional career; whereas a doctoral student enrolled in a PhD Program would take part in teaching and research internships at the university level.
The types of degree program distinctions captured in the above table are reflected in a number of recently redesigned educational leadership programs. According to Everson (2006) the intention has been to separate the Ph.D. program that is preparation for scholarship from the Ed.D. program that is preparation for practice (p. 1). While recommendations regarding the structures and content of such programs continue to be debated, several universities have begun to redesign of their doctoral programs, including Saint Louis University, Vanderbilt University and the University of Southern California. These programs have mapped out curricula based on current research and, for the MEd and EdD, national standards and designed authentic applications of the curriculum content. Still, each of these programs, while redesigned for similar reasons, were described differently in program materials.
I am frequently asked questions like: What should masters programs look like in educational leadership programs? What is the best leadership program in the country? How can programs successfully bridge theory with practice? Why do we need both an EdD and a PhD in educational leadership? Etc. I have sought answers to such questions myself over the years. In an effort to better understand what programs might look like if we redesigned them based on the degree program differentiations described above as well as current research on educational leadership, I began reviewing the curriculum and structure of a number of UCEA and non-UCEA programs that reflect the program differentiations outlined above. During this comparison, I took into consideration UCEA program standards, the ISLLC standards (and critiques of the ISLLC standards), and recent research on leadership preparation. Based on my review, I developed three program descriptions—a MEd, EdD and PhD program description—and then shared these descriptions, along with the above table, with faculty from 15 UCEA institutions who have expertise in the area of program design as well as with the participants of a UCEA Convention session focused on the Ed.D.
I had anticipated receiving a wide variety of responses and criticisms–not because I thought the models were poor, but because they were models. However, while there were some suggestions for revision (e.g., adding content areas) and a few mild disagreements (primarily around research and the EdD) within the responses, they were overwhelming positive and supportive. Moreover, the majority included the suggestion that the models be shared with the UCEA community for reflection and discussion.
M. Ed. | Ed. D | Ph.D. |
Primary Career Intention | Primary Career Intention | Primary Career Intention |
School level leadership positions (e.g., principal, assistant principal, facilitator, teacher leader). | Administrative leadership in educational institutions or related organizations (e.g., superintendent, assistant superintendent, staff developer, curriculum director). | Scholarly practice, research, and/or teaching at university, college, institute or educational agency. |
Degree Objective | Degree Objective | Degree Objective |
Preparation of professional leaders competent in providing leadership for schools that supports the learning and development of all children. | Preparation of professional leaders competent in identifying and solving complex problems in education. Emphasis is on developing thoughtful and reflective practitioners. | Preparation of professional researchers, scholars, or scholar practitioners. Develops competence in conducting scholarship and research that focuses on acquiring new knowledge. |
Knowledge Base | Knowledge Base | Knowledge Base |
Develops and applies knowledge for practice. Content themes are integrated with practice with emphasis on application of knowledge base. Coursework may be delivered in cooperation with Departments of C&I. | Develops and applies knowledge for practice. Research-based content themes and theory are integrated with practice with emphasis on application of knowledge base. | Fosters theoretical and conceptual knowledge. Content is investigative in nature with an emphasis on understanding the relationships to leadership practice and policy. |
Research Methods | Research Methods | Research Methods |
Develops a basic understanding of research to interpret research, use descriptive data analysis skills, data-driven decision making skills, and basic program evaluation skills. Prepares candidates to conduct school-based action research. | Develops an overview and understanding of research including data collection skills for action research, program measurement, and program evaluation. Could include work in management statistics and analysis. | Courses are comparable to doctoral courses in related disciplines. Courses develop an understanding of inquiry, and qualitative and quantitative research. Developing competencies in research design, analysis, synthesis and writing. |
Internship | Internship | Internship |
An appropriate internship or field experience is designed to provide candidates with an opportunity to apply new knowledge and develop administrative performance skills appropriate for intended professional career. | A field internship or experience appropriate for intended professional career. Students demonstrate proficiency in program evaluation as part of the experience. | Practical experiences required in both college teaching and research. Expectations that students will present at a professional conference. |
Comprehensive Knowledge Assessment | Comprehensive Knowledge Assessment | Comprehensive Knowledge Assessment |
