Principal Perceptions of the Effectiveness of
University Educational Leadership Preparation and
Professional Learning
This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of
Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a significant contribution to the scholarship and practice of
school administration and K-12 education.
Arvin D. Johnson
Kennesaw State University
Principals and assistant principals currently serving in Florida and Georgia school districts
were surveyed about their perceptions of university educational leadership preparation and
professional learning. The results revealed that many principals and assistant principals agreed
that university educational leadership preparation programs enhanced their overall preparation,
school leadership, and school law. However, participants disagreed that leadership preparation
programs assisted them in managing school budget, data analysis, and human resources.
Participants overwhelmingly indicated that school districts provide meaningful professional
learning opportunities and that they prefer job-embedded learning experiences over university
preparation.
NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, Vol. 11, No. 1- May, 2016
ISSN: 2155-9635 © 2016 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration
2
Introduction
Several factors impact the manner in which university educational leadership programs prepare
school leaders, including state certification requirements, university accreditation criteria, and
the need to prepare students for a role that changes based on location and school district. Local
needs and partnerships may also impact how universities prepare school leaders.
University educational leadership curricula must be aligned with state certification
requirements. States have the autonomy to require certification for school administrators, and
nearly all states have established criteria (Hale & Moorman, 2003; Manasse, 1985). Typically,
these include attaining a degree, passing a state examination, and receiving professional training.
These requirements derive from state-developed and adopted educational leadership standards.
State certification applicants must demonstrate mastery of these standards through university
educational leadership preparation or alternative programs. In addition, states can develop
several levels of principal certification that correspond to individual administrative
appointments. For example, Georgia has multiple levels of educational leadership certification,
and each level identifies the type of leadership position the applicants can hold. Florida also has
multiple levels of certification with different criteria for attainment. University educational
leadership curricula must prepare students to meet state requirements for certification.
States require that educational leadership programs be accredited by appropriate
institutions (Hale & Moorman, 2003). Accredited universities must adhere to guidelines
established by these bodies. Some universities are accredited by agencies such as the Council for
the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), AdvancED, and the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Institutions that grant accreditation require that
universities meet and maintain specific criteria. As a result, accreditation criteria impacts
university educational leadership curriculum.
University educational leadership programs prepare students to take on the complex and
demanding responsibilities of today’s school principal (Hess & Kelly, 2007). Successful
principals must master human resources planning and supervision, school budget, facilities, and
especially instructional leadership (Backor & Gordon, 2015; Lynch, 2012; Valentine & Prater,
2011). University leadership preparation programs have reassessed themselves due to the
increased roles and responsibilities of the principal (Orr, 2006). In response these changes, the
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) revised Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) and National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) standards. The
revised standards were designed to reflect the litany of changing expectations in the role of the
principal (Superville, 2014).
Conceptual Framework
This study was designed to contribute to the existing knowledge base on the effectiveness of
university educational leadership programs. Based on the perspectives of current school
administrators, I sought to inform the knowledge base and provide recommendations to
educational leadership faculty. Several overarching concepts served as the theoretical basis for
this research. Each concept provides a unique context for this study.
The effectiveness of educational leadership preparation programs is being debated. Some
research supports the conclusion that these programs are ineffective in preparing principals
(Farkas, Johnson, & Duffet 2003; Hess & Kelly, 2007; Levine, 2005; Orr, 2006). Other research
3
concludes that these programs are necessary and adequate in preparing students to become
principals (Duncan, Range, & Scherz, 2011; Isik, 2003). Empirical research and evaluations of
university educational leadership programs can contribute to the knowledge base on program
effectiveness.
Both landmark and current research support the idea that well-developed principals have
a significant impact on student achievement (Barber, Whelan, & Clark, 2010, Cowie &
Crawford, 2007; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Mortimore & Sammons,
1987; Odden & Odden, 1995; Pina, Cabrel, & Alves, 2015; Valentine & Prater, 2011; Waters,
Marzano, & McNulty, 2003, 2004). Empirical research suggests that principals have, at
minimum, an indirect impact on student outcomes (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996;
Liethwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010). The impact that principals can have on student achievement
warrants further research into the effectiveness of principal preparation.
A body of research suggests that current school administrators are qualified to provide
input on university educational leadership program effectiveness (Backor & Gordon, 2015;
Baxter, Thessin, & Clayton, 2014; Cowie & Crawford, 2007; Duncan et ah, 2011). This study
examines perceptions of current school administrators to answer research questions about the
effectiveness of university educational leadership programs in Florida and Georgia. School
administrator perceptions provide an appropriate lens through which to view the effectiveness of
principal preparation programs.
