Revisioning Leadership
Preparation in Higher
Education
Michelle D. Young
University Council for Educational
Administration (UCEA)
UCEA Commitments
Include:
 Improving Educational Leadership
Programs,
 Supporting Research that Fosters
Program Improvement, and
 Increasing and Improving
Understanding Regarding the
Preparation Field and How to
Improve It.
1. Critiques of Leadership
Preparation
2. What We Know About
Successful Educational
Leadership and Effective
Leadership Preparation
3. Understanding Degrees,
Degree Production, and
Institutional
Capacity/Purpose
4. Revisioning Leadership
Preparation
Critiques of Leadership
Preparation
Professor
Qualifications
Faculty Size
Adjunct
Usage/Quality
Admissions
Standards
Student Quality
Curriculum
Textbooks
Teaching Methods
Clinical Experiences
Program Delivery
Candidate
Assessment
Program Evaluation
Program Size (number
students served)
Program Purpose
Institutional
Capacity
Research Production
UCEA’s Concerns









Quality Candidates
Standards and Research-Based Curriculum
Praxis Based Programming
Quality Program faculty
Appropriate Enrollments
Program Evaluation and Improvement
Institutional Capacity
Program Approval & Accreditation
Licensure
A Comparison
UCEA’s Concerns
Levine’s Concerns
 Quality Candidates
 Standards and ResearchBased Curriculum
 Praxis Based
Programming
 Quality Program faculty
 Appropriate Enrollments
 Program Evaluation and
Improvement
 Institutional Capacity
 Program Approval &
Accreditation
 Licensure
 Low Admission and
Graduation Standards
 An Irrelevant
Curriculum
 Inadequate Clinical
Instruction
 A Weak Faculty
 Inappropriate Degrees
 Poor Research
Program Issues
 Research Base on Leadership and
Preparation
 Evaluation Research
 National Standards
 Accreditation
 Program Purpose
 Program Approval and Institutional
Drift
What We Know About
Successful Educational
Leadership and
Effective Leadership
Preparation
What we Know about
Successful School Leadership
 Administrators and teacher leaders provide most
of the leadership in schools, but other potential
sources of leadership exist
 A core set of practices form the “basics” of
successful leadership (setting directions,
developing people, etc.)
 Successful leaders respond productively to
challenges and opportunities created by the
accountability-oriented context
 Successful school leaders respond productively
to the challenges and opportunities of educating
diverse groups of students.
 Leadership has significant effects on student
learning
What We Know about How
Leaders Make a Difference
 Most of leaders’ influence is indirect,
through others, by:
 Developing teachers’ efficacy in curriculum
and instruction
 Engaging and motivating staff
 Fostering a shared purpose
 Creating conditions for effective teaching
and learning
 Fostering program coherence
 Fostering organizational learning, through
feedback, direction and communication
Significant Leadership
Practices
 Communicating a clear vision and priorities
 Focusing time & attention on what matters
most
 Enable teachers to develop their
instructional & content skill & capacity
 Providing instructional guidance
 Empowering others to make significant
decisions
 Addressing supportive structures and
resources
 Developing school improvement plans
 Providing instructional guidance & coherence
 Engage the larger school & district community
 Act ethically
 Engage in continuous learning and growth
Efforts to Build the
Research Base on
Preparation
 Individual Scholars
 Evaluation Research Taskforce
 UCEA, AERA-A, AERA-TEA Sig, NCPEA
Joint Research Taskforce on
Educational Leadership Preparation
 Handbook of Research on Leadership
Education
 Journal of Research on Leadership
Education
National Leadership
Standards
 Interstate School Leadership Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) Standards
 American Association of School
Administrators (AASA) Standards for
School District Leaders
 Technology Standards
 National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education’s Educational
Leadership Constituent Council
(NCATE/ELCC) Standards
 UCEA Program Standards for Doctoral
Programs in Educational Leadership
ELCC Nationally Recognized
Programs in Illinois
Bradley University
Peoria, IL
Illinois State
University
Normal, IL
Eastern Illinois
University
Charleston, IL
Chicago State
University
Chicago, IL
Loyola University
Chicago, IL
Northern Illinois
University
DeKalb, IL
Concordia
University
River Forest, IL
National-Louis
University
Wheeling, IL
Roosevelt University
Chicago, IL
DePaul University
Chicago, IL
Northeastern
Illinois University
Chicago, IL
Southern Illinois
University
Edwardsville, IL
Southern Illinois
University
Carbondale, IL
Western Illinois
University
Macomb, IL
Data Source: ELCC Approved Program List, 2005
UCEA Member Programs
in Illinois
 University of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign
 Illinois State University
 Northern Illinois
University
Attributes of Effective
Programs
 Theory of
leadership*
 Student selection*
 Program focus and
organization
 Collaborations*
 Content*
 Instructional
approach*
* Supported by Research
 Supportive
structures*
 Field experience*
 Feedback
 Evaluation
 Post-program
experiences
 Faculty
Understanding Degrees,
Degree Production, and
Institutional
Capacity/Purpose
Purposes of the M.Ed, Ed.D & Ph.D in
Educational Leadership: Thumbnail
Sketches
Master's programs
in educational
leadership are
designed to
develop the
qualities and
techniques
requisite to
leadership in
professional
service at the
school level.