Based on multiple sources, including a knowledge and practice portfolio. Provides evidence of ability to improve practice based on knowledge and skills developed. | Written and oral assessments are used (e.g., comprehensive exams). Knowledge and practice portfolios provide evidence of ability to improve practice based on theory and research as well as demonstration of competencies. | Written and oral assessments are used to evaluate an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual knowledge in the field, as well as its relevance to practice and to evaluate competence in conducting research to acquire new knowledge. |
Capstone/Thesis | Dissertation | Dissertation |
Well-designed action research project on a substantive problem of educational practice. Reflects theory or knowledge for addressing problems in applied settings. | Well-designed applied research of value for informing educational practice. Reflects theory or knowledge for addressing decision-oriented problems in applied settings. | Original research illustrating a mastery of competing theories with the clear goal of informing disciplinary knowledge. |
Capstone/Thesis Committee | Dissertation Committee | Dissertation Committee |
Faculty advisor and field supervisor(s) confer regarding candidate’s action research project, portfolio, course performance and internship evaluation to determine readiness for practice. | Committee, including at least one practicing professional in an area of relevance to candidate’s program and possibly faculty from other institutions, evaluate candidate’s applied research. | Composed primarily of active researchers in areas relevant to students’ areas of interest. Should include at least one faculty member from a related discipline or from another institution. |
Note: The format for this framework is based on the work of faculty at the University of Missouri-Columbia (ELPA, 2005)
Working Model One: The M.Ed. in Educational Leadership
Master’s programs in educational leadership are designed to develop the qualities and techniques requisite to school leadership in professional service. Those who are interested in becoming school level leaders should find M.Ed. coursework useful, timely fresh, and applicable to the challenges and rewards associated with school level leadership positions. Although programs differ, depending upon their focus (e.g., urban leadership), M.Ed. programs require around 36 hours of required coursework. The coursework is often aligned with national standards and divided into three curricular blocks: a Leadership Core, an Action Research, and an Internship Block.
Leadership Core
The purpose of the M.Ed. leadership core is to develop an overview and understanding of leadership at the school level. Content are aligned to national standards and themes (e.g., diversity, accountability) are and integrated with practice with an emphasis on application of the knowledge base. The courses in the leadership block are focused on key issues of leadership and student learning as well as the skills and knowledge needed to lead successfully at the school level.
Human Learning & Development
Developing Learning Cultures
Leading Curriculum and Assessment
Instructional Strategies and Instructional Leadership
Leading Professional Development for Learning
Using Technology to Enhance Learning
Introduction to Educational Statistics and Data Driven Decision Making
Administrative and Fiscal Management
Leading School Improvement
Community Engagement and Outreach
Ethical and Legal Implications of Leadership
Action Research
Through Action Research, students develop a basic understanding of action research skills and how those skills can be put to use within a school setting for the purpose of program evaluation and school improvement.
Action Research for School Leaders
Internship
The Internship is designed to provide candidates with an opportunity to apply new knowledge and develop skills appropriate for their intended professional career. Through collaborative partnerships and by building on the strengths and assets of local school communities, students examine and participate in processes related to leading, learning and teaching within one or more PK-12 school settings.
Working Model Two: The Ed.D in Educational Leadership
Those who are interested in becoming school district leaders should find Ed.D. coursework useful, timely and fresh, and applicable to the challenges and rewards associated with district and state level leadership positions. Although programs differ, depending upon their focus (e.g., urban leadership), Ed.D. programs typically require a minimum of 50 hours of required coursework. The coursework is often divided into four curricular blocks: a Concentration, Internship, Research, and Dissertation Block.
Leadership Core
The concentration is designed for K-12 teachers and administrators who aspire to key leadership positions in districts, departments of education, and other educational organizations. The courses in the leadership core are delivered in a sequential manner, focusing on issues of leadership, accountability, diversity and student learning as well as the skills and knowledge needed to lead successfully at a district and state level.
Educational Leadership
Issues in Educational Leadership: Accountability
Issues in Educational Leadership: Diversity and Culture
Issues in Educational Leadership: Learning and Curriculum
The Laws and Politics of Education
Public School Finance and Business
Management of Human Resources
School Leadership and Instructional Improvement
Organizational Behavior and Change in Education
Internship
Through collaborative partnerships and by building on the strengths and assets of local school communities, students examine and participate in processes related to leading, learning and teaching across a broad spectrum of K-12 settings. The internship extends across two semesters, though practical experiences are tied to coursework throughout the program.
