0.5 Machado, c., & Cline, d. (april 2010). faculty perceptions:  (Page 5/6)

Based on affiliation status, there was a significant difference in the degree to which faculty perceived that their programs were aligned with Standard 1 [F (1, 208) = 6.564, p = .011], Standard 5 [F (1, 207) = 7.338, p = .007]and Standard 6 [F (2, 207) = 5.104, p = .025]. The effect size, calculated using eta-squared, was .17, .18, and .15 respectively. Faculty employed by private institutions perceived that their programs were better aligned to Standard 1 (developing a vision), 5 (acting with integrity, fairness and ethics), and 6 (influencing larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural context) than faculty at public institutions. This difference in perception could be explained by the difference in the resource base of public and private institutions. “The sources of base budget revenue - for hiring faculty and staff – for public and private institutions are exactly the same: tuition, state support and endowment income (Wiley, 2007, ¶ 6). “However, state funds average 31 percent of the support at public universities and only 0.3 percent at the private schools. Conversely, private endowments supplement private schools by about 31 percent and public schools at only 0.9 percent” (Wiley, 2007, ¶ 7). It stands to reason that private institutions may have had greater access to resources that could have been used to prepare faculty for the change, hire external consultants, and align their programs with the standards.

Doctoral/research institutions are more visible nationally because they have the widest span of academic programs and grant the largest array of degrees. In addition, they hire prominent scholars and educators whose efforts to attract extramural funding in support of program planning or development and whose involvement in policies and standards that shape programs may be more extensive and influential. As such, it was assumed that the perceived degree of program-standards alignment would be higher for faculty who worked at doctoral/research institutions when compared with masters level institutions. However data reveal that there was no significant difference in perceived degree of program-standard alignment for faculty who worked at institutions with varying Carnegie classification status. This finding was surprising. It is possible that although masters’ level institutions do not have as strong a research and resource base as doctoral/research institutions they do have fewer faculty members and can establish higher levels of coordination that the program-standard alignment process demands.

Summary and conclusions

Over the last decade the ISLLC or ELCC standards, with their competing challenges and opportunities, have triggered awareness; followed by programmatic change in school leadership preparation programs, nationwide (Cornell, 2005; Crawford, 2004; Cox, 2007; Harpin, 2003; Morrow, 2003). This study confirms that education administration faculty perceived that their programs are well aligned with all seven ELCC standards. The internship experience, which is critical to the success of any program, appears to be more robust and tightly interwoven with practice. While this is encouraging, especially because the gap between theory and practice was so apparent prior to standards-based reform, additional research studies will help measure success by determining if a positive causal relationship exists between these modified internships experiences and student achievement in K-12 schools. Group differences in perception across NCATE accreditation and affiliation status suggest that greater attention must be paid to embedding Standard 4, (collaboration with families and communities), 5 (acting with integrity, fairness and ethics) and 6 (influencing larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural context) into the curriculum. School leadership preparation programs must continue to diligently assess the relevance of their programs by engaging in ongoing program review and modification. In addition to seeking feedback from program graduates, principals and superintendents, preparation programs should devote more time and energy to adopting strategies that have worked for other institutions. A collaborative approach that extends across institutions will lead to success for all.