3.4 Reality check: designing a new leadership program for the 21st  (Page 11/15)

Evaluations from Mentors and Field Site School Principals

When asked about their impression of the program, school leaders notedthat they really appreciated theattention and skill development for aspiring school leaders and wished that their preparation program had been this intense. Theyexpressed a concern for time spent away from the classroom to conduct field experience. A need for a thorough mentor preparationworkshop was noted. Several respondents expressed appreciation for the advanced learning they received as a result of site visits bythe university mentor: as in,“You have made me think of my school and student achievement in new ways I never thought of before. Ihave learned so much from this experience.”One principal took the opposite point of view by criticizing the program when he said,“I will encourage any of my teachers who want to get a master ofeducation degree in school leadership to go to Mississippi. They don’t have this crazy program there. Teachers should be able to get a degree without all of this interference from the university. Idon’t have time to deal with this.”Clarify what this quote means

Letters from Superintendents

Superintendents expressed concerns of sustainability and wondered if their district could continue theleadership program if funds were reduced. Others did not want their teachers out of the classroom and thus were opposed to releasetime. Some expressed concern about nominating teachers for the leadership program, resulting in perceived favoritism andcomplaints. One superintendent said,“I am proceeding with caution about this different way of preparing school leaders. I need toknow more.”She continued to explain that she had not been active in the design of the program, and had sent a representative in herplace. Now, during implementation, she felt like she needed to be more involved in the decision making process.

Survey of Professor Views

Some professors believed that the new program could make a real impact on PK-12 student achievement and schoolleadership. A few felt that the most of the workload for design and implementation was being placed on junior faculty, withoutcompensation for tenure and promotion. Other professors were very concerned about the amount of field work and didn’t know how they were going to have time to travel to districts. These professorswere concerned about their subject area being covered thoroughly due to the lack of real lecture time. Lecturing about subjects suchas law, finance, history of education, and other subjects were a very important missing ingredient of the new program. Since thecontent and method of delivery of many parts of the program had been mandated through the process of state approval and strictcurriculum alignment to standards, some professors believed that their academic freedom had been curtailed. Still, others believedthat their academic freedoms had been breeched due to the.

Reality Check: Lessons Learned and Challenges Faced

Change is difficult, especially in the implementation stages. Even though partnerships were formed tocreate shared and distributed leadership for the development of the new preparation and development program, at this time someresistance to change is being experienced. Perhaps those who chose not to be involved in the design process may become involved now asthe program is modified as an outcome of the program evaluations.