0.5 Machado, c., & Cline, d. (april 2010). faculty perceptions:  (Page 2/6)

Rationale for the study

More than twenty-five years ago, in April of 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education challenged educators to rescue America’s educational system from drowning itself in a sea of mediocrity. Given the close link between the quality of school leadership and school performance (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr,&Cohen, 2007) stringent state accountability systems have started holding principals accountable for the success of all students. Accreditation and regulatory standards are challenging education administration programs to redefine the profession (Murphy, 2001) and re-conceptualize “both the knowledge base and the processes that are included in university-based programs for aspiring leaders” (Grogan&Andrews, 2002, p.244).

Given the changing demographics of the US, the importance placed on inclusion, and the fast paced changes in technology, school leaders have to be prepared to support the breadth, depth, and quality of education that students need for survival in a linguistically and culturally diverse environment. Now more than ever, school leaders have to be skilled at managing and analyzing information, applying knowledge to solve complex, novel problems, and communicating and collaborating effectively with members of the community to promote the success of every student. With these ends in view, and the desire to move toward greater efficiency, accountability, and economic viability, education administration faculty, over the last decade, have been using the ISLLC standards to develop, modify, and evaluate leadership preparation programs. These standards highlight the six areas of responsibility important to the career development of school leaders which include: developing a shared vision, sustaining school culture, managing organizational operations and resources, collaborating with families and communities, acting with integrity, fairness, and ethics, and finally, influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal and political cultural context.

The success of ISLLC/ELCC standards implementation rests to a large extent on the degree to which faculty succeed in creating programs that reflect the ideals of the standards, both in theory and practice (Machado, 2008). There has been little empirical research that carefully examines the degree to which faculty perceive that their programs align with each of the standards. Our study seeks to bridge this gap. Additionally, the findings of this study will also help state policymakers who work to improve education leadership preparation, licensure, evaluation, and professional development to interpret and respond to the new Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 that were adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration.

Methodology

A mixed method approach was employed to enhance the validity and reliability of this study. Qualitative data collected from eight faculty members during the preliminary phase of the study were used to develop the survey, which generated both qualitative and quantitative data. The survey instrument underwent the rigorous four step procedure recommended by Ellis (1994) to establish face, construct, and concurrent validity. A Cronbach Coefficient Alpha score of .91 indicated that the survey was reliable. Data were analyzed using Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS, v.14) and Atlas ti .