Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | A | Academic Exchange Quarterly

Action research in school leadership programs.

Article Excerpt
Abstract

Educational leadership programs are being challenged for not adequately preparing school leaders. Programs are too theoretical and totally unrelated to the daily demands on contemporary principals. The coursework is poorly sequenced and organized, making it impossible to scaffold the learning. The author argues that incorporating action research in pre-service school leadership programs is one way of narrowing the gap between theory while involving students in solving real workplace-based problems.

Introduction

In 1987, the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) and the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration conducted a study on the training of educational leaders. They issued a report that identified several problems areas, including:

a) lack of a clear definition for good educational leadership;

b) inadequate preparation programs, including irrelevant curricula, mediocre course sequence, poor content and clinical experience;

c) poor quality of applicants to these programs;

d) absence of collaboration between school districts and higher education institutions;

e) scarcity of minority and female education leaders;

f) lack of systematic professional development;

g) need for licensure that promotes excellence; and

h) absence of a national sense of cooperation in preparing school leaders.

Although the report failed to prompt major action at the time, in 1996, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) developed a set of standards for school leaders (Hale & Moorman, 2003). Nearly ten years after the standards were clarified, college and university educational leadership programs still experience intense scrutiny because of the apparent continuing deterioration in public education which creates demands for accountability for students' improvement. Meanwhile, the job of school leaders has changed dramatically during this time period. Principals are being required to multitask as never before. They must:

* serve as instructional leaders;

* know academic content and pedagogical techniques;

* work with teachers to strengthen their skills;

* integrate management, supervisory, financial and public relations issues with the priority of quality teaching and learning; and

* collect, analyze and interpret data to make high quality decisions.

However, professional development and formal preparation programs for educational leaders in higher education institutions are not preparing school leaders to perform these multiple roles adequately. Principals across the nation agree that school administrator training programs deserve an "F." They allege that the major flaws are:

* programs are too theoretical and totally unrelated to the daily demands on contemporary principals;

* coursework is poorly sequenced and organized, making it impossible to scaffold the learning.

Therefore, clinical experience is inadequate, and students do not have mentored opportunities to develop practical understanding or real-world competence (Hale & Moorman, 2003). This paper focuses on the issue of linking educational theory to practice. In my experience, action research (AR) is a highly effective way of connecting theory and practice. AR enables school leaders to:

* learn critical reflection, which enables any practitioner (as well as any researcher) to be both critical and creative;

* deepen both theory and practice by linking...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!