UCEA Review • Winter 2001 • 1www.ucea.org

A Love of Learning, A Passion for Precision, A Life of Leadership:Don Willower’s Four Decades of Scholarship and Service

Wayne K. HoyThe Ohio State University

Winter 2001Volume XLII

Number 1Review Donald J. Willower’s record as a scholar in Educational Admin-istration will serve as a criterion for generations of professors—hiswork was a rare combination of philosophy, theory, and empiricalresearch. He was a prolific writer, reflective thinker, extraordinarymentor, helpful colleague, and a genuine friend. His example wasas edifying to those around him as was the lasting influence of thatexample. He was a professor’s professor. Although Willower’s interests, scholarship, and writing are di-verse, his work exemplifies a number of programmatic themes, twoof which I know well and will discuss briefly—his leadership inthe theory movement in educational administration and his researchon pupil control—then I will comment on his scholarship and writ-ing, his teaching and mentoring, his professional progeny, and fi-nally, end with a personal statement of tribute.

The Theory Movement Don Willower was a pioneer in the theory movement in educa-tional administration. His dissertation was a model for using a so-cial systems perspective to generate and test theoretically groundedhypotheses about schools and administrators (Willower, 1960; 1962;1963). I still use his article on hypothesis construction (Willower,1962) to illustrate the development of sound hypotheses groundedin theory. Willower, however, was the first to warn that physicist Feigl’s(1951) definition of theory, as a set of assumptions from which alarger set of empirical laws can be derived by purelylogicomathematical procedures, was too narrow a definition foreducational administration. Although Halpin (1958) and Griffiths(1959) embraced the physicist’s definition as appropriate for edu-cational administration, Willower (1975) argued that Feigl’s defi-nition was so rigorous that it excluded most, if not all, theory ineducational administration. Willower (1975: 78) offered a moreparsimonious definition of theory as “a body of interrelated, con-sistent generalizations that serves to explain.” Willower anticipated problems with the movement; he was aheadof his time. Perhaps one of the reasons that the theory movement ineducational administration declined as quickly and as completelyas it did was that its exaggerated expectations of theory gave wayto harsh realities of life. Educational administration is not physics,nor is it governed by a set of empirical laws. The social scienceswill never be as consistent and accurate in prediction as the naturalsciences; social life is too complex and changing. Yet, educational

administration has the potential to become more systematic andinformed by theory and research. That was Willower’s message:let administrative practice be guided by logic and evidence. My first encounter with Don Willower was in 1960, he had beenat Penn State for only a year and I was a beginning master’s stu-dent in educational administration. Just by chance, I was assignedhis advisee—thereafter, I have never underestimated the power ofluck. My first and last courses at Penn State were from DonWillower. He taught me many things both in and out of the class-room. I cannot recount all that I learned, but a few examples shouldsuffice.

Scholarship and Research Don Willower was a scholar par excellence. He lived the life of ascholar—reading, thinking, and writing. He was a prolific writer,producing nearly 200 articles in his four decades as a professor ofeducational administration. My introduction to Don as a scholar,theoretician, and writer came early in my career as I struggled andsearched for a topic to pursue for my doctoral research. His advicewas to read, but to read with purpose. At the time he was doing a case study of a junior high school incentral Pennsylvania (Willower & Jones, 1965). Yes, he was doingethnographic studies long before they became fashionable. Heshared the major finding of the study with me. Pupil control wasthe dominant motif and integrative theme that gave meaning tomuch of what was happening in the school. The saliency of pupilcontrol was vividly demonstrated with a host of examples:

• widespread suspicion of teachers that the guidance counse-lors were undermining their authority,• fear that the new principal would be weak on discipline,• continuous, and often emotional, discussion about studentdiscipline by teachers in the faculty lounge,• cafeteria and assembly halls served as “proving grounds” fornew teachers to show they could “handle” difficult students,and• a single roll of toilet paper padlocked and chained to the wallin the boys’ lavatory symbolized coercive control that pervadedthe school.

Ever the theorist, Willower asked for an explanation. He askedand fellow graduate student Terry Eidell and I read. Why was pupilcontrol so important? How should we conceptualize pupil control?Those were two of the questions that framed our readings and sub-

University Council for Educational Administration

2 • UCEA Review • Winter 2001 www.ucea.org

sequent discussions. They were theoreticalquestions, so we read theoretical literature. Carlson’s (1964) theoretical analysis ofservice organizations was especially usefulat explaining why control was so salient inschools. Schools, like prisons and publicmental hospitals, are service organizationswhere clients have no say in their participa-tion--they must participate; and the organi-zation has no choice in selecting clients--theymust take all clients. It is not surprising thatin service organizations with mandatory par-ticipation and unselected clients, some par-ticipants may not want to take advantage ofthe services rendered; therefore, control is aproblem. Indeed, control is a central featureof life in public mental hospitals and pris-ons, as well as schools. To be sure, there aredramatic differences among these organiza-tions, but mandatory participation andunselected clients inevitably make controlcentral in such organizations. We were also confronted with the ques-tion of conceptualizing pupil control. Weconsidered Etzioni’s (1962) notion of coer-cive and normative control; Lewin, Lippitt,and Whites’ (1939) authoritarian and demo-cratic control; and Rotter’s (1954) notion ofinternal and external locus of control amongothers. Eventually we were drawn to thework of Gilbert and Levinson (1957) in theirstudy of patients in public mental hospitals(service organizations with unselected cli-

ents and mandatory participation); they con-ceptualized client control along a continuumof custodial to humanistic and so did we.Thus began the Penn State Studies on pupilcontrol. We developed and tested hypotheseslooking at the social as well as psychologi-cal influences on pupil control. Willower’swork and book on The School and PupilControl (Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967)initiated a research agenda that has spawnedmore than 200 studies in the ensuing yearsand has been hailed as one of the most sig-nificant lines of research in educational ad-ministration (1973). I learned early that goodtheory was the basis for good research.

Scholarship and Writing To be a successful professor is to write andpublish useful work. Those who studied withor knew Don Willower got that messagequickly. He led by example. There was nevera time in my 40-year association with Donthat he was not writing something. If it wasworth doing, it was worth writing. He had awriting schedule. The last time I talked tohim he had blocked out Tuesdays and Thurs-day as his writing days. Of course, one doesnot write in a vacuum, and when I say hewrote two days a week, I mean that thosewere his times to read, reflect, and writeunfettered by the other routines of the pro-fessorship. He always made time for hisscholarship and its publication. Early Willower or late Willower, he had adisciplined approach to his writing. His mes-sage to me was not to do it his way, but ratherto make sure that I paid attention to the im-portant function of publishing my work inthe market place of ideas. We all have ourown patterns of work, but his disciplinedapproach to scholarship and writing made alasting and positive impression on me. To Willower, however, writing and publi-cation of scholarship were not merely instru-mental means to success but rather impor-tant ends-in-itself. Writing and publicationwere embodied in his view of science as self-critical and self-correcting. The norms of sci-ence include skeptical open-mindedness, im-personal criteria of assessment, and publiccommunication of results, which, he argued,provided an antidote for individual, politi-cal, and cultural biases that are so commonin human affairs (Willower, 1994). It is nowonder he railed against those in educationaladministration who attacked science as aninappropriate road to knowledge. He recog-nized that science, especially social science,was not without its limitations. Yet, he be-

lieved and demonstrated in his own scholar-ship, writing, and behavior that a scientificapproach provided a guide to thoughtful ac-tion; indeed, he argued that it was “startlinglysuperior to such alternatives as authority,faith, intuition or tradition. Put simply, it’sthe best we have in an imperfect world”(Willower, 1994, p. 470).

