News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
March 21, 2005
Newspapers across the country paid significant significant attention last week to the publication of “Educating School Leaders,” a report by Arthur Levine, president of Columbia University’s Teachers College. We at the Renaissance Group, a consortium of 36 universities that prepare 1 of every 10 new teachers for the nation’s classrooms and a significant number of principals and school system administrators, take very seriously the business of preparing school personnel.
And we take umbrage at yet another study that paints all colleges of education with the same broad brush stroke on how ineffective we are — when, in fact, our accrediting agencies and clientele report how well we are doing our jobs and are impressed with the quality of graduates from our member institutions.
We agree with Levine that some school leadership preparation programs lackquality in preparing their students, and for the Renaissance Group’s 16 years of existence we have strived to engage in public debate to help improve these programs. But we feel it is wrong and dangerous to make the kind of sweeping generalizations that Levine does. Among our concerns with his work:
1) Levine’s study did in-depth interviews on only a few campuses with educational leadership programs. Using this small sample to represent the numerous educator preparation programs in the U.S. is misleading. The ultimate question that should be investigated and answered is whether or not those who are being prepared as building and district leaders have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to promote vision, create positive learning outcomes for children, and be successful in today’s ever changing schools. Policy makers and politicians must accept the fact that not all individuals have what it takes to be an effective leader. Likewise, it is true that some institutions and programs are going to have to get serious about quality issues instead of focusing on quantity. If institutions are not willing to make these tough decisions, states will need to intervene.
2) We feel Levine’s paper makes many unsubstantiated claims about educational leadership programs, which we don’t want to repeat here to lend them credence. No data is provided to support the negative statements in the paper.
3) Levine’s recommendation that a new degree be created, a master’s in educational administration, with a curriculum in both management and education, approaches the issue from a one-size-fits-all model. This is an old solution to a new set of issues and challenges. It fails to acknowledge that not all programs are alike and that institutions are right now redesigning their educational leadership programs to align them with the work of the public schools the colleges of education have relationships with, as well as with acknowledged standards of student learning and of preparation for school employees.
Numerous Renaissance Group institutions are not only using new and effective leadership preparation models but faculty are actively and directly working with employees in the schools. Faculty members at various schools of education are currently working with local education agencies on principal mentoring programs, an elementary school district on improving student achievements, and with administrators outside the United States on programs to improve their schools. Faculty routinely conduct reorganization studies and curriculum audits for school districts, and work with state boards of education.
The Renaissance Group would agree that certain school preparation programs need either a significant overhaul or to be closed. It is time both to start identifying those programs and institutions and to give more credit to those institutions that are effectively preparing school leaders. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. The Renaissance Group’s vision is that its member institutions will be exemplars for P-16 collaboration, noted for their impact on student learning and leadership in professional education for America’s schools.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Just go charter. Master your fate. Face the ugly truth — as long as you take public dollars, you will be under public scrutiny and control. Once chartered, a lot fewer intrusive public hearings and meddling politicians. Show some courage — go charter. If you are as brilliant as you claim, going charter should be easy. The best should follow you. Why let your brillance be wasted on the undeserving masses? Why cast pearls before swine?
RA Shaw, Prof., at 5:58 am EST on April 2, 2005
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
PART-TIME TEMPORARY FACULTY FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP COURSES Central Michigan University seeks qualified part-time ... see job
The Department of Health & Human Development at Montana State University (MSU) invites applications for the position of ... see job
NLU is comprised of the College of Education, the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Management and Business. As ... see job
Located on the west side of Los Angeles overlooking the Pacific, Loyola Marymount University seeks professionally outstanding ... see job
Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job
Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Educating School Leaders
Leo Pauls commentary on the “educating School Leaders” report is on target. Advocacy for quality preparation for principals and superintendents is certainly worthy of national attention. However, Levine’s report is troubling in many respects. It reveals not only a lack of understanding of leadership preparation but also a lack of awareness of the important changes already underway in many programs. Moreover, the reports wholesale negative portrayal and misuse of its own and others’ data invalidate it as a valid assessment. There is no question that inadequate leadership programs should be improved or closed. What is questionable is the characterization of education schools, leadership preparation, leadership faculty and leadership candidates within the “Educating School Leaders” report as well as the ability of the list of recommendations offered by Levine to spur widespread improvement of educational leadership preparation programs. For an alternative set of recommendations visit www.ucea.org.
Michelle D. Young, Executive Director at UCEA, at 9:52 am EST on March 29, 2005