Doctor of Education
(Ed.D.) programs
prepare individuals
to assume leadership
positions in
education. The basic
character of the
program emphasizes
System level
instructional
leadership and
educational
management.
The Ph.D. degree
program prepares
individuals to enter
research and
instructional
careers in colleges
and universities, and
to pursue research
and service careers
in non-academic
public and private
institutions.
Important Differences Between
the M.Ed. and Ed.D
Ed.D.
School Level Leadership
Administrative leadership in
districts, or related
entities/ organizations
Degree
Objectives
Competence in providing
leadership for schools
that supports the
learning and
development of all
children.
Competence in identifying
and solving complex
problems in education.
Competence in system level
leadership.
Knowledge
Base
Develops knowledge for
practice. Content
themes are integrated
with practice with
emphasis on application
of knowledge base.
Develops knowledge for
practice. Content themes
are integrated with practice
with emphasis on application
of knowledge base.
Career
M. Ed.
Important Differences Between
the M.Ed. and Ed.D
M. Ed.
Ed.D.
Research
Methods
Develops understanding
of research, data
analysis, program
evaluation, & action
research
Develops skills in action
research, management
statistics, applied research,
and program evaluation
Internship Knowledge
Assessment
provides candidates with
opportunity to apply new
knowledge & develop
skills appropriate for
intended career
provides candidates with
experiences appropriate to
career choice. Must
demonstrate proficiency in
program evaluation
Portfolio provides
evidence of ability to
improve practice based
on theory and research
as well as demonstration
of competencies
Portfolio provides evidence
of ability to improve
practice based on theory
and research as well as
demonstration of
competencies
Important Differences Between
the Ed.D and Ph.D.
Career
Degree
Knowledge
Intentions Objectives Base
Ed.D.
Ph.D.
Administrative leadership
in districts, or related
entities/ organizations.
Scholarly practice,
research, or teaching at
university, college,
institute or educational
agency
Competence in identifying
and solving complex
problems in education.
Develops competence in
conducting scholarship
and research that focuses
on acquiring new
knowledge.
Develops knowledge for
practice. Content themes
are integrated with
practice with emphasis on
application of knowledge
base.
Fosters theoretical and
conceptual knowledge.
Content is investigative in
nature with an emphasis on
understanding the
relationships to practice.
Important Differences Between
the Ed.D and Ph.D.
Ph.D.
Research
Methods
Develops skills in action
research, management
statistics, applied
research, & program
evaluation.
Develops understanding of
inquiry and skills in
qualitative & quantitative
research, analysis,
synthesis & writing.
Internship
Designed to provide
candidates with
experiences appropriate
to career choice. Must
demonstrate proficiency
in program evaluation.
Complete internships in
both college teaching and
research.
portfolio provides
evidence of ability to
improve practice based on
theory and research as
well as demonstration of
competencies
Evaluate understanding of
theoretical and conceptual
knowledge in the field, & its
relevance to practice.
Evaluates competence in
conducting research to
acquire new knowledge.
Comprehensive
Knowledge
Assessment
Ed.D.
Capstone/Thesis/
Dissertation
M.Ed.
Ed.D.
Ph.D.