University educational leadership programs are necessary and can impact principal
behavior (Isik, 2003). These programs provide applicants the necessary coursework to obtain
state certification. In addition, they offer curriculums that helps prepare applicants for the state
certification examinations. States sanction universities with principal preparation programs to
offer curriculums that are aligned to administrative certification (Gumus, 2015; Roberts, 2008).
Successful principal preparation is a shared concern among universities, states, and local school
districts (Browne-Ferrigno, 2011). These concepts accentuate the need for continued research to
help university educational leadership programs meet the preparatory needs of 21st-century
principals.
Purpose
This research examined existing principals’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their university
educational leadership preparation programs. It also sought to examine principals’ perceptions of
their professional learning needs based on the demands of their role. Many university educational
leadership professors are unaware of the day-to-day experiences of principals (Farkas et al.,
2003; Levine, 2005). As a result, an ancillary purpose of this research was to provide current
principals the opportunity to share their insights of the educational leadership research field. For
the purpose of this research, the term “administrator” refers to both principals and assistant
principals.
Literature Review
A myriad of research on various aspects of principal preparation exists. This literature review
focused on studies that contribute to the general knowledge base regarding principal preparation,
suggest overall university principal preparation is inadequate, spotlight specific university
4
principal preparation programs providing adequate preparation, and promote novel and
innovative principal preparation programs.
General Knowledge Base
Backor and Gordon (2015) conducted research to examine the perceptions of principals,
professors, and leaders in teaching regarding the needs of principal preparation programs. They
grounded their research in the premise that instructional leadership and student achievement are
connected. In this qualitative research, researchers interviewed three groups of participants to
gather their perceptions on how university principal preparation programs should ready
candidates for instructional leadership. All three groups of participants revealed that the
following should be included in principal preparation programs: a comprehensive applicant
screening, functions of instructional leadership, the knowledge, skills, and dispositions best
suited for principals, teaching and learning strategies, field experiences, and induction plans. The
researchers provided suggestions for implementation of each recommendation. In addition, they
made recommendations for future research to improve principal preparation programs.
One way to assess the effectiveness of educational leadership preparation programs is to
seek input from those who participated in them. Baxter et al. (2014) explored how school leaders
employed effective leadership practices developed during preparation programs in their current
administrative roles. The researchers wanted to understand how to best prepare school leaders for
success, so they sampled 19 school leaders in a qualitative research study. They defined
communitarian leadership as assuming the responsibility of decision-making with others in mind.
Using the premise that communitarian leadership may be associated with improved student
outcomes, the researchers sought input from school leaders, asking them to discuss how their
preparation programs affected their engagement with communitarian leadership. The researchers
examined the prevalent themes that were most valuable to participants. The most frequent
communitarian themes included communication, relationships, values, and beliefs. The
researchers recommended educational leadership programs accentuate community-based
learning, cohort models, field experiences, aligned curriculums, and program recruitment.
Orphanos and Orr (2014) conducted research to understand the influence of leadership
preparation and practice on teacher satisfaction. The sample included 175 teachers whose
principals completed exemplary university educational leadership preparation programs and 589
teachers who completed traditional leadership preparation programs. The results revealed that the
exemplary programs had statistically significant, direct effects on those principals’ practices and
indirect effects on teacher collaboration and satisfaction. The results from this research suggested
that the quality of educational leadership preparation can influence the effect principals have on
teachers, who have the largest impact on student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Hallinger and Lu (2013) conducted research to examine educational leadership
preparation in schools of business management and publication administration. They conducted
online research to analyze 31 MBA, MPA, and MBA programs with concentrations in education.
They also examined curricula, instructional strategies, and the structure of these programs and
identified any value-added components that potentially could improve university educational
leadership programs. The results revealed that educational leadership programs generally did not
include components of MBA and MPA programs that may deserve closer examination. These
areas included project management, data-based decision-making, customer orientation, strategic
5
management/planning, and attaining global perspectives. These areas are aligned with some of
the expanding roles of the principal (Murphy, 2001).
