3.3 Preparing, developing, and credentialing k-12 school leaders:  (Page 9/10)

In a special report prepared by the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute and commissioned by the Wallace Foundation in 2007, the authors (Darling-Hammond, et al) identified five findings associated with exemplary leadership development programs: (1) There are important common features for both pre-service and in-service programs; (2) People who participate in exemplary programs are better prepared and engage more consistently in effective practices; (3) Leadership, partnerships, and financial support are all critical for building exemplary programs; (4) Designing and delivering effective programs requires creative and flexible funding strategies; and (5) Both state and district policies influence program design and impact.

The authors of this same study (Darling-Hammond, et al, 2007) go on to include the following in their list of policy implications: “Durable partnerships between districts and universities, as well as state supports, facilitate consistent, coherent professional development…where links are weak and where professional development is not coordinated with preparation, the effects on leaders’ attitudes and behavior—no matter how effective the program—are more likely to fade with time, particularly in challenging school contexts” (Executive Summary, p 21).

The assumption for expanding and improving educational administration professional development was that universities would just expand their role past the initial credentialing and deliver additional tier credentialing requirements through the traditionally structured and delivered degree and certification system , e.g. courses and credit hours. Perhaps the assumption was also, that universities would partner with local districts and state departments to deliver academies and like experiences for continued professional development. These assumptions make sense, as far as they go. But noticeably absent in such premises is the natural role and untapped capacity associated with an educational administration training model that shapes pre-service credentialing programs with continued or advanced credentialing programs that are not university-based.

Michigan’s new certification and endorsement statute, for example, clearly recognizes the importance of an agile and responsive, yet coherent and intentional continuum of recruitment, training, development, and learning-in-practice experiences that accommodate a variety of career paths to positions of school leadership. Moreover, the new Michigan credentialing system is grounded in the standards of practice that form the basis for university preparation programs and the foundation for the state’s school improvement system (the Michigan School Improvement Framework). Between the standards that guide their initial certification and the state accountability standards for leading their schools and school districts, school leaders in Michigan now have a credentialing system that will follow teachers, principals, and superintendents throughout a career in school administration and assist them in applying and refining leadership practices that translate to improved results for their schools and the students they serve.