Well-designed
action research
project on a
substantive
problem of
educational
practice. Reflects
theory or
knowledge for
addressing
problems in
applied settings
Well-designed
applied research
of value for
informing
educational
practice. Reflects
theory or
knowledge for
addressing
decision-oriented
problems in
applied settings
Original research
illustrating a
mastery of
competing
theories with the
clear goal of
informing
disciplinary
knowledge
Program Growth
from1993 to 2002
Masters Programs
Specialist Programs
R1
49 -> 47
-4%
20 -> 20
0%
R2
Doc1
29 -> 26
38 -> 42
-10%
11%
10 -> 12
18 -> 20
20%
11%
Doc2
Comp 1
Comp 2
LA 1
37 -> 36
216 -> 240
8 -> 16
5 -> 7
-3%
11%
100%
40%
13
67
1
0
38%
27%
-100%
LA 2
Total
9 -> 31 244%
396 -> 445 14%
Data Source: IPEDS Degree Completions Files
-> 18
-> 85
-> 0
-> 2
0 -> 2
129 -> 159 23%
Degree Production Shifts
M.Ed. Degrees
Granted in 2002
Specialist Degrees
Granted in 2002
R1
1,228
7%
176
-43%
R2
Doc1
888
1,750
71%
85%
104
166
22%
-21%
Doc2
Comp 1
Comp 2
LA 1
1,240
7,292
340
75
45%
61%
407%
25%
166
2,046
4
112
65%
100%
-100%
LA 2
Total
454
13,267
696%
62%
62
2,811
Data Source: IPEDS Degree Completions Files
64%
Doctoral Program Growth,
1993-2003
R1
46
50
-> 9%
R2
Doc1
Doc2
20
33
22
23
35
29
-> 15%
-> 6%
-> 32%
Comp 1
Comp 2
LA 1
10
0
0
52
0
1
-> 420%
-> 0%
-> 100%
LA 2
Total
0
132
2
190
-> 100%
-> 44%
Data Source: IPEDS Degree Completions Files
Doctoral Degree
Production Shifts,
1993-2003
R1
707
478
-> -30%
R2
Doc1
Doc2
222
453
266
171
505
354
-> -23%
-> 11%
-> 33%
Comp 1
Comp 2
LA 1
88
2
0
487
59
0
-> 453%
-> 2850%
-> 0%
LA 2
Total
0
1,736
4
-> 400%
2,014 -> 16%
Data Source: IPEDS Degree Completions Files
Who is Producing Doctorates in
Educational Administration?
300
Doctoral Degrees
250
200
150
100
U.S. News Top 20
Comprehensive Colleges
50
Year Granted
Data Source: Survey of Earned Doctorates
20
00
19
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
0
Selectivity of Doctoral
Programs
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
U.S. News Top 20
Data Source: Survey of Earned Doctorates
20
00
19
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
0%
Comprehensive Colleges
Top 15 doctorategranting states, 2003
(All Degree Areas)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
California
New York
Texas
Florida
Illinois
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Ohio
9. Michigan
10. N. Carolina
11. Indiana
12. Virginia
13. Georgia
14. Maryland
15. New Jersey
Total Doctorates Produced
in Illinois, 2003 (All Educ)




DePaul U. (4)
Ill State U. (45)
Loyola U. (84)
National Louis
(9)
 Northern Il (58)
 Northwestern
(10)
 Roosevelt (6)
 Rush U. (1)
 Southern Il U.
(30)
 U. of Chicago
(11)
 U. Il- Chicago
(19)
 U. Il-UrbanaChampaign (68)
Doctoral Production
Shifts in Illinois
80
70
60
RU1
RU2
DOC1
Doc2
Comp1
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990
1992
1994
Data Source: Survey of Earned Doctorates
1996
1998
2000
Doctoral Production
Shifts in Illinois
80
70
60
50
RU
DOC
Comp1
40
30
20
10
0
1990
1992
1994
Data Source: Survey of Earned Doctorates
1996
1998
2000
People Issues
 Quality Faculty
 Appropriate Selection of
Candidates
 Candidate Intentions -VState and School Needs
 Illinois Leadership
Production/Demand
Picture
Educational Leadership
Faculty
 Faculty within preparation programs should make
significant efforts to identify, develop, and promote
relevant knowledge focused on the essential problems
of practice.
 programs should involve a critical mass of full-time
tenure-track faculty members with appointments are in
the department in educational leadership and who exhibit
excellence in scholarship, teaching and service. A
majority of leadership coursework must be taught by
these full-time faculty.
 programs should make use of an advisory board and
involve practicing Leaders in program planning, teaching,
and internships.
 programs should engage in collaborative relationships
to inform program content, promote diversity, and
generate sites for clinical study and applied research.