Inadequate Preparation
Hess and Kelly (2007) researched what was specifically being taught in university principal
preparation programs. The researchers examined 210 syllabi from 31 elite, nonelite, small, and
large programs. They investigated how much time was devoted to seven major leadership
strands: managing results, personnel, and classroom instruction, developing technical
knowledge, leading both in school culture and externally, and maintaining norms and values. The
results revealed that little time was spent on accountability, managing school improvement,
instructional management, hiring and retention practices, and public relations. In addition,
empirical research rarely informed practice. A large portion of time was spent on technical
processes such as law, finance, and operation, but with no assessment of learning. Programs used
a limited number of textbooks and did not take advantage of the most influential educational and
management thinkers. The results of this study suggested that university educational leadership
programs did not address many entrepreneurial skills that are paramount to principal success.
The researchers recommended reformation of educational leadership programs to meet the needs
of 2 lst-century principals.
Levine (2005) published a report that further supported the need for university
educational leadership program refonn. Levine asserted that “the majority of the programs that
prepare school leaders range in quality from inadequate to poor” (Levine, 2005, p. 1). These
results derived from a four-year study of U.S. schools of education. In his report, Levine
identified nine points by which schools of education must be evaluated: purpose, curricular
coherence, curricular balance, faculty composition, admissions, degrees, research, finances, and
assessment. His research revealed that most administrators are trained in the educational
leadership departments of schools of education and that the poor quality of many of these
programs has led to scrutiny. The study found six major flaws in university educational
leadership preparation programs: curricular disarray, low admission and graduation standards,
weak faculty, inadequate clinical instruction, inappropriate degrees, and poor research. Levine
offered three recommendations for university educational leadership departments: eliminate
incentives that favor low quality programs, set and enforce minimum standards of quality, and
redesign educational leadership programs (2005).
Some researchers have identified specific curriculum needs that are not included in
university educational leadership programs. Blase and Blase (2004) conducted qualitative
research to explore the importance of preparing leaders for the negative aspects of leadership.
The researchers believed that most studies on university educational leadership programs
focused on effective leadership and did not address the negatives. Fifty teachers who were
mistreated by their principals were interviewed, and results revealed that their principals engaged
in similar behaviors. The researchers analyzed questionnaire data from over 400 administrators
and teachers and responses confirmed that participants would like preparation and development
in the negative aspects of leadership, finding that “what not to do as an educational leader, is as
important as just studying the positive, effective things” (Blase & Blase, 2004, p. 261). The
results suggested the need to caution against the negative aspects of leadership in university
educational leadership curriculums.
6
Many principals do not believe that their university educational leadership programs
properly prepared them for their roles as principal. Farkas et al. (2003) revealed several
disturbing themes from survey results of 900 principals and 1,000 superintendents. Over 95% of
the surveyed principals believed that peer assistance was more beneficial than their university
leadership preparation programs. In addition, over 65% of surveyed principals believed that their
university preparation programs were disconnected from the realities of the job. The surveys
suggested that principals do not have confidence in university educational leadership programs.
These data were collected from individuals undergoing the daily demands of the principal
position, and they contribute to the demand for a reexamination and refonn of university
educational leadership programs.
Elmore (2000) wrote about the need to restructure public schools and school systems to
meet the demands of standards-based refonn. He asserted that if school systems continue status
quo reform efforts, failure is inevitable and public trust will continue to erode. Elmore declared
that the solution to this problem is “dramatic changes in the way public schools define and
practice leadership” (2000, p. 2). He stated that public school leaders are not equipped to
successfully assume the responsibilities that the job requires. Elmore’s notions align with the
idea that university educational leadership programs and school districts are not preparing
students for administrative roles adequately. He offered several external solutions for improving
school leadership preparation. In his paper, Elmore (2000) recommended and elaborated on five
principles that could yield comprehensive improvements to school systems: maintaining a tight
instructional focus sustained over time, routinizing accountability for practice and performance
in face-to-face relationships, reducing isolation, allowing direct observation, analysis, and
criticism of practice, exercising differential treatment based on performance and capacity, not on
volunteerism, and decreasing discretion of practice perfonnance.
Adequate Preparation
Boyland, Lehman, and Sriver (2015) conducted research on new principal performance based on
the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) and state-level content standards for
principal preparation. Superintendents were asked to rate new principals who recently completed
university educational leadership training programs. The results demonstrated that
superintendents rated new principals proficient in most categories and highest in the integrity
category. The lowest-rated category was financial management. In all other categories, new
principals were rated as proficient. Notwithstanding the limitations of this study, the results
suggested that based on the ELCC and Indiana Content standards, some university educational
leadership programs are preparing students to become effective principals.
