Better Preparation of Educational Leaders

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the effectiveness of principals who have undergone administrative training compared to those who have not. The article begins with a discussion of the status of principalship in various contexts. It then reviews the potential impact of the new policy on principal training in Turkey and the literature regarding the effects of principal training programs. The methodology, results, limitations, and the conclusions are presented. The principal is a crucial factor in a school regarding both evidence and experience (Gunraj & Rutherford, 1999). The current status of educational administration both as an academic field and as a profession in practice differs from one country to another. The reasons for the differences may be many, but mainly they can be attributed to cultural, political, and socioeconomic differences. For example, Turkey has a very centralized educational system, whereas it is decentralized at the systemic level in the United States and Britain. When compared to the United States and Britain, educational administration as a profession is not well enough recognized, organized, or structured (Daresh & Male, 2000) to create as well as sustain the development of effective schools in Turkey. There are differences among these countries on the current status of educational administration both as an academic field and a profession in practice. For example, selection criteria, appointment, employment procedures, and the responsibilities of principals are considerably different in these countries. In the United States, "university-based programs are designed to prepare administrators for a variety of positions. At the school level, these include department heads, assistant principals, and principals" (Alkin, 1992, p. 22). Educational administration programs overall have several common weaknesses. They are (Murphy, 1992a) recruitment and selection methods, models used to guide learning from their experiences, and the contents of training programs. Therefore, in the United States, "reform reports continue to emphasize the recruitment, selection, training, development, and renewal of highquality school administrators" (Srotnik & Durden, 1996, p. 539).

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Policy into Practice: The Effects of Principal Preparation Programs on Principal Behavior

Işik

2003

“…Among the key instructional strengths of cohorts are fostering curricular coherence, active engagement, and motivation (Barnett et al, 2000;Burnett, 1989;Hill, 1995;Leithwood, 1995;Murphy, 1993;Norton, 1995). Social benefits also result from cohort participation, in which students gain a sense of affiliation, trust, and respect for their classmates' expertise (Clark & Clark, 1996;Greenlee & Karanxha, 2010;Zander, 1982) and develop a professional network (Teitel, 1997). Related to the acquisition of skills for leading educational organizations, cohorts have been found to support the development of professional learning communities (Goldring & Schuermann, 2009;Teitel, 1997).…”

Section: Use Of Cohort Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholarship aimed at describing and comparing these two degrees has historically been placed on program features exclusive of program focus and delivery. Recent reviews of innovative programs, as well as arguments for improved practice, have explored elements such as program outcomes (Jackson & Kelley, 2002;Levine, 2005;Murphy et al, 2008), the knowledge base related to practice (Clark & Clark, 1996;Jackson & Kelley, 2002), leadership skills (Clark & Clark, 1996), teaching and learning strategies (Brown, 2006;Clark & Clark, 1996;Jackson & Kelley, 2002), and curriculum relevance and alignment (Levine, 2005;Murphy et al, 2008;Murphy & Vriesenga, 2006). Therefore, the limited literature on program focus and delivery potentially provides little guidance for EdD and PhD programs, because a quality program should ensure a seamless alignment between program focus and content and a program delivery structure well-suited for the content.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Focus and Delivery of Doctoral Programs in Educational Leadership

Topolka-Jorissen

2015

The purpose of this study was to present the current status of program focus and delivery of doctoral level educational leadership programs in the United States. Drawing on a 2011 national survey of educational leadership doctoral programs in 103 institutions, this study describes the differences and similarities of Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs in two domains-program focus (i.e., purposes, credit requirements, and curriculum emphases) and program delivery (i.e., use of cohort model, time, location, and online/face-to-face/hybrid). In light of mixed findings, implications for practice and recommendations for further research are presented.

“…However, if some forms of educational settings do continue to exist in the future, what role will their CEOs-school principals or similar-have? In their descriptions of training programs for future principals, Clark and Clark (1996) portray a person with the characteristics of Leithwood's (1992Leithwood's ( , 1994 "transformational leader." The role of Clark and Clark's Changing Schools in Changing Times school principal includes: defining educational goals; formulating an organizational vision; cultivating the surrounding community; establishing communication channels and joint decision making with subordinates; strengthening personal and organizational development; and developing learning communities.…”

Section: Scenario Ii-home Schoolingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing Schools in Changing Times: Implications for Educational Leadership

Bogler

2002

When discussing the direction our lives will take in the new "world of information" and speculating about the consequences of people interacting through the electronic transmission of texts, photos, sound, and video, Dertouzos (1997) admits that "at this stage, we have no clue which way the pendulum will swing" (p. 281). Will electronic interaction increase the degree of intimacy among community members, or will it result in greater indifference? Will our society move toward a new educational system completely unlike the current one, or will it maintain the familiar framework with only minor changes? Educational leadership has drawn increasing attention. Kearsley and Lynch (1992) refer primarily to leadership in educational technology, which they perceive to be different from educational leadership in general. The major emphasis in leadership in educational technology is on different ways technology can be managed in schools, especially by teachers and school administrators. Leithwood (1994) argues for the promise of transformational leadership in the context of school restructuring, while Clark and Clark (1996) call for "better preparation of leaders" in all possible educational settings in order to prepare learners to cope with current and future dilemmas facing society. Based on different scenarios within educational settings, this article attempts to describe some of the possible characteristics of educational leadership in the 21st century. I will begin by outlining the characteristics of educational systems, then describe potential leadership figures in these institutions, and end with some thoughts about whence the future may lead us. Characteristics of Future Schools Educational systems of the 21st century, much like those of the 1990s, are expected to operate as dynamic organizations for which change is fundamental to survival and success (Goldring, 1996). Such institutions initiate change in order to improve their function and to match pace with the rapidly changing environment, unlike schools that react to change or even continue to function as if no change were taking place. Change has become a pervasive and in-216