0.2 3. a paradigm shift in preparing instructional leaders revisited  (Page 7/9)

Table 2 includes composite survey data from two LPIs for cohorts one through four for Residents (S=Self, O=Observers, C=Co-Workers, and M=Mentor Principals).

The survey also included space for written comments. A. Rainey (personal communication, September 1, 2009) wrote, “This was an excellent experience. I am excited about the quality of leaders that will be working in our district as a result of this new preparation program.” Other principals were equally encouraging. Some offered suggestions related to improving the orientation and identifying specific tasks to satisfy resident performance requirements.

Residents’ self-assessments

Perhaps the most revealing data about the residents’ performance and the value added component of the residency are found in Figure 1. Mean scores for the residents in each of the Five Exemplary Practices are lower on the first self-assessment (diamonds) than on the second (squares). Residents believed that they made the greatest knowledge and ability gains in learning to Inspire a Shared Vision, but did not achieve significant growth in skills related to Enabling Others to Act. As a practical matter, they were not expected to develop a vision for excellence for their schools, but were to observe the ways in which mentor-principals attended to that process.

Figure 1. Residents’ Perceptions of their Growth in Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership during a One-Semester Practicum

The redesign team was interested in residents’ perceptions of the leadership curriculum and the residency. USA faculty logged nearly 4,000 miles traveling to schools to which residents had been assigned to talk with them about the tasks they had been asked to complete and to reflect on the skills they had used in the process.

Each resident evaluated the Instructional Leadership Program. Table 3 provides the mean score on a rating scale (1 - needs immediate improvement to 4 - no improvement needed).