Duncan et al. (2011) designed a study to obtain input from principals that would
influence the content and practice of the educational leadership preparation program at the
University of Wyoming. They surveyed 286 Wyoming principals to analyze their perceptions of
preparation program strengths and weaknesses, new principal professional development needs,
and district-provided professional learning. The researchers wanted the collected data to fill gaps
in their university principal preparation program. Participants identified more overall strengths
than weaknesses in their principal preparation programs. However, the results yielded many
inconsistencies in perceptions of strengths and weaknesses. This variation may be attributed to
differing content at participants’ preparation institutions. Principals valued the internship because
it exposed them to the routine practices of the job. The results also suggested that principals
7
believed that school districts did not provide adequate professional learning opportunities in
building relationships and solving conflicts.
The concept of university educational leadership preparation programs preparing
principals is supported by the research of Isik (2003), who wrote, “There is no special principal
certification program in Turkey” (Isik, 2003, p. 2). Isik conducted research evaluating the
effectiveness of principals who completed administrative preparation and those who did not
using a direct effects model. Using a researcher-developed, 24-item instrument, data were
collected from 240 teachers who had worked with principals trained in an administrative
preparation program and fonner principals who were not. Results revealed that administrative
preparation had substantial impact on principal behavior. The results also supported the idea that
university educational leadership programs can impact principal practice. The debate is generally
not about whether there is a need for university educational leadership programs, but the
effectiveness of new and existing programs.
Innovative Preparation
Some researchers have examined in-depth perspectives of innovative university principal
preparation programs. Kearney and Valadez (2015) conducted research at a public university in
Southwestern United States. The researchers examined three classifications of innovation:
enhanced entry criteria, increased field-based experiences, and support after graduation. In an
effort to redesign a traditional university educational leadership preparation program, professors
sought the input of local key stakeholders. These stakeholders included program graduates who
were currently school administrators; university faculty and administration; educational
leadership faculty from different universities; school district leaders; and school leaders from 11
surrounding districts. Based on the feedback from the local stakeholders, three primary features
were recommended and implemented: co-teaching, district course locations, and in-service
training for current leaders. The next step is to evaluate reforms by hiring external evaluators,
monitoring graduation and state certification pass rates, distributing self-assessments, and
examining hiring rates data, longevity, value-added measures of graduates, and student success
rates. The full effects of the redesigned program can be measured fully in a few years. However,
the redesign adds to the knowledge base of current models of innovative efforts in improving
university educational leadership preparation programs.
Davis and Darling-Hammond (2012) conducted short case studies and cross-case analysis
of five innovative principal preparation programs. These programs shared several characteristics
that warrant closer examination: a strong focus on instructional leadership as a core element, a
blend of practical application and empirical research, a highly selective matriculation process, an
included internship, collaboration with local school districts, a cohort model of students, and
authentic problem-solving investigations. In addition, all the programs have endured the
challenges of university educational leadership preparation programs over long periods of time.
Survey results revealed that graduates of these programs have strong confidence in their
preparation, are highly effective principals, and have impacted their schools. More developed
research on the outcomes of these programs is needed to extend this research.
8
Methodology
This research examined current administrators’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their
university educational leadership preparation program. These administrators operate in the
present age of accountability. The rationale for targeting this population is that they are among
the most qualified to answer the posed research questions:
a) What are existing principals’ perceptions of university educational leadership preparation?
b) What do principals perceive as the most valuable knowledge gained from university
educational leadership preparation?
c) What do principals perceive as the least valuable knowledge from university educational
leadership preparation?
The researcher developed an online survey using Qualtrics to ascertain administrators’
perceptions of the overall and specific aspects of the effectiveness of their university educational
leadership programs. The survey was delivered digitally to a convenience sample of 168
principals and assistant principals in Florida and Georgia. An informed letter of consent attached
to each email provided a description of the importance and purpose of the study, researchers’
contact information, procedures, time required to complete the survey, and other important
information related to the study (Creswell, 2013). Of the delivered online surveys, 38% (n = 64)
were completed by principals and assistant principals, yielding an acceptable researcher response
rate (Cook, Heath, & Thomson, 2000) and surpassing the average web-based survey response
rate of 34.6%, based on a meta-analysis by Cook, Heath, & Thomson (2000).
