0.5 Why is school leadership preparation so complex  (Page 4/11)

Since the late 1950s the definitions of leadership have gradually changed from one of forcing others tocomply to modeling the way for others though the use of empowerment, persuasion, professional development, andencouragement. The most dramatic changes in administrative leadership occurred as a result the Civil Rights Movement supportedby the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, women’s rights, legislation for the handicapped and increased pleas for socialjustice in our legal, corporate and educational systems. These movements have raised the awareness of the injustices suffered bywomen, people of color and those caught in the web of poverty. National, state, and local efforts to provide equal opportunities to oppressed individuals have inspired political leaders,educational administrators, and community leaders to reconsider the meaning of leadership and personal obligation toward inclusion ofothers in sharing power and resources. Thus, the definitions of leadership have gradually moved from the transaction to thetransformational. That is, while transactional leadership is more of a stance of bargaining or agreeing to help others if they helpyou, transformational leadership is making organizations especially schools more caring communities by leaders guided by principle,morality, and service to others. This transformational and moral leadership style is an effort to lead others to toward greaterorganizational productivity preparing and empowering others to take personal responsibility in assuring quality in the entireorganization (Bolman&Deal, 1993; Sergiovanni 1999; Fullen, 2003; Wheatley, 2002; Hoyle, 2002; Burns, 1978). This soul centeredleadership style is the primary reason for high performing schools at all levels. In 2006, schools and school leaders are caught inparadox of high expectations from the government and community, yet trying to lead school staffs to create caring learning communitiesfor each child and youth. Caught in this 21st century high stakes, test-driven education system it is imperative that educationalleaders demonstrate unconditional love for all team members if they are to meet the high expectation of society and prepare youngpeople with the character to promote social justice for all people. The Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Pete Schoomaker,explained the difference between leadership and management and that the best leaders learn to merge the two. Leadership is“dealing with change, while management is about dealing with complexity. Youdo not‘manage’a soldier out of the bottom of a hole to face danger, you lead them there”(Saturday, April 1, The Bryan College Station Eagle). Thus, the definition of leadership has evolved from“Telling others to do what you need done,”to inspiring and empowering personnel to seek quality for the organization and tohelp assure the welfare for all persons.

What Leadership Research is Missing?

How do we know that leadership training is worth doing? Researchers have found scant evidence that leadershippreparation does prepare leaders. Since the work of Fred Fielder cast doubt on the effectiveness of leadership training and hisprovocative Least Preferred Coworker studies, researchers have become mired in the confusion of contingency theory of leadership.Others have joined Fiedler (1967), in struggling to find closer links between preparation and successful practice are Achilles(1988), Glass, Bjork, and Brunner (2000), Cooper and Boyd (1988), Murphy and Vriesenga (2004), Hoyle (2005), and Levine (2005). Thepursuit of this link between leadership preparation and successful practice intensifies each year in university preparation programsand in staff development activates in the real world of schools and business. In educational administration, Martha McCarthy (2001)believes that challenges faced by leadership preparation programs include: (1) producing credible evidence that informspractitioners, scholars, and policy makers regarding effectiveness of leadership preparation programs; (2) deciding whether thestandards being adopted for school administrators are the right ones, and if so how satisfactions with these should be assessed?Attempts to locate research studies that shed a positive light on the preparation-practice paradox, found limited, but credible“hard research”in descriptive form that revealed graduates’satisfaction with the skills and knowledge taught to them in their graduateprograms (Hatley, et al, 1996; Hoyle&Oates, 2000; Davis, 1997; Jackson&Kelly, 2002; Zimmerman, Bowman, Valentine,&Barnes, 2004; Schmieder&Townley, 1994; Martin, Murphy,&Muth, 1998; Doolittle, 2003). These findings range from“hard research”from well designed qualitative studies to the use of survey methods. Graduate students at the University of Missouri andTexas A&M University reported that their graduate programs were very instrumental in helping them prepare for and succeed on thejob. Other graduates reported a“clear, well defined curriculum focus reflecting agreement on the relevant knowledge base neededfor school administrators in their first year, or first few years in the profession”(Jackson&Kelly 2002, p. 208). Professors at other institutions found that graduates became more scholarly intheir approach to problem-solving which helped them solve the real world problems of administration. Martin, Murphy, and Muth (1998)found that their graduates were prepared to“integrate reliable formal knowledge with clinical knowledge—theoretical and craft knowledge”(p. 152). Thus, while the evidence about the success of leadership preparation is limited it does include some important“hard evidence”that Murphy and Vriesenga (2004) failed to include in their exclusive literature search of only four journals in thefield.