3.3 Preparing, developing, and credentialing k-12 school leaders:  (Page 8/10)

Around the same time, the Wallace Foundation began its State Action Educational Leadership Project (SAELP) working with state departments of education, major research and school administrator preparation university programs, and independent researchers to impact state policy and practice for developing and supporting school leaders with high-yield leadership practices (including data-informed decision making) at the building level. Future work will focus on district level leaders. Under Bill Gates’ leadership, Microsoft also stepped directly into the work of reshaping state level systems for school leadership development with its Partners in Learning initiative utilizing leadership practices that correlated with raising student achievement and/or emulated proven leadership strategies from the private sector (MI-LIFE Project, Michigan Department of Education, 2007).

These and other similar public/private partnerships surfaced around the country—some aimed at creating a national model for redesigning the way the educational system recruits, trains, continually develops, and supports school leaders at all levels from the teacher ranks to the superintendent and board levels. Other, more modest efforts are emerging at the state, regional, and local level to help practicing school leaders create more coherence between the requirements of federal and state accountability systems and the systems and processes that are shaping local schools. These emergent school leader development projects have some important common elements that distinguish them from the historical model of (1) preparation through university programs (i.e. MA, EdS, EdD, and PhD); (2) permanent certification through state credentialing systems, and (3) varied state continuing education requirements resulting in disconnected, widely varied, and inconsistently accessed professional development experiences and opportunities thereafter. Some of the new elements are:

• Increased partnerships and coordination between universities, regional service centers, departments of education, local districts, regional laboratories, and private foundations and corporations (Darling-Hammond, et al, 2007).
• Stronger coherence and coordination around state leader preparation and practice standards, national accreditation standards, and research findings (Darling-Hammond, et al, 2007).
• Greater emphasis placed on identifying and recruiting potentially stronger and more effective leaders (Knapp, et al, 2006).
• Greater emphasis placed on the importance of leadership at all levels (teacher leaders, school leaders, district leaders, and state leaders) coupled with an emphasis of continuous evolution and development of leadership capacity (Knapp, et al, 2006 and Lambert, 2003).
• Stronger focus on instructional leadership and leadership for change, improvement, and reform (Leithwood, et al, 2004).
• Stronger use of both informal and formal internship and mentoring features as specific components of both initial preparation and continuing education programs (IL-SAELP Report, 2006).
• Emphasis on acquisition and continued enhancement of knowledge, skills, competencies, and practices (Grogan&Andrews, 2003).
• A greater emphasis on and stronger allocation of resources for applying the major findings of research that connects school leadership (teacher, principal, and superintendent) with positive changes in student success (Marzano, Waters,&McNulty, 2005; Marzano and Grubb, 2004; Reeves, 2006).