1. a paradigm shift in preparing instructional leaders  (Page 3/7)

The SBE also directed colleges of education to use more rigorous admission requirements to instructional leadership programs and to evaluate each applicant’s leadership potential during an interview. Representatives from local school districts were to become active participants in the student selection process.

A new state code that included strategic guidance about instructional leadership meant that educational administration programs stocked with large numbers of tuition-paying students were no longer practical. Improving student achievement in K-12 schools became a cornerstone for planning in a state that traditionally stood near the bottom of national rankings in academic achievement and per-pupil expenditures.

Program redesign at the university of south alabama

Instructional leadership faculty at the University of South Alabama began planning for change by addressing two important issues: (a) closing the admission pipeline to the soon-to-be defunct educational administration program, but permitting students still enrolled under its provisions to complete their studies, and (b) designing an experience-based curriculum for students who would be admitted to the redesigned instructional leadership program. Additional faculty would not be available for the stand-up, stand-down phases of program change, which meant that both programs would be offered concurrently for a time. This phase of planning was linked with setting firm dates for discontinuing one program, beginning another, and disseminating information to students and university offices (i.e. Graduate School, Admissions, Student Services) to ensure consistent and accurate communications.

Conceptual planning

Key meetings involving local superintendents and other stakeholders were aimed at creating an advisory committee to help with course and program redesign. The committee, encouraged to limit its thinking to curriculum development and not resources that might be required, decided that a one-semester internship, or residency, would be the most effective training vehicle for aspiring school leaders to observe, participate in, and lead teachers in activities to improve student achievement. The SBE’s guideline requiring a ten-day internship was deemed inadequate.

A provision to remove teachers from their classrooms while paying their salaries for a four-month residency to practice instructional leadership was significant. The advisory committee raised questions about recruiting and paying long-term substitute teachers, especially for advanced placement courses in high school math and science. Other concerns included the selection of mentor principals, their compensation for taking on the additional responsibility of supervising residents, and identifying the tasks that should be accomplished during the residency.

More planning

Program redesign requires timely coordination and communication among people who make decisions about allocating resources. The Dean of USA’s College of Education, advisory committee members, and program faculty wrote a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to identify 12 distinct items that would require joint efforts by local school districts and the College in planning, implementing, and evaluating the new program.