Teaching and Mentoring Don Willower was a gentle and caringteacher. He taught, as he did most things, byexample. Expectations were high, but henever asked of his students anything that hewas not willing to do twofold over. The fo-cus of his teaching was on logic and evi-dence, the hallmarks of Willower the scholarand teacher. He expected thoughtful argu-ments buttressed by evidence, an expecta-tion that intimidated some but challengedothers. Although he did not suffer foolslightly, he was always willing to go the ex-tra mile with all his students. His care for his students was legend atPenn State. If you were lucky, as I was, tohave Don as advisor, you could be sure youwould get his attention and help. Turn in achapter or two of your dissertation and youcould be certain that he would read it, makecomments, get it back to you, and discuss itwith you within the week. He cared--studentswere important. Indeed the last week of hislife he was busy reading and commentingon student dissertations. He treated his students as junior col-leagues. The culmination of their disserta-tions led to at least one joint publication, withWillower teaching us what was involved insuccessfully writing and publishing the re-sults of our work. Another lesson that Ilearned early and follow to this day is to takethe lead, as he did, in encouraging studentsto publish their work, and I am, as he was, awilling collaborator in that process. His con-cern for students, teaching, and learning is agift he left to many of us.

Progeny Donald Willower’s legacy to the field ofeducational administration is a rich one, notonly through his own intellectual ideas butalso in terms of the contributions of his stu-dents. Don saw his students as family andtheir students as part of an extended family.He liked to talk about his professional sonsand daughters, grandsons and granddaugh-ters, and great-grandchildren. If one were tomap the Willower lineage, a formidable task,

Hoy continued on page 15...

In This Issue . . .

Feature Article...................................1Presidential Address..........................3From the Director..............................6Interview with PresidentGonzález...................................................8Point - Counterpoint........................10NASSP Bulletin Information .......15NCATE Update...............................16Exceptional University Programs....17UCEA Convention 2001..................18UCEA Seeks Award Nominations....18New President-Elect........................18Convention 2000 Highlights.............19UCEA Awards Presented.................20Call for Proposals.........................22Proposal Cover Sheet...................23

❖ ❖ ❖

UCEA Review • Winter 2001 • 3www.ucea.org

Our field and our profession are cur-rently receiving an extraordinary levelof attention. We witnessed an elec-tion in which education — its flaws,its future, and its funding — captured at least the rhetoric of bothmajor political parties. All of us are aware of the renewed noticethat foundations, states, and other interested parties are paying toeducation. There is a consensus that one of the roads toward im-provement of American education is through educational leader-ship. And most of us would agree that the challenges facing Ameri-can education in this new century have never been greater. At thismoment it is imperative that we as educators, and UCEA as anorganization, articulate our vision for what that new century forAmerican schools should look like, and in particular, what our vi-sion for the preparation of leaders and scholars in our field shouldbe. It is tempting as one prepares to address some of these pressingissues to search for some inspirational theme, vision, or title thatwould capture some of those exciting possibilities. But as I searchedamong all the clichés and hortatory rhetoric that we encounter on aregular basis, almost everything I found seemed wanting in somerespect, at least until I encountered (through almost complete ser-endipity) a poem by the Nobel prize-winning Irishman, SeamusHeaney. In its lines will be found the explanation for my title—”The Heartland of the Ordinary: The Landscape of EducationalAdministration in the 21st Century.” In the opening of his 1991 volume Seeing Things, Heaney imag-ines a ghostly encounter with the deceased poet Philip Larkin. Asthe poem begins, Larkin speaks, describing his own metaphysicaljourney in the world beyond. The ghost quotes a passage fromDante, saying:

‘Daylight was going and the umber airSoothing every creature on the earth,Freeing them from their labours everywhere.I alone was girding myself to faceThe ordeal of my journey and my duty’.....

But then Heaney surprises us. The journey for which Larkingirds himself—the ordeal of his duty—is not at all what we mightimagine. The shade continues his description:

And not a thing had changed, as rush-hour buses

Bore the drained and laden through the city.I might have been a wise king setting outUnder the Christmas lights—except that

It felt more like the forewarned journey backInto the heartland of the ordinary.

The “Heartland of the Ordinary”:The Landscape of EducationalAdministration in the 21st CenturyMary Erina DriscollNew York UniversityUCEA President 1999-2000

Address to the Annual Meetingof the UCEA PlenumNovember 3, 2000, Albuquerque, NM

Still my old self. Ready to knock one back.

A nine-to-five man who had seen poetry.’

(Seamus Heaney,”Seeing Things”)

A journey back into the heartland of the ordinary. Rather thanconjuring together an image that connotes a voyage to an unseenand unknowable land, let us imagine that our endeavors in re-imag-ining schools and our roles in them are more like this: a journeyback into the heartland of the ordinary. Like Heaney’s ghostly poet,we are ready to embark on new adventures—modern day Magi,out to discover a new and barely yet imagined world of educationalpossibilities and challenges. But we, too, are caught aback by thefamiliarity of this “new” terrain. Part of Heaney’s genius is help-ing us see that understanding the heartland of the ordinary is thedaunting work of a lifetime, deceptively simple at first glance, butultimately redemptive when our persistent gaze and reflection fi-nally illuminates the reality before us. Through the ordinary thingsand experiences of life we begin to understand true complexity.And, paradoxically, only by encountering the ordinary can we everglimpse that other world of possibilities that lies just beyond ourvision. Before I explore some of the possibilities of this image with you,I want to invoke another meaning of the word ordinary, one thatresonates with a certain liturgical sensibility but is not relegated toany one denomination or tradition. In the Roman Catholic ritual ofthe Mass, the liturgical text is divided into two parts. The Properof the Mass is that part that changes with the Feasts and Seasons.The Ordinary of the Mass is that part that remains fixed, i.e., doesnot vary in form from day to day. In this sense ordinary is not themundane, but rather the constant that we know. It does not change,in other words, because it reflects an enduring truth or set of be-liefs, which in this case is always embodied in the ritual. To journey towards the heartland of the ordinary, then, is to em-brace the enduring issues of our field and to wrestle with themanew. In imagining new schools, new purposes, and new possibili-ties for all children, we must not fail to encounter anew those truths,which have remained problematic for us precisely because theyare so difficult. To name them mundane, uninteresting, or trivial isdangerous; to recognize them for what they are, and to probe theirmany layers, past familiarity into new insight and understanding,requires some courage. And so I want to journey towards some hard truths and thornyissues that we must return to if we are truly “to build a newerworld.” I offer then some highly selective observations about theordinary truths of our field: first, about children and schools;second, about the profession of educational administration; andfinally, about our own organization, the University Council forEducational Administration. It is important to consider each of these issues given the manyroles we all play here today. As scholars, we identify the questionsthat shape our own inquiry and guide the studies of the doctoralpractitioners with whom we collaborate. As professors, we workwith professionals who prepare for new leadership roles, and withthem we engage the critical problems of practice that shape educa-tion. Finally, as members of the Plenum, we are stewards of UCEA,

4 • UCEA Review • Winter 2001 www.ucea.org

an organization that summons our corporate strength to addressthese issues anew. I do not presume to suggest that I have answers to the questions Iam about to raise. But if I succeed in complicating the ordinaryfacts I am about to present, then my work is done here—becausetogether we can navigate the next steps.

