Ten years and counting: salient doctoral program design and delivery

The criticisms of educational programs are not entirely new. Educational writers of the last three decades have called for changes in educational leadership preparation programs. In 1979, Griffiths stated,“If educational administration is not in a state of intellectual turmoil, it should be”(p.43). Foster (1994) suggested,

While the content of preparation programs is important, it is equally necessary to pay attention to the processes by which administrators are educated. The traditional didactic method, relying on passive learners, seems an inappropriate way to build on the very real experiences that most adult students bring to the classroom. If we are indeed serious about developing transformative intellectuals, then the process of preparing them in traditional EdD and PhD programs should reflect more than a model where ideas and concepts are provided, and then expected to be regurgitated during comprehensive exams. Rather, we need to engage these practitioners in their own education, building upon what they themselves bring to the classroom. It is these experiences that can be re-thought, reformulated, and recast, so that a critical and reflective mindset about them can be developed. (p. 49)

Acknowledging that little attention was provided to the importance of cultural politics or to critiques of institutionalized practices in many traditional educational administration programs, Anderson (1996) called for a new administrative discourse stating,“This new administrative discourse must not only critique current practices, but also provide a vision of what a democratic school culture would look like”(p. 961). Murphy (2001) emphasized that preparation programs have been criticized as drawing too heavily from management, psychology, and sociological theories rather than focusing on important factors in leading school improvement efforts and improving teaching and learning in schools. An over-emphasis on a positivistic concern of seeking the one best way and a reliance on the theory movement continued from 1950 to 1985 (Murphy, 2001). Murphy (2001) suggested,“A good deal of internal soul searching also has anchored calls for the reform of school administration. These concerns are centered on the knowledge base supporting the profession and the methods and procedures used to educate school leaders”(p. 1). Russo (2005) stressed,“Leadership theory has never entirely escaped the influence of the rational perspective”(p. 104). It is against this backdrop of criticisms raised against EdD programs that the following analysis is provided.

The leadership needed in schools

Courageous and ethical leadership is advocated for today’s schools (Reyes&Wagstaff, 2005). Kochan and Reed (2005) emphasized,

Leaders of democratic schools must be equipped with the knowledge, skills, abilities, beliefs, and dispositions that will allow them to succeed. . . . It also requires a change in their educational preparation programs and in the organizational structures in which they operate. (p. 80)