The rise and fall of camelot: designing, implementing, and dismantling  (Page 7/16)

The MSA faculty PLC. Heeding DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) warnings about the challenge of sustaining school reforms, the design team adopted a professional learning community model, operating on parameters similar to Hord’s (1997) recommended features of shared leadership, collective creativity, shared vision and values, supportive physical and personal conditions, and shared personal practice. Four MSA faculty, FMC1-3 and FMD, were the primary members, although not all faculty attended each meeting. The other redesign participants (DH1, FMA, and FMB) attended on an as-needed basis and were consistently available for consultation (Buskey&Topolka-Jorissen, 2010). The development of a PLC helped to unite faculty and to guarantee that we had “face time” with each other. In an online program, where faculty have less need to come onto the campus, a PLC can serve a vital role in keeping online faculty professionally and personally present to each other.

Process. We began by defining our aspirations and then identified elements of a curriculum based on the functions of a school leader and the personal characteristics required to fulfill the program mantra. Throughout the process, we played with varying program structures including the ideas that courses could vary from the standard 3-hour Carnegie unit, and could be organized by themes such as seasons, personal traits, or job functions (Buskey&Topolka-Jorissen, 2010). As the program continued to take shape, we consulted different groups – regional superintendents and principals, departmental faculty, and recent and current students. Each step informed the next, with some steps working backwards to adjust prior decisions. The program came together in a curriculum and structure based on our mantra, experiences, feedback of others, and research on leadership, the principalship, and principal licensure programs (Buskey&Topolka-Jorissen, 2010). We also developed explicit strategies to reduce the sense of isolation inherent in online programs expressed by some graduates of the old program: The Hickory Experience , strategies for developing online PLCs, using a cohort model, and requiring an end-of-program face-to-face closing ceremony.

As we began transitioning from the design phase to the implementation phase in the spring of 2008, the entire group was exhausted, yet also stimulated and proud of our accomplishments. We had sat as brothers and sisters at the round table, the foundation for Camelot had been built, and the castle was taking shape before our eyes.

We sought and received permission from both the university and DPI to begin offering the new program as a pilot in fall, 2008. This allowed us to test the program and tinker with the structures and organization without having to constantly seek university approval. It also sped the transition from the old program and put us two years ahead of DPI’s fall, 2010 implementation deadline.

Year 1 (2008-2009)

The first year of implementing the new program included four important aspects that are particularly pertinent to designing and implementing online leadership programs. Early implementation helped maintain momentum through a long and intense design period, but it also required filling in program details as we went. The development of the cohort model required faculty to develop new skills in online course construction and teaching techniques. By piloting the program, we were able to incorporate participant feedback into program changes. Finally, changes in MSA faculty and their roles had implications for the future.