<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >
Increasingly, education schools are being blamed for intractable social problems they did not create and cannot solve. They have been faulted for the quality of the people who choose to become teachers and administrators. They have been blamed for the woes of low-performing schools and school systems. They have been criticized for their inability to close the achievement gap between the most advantaged and most disadvantaged children in America. No other professional school is held similarly responsible.

This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of the Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge base in educational administration.

How did educational administration become the brunt of so much negative press, and why is it perceived to havefailed so miserably in the eyes of so many? What is it that teachers, principals, and superintendents do not know and can notdo in their professional role that fuels this ongoing debate about poorly run schools and weak leadership? How does one reconcile thepositive view of education as an equalizing force in America and the cynical view of education as an institution out of step withpresent day needs? Are educational administration professors and graduate programs so out of touch with the P-12 schools that thetraining received through university programs is only marginally utilitarian to those who lead America’s schools? The Levine (2005)quote above, and his basic report, illustrates that the quality of university-based administrator preparation programs are consideredto be a primary weakness in the nation’s educational systems. University-based programs in educational administration have beenundergoing scrutiny and have been encouraged to improve even by essentially educational organizations such as the National Councilfor the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) and the relatedInterstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), and various derivative groups. However, the questions remain: how didwe get to the present; what knowledge base should the curriculum reflect and; what, in fact, does a good program look like, and howshould our programs change?

The programs that will emerge over the next twenty-five years will not be exotic or be formulated byaccreditation bodies or by university planners. They will emerge from the foundation of the profession which is well documented;grounded in practical, cultural, and educational experience; and from knowledge gained by observing successful schools.

The History

Three constructs in the history of educational administration have evolved during its formative development andeach helps point to the possible future of the profession and to the programming that supports the training of educational leaders(see Culbertson, 1988; Murphy, 1992). These constructs are:

  1. Educational administration evolved out of a need to operate schools under a set of practical and applied administrativeskills.
  2. The bureaucratization of educational organizations during the 19th and 20th centuries required specialized professional knowledgein order to become and to succeed as an educational leader.
  3. The academic, scientific, and theory basis for educational administration provided educational leaders with advanced tools,conceptual frameworks, and contemporary and theoretical knowledge required to lead educational organizations.

Get Jobilize Job Search Mobile App in your pocket Now!

Get it on Google Play Download on the App Store Now




Source:  OpenStax, Organizational change in the field of education administration. OpenStax CNX. Feb 03, 2007 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col10402/1.2
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'Organizational change in the field of education administration' conversation and receive update notifications?

Ask