0.2 3. a paradigm shift in preparing instructional leaders revisited  (Page 9/9)

Discussion

Interestingly, first-administration LPI results revealed that the mean score for 28 residents was lower on the 30-item, 100-point Likert-type scale used to assess each of the Five Practices than either their mentors’ or observers’ mean scores for the same items. Further, residents believed that their abilities in all five practices diminished during the term; mentor principals and observers, however, noted improvement during the interval between assessments for each resident in all of the practices except Encourage the Heart.

Lessons learned

The complexity of program redesign, the number of people involved in planning systemic change, and the novelty inherent in using untried procedures and assessments came with opportunities to alter plans that seemed viable in conference room discussions, but ineffectual or inefficient in their application. Among them:

• Notify superintendents when teachers from their district seek admission. This requirement was abstract until paying a substitute teacher became a reality.
• Designate a member of the program faculty to manage and collate data (i.e., admissions, surveys, leadership inventories, PRAXIS results). If superintendents are hesitant about paying for substitute teachers, data about the residents’ leadership qualities are persuasive.
• Encourage mentor principals to provide formative feedback to residents soon after each leadership task is complete. Reconciling principals’ and residents’ perceptions about the urgency of feedback was an ongoing challenge.
• Principals and residents must meet early in the semester to identify school activities that will satisfy the state’s ability requirements. Assignments made hastily were not as meaningful as those made deliberately.
• Celebrate success when the program is complete. A faculty-student dinner or social activity is welcomed by everyone and is important to residents.
• Invite superintendents and key staff to formal, data-sharing sessions so they understand what their residents have accomplished. They should see what they are getting for the money they spend.
• Encourage mentor principals to attend the orientation session each summer. The learning curve for those who did not attend had a much greater slope than the curve for those who participated.
• Remind school district representatives to assign residents to schools where the best principals practice their craft. Several sites were either not appropriate, or were at best of marginal value for residents.
• Local district leaders and principals must plan early for the absence of residents who teach high school Advanced Placement classes and special education teachers whose responsibilities include compilation of Individual Education Plans.

Challenges ahead

Evidence gathered through multiple assessment instruments, site visits by USA faculty, feedback from district central office staffs, resident reflections, mentor principals’ surveys, the LPI, and the PRAXIS are conclusive: the most effective way to train aspiring school leaders is through extended assignments in schools, where they experience the intensity of the principal’s day and the complexities and rewards of leadership that attend to working with students, teachers, and the school’s community. The USA’s instructional leadership program includes authentic assessments of leadership behaviors and guides residents through the initial stages of survival , which is the first challenge they will confront as instructional leaders.

Finally, the greatest threat to the redesigned program’s survival is its reliance on school district funds to pay substitute teacher salaries during a residency. At an average cost of $9,000 for each substitute, superintendents must choose between paying to train aspiring leaders or using those funds to reduce the impact of teacher layoffs or supporting other curriculum initiatives. Presently, Alabama’s schools are in the throes of the third consecutive year of proration of funds and the viability of all non-essential programs is threatened. The USA’s redesigned program is precisely what Alabama’s schools need, but its longevity depends on the ability of state legislators and local superintendents to look further into the future than the current fiscal year.

References

• Anonymous, (2009, August). Preparing tomorrow’s school leaders with a standards-based, prescriptive curriculum. International Education Studies , 2 (3), 27-29.
• Drake, T.L. and Roe, W.H. (2003). The principalship (6 ^th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
• Guilfoyle, C. (2006, November). NCLB: Is there life beyond testing? Educational Leadership, 64 (3), 10-11.
• Hoff, D.J. (2008, December). Schools struggling to meet key goal on accountability. Education Week. Retrieved from (External Link) on February 5, 2009.
• Kouzes, J.M.&Posner, B.Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4 ^th ed.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.