American Education One of the most ordinary truths about American education is thefact that most children go to school. According to the NationalCenter for Educational Statistics, at the present time about 95% ofthe school age population ages 14-17 are registered in school dur-ing that time of their life. What should we make of this most ordi-nary of facts? At first, we may rightly ask what happens to the 5% of Americanchildren who are not in school, and appropriately focus our atten-tion on the recurring issues of those who drop out of school. Prob-ing these issues further, we would probably find that these drop-outs are not evenly distributed, and that social class, race, and fam-ily circumstance both independently and interactively help to pre-dict the likelihood that a given child will not continue to attendschool during that time in their life. That realization is a criticalguidepost for any renewal of schools for all children that we mightimagine. Another cut at this “simple” fact comes from an historical per-spective. Again—according to NCES—the percentage of peoplein this age group attending schools (i.e., not necessarily graduat-ing) in 1900 was 10% of the population. Forty years ago, at theheight of post-Sputnik fervor, the figure was still only 86%. Whatdoes that tell us? Certainly, our contemporary rhetoric about ‘failing’ schools—and any comparisons about the halcyon days of education mid-century—miss the fact that our supposed lag coincides with ourattempt to educate the most inclusive population we have everknown in American schools. Schools must now be designed tomeet the reality that gender, religion, race, ethnicity, disability,English language competency, or almost any other reason we canimagine does not preclude one’s right to receive a thorough andefficient education. It is not enough to counter assertions thatschools once worked with the next question: Worked for whom?This ordinary realization also impels us to recognize that formsof education designed for the last century (which themselveswere intended to address the ‘ordinary’ facts of relatively elitepublic education at that time) are not likely to work given the‘ordinary’ facts of our present century. There is a third realization that must be coupled with this ‘ordi-nary’ fact of universal attendance. A significant number of the chil-dren our schools educate are poor, more than ever before. Accord-ing to the National Center for Children in Poverty, the number ofchildren in poverty in the US increased from 10.3 million in 1979to 13.3 million in 1998. Using the 1998 official poverty thresholdof $16,600 income for a family of four, the National Center forChildren in Poverty reports that the US poverty rate is currently18.7 percent. While that rate is down from its all time high of 22.5percent in 1993, NCCP also tells us that the progress “continues tolag well behind the decreases in the unemployment rate and thenational welfare caseload.” Moreover, they continue, “there is alsowide variation among the states in their current child poverty ratesand trends in those rates over the past two decades.” In other words,

only 12 out of 50 states looked better than the national average, 32were at or near that national rate, and 7 were considerably worse,with upwards of a quarter of all families living in poverty in thosestates. In the District of Columbia, over 45% of families are livingbelow the poverty line. What are we to make of this? For one thing, I am not arguing thatschools cause poverty, or that as institutions we have the resourcesto address the root causes by ourselves. As leaders and preparersof leaders, we are misguided if we allow ourselves or our studentsto neglect the larger causes of this problem that affects children’slife chances. But we are also mistaken if we think that high expec-tations alone can confront the pernicious effects of persistent mal-nutrition, high mobility, and stress that accompanies the life of poorkids. I want to add a final “ordinary” fact. The schools, which weprepare our students to lead, have never been in worse physicalshape. First apparent in cities where buildings are routinely morethan 60 years old, the problem is now evident in the “baby boom”schools of more recent decades. Few problems are more difficultfrom a policy perspective, where we seem unable to marshal theenormous resources needed to rebuild our physical capital. So now we have an ‘ordinary’ landscape of enormous signifi-cance for our profession. More children than ever before are at-tending schools that were organizationally designed for another timeand which are often crumbling physically. More of those childrenthan ever come to school without their basic needs met. Thosefacts must be front and center in any reform or leadership prepara-tion or program of inquiry we design. As inquirers, understandingthe ways in which our educational institutions contend with theseissues is critical. As leaders, we must balance a search for solu-tions and commitment to improvement with an informed advocacyrooted in this ordinary knowledge, an advocacy that continues toalert the broader spectrum of American society with those ordinaryyet pernicious facts that we know to be significant in children’slives.

The Profession of Educational Leadership I want to turn now to another, very simple (yet I would argue)still stunning fact about the profession of educational leadership inthe K-12 sector to which we all bear some commitment. Accord-ing to NCES, the gender distribution of the teaching force is stilloverwhelmingly female. About 75% of the teaching force is com-prised of women (a number that has risen from the level of 68%over the past four decades). But only about a third of all principalsare female. In the superintendency, the figures are even starker. Arecent survey of superintendents in New York, for example, showedthat only 12% of the superintendents were female. The racial composition of the educational leadership force is alsorelatively homogeneous. In that same NYS survey, 97% of thesuperintendents were white (recall this is a state with several largeurban population centers). Using NCES figures once again, only13% of the nation’s principals are people of color. These numbers surprise few of us, although we might have imag-ined that the balance of women in administration might have shiftedmore by the year 2000. But here is another “ordinary” fact: ourpreparation programs are—and have been—majority female inmany geographic areas. A recent report by the Harvard PrincipalsCenter states that 47% of the nation’s teaching force hold master’sdegrees, many of which are in administration. Moreover, our prepa-

UCEA Review • Winter 2001 • 5www.ucea.org

ration programs also include more people of color than ever be-fore, although there is also wide variation on this dimension. These two facts—preparation of more individuals who are fe-male and/or of color to take on positions in a profession that by allstatistics is overwhelmingly white and male—must be coupled withrecent rhetoric about a lack of “qualified” candidates. When weput these ordinary facts together, it requires us to take a hard lookat the intersection of our preparation programs and the realities ofhiring and career advancement in our field. Are our candidateswho look different perceived as “qualified”? If not, why not? Dothey bring experiences that challenge dominant conceptions of lead-ership? As retirements loom, what are the critical ordinary facts tohave in our vision as we inquire about the problem and collaboratewith practitioners to design solutions to address it? By now I hope to have achieved the goal of illustrating that prob-ing the heartland of the ordinary is serious business that will keepus occupied as scholars, leaders and teachers.

UCEA Finally, I want to turn to some ‘ordinary’ facts about UCEA. Over 40 years ago, UCEA was founded as an organization byindividuals situated as doctoral faculty in research universities.They were even then, a subset of the profession, committed, notonly to improved preparation, but also to advancement of the fieldthrough the creation of knowledge. Inquiry has always been at theheart of most UCEA institutions, and today all of our universitiesprofess scholarship as one of their key values. We understand,however, that knowledge is created in many ways. Ours is a schol-arship that connects theory with practice, which looks to practicefor new theory, which creates knowledge not for its own sake butas a means of insight used ultimately for the betterment of schools. But UCEA, like any organization, has also been a living organ-ism that has evolved over time. In the late 80’s, the ongoing con-versation about the relationships between preparation and the criti-cal need for our institutions to both challenge and collaborate withthe broader field took on an especially significant form in the Na-tional Commission’s report and the formation of the National PolicyBoard in Educational Administration. And it was at that time thatthis body wrestled with a set of standards, not only to guide crite-ria for membership, but also to benchmark ourselves against as wecontinue to inquire, to converse, and to collaborate. That set of standards—which in their own way have become“ordinary” to us—are a kind of background music to our conver-sations as we identify and wrestle with what we might imagine tobe new problems and issues. But every time I look at those stan-dards anew, I am struck with how recurrent, how enduring thethemes they encompass, and how central the questions they ad-dress are. My selective perspective is that, at their simplest, they argue forinstitutions committed to some very simple things. They call for acritical mass of faculty committed (on a fairly intense basis) toscholarship, as well as to students, program activities, and col-laborations with practice. They require a commitment to recruitand retain a diverse student body. They stress the importance ofconstructing relationships that extend beyond the requirements ofdegree programs to include collaborations with practitioners thatreach throughout their career life cycle. They embody the realiza-tion that intensity in graduate study and deep connections to prac-tice through internships are vital enough to command resources