Participants
After the Institutional Review Board approved the study, principals and assistant principals
(administrators) listed as members of a professional educational organization in Florida or
Georgia were invited to participate. The researcher also gathered names and email addresses of
existing administrators in various school settings (urban, suburban, rural, and
independent/charter) from several school district websites in Georgia. These administrators were
sent informed consent cover letters, the survey link, and were asked to complete the survey.
Instrument
The researcher designed a 25-item survey to gather demographic and perception data from
participants. The survey was vetted for validity and recommendations by university and school-
based educational experts in Florida and Georgia. The survey consisted of three sections. The
first section (items 1-11) was designed to obtain demographic information from participants. The
second section (items 12-22) assessed participants’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their
university preparation programs via Likert scale items (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The second section also addressed the following
perceptions of participants’ university preparation programs: a) overall preparation for
administrative role; b) preparation in the area of school law; c) preparation in the area of school
data analysis; d) preparation in the area of school finance and budget; e) preparation in the area
of school leadership; f) preparation in the area of human resources; g) the usefulness of
9
preparation; h) the type of field experience included in preparation; i) job-embedded learning
experiences; and j) the assistance of district-level professional development. Reliability of these
eight items was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha, which yielded an acceptable rate, a = .795 (n
= 8), (Cronbach, 1951; Hatcher, 1994). Cronbach's Alpha estimates how well a set of items
consistently measures the same construct to demonstrate internal reliability.
The third section solicited responses to three open-ended questions related to: 1)
perception of skills that participants did not learn but would have liked to have learned in their
university training; 2) skills learned that they frequently use; and 3) skills learned that they rarely
use.
Analysis of Data
Participant data from the leadership preparation surveys were analyzed in three ways. The initial
section that assessed the demographics of the administrators is reported in the demographics
section. These data were analyzed using Qualtrics and describe the descriptive statistics of the
administrators, the school settings in which they work, and where they obtained their university
preparation. The second two sections asked questions regarding participant perceptions of
specific areas of leadership via a Likert scale. These data were analyzed and reported using
quantitative reports prepared in Qualtrics. The third section asked administrators to answer open-
ended questions on their perceptions of their university preparation. These data were analyzed to
identify any commonalities in administrator responses.
Findings
Sixty-four (n = 64) administrators responded to the surveys, and their responses were recorded
into Qualtrics. Of the 64 participants, 33 (51.56%) were principals and 31 (48.44%) were
assistant principals. Thirty-nine (60.94%) were male and 25 (39.06%) were female. Thirty-two
(50%) of the participants were African American and 32 (50%) were Caucasion. Of the 64
respondents, all were employed by public school districts; 19 (29.69%) worked in elementary
schools, 19 (29.69%) in middle schools, and 26 (40.63%) in high schools. Twenty-six (41.27%)
listed working in an urban school setting, 28 (44.44%) listed suburban, and 9 (14.29%) listed
rural. One participant did not respond to the school setting question. The average years of
experience were eight for principals and five for assistant principals. The average number of
years spent with current school was five years. Principal preparation ranged from 24 universities
in 10 states, with the most from Florida (28) and Georgia (20). The years in which principal
preparation programs were completed ranged from 1969 to 2015, with the mode being 2004.
Perceptions of University Leadership Preparation Programs
Table 1 displays administrators’ perceptions of specific areas of university preparation.
10
Table 1
Response Number/Percentage to University Administrative Preparation Questions
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Questions
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Overall
Preparation
1
1.59
5
7.94
45
71.43
12
19.05
School
Leadership
0
0
4
6.35
39
61.90
20
31.75
School Law
0
0
9
14.29
40
63.49
14
22.22
School Budget
2
3.17
29
46.03
27
42.86
5
7.94
School Data
Analysis
2
3.17
22
34.92
32
50.79
7
11.11
Human
Resources
0
0
19
30.16
37
58.73
7
11.11
Routine
Use of Learned
Skills
1
1.61
10
16.13
41
66.13
10
16.13
Application of
Theories
Learned
3
4.76
12
19.05
34
53.97
14
22.22
Prefer Job-
Embedded
Learning
0
0
5
8.33
23
38.33
32
53.33
Dis./Sch.
Professional
Learning
2
3.17
6
9.52
39
61.90
16
25.40
As indicated in Table 2, over 85% of administrators agreed or strongly agreed that
overall, their university leadership preparation programs prepared them for their current roles as
school administrators in overall preparation, school leadership, and school law. However, over
30% of administrators disagreed or strongly disagreed that their university leadership preparation
programs prepared them in the areas of data analysis, human resources, and school
finance/budget. In addition, over 76.19% of administrators agreed or strongly agreed that they
routinely use skills learned in their university leadership preparation and that they apply the
theories learned in their university leadership preparation program. Fifty-five of 60 (91.66%)
administrators agreed or strongly agreed that job-embedded learning experiences have been more
11
meaningful than university preparation leadership preparation. Fifty-five of 63 (87.3%)
administrators agreed or strongly agreed that their districts provide professional learning that
helps them in their roles as administrators.
Table 2
Percentage of Combined Responses to University Administrative Preparation Questions
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly
Disagree/Disagree
Overall Preparation
90.48%
>10%
School Leadership
93.65%
>10%
School Law
85.71%
14.29%
School Budget
50.8%
49.2%
School Data Analysis
61.90%
38.10%
Human Resources
69.84%
30.16%
Routine
82.26%
17.74%
Use of Learned Skills
Application of Theories
76.19%
23.81%
Learned
Prefer Job-Embedded
91.66%
<10%
Learning
Dis./Sch. Professional
87.3%
12.7%
Learning
School Law
85.71%
14.29%
Types of Field Experience
Fifty-three of 63 (84.13%) administrators reported that they completed field experience as part of
their leadership preparation. Practical application courses were the most reported, with 33
(52.38%) administrators reporting this type of course completion. This was followed by
internships, which were reported to have been completed by 19 (30.16%) administrators.
Administrator Preferential Areas of Preparation
Administrators identified 57 areas in which they would have liked to have received more
preparation in their university leadership preparation programs. Among the skills listed, two
emerged in multiple responses: budget, which was listed 19 times, and achievement data
analysis, which was listed 10 times. Other areas identified included parental involvement,
dealing with difficult parents, professional learning, stakeholder relationship, and human
resources.
Most Frequently Used Areas of Preparation
Administrators identified 58 areas that they learned in their university leadership preparation
programs and used most frequently in their careers. Law and leadership were the most
consistently identified skills. Law was listed 20 times, more than any other skill, and forms of
leadership were identified 16 times. These included transformational, multi-cultural, general,
12
instructional, ethical, and organizational leadership. Other areas identified as frequently used
included curriculum design and data analysis.
Least Frequently Used Areas of Preparation
Administrators identified 53 areas that they learned in university leadership preparation
programs and do not use frequently in their careers. The three areas most consistently identified
included: N/A, budget, and theory. Administrators listed none, or N/A, 17 times and budget 11
times. Listed 17 times, theory was also consistently identified as an area not used frequently.
Implications
Data from the literature review yielded a noteworthy revelation in regards to the time period of
the empirical studies reviewed. General studies included data ranging from 2013 to 2015;
innovative studies ranged from 2012 to 2015; adequate studies ranged from 2003 to 2015; and
inadequate studies 2000 to 2007. While studies do not represent an exhaustive synthesis of
principal preparation literature, these data demonstrate variation in findings. The noted studies
that proposed overall inadequate principal preparation at the university level were older than the
studies that revealed adequate or innovative preparation. The findings in this study point to
overall perceptions of effectiveness of university principal preparation rather than
ineffectiveness. This aligns with the findings of research conducted by Duncan et al. (2011).
A diverse group of current principals and assistant principals working in public schools in
Florida and Georgia perceived that the leadership training they received from 24 universities in
10 states overall prepared them for their existing roles as administrators. The data suggest that
these same universities are adequately preparing leadership candidates for their roles as assistant
principals and principals based on the perceptions of the administrators in this study. Despite
administrators’ perceptions that university leadership preparation programs prepared them for
existing administrative roles, the results of this study provide some considerations for faculty
within university leadership preparation programs and the field of educational leadership. These
data warrant consideration since every participant in the study is a current public school
administrator with direct knowledge of the skills and abilities they need and use on the job.
This study found several promising themes for school districts and university leadership
preparation programs. Administrators perceived that overall university leadership preparation
programs prepared them for their roles. In addition, administrators perceived university
leadership preparation programs prepared them in the areas of school law and leadership. Eighty-
two percent of administrators surveyed reported that they routinely use the skills learned in
university leadership preparation programs. School law and leadership were areas in which
administrators agreed university leadership programs prepared them and were also areas that
administrators stated they frequently use. This suggests that there is alignment in some areas of
university leadership preparation and the skills that administrators report to use frequently.
