0.8 Hunt, j., watkins, s., kersten, t., & Tripses, j. (october 20  (Page 5/5)

The areas which are deemed to be of less importance by practitioners should be addressed by faculty members of student preparation programs. Two decisions must be made by such faculty members. First, do faculty members accept the perception of practitioners that areas such as change theory, attention to diversity, and use of technology are not very important? It would seem that operating without a theoretical basis when considering change would lead to an increase in “shooting from the hip” when addressing necessary shifts in the organizational direction. In a similar fashion, ignoring the major demographic shifts in American society could certainly lead to negative consequences in view of the increasingly diverse nature of our society. In some states, and certainly within many districts, minority students now constitute the majority. Finally, it would seem that superintendents need to be at least knowledgeable about the technological tools now available to individuals and institutions.

In the event that program faculty members of superintendent preparation programs disagree with practitioners regarding the relative importance of the use of theoretical frameworks, the consideration of diversity and the use of technology, then these faculty members must address a second decision. How can they convince students of the importance of these issues and how can such topics be introduced or reinforced in superintendent preparation programs? Will this be a matter of increased emphasis in already existing areas, or will it require a reallocation of time and a rethinking of the overall curriculum of the program? Superintendent preparation program faculty must take care that by modifying certain elements of their programs, they do not inadvertently weaken other program components. Retaining a emphasis upon vision, communications, teamwork, fiscal acuity, and academic rigor would seem to be critical.

During the revision of principal preparation programs in Illinois, member institutions of the Illinois Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ICPEA) worked together to address many of the challenges of the redesign process. It is anticipated that this cooperation will continue when the call comes for the redesign of superintendent preparation programs. Other states could utilize a similar model, working through their state councils if such groups exist, or through the national (NCPEA) organization.

In conclusion, this study was initiated in anticipation of a call for the redesign of superintendent preparation programs. The researchers believed that any such redesign would benefit from hearing the voices of the superintendent practitioners in the field. The findings from Illinois were interesting and instructive and future research should address the perceived strengths and limitations of superintendent preparation programs on a national basis.

References

• Berkowitz, S. (1997). Analyzing qualitative data. In J. Frechtling&L. Sharp (Eds.), User friendly hand-book for mixed methods evaluations (pp. 4-22). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
• Brown, P. F. (2006). Preparing principals for today’s demands . Phi Delta Kappa. 87 (7), 525-526.
• Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M.,&Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals (Review of Research). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
• Elmore, R. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and performance- based accountability. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices.
• Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Guba, E. G.,&Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Honig, M., Copland, M., Rainey, L., Lorton, J.,&Newton, M. (2011). Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement . Retrieved from (External Link) .
• Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.
• Marzano, R.,&Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: striking the right balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
• Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• McMillan, J.,&Wergin, J. (2006). Understanding and evaluating educational research (3 ^rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Reeves, D. (2011). Finding your leadership focus: What matters most for student results. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Ruiz, J.,&Koch, C., (2011). Illinois State Board of Education Annual Report 2010 . Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/reports/annual10/report.pdf
• Southern Regional Education Board. (2005). The principalship: How can we get it right? Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/pubs/05V02PrincipalInternship.asp