from universities as well as students. They impel the creation of acurriculum that reflects the best of what we know embodying criti-cal analysis, inquiry skills, and a deep understanding of our knowl-edge base. This is our “heartland of the ordinary,” and I would submit thatthis is terrain that we find both familiar and treacherous. Each oneof these dimensions places its own demands, and taken togetherthey form a rigorous and challenging package. But we do journeytogether, and UCEA is, and should be, the place where we con-tinue to debate and discuss the enduring challenges we all face.How do we balance these commitments? For example, How dowe balance between intensity (which may be traditionally definedas full-time study) and a diverse population (whose financial andfamily needs may differ from “traditional” students who can morereadily defer income)? What have we learned about non-tradi-tional arrangements of faculty or curriculum that hold some prom-ise for realizing these goals? Where have we learned that the costsof compromise are just too great given the values we profess? Whatdo emerging forms of inquiry and of professional practice have tobring to this discussion? No conversation—however ordinary to us—is timelier, morecomplicated, or more important. We owe it to ourselves to ac-knowledge that we have learned much—sometimes from our mis-takes—even though we still have much to learn. For better or worse, as Heaney’s poet says, we are girded for ajourney. Nothing has changed except us. We bring to this ordi-nary enterprise new insights and old understandings. We are stillour old selves (most definitely ready to knock one back), and weare ready for our journey back into the heartland of the ordinary.

References Crampton, Faith, Thompson, David & Hagey, Janis. (2000). Creating and sus-taining school capacity in the Twenty-first century: Funding a physical environ-ment conducive to student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theUniversity Council for Educational Administration, Albuquerque, New Mexico,November 5, 2000. Fenwick, Leslie. The principal shortage: Who will lead? Cambridge, Mass: ThePrincipals’ Center of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Griffiths, Daniel, Stout, Robert & Forsyth, Patrick (Eds.) (1988) Leaders forAmerica’s schools: The report and papers of the National Commission on Excel-lence in Educational Administration. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Co. Heaney, Seamus. (1991). Seeing things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. National Center for Educational Statistics.(1997). Public and private school prin-cipals in the United States: A statistical profile, 1987-88 to 1993-94. (NCES 97-455). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics. RetrievedOctober 25, 2000 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ppsp/97455-2.html. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). Digest of Education Statistics1998. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics. RetrievedOctober 25, 2000 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/digest98/. National Center for Children in Poverty. (2000). Child poverty in the states:Levels and trends from 1979 to 1998 (Childhood Poverty Research Brief 2). NewYork: NCCP. Available at http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp. U.S. General Accounting Office.(1995). School facilities: The condition ofAmerica’s schools. Washington, DC: GAO. Volp, F., Archambault, P., Baretta,A. Service, R. Terranova, M. and Whitehill, W.(1998). Snapshot of the superintendency III: A study of school superintendents inNew York State. Albany, NY: New York State Council of School Superintendents.

Should demographic shifts alter the way we pre-pare school leaders? See Point-Counterpoint p. 10.

6 • UCEA Review • Winter 2001 www.ucea.org

Michelle D. YoungExecutive Director

From theDirector . . .BuildingNational Ties

In December, I traveled to Washington DC for a National PolicyBoard in Educational Administration (NPBEA) Meeting. The twofocal issues of the meeting were revisions to the NCATE standardsfor educational leadership program accreditation (see descriptionon page 16 of this issue) and the development of the AmericanBoard for Educational Leadership (see description in the fall 2000UCEA Review). While I was in the DC area, I made arrangementsto meet individually with members of NPBEA and to visit twoUCEA Institutions (the University of Maryland and the Universityof Virginia). Altogether, it was an interesting, informative, and pro-ductive trip. One of the most striking aspects of the trip was the parallel dis-course about educational leadership emanating from differentsources. Equally remarkable, however, was the apparent lack ofcommunication and cooperation between individuals and groupswith similar concerns. The largest chasm evident was betweenhigher education and just about everyone else. One example of theparallel discourses focused on the increased national attention be-ing placed on school and district leadership and the preparation ofeducational leaders. Just about everyone I spoke to discussed someaspect of this issue. The two most common issues were the pre-dicted shortage of school and district leaders and the quality ofleadership preparation and professional development. Most agreed that increased focus on school leadership prepara-tion was important. Schools have as their fundamental purpose thepromotion of student learning and development. While it is truethat student learning is dependent upon a variety of factors, it isalso true that effective leadership preparation for school and dis-trict level administrators (i.e., preparation that ensures leaders areable to provide high quality learning experiences for all childrenand to meet the current and changing needs of their school com-munities) is critical. Scholars of educational administration, of course, have long heldthis belief. Since the mid-80s, educational reform reports have un-derscored the importance of changing and enhancing educationalleadership preparation (Carnegie Forum on Education and theEconomy, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986; NCEEA, 1987). Hoping tofacilitate positive change, educational administration scholars andpractitioners across the country have worked together and withgroups like the NPBEA and the Interstate School Leadership Li-censure Consortium (ISLLC) to improve programs and develop acomprehensive understanding of the skills, knowledge, and expe-riences leaders need to have in order to be effective in educationalcontexts (Daresh & Playko, 1992; Milstein, 1993; Mulkeen,Cambron-McCabe, & Anderson, 1994; Murphy, 1992). Given thisfoundation, this seems the ideal time to examine and discuss strat-egies for changing and enhancing school and district leadershippreparation in a comprehensive manner.

Thus far, however, the national attention given to school leader-ship preparation has been negative and narrow rather than genera-tive and comprehensive. Committees and panels of policy makers,business leaders, funders, journalists, and education associationleaders have made sweeping negative generalizations about cur-rent school and district leaders and about the inability of highereducation-based educational leadership and administration pro-grams to provide quality training, meaningful content, and relevantexperiences to leadership candidates. Many have also asserted thatalternatives to higher education are needed in order to prepare 21st

Century leaders effectively. Put simply, these assertions are not true. They appear to havebeen made with limited knowledge of educational leadership prepa-ration programs and in the absence of educational administrationfaculty-scholars. There are more than 500 university-based educa-tional leadership programs in the U.S. Although each of these pro-grams has as its core focus the development of effective leaders forour nation’s schools, they have many differences. They serve dif-ferent populations with various needs and interests. They have dif-ferent delivery systems, resources, and expertise. The missions oftheir institutions differ. The current national discourse, however,does not reflect such contextual issues. This discourse also lacks asocio-political perspective of both school leadership and schoolleadership preparation. Professors of educational leadership andadministration are acutely knowledgeable about these issues. Theseare areas where educational administration faculty could substan-tively contribute to the current national discourse. The absence ofparticipants from the university community in recent national dis-cussions seriously compromises the integrity of those discussions,as well as their content and proposed solutions. The absence ofeducational leadership faculty also serves to alienate key partnersin the process of reform. Interestingly, most of the people with whom I spoke (professorsand association leaders alike) found the absence of educationaladministration professors in these discussions to be problematic.Adequately responding to the leadership needs of today’s schoolsand school districts is a complex undertaking and is dependent uponthe collaborative actions of many stakeholders. This holds true fornational, state, and local discussions and initiatives. During UCEA governance meetings in Albuquerque, Plenum Ses-sion Representatives (PSRs) engaged in complimentary dialogues.They discussed the need for better representation of the universityperspective in national discussions and the need for increased col-laboration. These faculty-scholars of educational administration,who are constantly involved in research, teaching, and thinkingcritically about educational administration, reflected on the currentcontext of school leadership preparation, identified important is-sues for UCEA and the broader field, and developed an ambitiouslist of possible future directions for UCEA and its member institu-tions. Their suggestions fell into fourteen general categories andincluded suggestions for research, program development, visibil-ity and involvement, rapid response, communication, publications,career development, graduate student mentoring, and membership(a working draft of these suggestions will be available through theUCEA web site in February). Under the category on visibility andinvolvement were suggestions that UCEA proactively represent theuniversity perspective, showcase innovative programs, rapidly com-bat misinformation, and work with other organizations like the