Eighty-seven percent of administrators agree or strongly agree that schools and districts are
providing professional development that helps them in their roles. This finding is important
because the role of the principal is influenced by local needs (Isik, 2000), accentuating the need
for collaborative relationships between university leadership preparation faculty and local school
district officials (Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012). Fifty-three administrators (84%) reported
that they had some type of field experience during university leadership preparation. This finding
suggests that some universities are providing field experiences as part of their leadership
13
preparation programs, which is supported by several studies (Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012;
Dobson, 2014; Kearney & Valadez, 2015). Another important finding was the frequency in
which administrators responded N/A to the question about the least frequently used skill learned
in university preparation. This suggested that administrators generally are using the skills gained
during university preparation.
While administrators who participated in this study overall believe that university
preparation programs effectively readied them for administrative roles, data from the study
suggested other noteworthy considerations. Data clearly and consistently suggested that a
considerable percentage of administrators do not agree that university leadership programs
prepared them in school finance/budgeting, data analysis, and human resources. These findings
were consistent with administrators’ perceptions of areas in which they would have liked to have
more preparation and areas that they used less frequently.
In addition, an overwhelming percent (92%) of the administrators in this study believed
that job-embedded learning experiences have been more meaningful than university preparation
programs. This is not a negative reflection on university leadership programs but a reality of the
evolving roles and needs of the administrators (Murphy, 2001). In addition, it aligns with ideas
of on-the-job development (Duncan et al., 2011). A significant number of administrators (87%)
agreed or strongly agreed that their schools and districts are providing professional learning
opportunities that help them as administrators. Participants may prefer job-embedded learning
over university preparation because many principal duties are learned in the process of gaining
experience. This preference underscores the notion that university programs cannot fully prepare
students for the roles they will play as principals, and on-the-job training is an ongoing
requirement (Duncan et al., 2011).
Theory was listed among the least-used areas taught in university leadership preparation
programs. This finding supports the belief that preparation programs are based too heavily in
theory and, not in practice (Martin & Papa, 2008). However, this finding cannot explain why
participants heavily agreed that university educational leadership programs prepared them both
overall and in school leadership, which is based in theory. For principals to have a
comprehensive understanding of leadership and their work, theory cannot be separated from
practice. This finding may suggest that participants simply are not connecting practice to theory,
which could warrant further consideration by university educational leadership preparation
programs.
Limitations
Limitations of this study included the use of convenience sampling to collect data from
participants, which limits generalizability to the population (Creswell, 2014). The return rate and
sample size were acceptable but limited, considering the number of school administrators across
the country. In addition, the participants were public school administrators currently practicing in
Florida and Georgia only.
Conclusion
University leadership programs play a critical role in the process of preparing leadership
candidates for administrative roles. Meaningful leadership preparation is a process, and
universities are not the sole dispensers of preparation for leader candidates. Foundational
preparation should begin at the university level. However, adequate preparation will require a
14
continuum of aligned professional learning experiences collaboratively delivered through
universities, state boards of education, local school districts, individual leaders in candidate
needs, and community stakeholders. As administrator roles and needs change continually, it is
incumbent upon university leadership preparation faculty to continue exploring realistic and
aligned preparation practices. University educational leadership curriculum should require (1)
strategic alignment to state mandates and university accrediting bodies; (2) alignment with the
needs of local school districts; and (3) alignment with the needs of individual leaders and
community stakeholders. This alignment will require collaboration, research, and a willingness
to periodically revise university leadership preparation programs as the dynamics of the
principals’ role continues to change. University faculty must embrace the idea that the
responsibility of effectively preparing leadership candidates rests on alignment in these areas and
that the preparation process is fluid. Studies on university leadership programs yield inconsistent
results, as reported in this study’s literature review. Accordingly, university leadership programs
cannot be meaningfully examined with general evaluations. Instead, local variables must be
measured when evaluating the needs and effectiveness of university leadership programs.