Research Core
The purpose of the Ed.D. research core is to develop an overview and understanding of research including data collection skills for action and qualitative research, program measurement, and program evaluation. For some students it may include work in management statistics.
Inquiry Methods I
Inquiry Methods II
Critique of Research
Dissertation
The Dissertation is designed to prepare students for their dissertation research and continues through the writing and defense of the dissertation. The Ed.D. dissertation typically consists of a well-designed applied research of value for informing educational practice. It reflects theory or knowledge for addressing problems of practice.
Working Model Three: The Ph.D. in Educational Leadership
Although programs differ depending upon their focus, Ph.D. Programs typically require a minimum of 63 credit hours of required coursework. PhD students are often supported through grants, fellowships, and research/graduate assistantships, allowing them to enroll full-time. The coursework is often divided into five curricular blocks: a Core, Concentration, Research, Cognate, and Dissertation Block.
PhD Core
This set of core courses usually consists of five or six classes and serves as the foundation for the PhD program. The core often represents a program’s focus and incorporates different levels of analysis in the formulation and consideration of educational issues and problems. For example the following courses might be found in a Ph.D. program with a leadership and policy focus:
Theoretical and Ethical Foundations of Leadership
Leadership, Diversity, Accountability, and Student Learning: Current Issues
Organization and Policy: Current Issues
Controversies in Learning and Instruction
The Research University in the 21st Century
Globalization and Education: Theories of Change
Concentration Course Block
The Concentration Course Block is linked to a students concentrated area of study, in this case leadership, and typically consists five or six courses. Some programs may schedule students from PhD and EdD programs to take these courses together:
The Laws and Politics of Education
Public School Finance and Business
Management of Human Resources
School Leadership and Instructional Improvement
Organizational Behavior in Education
School-Community Relations
Research Core
The Research Core typically consists of five or more courses and provides students with the tools to pursue systematic, programmatic and empirical investigation. It should include both qualitative and quantitative elements. The following list is typical of required courses:
Prerequisite: Statistics Course
Research Design
Multiple Regression
Qualitative Research
Measurement Theory
Advanced Qualitative Analysis
Cognate
The Cognate consists of four or more courses and reflects an interdisciplinary perspective on educational issues. The Cognate may include courses inside or outside of Colleges of Education. The specific courses are chosen in advisement with the faculty advisor.
Dissertation Core
The Dissertation Core involves a set of courses or experiences designed to prepare students for their dissertation research and continues through the writing and defense of the dissertation. This block consists of a preparatory course, dissertation work and advisement hours.
The above descriptions should not be considered UCEA program templates to which all institutions are expected to adhere. Indeed, UCEA does not hold the expectation that all UCEA programs will look alike. Rather, the program descriptions are working models about which UCEA hopes to generate substantive dialogue focused on what the different degree programs in educational leadership should be designed to do and what we should expect to find (at a minimum) in educational leadership graduate programs for each of the three degree programs. There have been several high profile attempts to establish the future of educational leadership preparation with which many faculty within leadership programs have fiercely disagreed. It would be helpful to have clear statements about leadership preparation, developed by those who participation in leadership preparation and based on evidence and professional consensus.
UCEA’s mission is to advance the preparation and practice of educational leaders for the benefit of all children and schools. We hope that the conversations, ideas, and program changes that are generated as a result of UCEA efforts, such as the efforts captured in this brief article, do indeed move leadership preparation in a helpful direction.
References
Andrews, R., & Grogan, M. (2005). Form should follow function: Removing the EdD dissertation from the PhD Straight Jacket. UCEA Review, 47 (2), 10-13.
ELPA Faculty. (2005). Policy Guidelines Concerning Doctoral Programs in Educational Leadership and Policy. Unpublished Document.
Everson, S. T. (2006). The Role of Partnerships in the Professional Doctorate in Education: A Program Application in Educational Leadership. Educational Considerations, 33 (2), 1-15.
Prestine, N. & Malen, B. (2005). The case for revitalizing the dissertation. UCEA Review, 47 (2), 7-9.
Shulman, L. (2004). A New Vision for the Doctorate in Education: Creating Stewards of the Discipline through the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate. Symposium at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, California, April, 2004