1.3 Doctoral program issues: accreditation of programs  (Page 2/10)

Given the national press of the Levine report, it was imperative that Young and colleagues, representing the field, react to his discussions of the necessity of high standards for leadership programs. Young and colleagues agreed that programs should have high standards and voiced that they also must be evaluated in the strictest manner, furthering the concept that weak programs should either be improved or should cease to exist. They reported that there was ample evidence that reform efforts have been taking place in programs across the country and that the schools of education are leading the way in reform efforts and setting high standards. Thus, they disagreed with Levine’s assumptions and his evidence that current programs should be eradicated. In fact, Young and the authors, with their constant contact with myriads of program faculty around the country, found his statements to be dated and indicated that

…the report overlooks the aggressive and complex changes underway in leadership preparation programs. It leaves the impression that efforts to improve leadership programs are non-existent or barely underway. In fact, across the nation, many scholars, policy makers, policy analysts, school leaders, professional organizations, and foundations have been addressing this need for years. Such experts have already raised concerns about ineffective preparation programs and have promoted drastic reform and restructuring of educational leadership preparation. (p.1)

They even noted that improvement efforts have been brought about particularly by states, organizations, foundations, and, we add, the federal government, and that improvements have actually occurred in the programs that train school leaders. Young and colleagues reported that apparently“…these efforts were not known to Levine’s alumni survey sample, most of whom attended preparation programs before many of these current reforms were underway”(p. 1).

Reporting many standards movements at the organizational and state levels, Young and colleagues’report noted that the efforts toward accreditation of preparation programs of school leaders was ratcheted up in 2002. This occurred when the standards developed by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), a consortium of 32 educational agencies and 13 education administration associations, were integrated into the NCATE/Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC)