A Better Way to Prepare Educational Leaders:
LEA/IHE Partnerships for Principal Credentialing
CHRISTOPHER J. QUINN, ED.D., ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, DOCTORAL STUDIES
MATTHEW WITMER, ED.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
TERI MARCOS, PROFESSOR, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY
Need for LEA/IHE Partnerships
Current Demand for
 Higher AYP/API scores
 More English learners re-designated
 Lower student retention rates
 Lower drop-out rates
 Higher percentages of students in advanced math,
science, AP classes
 Higher percentage of students completing a-g
requirements
 Higher percentage of seniors enter 4-year colleges
IHE/LEA Partnership Defined
 The formal agreement between a school
and/or district and an accredited
educational leadership program to train
aspiring administrators to lead schools
Why More Partnerships are Need
1. High number of administrators ready to
retire
2. Dwindling pool of qualified applicants
3. Current system is not working well
Partnerships are Mutually Beneficial
 LEA needs effective, research-based ideas to
meet academic and social goals
 IHE needs students, relevance, and data for
research publications
Questions to Answer before forming a
Partnership
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Does the IHE have the resources and expertise?
Does the LEA have qualified candidates?
Will IHE modify its curriculum to meet LEA needs?
Is there mutual trust?
Will IHE bring relevant research?
Will LEA be willing to implement relevant
research?
Are both sides willing to collect and analyze data to
determine effectiveness?
Components of an Effective Partnership
 Focus on student learning
 Prepare principals to be instructional leaders
 Align program with California Professional




Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs)
Include real-world, problem-based learning
Appoint instructors who integrate research and
reality
Emphasize results
Promote professional reflection on research and
work
Recruiting Participants
Recruits demonstrate four professional elements in
their recent experience (Quinn, 2005):
1. ongoing involvement in professional development
2. demonstrated knowledge of technology
3. ability to increase student achievement
4. experience with entire school community
Customized Partnerships
Partnership curriculum reflects the LEA’s:
 Politics,
 Culture,
 Centralized
or decentralized,
 Student academic and social data,
 Future needs,
 Supply and demand for candidates and
administrators,
 Demographics.
Continuous Improvement
 Analyze and revise
 Data-driven decisions
 Includes relationships in the
partnership
 Focus is on results
Systems Approach
 Changes in one area usually require changes
in another
 Seeing the program as an integrated whole
 Example: data indicate change is needed in
curriculum and practice
Recommendations for Effective Partnerships
 LEA: focus on student outcomes
 IHE: focus on developing capacity to
produce effective leaders
Examples of Partnerships
 Aspiring Principal Program: Providence Public
School District and the University of Rhode Island
 Aurora (Colorado) Public Schools Leadership
Academy and the University of Colorado
 San Diego Unified School District and the University
of San Diego
References








Barnett, D. (2004). School leadership preparation programs: Are they preparing tomorrow’s
leaders? Education, 125(1), 121-129
Beering, Steven et al. (2007). National action plan for addressing the critical needs of the
U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. National Science
Board. Washington D.C.
Brumley, C., (2010). Situating literacy leadership within the ISLLC standards for education
administration. Scholar-Practioner Quarterly, 4(3), 207-218.
Digby, A. D., Gartin, B. C. (1993). Developing effective university and public school
partnerships. Clearing House, 67(1), 37-39.
Dunbar, K., & Monson, R. J. (2011). Fellowship Connects principal learning to student
achievement. Journal of Staff Development, 32(1), 40-43.
Ed.gov. (2010). US Department of Education: School Leadership Program. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/leadership/2010awards.html
Horwitz, J., Bradley, J., & Hoy, L. (2011). Identity crisis: External coaches struggle to clarify
roles and maintain focus on student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 32(1), 30-38.
Jackson, A.(2007). Preparing first-time leaders for an urban public school district: An action
research study of a collaborative district-university partnership. Journal of School Leadership,
17(5), 540-569.
References











Miley, E. (2002). The Highly Qualified Leaders Project.
http://www.ride.ri.gov/hqlp/Recruitment_Candidate_Pool/ProvidenceLEAD.aspx
National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (2007). Key issue: Improving the preparation of school
and district leaders. Retrieved from:
http://www2.tqsource.org/strategies/leadership/ImprovingLeaderPrep.pdf
Killion, J. (2011). The perfect partnership: What it takes to build and sustain relationships that benefit
students. Journal of Staff Development, 32(1), 11-15.
Koch, S., & Borg, T. (2011). Real-time learning, real-world teaching: University teams with school district to
improve curriculum and instruction. Journal of Staff Development, 32(1), 26-29.
Lefever-Davis, S., Johnson, C., & Pearman, C. (2007). Two sides of a partnership: Egalitarianism and
empowerment in school-university partnerships. Journal of Educational Research. 100(4). 204-210.
Doi:10.3200/JOER.100.4.204-210
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Retrieved from
http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Embargoed_Report_050315.pdf
Martin, M. B. (2010). Bridge the divide: A school district and university join forces to shrink the gap between
principal preparation and practice. Principal, 90(3), 28-33.
McLaughlin, C., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2007). School-university partnerships for educational researchdistinctions, dilemmas and challenges. The Curriculum Journal 18(3), 327-341.
doi:10.1080/095851701589967
Myran, S., Crum, K. S., & Clayton, J. (2010). Four pillars of effective university-school district partnerships:
Implications for educational planning. Educational Planning, 19(2), 46-60.
Quinn, T. (2005). The principal university connection. Principal, 84(5), 12-16.
Sacramento County Office of Education. (2011). Notes from common core standards: AICCU deans of
education capital meeting. February 16, 2011.
References




Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday/Currency, p. 81.
Simmons, J. C., Grogan, M., Jones Preis, S., Matthews, K., Smith-Anderson, S., Walls, B. P.,
Whitaker, K. (2006). Preparing future school principals. Retrieved from
http://www.nassp.org/portals/0/content/54438.pdf