Selection Criteria
 Graduate School Requirements
 Program Requirements:
 Application, including purpose
statements, letters of reference, and
record of teaching success
 Interview
 Assessment Center, which includes
inbox exercises, presentations, and
interviews
 Teaching Observations
The Illinois Staffing Picture
Principals with Masters Degrees in 1993, 1999
99.84%,
Principals with Specialist Degrees in 1993, 1999
24.09%, 42.18%
Principals with Doctorate Degrees in 1993, 1999
9.19%,
Projected Enrollment in 2030
Projected Administrative Ratio in 2030
100%
11.32%
2,109,805
94.99
Administrative Demand at 100% Turnover & Growth
20,041
Graduate Degrees Produced over 25 years at
Constant 2003 Rate
37,300
Production/Demand Ration (25 years)
Data Source: NCES Common Core of Data
1.86
Illinois Degree Production/
Demand Ratios
Administrative Demand at 100% Turnover & Growth in 2030
Annual Masters Degrees Per 10,000 Students
(approximate number of degrees)
20,041
6.36
(1,572)
Annual Specialist Degrees per 10,000 Students
(approximate number of degrees)
0.69
(182)
Annual Doctoral Degrees per 10,000 Students
(approximate number of degrees)
0.38
(99)
Total Annual Graduate Degrees per 10,000 Students
(approx total degrees in 2003)
7.43
(1,853)
Graduate Degrees Produced over 25 years at 2003 Rate
37,300
Production/Demand Ration (25 years)
1.86
(186%)
Data Source: NCES Common Core of Data
and Survey of Earned Doctorates
What is Your Vision for
Revision?





What kinds of leaders do you need?
How many leaders do you need?
Where should they be prepared?
How many programs do you need?
What resources are available to support
quality preparation?
 What will you do about low quality programs?
 What do programs need to do to improve
themselves?
 How do you effectively differentiate the roles
and responsibilities of Illinois’ universities?
Revisioning Educational
Leadership Preparation:
Working from
Knowledge in Planning
for the Future
Learning Environments
University based
Leadership preparation
programs
Other formal leadership
Learning and development
experiences
Leadership socialization
processes in schools
and districts
Recommendations for Programs
 Focus Entrance standards on strong analytic ability, high
administrative potential, and success in teaching
 Rigorous methods for screening in cooperation with
district partners
 Cap the number of leadership candidates
 align curriculum with a national set of standards and
ground in the problems of practice
 Enable specialization at elementary, middle and high school
levels
 Establish a signature pedagogy
 Provide full-time, well-planned and supervised internships
Data Source: UCEA Reform Agenda, 2005
Recommendations for Colleges
 Ensure that educational leadership programs are well
resourced
 Vigorous recruitment strategies be mounted to attract a
strong faculty
 Develop effective ways to prepare a new generation of
professors
 Establish an environment in which program evaluation
and improvement is expected and supported.
 Support research on leadership development
 Establish a set of core courses for all Graduate
students enrolled in the College of Education focused
on instructional and distributive leadership
Data Source: UCEA Reform Agenda, 2005
Recommendations for States
 Develop a budget that reflects the resources needed to
prepare educational leaders adequately
 establish minimum selection criteria for state approved
programs that are linked to success in school
leadership
 Emphasize Preparing A Quality Cohort of Leaders
Rather than Large Quantities
 develop and update a set of state leadership standards
that can guide practice, preparation, and programing
 use state standards to review, support program
improvement and close programs
 Strengthen State Licensure Policies.
 Invest in the Development of a Rigorous and Useful
Program Evaluation System for leadership preparation
programs
Data Source: UCEA Reform Agenda, 2005
Develop a State-Wide
Master Plan
“A well conceived and supported
plan of reform can prompt
change more effectively than
can a reliance on market or
professional incentives” (Hale &
Moorman, 2003, p.9).
Revisioning Educational
Leadership Preparation in
Higher Education
Michelle D. Young
Executive Director, University Council for
Educational Administration