Deregulation and the New Leader Agenda: Outcomes and Lessons from Michigan

Abstract

Purpose: This research examined whether the removal of certification and other requirements led to larger or more diverse applicant pools for superintendent positions in Michigan. Michigan has not had any degree or certification requirements for educational administrators for many years and provided an empirical test of whether deregulation draws new talent into the field. Research Design, Methods: The research was designed as a state-level case study employing quantitative and qualitative methods to develop descriptive findings and analytic interpretations. Data Collection and Analysis: Data on superintendent search processes and applicant pools between 1996 and 2005 were collected. Sources of data included superintendent search files and semistructured interviews with search consultants, private sector recruiters, out-of-field superintendent candidates, professional association leaders, and other actors. Findings: Removing certification and other requirements did not attract new talent into the field, did not stimulate new search systems, and did not generate interest among schools boards, their constituents, or other external agents. Over the 9-year period studied, superintendent applicant pools in Michigan underwent the same troubling trends in applicant pools and turnover as the nation overall. Implications: No cavalry of talented executives lurks behind a wall of certification waiting to spread its talents to the nation's districts. Absent significant changes to a web of social, economic, and institutional factors, the likelihood that deregulation policies will affect educational leadership and school organizations is very low.

Considerations of Administrative Licensure, Provider Type, and Leadership Quality

“…By 2008, 43 states required the ISLLC standards or a modified version in their administrative licensure standards and leadership preparation curricula (CCSSO, 2008). Initially developed in 1996, the ISLLC standards were revised in 2008(NPBEA, 2015 and are now called the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. The standards have been referenced when defining building-and district-level leadership functions by the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE; NPBEA, 2011a, 2011b), used by leadership preparation providers to attain state and national accreditation of their principal and superintendent programs.…”

“…Some states provide avenues for non-educators to obtain administrative licensure, either by permitting them to enroll in alternative programs (such as the Broad Superintendents Academy) or by not requiring any administrative training. Smith (2008) reported that most candidates in alternative programs are educators. Recent data on the superintendency found that 95% of the nation's practicing school superintendents in 2010 reported holding a valid superintendent license, while 86% of urban superintendents (student enrollments of 25,000 or more) possessed this credential (Kowalski, McCord, Petersen, Young, & Ellerson, 2011).…”

Reflections on the evolution of educational leadership preparation programs in the United States and challenges ahead

“…More recently, Leadership for Educational Equity has started preparing Teach for America alumni for leadership roles (Sawchuk, 2014). The few studies that have analyzed school districts' hiring practices suggest that school boards still want to hire leaders with graduate degrees (Smith, 2008), but they are more concerned about candidates' skill sets than how administrative credentials were acquired (Brown et al, 2011).…”

Examining the Career Pathways of Educators With Superintendent Certification

“…Little is known about the early stages of career pathways into educational administration (Davis, Gooden, & Bowers, 2017), and what is known is almost exclusive to campus-level leaders. Among the studies that investigate the career experiences of district-level leaders (e.g., Petersen, Fusarelli, & Kowalski, 2008; Roberts, Hanna, & Womack, 2012; Smith, 2008), most focus on the novice superintendent, investigating their experiences after obtaining the position. Much like the research on building-level leadership career pathways (Davis et al, 2017), those that focus on latter portions of superintendent careers, tend to focus on turnover and its causes (e.g., Alsbury, 2003, 2008; Grissom & Andersen, 2012; Grissom & Mitani, 2016; Natkin, Cooper, Alborano, Padilla, & Ghosh, 2003).…”

“…This is a critical issue as preparation programs and employing districts share responsibility in the training of district chief executives. Indeed, for states in which no certification has been required (Smith, 2008), questions about training, experience, and turnover are heightened even more. Nevertheless, as noted by Orr (2006):The 2-year learning curve that some superintendents described experiencing suggests that existing preparatory experiences generally are insufficient.…”