UCEA Review • Winter 2001 • 7www.ucea.org

National Council of Professors in Educational Administration(NCPEA), American Association of School Administrators(AASA), American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education(AACTE), National Association of Secondary School Principals(NASSP), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment (ASCD), National Association of Elementary School Princi-pals (NAESP), among others on common agendas focused on edu-cational leadership. PSRs, in collaboration with the UCEA Execu-tive Committee, will be working from these suggestions as theycreate goals and set UCEA’s agenda for the next five years. The development of UCEA’s agenda and future work will be anongoing process with multiple opportunities for involvement. PSRsand Executive Committee members will be soliciting informationfrom other faculty-scholars, holding generative discussions, anddevising plans. UCEA will be facilitating this work and movingforward to develop stronger ties with other organizations, to en-sure the voice of university preparation programs are representedat the national level, and to keep UCEA faculty informed of andconnected to important educational leadership issues. Below, I sharejust a few of the activities UCEA will be involved in this year. In September, UCEA in cooperation with the Johnson Founda-tion will convene a Wingspread conference focused on university-based leadership preparation programs. Specifically, conference par-ticipants will analyze the socio-political environment within whichleadership preparation takes place, develop an understanding ofthe university’s role in and capacity to provide preparation for learn-ing-focused leadership, and develop strategies for program devel-opment, implementation, and evaluation. This conference will notonly provide an opportunity for multiple stakeholders (e.g., pro-fessional organizations, universities, business community, and gov-ernment) to collaborate on critical issues, but it will also ensurethat the voice of the university is well represented in this conversa-tion. Findings and recommendations developed through the Wing-spread conference will be widely distributed and built upon at sub-sequent and related meetings. One organization with which UCEA has recently begun to workis the National Land Grant Deans Organization. UCEA was in-vited to work with their Focus Council on Leadership, a group con-cerned with the preparation principals and superintendents. Al-though UCEA’s work with the task force is still in its infancy, it ishoped that the agenda of this council will complement and perhapseven parallel the Wingspread conference. This would enable con-versations generated through Wingspread to be continued at theLand Grant Deans’ meeting and then further developed at the UCEAConvention in Cincinnati. Participation in this focus council is animportant opportunity not only because of its focus and its nationalcharacter, but also because the council is made up of deans. Deans,as most of you are aware, are often key in the development andsustenance of stellar educational leadership programs. The Land Grant Deans’ Focus Council on Leadership was devel-oped to parallel a similar council created by the AACTE last spring.UCEA will continue to be involved with the AACTE council aswell as other AACTE leadership focused initiatives. While I was inD.C., in fact, I talked in length with David Imig of AACTE aboutopportunities for UCEA-AACTE collaboration. I also talked withGerald Terrozi of NASSP and Vince Ferrandino of NAESP andcontinued previous conversations with Joe Schneider of AASAabout opportunities for collaboration with their organizations. Sub-

stantive opportunities are apparent, and each of these leaders agreedthat necessary and positive change necessitated some form of col-laboration. Before closing, I will mention one more development. Since Au-gust of 2000, I have engaged in several generative discussions withrepresentatives of NCPEA about areas of collaboration. We havebeen invited to co-sponsor the conference-within-a-conference withthe NCPEA and AASA. This conference is held each year duringthe AASA annual convention. This year the convention will be heldin Orlando, Florida from February16-18. As noted in the previousUCEA Review, registration costs for professors have been reduced.Information about the convention can be found on the AASA website which you can access from www.ucea.org. As many of you have argued and as I asserted in the fall 2000UCEA Review, we can and must contribute pro-actively and sub-stantively to national, regional, and local discussions of leadershipissues. But we cannot have a considerable meaningful impact if wetry to do this alone. By building stronger ties with other nationalorganizations, we can meet the challenges we are facing and con-tinue to have a positive impact on schools and school leadershippreparation. There is no question that we have a strong foundationto build upon. The questions are how will we proceed and in whatway will each of us contribute?

References Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing theeducation of school administrators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared:Teachers for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author. Daresh, J., & Playko, M. (1992). The professional development of schooladministrators: Preservice, induction, and inservice applications. Boston: Allynand Bacon. Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group. Milstein, M. (1993). Changing the way we prepare educational leaders: TheDanforth experience. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. Mulkeen, T. A., Cambron-McCabe, N., & Anderson, B. (Eds.) (1994).Democratic leadership: The changing context of administrative preparation.Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. (1987).Leaders for America’s schools. Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational

Administration.

KudosKudos to Barbara Jackson, Fordham University. Bar-bara was recently awarded The Teacher’s College Dis-tinguished Alumni Award by Columbia University.As he presented Barbara with the award, the Presi-dent of Columbia University, Arthur Levine, stated:“For more than forty years you have been involvedin educating, administering, and evaluating programs,students, and educators in various capacities . . . weat Teacher’s College applaud your exemplary serviceto the field of education and honor you today for yourrole as a leader.” Barbara’s accomplishments are ex-ceptional, and we heartily congratulate her.

8 • UCEA Review • Winter 2001 www.ucea.org

How did you become in-volved with UCEA? I became a professor afterspending nearly two decades witha border school district and an-other stint with a major urban cen-ter. When I moved to NewMexico State University in 1989, some of the faculty membersattended the convention that year. I was not able to go, but I at-tended the following year and have not missed a convention sincethen. Because of my major career change I did not have the con-tacts that I saw other colleagues enjoying. It was a rough beginningfor someone who did not know anyone and was not socialized inthe UCEA culture. Fortuitously, I met Paula Short at the book ex-hibit in Minneapolis and then had coffee with her. Since that dayshe helped mentor me professionally. Through Nan Restine andLynn Arney, I was introduced to many UCEA “regulars.” Subse-quently we started an informal dinner group that would gather eachevening after the sessions and share the events of the day. A fewyears later when I became a Plenum Session Representative it wasa series of three presidents who set the tone of making individualsfeel invited and accepted. They, alongside their Executive Com-mittee members, created the type of atmosphere that made one feelneeded and that one’s contributions were important.

What has been the most gratifying aspect of your involve-ment with UCEA? The most gratifying part of my involvement has been the numberof exemplary individuals whom I have met and now consider goodfriends. Also, UCEA set the parameters and expanded my perspec-tive on what my role as professor of educational administrationshould be. The research and conversations in which I engaged werecritical to understanding my professorial role in educational ad-ministration. My involvement definitively helped in my adjustmentto a new career in mid-life. I have always been an active memberof other national/international organizations, but no other has pro-vided the same opportunities of bringing together the scholars andleaders in our field. UCEA provided me with the connections forfurthering research and helped build my confidence that what wedo as professors carries great impact into the world of practice.UCEA helps to shape us as academicians and strengthens whatshould be a continuous development of our professional spirit.

