1.3 K-12 leadership and the educational administration curriculum

How did educational administration become the brunt of so much negative press, and why is it perceived to havefailed so miserably in the eyes of so many? What is it that teachers, principals, and superintendents do not know and can notdo in their professional role that fuels this ongoing debate about poorly run schools and weak leadership? How does one reconcile thepositive view of education as an equalizing force in America and the cynical view of education as an institution out of step withpresent day needs? Are educational administration professors and graduate programs so out of touch with the P-12 schools that thetraining received through university programs is only marginally utilitarian to those who lead America’s schools? The Levine (2005)quote above, and his basic report, illustrates that the quality of university-based administrator preparation programs are consideredto be a primary weakness in the nation’s educational systems. University-based programs in educational administration have beenundergoing scrutiny and have been encouraged to improve even by essentially educational organizations such as the National Councilfor the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) and the relatedInterstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), and various derivative groups. However, the questions remain: how didwe get to the present; what knowledge base should the curriculum reflect and; what, in fact, does a good program look like, and howshould our programs change?

The programs that will emerge over the next twenty-five years will not be exotic or be formulated byaccreditation bodies or by university planners. They will emerge from the foundation of the profession which is well documented;grounded in practical, cultural, and educational experience; and from knowledge gained by observing successful schools.

The History

Three constructs in the history of educational administration have evolved during its formative development andeach helps point to the possible future of the profession and to the programming that supports the training of educational leaders(see Culbertson, 1988; Murphy, 1992). These constructs are:

1. Educational administration evolved out of a need to operate schools under a set of practical and applied administrativeskills.
2. The bureaucratization of educational organizations during the 19th and 20th centuries required specialized professional knowledgein order to become and to succeed as an educational leader.
3. The academic, scientific, and theory basis for educational administration provided educational leaders with advanced tools,conceptual frameworks, and contemporary and theoretical knowledge required to lead educational organizations.