Creating+a+New+System+for+Principal+Preparation

Eric Albright
 * Creating a New System for Principal Preparation: Reflections on Efforts to Transcend Tradition and Create New Cultures **

Auburn University set out to radically change the way they prepare educators for leadership roles in schools. They wanted to make a distinction from merely certifying principal candidates to actually preparing them for the job of leading school buildings. The entire process from admission of candidates to coursework, through the exit process was examined and ultimately modified to reflect six design principles for transforming educational leadership preparation programs. J. Murphy identifies: values-based admissions, zero-based curriculum development, practice-based learning experiences, community-grounded culture, and outcome-based accountability.

I disagree with one of Murphy’s tenet of values-based admissions to improve education leadership preparation programs. I certainly take no issue with admitting only qualified candidates for educational leadership programs. I actually agree with Auburn’s rejection of traditional Graduate School admission requirements of Grade Point Averages or GRE scores. Where I find fault with their admission policy is they really require the potential candidate to have exhibited a wealth of education leadership experience. They make little room for a young educator who may be curious of the path to a leadership role. The admissions process rejects the notion that a teacher may have aspirations for leadership but may not have had the opportunity to lead within the confines of their current assignment, building, or under their current leadership team. The notion of admitting candidates from within the partner school districts is a fantastic idea. Once this program gains state or region-wide notoriety, will they accept additional candidates from outside of their cohort?

I like the idea of a graduate level curriculum that has a designed scope and sequence rather than a haphazardly assembled list of courses meant for completion and certification only. We design elementary and secondary curricula with a plan in mind, why not one with the intent of preparing an individual to lead a school building? I certainly can remember my own graduate degree program’s design (or lack thereof). There were times I wished my own sequence were based on a set of skills meant to build toward a culmination rather than a convenient fall semester calendar. A prescribed sequence of courses certainly makes it more difficult for the full-time teacher to complete the coursework in a timely manner. I would hope that the university’s offerings consider those students’ needs.

This approach by Auburn University has the theme of risk-taking at its core. When the state of Alabama opened the door for colleges and universities to pilot new methods for preparing educational leaders, Auburn did not have to make any changes to its already successful program. All of the stake-holders; employers, students, and faculty were pleased with the job Auburn was doing sending principals out into the world. In fact, they suspended admissions for two years. There had to be not only academic risk, but financial as well? The Educational Leadership staff found dissatisfaction in simply certifying principals. Auburn felt they could do better by preparing them.

Dr. Skilling reiterated the theme of “failure is not fatal” on a number of occasions. The willingness to follow big ideas sometimes leads to a roadblock. This should not dissuade educational leaders from taking risk. Never be satisfied with the status quo. Be on the cutting edge. Sir Ken Robinson advised us “Don’t ride yesterday’s horse.” Adaptation and change are musts in our field if we wish to do the best at preparing young people for the 21st Century.

Application in my own educational leadership role will find itself following the metaphor that Sir Ken Robinson described as Climate Control Leadership. Just as organic matter requires the proper climate to thrive so do educators. I have to provide a climate in my building that rewards measured risk taking and reflective action when ideas fail. This is a central piece from Auburn’s transition. The authors frame each design principle’s discussion into “where we were, where we are, where we are going.” This infers: 1. Change is a process, not a one-time fix. 2. Self-reflection and monitoring is crucial. Are we on the right path? Do we need to change direction – perhaps even turn around?