Discuss your current goals as UCEA President. During this last meeting of the Plenum, extensive and intensivediscussion took place. Guiding these discussions was a set of goalsthat included (a) enhancing the capacity to support research, (b)expanding the publications program, (c) increasing the positiveimpact on school leadership preparation, (d) improving the visibil-ity of UCEA, (e) creating stronger ties within UCEA institutions,

and (f) linking with other educational organizations. From this setof goals identification of possible directions for UCEA took place.The Plenum identified 13 possible future directions at the Conven-tion. I will only state these, as continued discussion will take placeover the course of the following months, with the goals projectedto be finalized at the Plenum in Cincinnati. These directions are:• Creation of a marketing plan,• Promotion of research,• Enhancement of annual convention activities,• Publications to proactively address issues of policy and practice,• Program development for improvement of preparation,• Career development for professors,• Expansion of program centers concept,• Increase UCEA visibility and involvement,• Enhancement of the web site,• Increase opportunities for funding,• Strengthen support of UCEA by deans and other administratorsin UCEA institutions,• Revisit membership criteria, and• Build stronger ties with other educational organizations. Clearly the Plenum raised some pressing questions, reviewed verydirect goals, and developed challenging directions. The next stepsmight be to make some critical decisions about the priorities anddefine a reasonable time frame for their attainment. Therefore, mymain goal is to support the review of these goals and facilitate openand inclusive discussion surrounding them to move our organiza-tion toward their accomplishment. Another important goal is to support a smooth transition for ournew Executive Director. This position is the engine of our Council.While presidents get to drive the UCEA “bus” for one year it is theengine that keeps us moving in positive directions. Therefore, myoverarching goal is to collaborate closely with Michelle Young tosee that what has worked positively for us in the past is continuedand that we look closely at the current trends in our society so thatwe take positive steps in meeting the changing priorities of oureducational landscape. The current context may lead us to define anew set of expectations and create a new list of priorities. Amongthese is the critical shortage of educational administrators who mustbe leaders in the schools, the new interest in assessing our prepara-tion programs, and the changing face of our schools. Another goal is to expand our sphere of influence by workingwithin our own membership as we simultaneously work with ex-ternal constituents. In order to work with our membership I need toclarify something. I strongly believe that we are THE learned soci-ety in educational administration but this statement carries a heavyresponsibility. As a learned society our focus has been on leader-ship preparation. Many of our research topics deal with buildingcommunity, engaging groups in collaborative efforts, buildingdemocratic schools, promoting diversity in educational systems,and the list continues. Thus, our own research provides us withexamples of what needs to be done in these areas. As an organiza-tion we can put these recommendations to good practice. We be-come the exemplars of what we believe our schooling systemsshould be, based upon how our graduates impact educational sys-tems whether they opt for school positions or become faculty mem-bers. Thus, as we practice the leadership we know works then letus build a community that fosters collaboration, respects demo-cratic principles, and increases diversity within our Council.

Interview with 2001UCEA President, Dr.María Luisa GonzálezDecember 17, 2000Interview conducted byBonnie L. Kilmer

UCEA Review • Winter 2001 • 9www.ucea.org

To this end we must understand that the Council is more than thesum of those who hold leadership positions. Its strength comes fromthe Plenum and the faculty of our member institutions. We need tomake clear to everyone that there are opportunities for active in-volvement, especially for those who seek more participation. Eachof us has much to offer and it is this reservoir of talent that comesfrom our own constituents that we need to continually tap. We needto remember that there are those who are quite familiar with UCEAand its activities and there are others who are not. It is this groupwho also needs to feel invited. There has been discussion of creat-ing a formalized mentorship process for professors at the differentstages of their career and increasing student involvement. This mightbe a topic for future direction. As we talk of more participation andincreased involvement then we must also talk about the composi-tion of our membership—diversity. Expanding the number of professors from underrepresentedgroups has been discussed ever since I became involved in theCouncil. We have had convention sessions dedicated to this con-cern and it continues to challenge the majority of our institutions.Yet, there are still very few professors who come from tradition-ally underrepresented groups. One compelling reason to study thisissue is that academia can no longer represent a different face fromthe one that exists in the schools. Thus, as schools demand moreand better prepared leaders to meet the needs of their ever-growingdiverse student populations they are also asking that we prepareleaders who come from minority groups. As a professional organi-zation we have been concerned about diversity, and in fact, one ofour membership criterion calls for the recruitment of qualified stu-dents “including applicants from racial and ethnic minority groupsand women.” One answer to becoming a more representative groupmay come from our work with our own students. Discussion ofthis issue as a major goal needs to take place. We need to assureeveryone that UCEA is comprised of a diverse group of professorsincluding those of varying philosophies, distinct backgrounds, di-vergent interests, and different races and cultures. It is this diver-sity that must be developed and maintained because it lends strengthand gives us credibility in the field. As we build on the leadership, involvement, and diversity of ourown membership it is logical to expand outside the sphere of inter-nal influence by thinking of the outside forces that tend to shapeus. Our goals and our directions point to the call for expanded vis-ibility and linkages with other professional organizations. An inte-gral part of this activity is to call upon those members who areactive in and at times may hold leadership positions elsewhere toassist us in making these linkages. I strongly believe that everyeducator, whether affiliated with UCEA or not, should know whatUCEA is—this awareness begins with us, carried into our institu-tions, transferred to our students, and transmitted to other educa-tional organizations. Over the past few months we have been mov-ing toward this goal. Michelle Young has implemented the direc-tions of the Plenum and increased communication among the mem-ber institutions and moved to better connect us with other key edu-cational organizations and policy makers. As we move toward thisincreased national visibility, we must increase our internationalinvolvement as well. We cannot forget the place that international-ization plays in the strength of an educational organization. I hopethat this year we can frame our discussions around a more globalperspective of educational administration.

Share your professional goals and research interests. Currently I am serving as academic department head, a position Ihave held for the past six years. A major project at our institutioninvolves the redesigning of our K-12 preparation program with ad-ministrators in our surrounding area. We are following a plannedprocess of curriculum changes whereby public school personnelwill be involved in team-teaching some of our coursework along-side the professors. The plans also include professional develop-ment that will encompass educators from the classroom throughthe central office. One district is so committed to the plan that theyhave dedicated financial support to our program. The most gratify-ing piece of this project is engaging in true partnership with indi-viduals who are in the schools and in university classrooms tryingto make changes at both ends of the educational continuum. Mymain ambition is that we will be able to implement the plan toimprove our leadership preparation specific to meeting the needsof children in border areas. This work will be useful to other areasof the nation for the schools in border regions have continuallyfaced a conglomerate of challenges that plague urban as well asrural areas. I continue my research on the education of marginalized groups,including (a) homeless children, (b) children of undocumentedworkers, (c) students for whom English is a second language, and(d) administrators leading the schooling efforts of these students. Ihave attempted to raise the awareness level of timely topics andimpact policy. One project that encompasses these interests is mycurrent research on principals who are leading programs in Two-Way Dual-Language programs. The research project began last yearfrom funding by the New Mexico State Department of Education.The project brought together researchers from three of the stateinstitutions to study the schools that began implementing the Two-Way Dual-Language Program five years ago. Each researcher stud-ied a specific component of the project. While one looked at theacquisition of both the English and Spanish languages, anotherlooked at classroom strategies, and I worked on the impact that aprincipal’s leadership plays in the success of these programs. Thiscomes at an especially critical time as many schools across thenation are confounded by the contradictions in the research relatedto language teaching. Based on our preliminary findings and onother landmark studies, the best method to reach our students whocome with languages other than English is to implement a strongTwo-Way Dual-Language Model. However, while research con-tinues to focus on the impact of classroom instruction when it comesto bilingual education I continue to find that a major piece to thesuccess of these programs lies in the hands of the principal. There-fore, I will continue to study how preparation programs can de-velop school leaders to meet the needs of a diverse student popula-tion. Whether we are border, urban, suburban, or rural educators,our leaders must be prepared to lead programs that successfullyeducate students from diverse socioeconomic statuses, cultures, lan-guages, and exceptionalities.