15
References
Backor, K. T., & Gordon, S. P. (2015). Preparing principals as instructional leaders perceptions
of university faculty, expert principals, and expert teacher leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 99(2),
105-126. doi: 10.1177/0192636515587353
Barber, M., Whelan, F., & Clark, M. (2010). Capturing the leadership premium: How the
world’s top school systems are building leadership capacity for the future. Retrieved from
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/schoolleadership_fmal.pdf
Baxter, V., Thessin, R. A., & Clayton, J. (2014). Communitarian leadership practice acquisition
in educational leadership preparation. International Journal of Educational Leadership
Preparation, 9(2), 10-27.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2004). The dark side of school leadership: Implications for administrator
preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(4), 245-273.
Boyland, L. G., Lehman, L. E., & Sriver, S. K. (2015). How effective are Indiana’s new
principals? Implications for preparation and practice. Journal of Leadership Education,
14(1), 72-91. doi: 1012806(V 14/11)R5
Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2011). Mandated university-district partnerships for principal preparation:
Professors' perspectives on required program redesign. Journal of School Leadership,
21(5), 735-756.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thomson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web or Internet
based surveys. Educational & Psychological Measurements, 60(6), 821-826.
Cowie, M., & Crawford, M. (2007). Principal preparation-still an act of faith? School
Leadership and Management, 27(2), 129-146.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297-334.
Davis, S. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Innovative principal preparation programs: What
works and how we know. Planning and Changing, 43(1/2), 25-45.
Dodson, R. L. (2014). Which field experiences best prepare future school leaders? An analysis of
Kentucky's principal preparation program. Educational Research Quarterly, 37(4), 41.
Duncan, H., Range, B., & Scherz, S. (2011). From professional preparation to on-the-job
development: What do beginning principals need? International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, 6(3), 1-20.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and
principals talk about what's needed to fix public schools. New York, NY: Public Agenda
Foundation.
Gamus, E. (2015). Investigation regarding the pre-service trainings of primary and middle school
principals in the United States: The case of the state of Michigan. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice, (15) 1, 61-72.
Hale, E. L., & Moorman, H. N. (2003). Preparing school principals: a national perspective on
policy and program innovations. Institute for Educational Leadership.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School Context, Principal Leadership, and
Student Reading Achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-549.
16
Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. (2013). Preparing principals: What can we learn from MBA and MPA
programs? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 435-452.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS(R) system for factor analysis and
structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Hess, F., & Kelly, A. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation
programs. The Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-274.
Isik, H. (2003). From policy into practice: The effects of principal preparation programs on
principal behavior. International Journal of Educational Reform, 12(4), 260-274.
Kearney, W. S., & Valadez, A. (2015). Ready from day one: An examination of one principal
preparation program’s redesign in collaboration with local school districts. Educational
Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 26, 27-38.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational
Improvement. Retrieved from http://conservancy.umn.edU/handle/l 1299/2035
Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership
influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706.
Levine, A., & Education, S. P. (2005). Educating school leaders. Education Schools Project.
Lynch, J. M. (2012). Responsibilities of today's principal: Implications for principal preparation
programs and principal certification policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(2),
40-47.
Manasse, A. L. (1985). Improving conditions for principal effectiveness: Policy implications of
research. The Elementary School Journal, 55(3), 439-463.
Martin, G. E., & Papa, R. (2008). Examining the principal preparation and practice gap.
Principal, 55(1), 12.
Murphy, J. (2001). The changing face of leadership preparation. School Administrator, 55(10),
14-17.
Mortimore, P., & Sammons, P. (1987). New evidence on effective elementary schools.
Educational Leadership, 1(45), 4-8.
Odden, A., & Odden, E. R. (1995). Educational leadership for America's schools. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Orphanos, S., & Orr, M. T. (2014). Learning leadership matters the influence of innovative
school leadership preparation on teachers’ experiences and outcomes.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(5), 680-700.
Orr, M. T. (2006). Mapping innovation in leadership preparation in our nation's schools of
education: The increased emphasis on the role of educational leaders in the success of
schools has led many schools of education to examine their leadership preparation
programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 57(7), 492-499.
Pina, R., Cabral, I., & Alves, J. M. (2015). Principal's leadership on students’ outcomes.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 949-954.
Roberts, B. (2008). School leadership Preparation: a national view. Delta Kappa Gamma
Bulletin, 75(2), 5-19.
Superville, D. R. (2014). Major revisions underway for school leaders' standards. Education
Week.
Valentine, J. & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership and
student achievement: high school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5—
30. doi:10.1177/0192636511404062
17
Waters, J.T., Marzano, R. J., McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. A working paper.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481972
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning.
Educational Leadership, 7(61), 48-51.
