0.3 Angelle, a., wilson, n., & Mink, g. (april 2011). building  (Page 8/10)

Partnership focus

Respondents from the various partnership groups articulated differing foci for the partnership. The wider net of school districts surrounding the university established a partnership with the ELPS faculty and each sent a representative to serve in an advisory capacity on the SC. SC representatives and many practitioner partners responded that a broader focus should be the intent of the partnerships; that is, their concern was how to improve the learning provided to aspiring leaders. The larger interest was in what both the districts and the university can do in the present, and in the future, to ensure that schools have exemplary principals who will meet the needs of the community in which they work.

The largest school district with whom the university partnered was located in the same city as the university. This district was not only larger than the other school systems but represented the only urban district of the twenty six partners. Moreover, the first cohort of students in the Leadership Academy was populated solely by school building personnel from this district. The perceptions of the district personnel regarding the focus of the partnership was more narrow than the SC and intent upon the details of how the partnership, and the larger outcomes, should proceed, rather than the process of what should occur. Their concerns were specifically local and then national, through the recognition that they hoped the Center for Educational Leadership would bring to the area. This partnership group repeatedly cautioned that they needed to make sure the university would continue to meet the needs for preparing aspiring leaders as identified by the urban district, rather than the larger picture of leadership preparation for the regional area. Common among this group was the thought that “here is an opportunity to really put a handprint on where the needs are and what skills, talents, attributes we [district personnel] want to see in administrators” (DL 1). The district leaders believed that by supporting a full time internship, that is, four days each week, in their school system, the aspiring leaders would not only gain experience as an administrator but would gain this experience working under the policies, procedures, and guidelines of the district. Concerns expressed by every respondent from this urban district centered on how the district personnel would be able to meet the needs of the partnership, including time for meetings, assuring that mentors spent adequate time to address the needs of interns, and whether the demands of the partnership would be reasonable for the district.

Challenges

All respondents considered the partnership experience valuable to both the leadership candidates and themselves as educators. However, interviewees also acknowledged that there were aspects of the partnership that were difficult. Factors such as clearly defining the role of the practitioner, the practitioner’s contribution in pre-planning the course, and the diversity of the practitioner partners were addressed by both practitioners and professors. Professors suggested that there is a need to “offer clear, specific examples of what they [practitioner partners] will be doing” (UP 4). One professor expressed concern about differing expectations; that is, practitioner partners who were part of the new Leadership Academy were selected by district level personnel with no input from faculty while practitioner partners in the previously existing program were selected with input from program faculty. This professor (UP 1) called for “greater clarity from the district” regarding faculty expectations for practitioner partners.