Mark your calendars for UCEA Convention2001 at the Omni Netherland Plaza,

November 2-4, Cincinnati, OH

10 • UCEA Review • Winter 2001 www.ucea.org

Point: Success for All Children . . . As professors of educational administration who train future lead-ers for K-12 school systems we must be mindful of how we con-ceptualize and structure our principal preparation programs. Giventhe myriad of societal and educational issues and problems thatschool systems, and thus principals, often face today, it is impor-tant that principal preparation programs provide both theoreticaland practical knowledge and experiences that are relevant to schoolsin general, and to specific social, cultural, and demographic con-texts in certain types of school systems. The changing demographics of public school systems have be-come an issue that we can no longer afford to ignore as we preparefuture leaders. While the educational system in general, and schooldistricts in particular, have historically served primarily white,middle class children, the rapidly changing demographics ofschools, and particularly large urban school districts necessitatesthat we re-examine our administrative preparation programs. The purpose of this essay is to consider how current principalpreparation programs can and should train future leaders to meetthe needs of all children, particularly the increasing numbers ofpoor and minority children who attend public schools today. Spe-cifically, I will discuss the need to reconsider both ideological frame-works on which principal preparation programs are based and thecontent of the courses that make up principal preparation programs.

The Changing Landscape of Public Education The landscape of public education is rapidly changing. Nation-ally, African-Americans, Latinos/as, and American Indians makeup one-third of the 54 million children in K-12 classrooms (Educa-tion Week, March 15, 2000). Currently, Latino/a students representone of the fastest growing populations in schools. The United StatesDepartment of Education (1996) reported that in 1993 the Latino/astudent population was 13% nationally. It is expected that by theyear 2020, Latino/a children will represent over one quarter of allpublic school students (Reyes, et al. 1999). In addition, in the larg-est states such as California and Texas, students of color are al-ready the majority. The percentage of students who are from poorfamilies is also increasing. Reyes, et al. report that “In 1984, onein five children lived below the poverty line . . . in 1990, one infour children under the age of six, nearly five million children,were in families living beneath the poverty line” (Reyes, et al., p.192). Pallas, Natriello, and McDill conclude “the single most im-portant factor in the school-age population of the future is the ex-pected increase in both the number and proportion of disadvan-taged young people” (quoted in Reyes, et al., p.193). From a leadership perspective, the single most important factoris the lack of success of leadership programs to prepare leaderswho will be successful in serving the increasing numbers of poorand minority children–children who have been and continue to beunder-served in public school systems (Skrla, et al., 2000). Thus akey question which must be raised is: Are current leadership pro-

Point - CounterpointPoint: Success for All Children: Implications for Leadership Preperation Programs

Linda Tillman, University of New Orleans

Counterpoint: Administrator Preparation Programs: Reforming Again, Again, and AgainLance D. Fusarelli, Fordham University

grams designed and intended to lead to successful outcomes for allchildren including low-income children of color, or do these pro-grams continue to emphasize models of leadership which rely moreon traditional theories of educational leadership and fail to providepractical application and experiences which are necessary in orderto meet the social, emotional, and academic needs of all children?

Leadership Preparation Programs Past and Present Leadership preparation programs have not changed dramaticallyover the last half-century. As McCarthy (1999) has noted, “Unitsengaged in significant programmatic changes, while increasing innumber, still must be viewed as outliers” (p. 135). Typically, ad-ministrative preparation programs are similar in philosophy andcontent. For example, most programs include courses such as In-troduction to Leadership/Administration, School Law, School Fi-nance, School Personnel, the Superintendency, and Internship.Recently, more principal preparation programs have added courseswhich focus on race and/or multiculturalism in schooling. In addi-tion, many state departments of education have developed princi-pal standards. For example, the Louisiana Board of Elementaryand Secondary Education has endorsed the Louisiana Task ForceStandards for School Principals (1998) which is used as a guide inprincipal preparation programs in colleges and universities in Loui-siana. The Interstate School Licensure Consortium for School Lead-ers (ISLLC) is another example of a set of standards which arebeing used in several states to guide the philosophy and content ofadministrative preparation programs. Beginning with the words “Aschool administrator is an educational leader who promotes thesuccess of all students by . . . ,” each of the six standards are com-pleted by giving a description of a principal. For example, ISLLCStandard Six reads as follows:

A school administrator is an educational leader who promotesthe success of all students by understanding, responding to, andinfluencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cul-tural context. In addition, the standard is expanded to definewhat knowledge the principal should have, what beliefs andvalues (dispositions) the principal should have, and what ac-tivities (performances) the principal should engage in and fa-cilitate.

The principalship program at my own institution requires thirty-six hours of course work made up of the following courses: SchoolLeadership, School Law, Governance and Organization of Ameri-can Schools, School Community Relations, Supervision of Instruc-tion, Educational Research, A Foundations of Education Courseor Contemporary Urban Education, Foundations of CurriculumDevelopment or Elementary or Secondary Curriculum, School-Based Management, School Improvement, Elementary or Second-ary Principalship, Internship in Educational Administration. From a philosophical standpoint our program represents a rathertraditional approach to educational administration. It combines tra-ditional theories of educational administration (for example, Hoy

UCEA Review • Winter 2001 • 11www.ucea.org

and Miskel, 1996) with more recent theories (for example,Sergiovanni, 1994 and Bolman and Deal, 1997). Philosophically,the program is designed for the “ideal” leader; that is, there is anassumption that all of our students will become principals in an“ideal” school where there are a majority of white, middle classstudents, where the majority of the teachers are certified, wherethere is an abundance of resources, and where external factors suchas poverty and crime have little or no bearing on how the schoolfunctions and thus how the principal leads. From a course contentstandpoint, each professor in the department brings to the class-room his or her own experiences, values and vision of what educa-tional administration/leadership should be; in the classroom, pro-fessors conceptualize and teach their classes based on their ownspecific ways of knowing. Clearly our epistemological stances af-fect what and how we teach. While our collective intent is to pre-pare future leaders for a range of administrative tasks which willpromote the success of students, the content of our courses (i.e.,course syllabi, textbooks, supplementary readings, class activities,assignments) reveals our individual and specific views about whatwe believe principals should know. As the coordinator of the gradu-ate program at my institution, I have two major concerns: (1) Is thecurrent program relevant to the context of the school districts thatwe serve, one of which has a 99% African-American student popu-lation, and (2) is the content of the courses more than sufficient toprepare leaders who will work in buildings where there are a ma-jority of poor and minority children, where there are few resources,and where there are a number of uncertified teachers. Given thevery strong emphasis on student achievement (standardized testscores), does our program provide courses and course content whichprepare future principals to work toward the success of all chil-dren? While the ISLLC Standards consistently use the words “successof all students,” I am concerned that many of our administrativepreparation programs are not conceptualized from a “success forall students” framework. And it is interesting that ISLLC StandardSix uses the words “social, economic, and cultural context,” forgiven the rapidly changing demographics of school systems, I amconcerned that these terms are only being given superficial atten-tion in our preparation programs. I am also concerned that as afield of study and as a body of knowledge, administrative prepara-tion programs still fall short of addressing the most fundamentalinequities in our educational system: the pervasiveness of racialand economic isolation which directly affects the quality of educa-tion that millions of poor and minority children receive and whichcontinue to leave these children under-served and under-educated.

We Do Have Choices As we re-examine the role of the profession and our individualand collective roles as professors of educational administration,we must ask ourselves the following questions: Should we con-tinue to train future leaders using traditional models, which arenon-inclusive, and prepare principals for an “ideal” school? Orshould we train future leaders to work toward the success of allchildren by addressing the problems that plague schools, and par-ticularly those schools that serve large numbers of poor and minor-ity children, and to work toward solutions to these problems? If we choose to take the first path and continue an exclusive em-phasis on traditional models, I fear that we will continue “to getwhat we have been getting”–too many principals who are over-

whelmed with the social, racial, cultural, and economic differencesthat poor and minority students bring to the educational setting andthe under-achievement of many of these students. Should we chooseto continue the exclusive use of traditional models, then I fear thatwe will continue to produce principals who are either reluctant, orrefuse, to implement change because of an over-dependence ontheory over practical applications of the knowledge they have ac-quired. This over-dependence on theory instead of practical appli-cation is often held at the expense of poor and minority children.For example, current instructional strategies presume that African-American children are deficient, thus principals may be caught upin constantly trying to find the right strategy or technique to dealwith and control low-performing African-American students(Ladson Billings, 1998). Traditional theories of educational admin-istration also often reinforce the false rhetoric that “constructs chil-dren of color” as “less than interested in and less capable of learn-ing” (Scheurich, 2000). The over-dependence on traditional mod-els limits the opportunities for K-12 leaders to serve poor and mi-nority students who lack “cultural capital,” (Anynon, 1997; Kozol,1991) which, for the most part, defines success in schools. If we choose to take the latter path and choose to train futureleaders to work towards the success of all students, we must bewilling to re-think our course offerings, and more importantly, thecontent of these courses. Will we continue to base all of our teach-ing on theory and ignore the realities of schooling: violence, racialinequities, and external factors such as poverty? Or, will we makethe effort to go into the schools, identify the problems, and workwith our students in developing courses and course content whichare intended to strengthen the principal preparation program, pro-vide relevant content knowledge, and make our primary goal thepreparation of principals who will serve all students? The voicesand the experiences of the students themselves should provide afoundation for some of what is taught in courses. We should not bereluctant to learn from our students who usually come from a vari-ety of school districts. My own students come from five parishes(school districts), which are very different socially, culturally, eco-nomically, racially, and politically. Consequently, it is imperativethat I avoid teaching “an ideal version of leadership.” Rather, Ineed to know who my students are, where they work, and whattheir realities are. I need to visit schools in each of the parishes,and I need to listen to and learn from the students who work in theschools and to welcome and respect their individual and collectiveknowledge bases. As I stated earlier, many of my students work ina district which is 99% African-American. Many of the students inthis district come from low-income families and would be consid-ered students who lack cultural capital. In very specific ways, Imust address the realities of being a leader in this large urban schooldistrict. I have an obligation to help future leaders consider howthey can and will lead in a manner which is equitable rather than amanner which generates and reproduces inequity. One of the most important areas that should be considered in thereform of principal preparation programs is the internship experi-ence. The practical knowledge that can be gained from a well de-signed internship experience can bridge the gap between theoryand practice and can provide a future leader with first-hand knowl-edge and experiences. These practical, day-to-day experiences arevaluable in any type of school setting, but they are particularlyimportant for future leaders who will work in urban systems withlarge numbers of minority and poor children. While some univer-

12 • UCEA Review • Winter 2001 www.ucea.org

sities have developed innovative internship programs (for example,the University of Texas at Austin), other programs are typical ofthe traditional model of an internship program. That is, the intern-ship experience is unstructured and the student is, in many instances,a “part-time” intern. In the absence of any specific agreementsbetween school districts (and in some cases, the state departmentof education), the internship experience is reduced to doing busywork, filling in where needed in the building, and shadowing theprincipal only during the student’s planning period. In addition, ininternship models where the student is not released from his/herteaching duties, there is usually little or no input from the principalregarding the specific duties the intern will perform and the intern’sprogress over the course of the internship assignment. The collabo-ration between the school district and the university is importantbecause it not only represents a commitment to a quality internshipexperience, but it also assures some level of accountability on thepart of the intern, the principal, and the school district. The intern-ship also provides an opportunity to assess the student’s strengthsand weaknesses (as well as the strengths and weakness of the in-ternship course). Since the purpose of the internship is to exposeinterns to as many administrative tasks in a school as possible andto draw on the expertise of the supervising administrator, it is im-perative that the intern be released from his/her teaching duties.The internship should be one of the focal points of a principal prepa-ration, and it should be structured to assure maximum success forthe intern. I am not suggesting that we abandon traditional educational ad-ministration theory in total. Indeed, it has been useful in the pastand continues to be useful in the sense that it allows us to deter-mine how traditional theories and models can be improved giventhe current needs in our public school systems. However, given thechanging demographics as well as the changing imperatives ofschools (safe environment, funding, standardized testing), we needto re-examine our programs and hold ourselves accountable for thesuccess of all children. As professors of educational administra-tion, we cannot de-emphasize our own roles in transmitting knowl-edge and shaping the values, beliefs, and behaviors of future lead-ers. The ISLLC standards are a first step, but like much of thetraditional theory, the standards are somewhat general and do notaddress the specific issues of racial, economic, and educational in-equity. While one might argue that not all children attend publicschools in urban districts, most poor and minority children do at-tend urban schools. In addition, it has been my experience that themajority of my students assume their first administrative positionin the same urban school districts in which they teach.

Conclusion In this essay, I have argued that we can and must do more toprepare future leaders who will work in urban systems. The chang-ing demographics of our public school systems necessitates thatwe re-think what and how we teach. In addition, we must begin toassess what our graduates know and how they can use what theyknow to educate all children. The changing demographics tell usthat the faces of the students in our school buildings will look dif-ferent, the voices will speak different languages, and the cultureswill not be like that of the disappearing majority. The school-agepopulations, which will make up our future workforce, are waitingfor a proactive response from us. How will we answer?

References Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educationalreform. Teachers College Press: New York. Bolman, L. G., Deal, T. E. & Bolman, L. B. (1997). Reframing organizations:Artistry, choice and leadership. 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Hoy, W. & Miskel, C. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research,and practice. New York: Random House. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York:Crown Publishers, Inc. Johnson, R. & Vladero, D. (2000). Unmet promise: Raising minority achieve-ment. Education Week, March 15, 2000. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doingin a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Educa-tion, 11(1), 7-24. McCarthy, M. (1999). The evolution of leadership preparation programs. In J.Murphy & K. Seashore Louis, The Handbook of Educational Administration. (2nd

ed.). (pp. 119-139). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Reyes, P., Wagstaff, L., & Fusarelli, L. (1999). Delta forces: The changingfabric of American society and education. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore Louis, TheHandbook of Research on Educational Administration (2nd ed.). (pp. 183-201). SanFrancisco: Jossey Bass. Sergiovanni, T. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Scheurich, J. (2000). Engaging and envisioning the future for educational lead-ership programs given increased accountability, growing competition, and chang-ing demographics of K-12 students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theUniversity Council for Educational Administration, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Skrla, L., Scheurich, J., Johnson , J. & Koschoreck, J. (2000). Accountability forequity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Re-search Association, New Orleans, LA. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1996).Projection of education statistics to 2006. Washington, DC

Counterpoint: . . . Reforming Again, Again, andAgain As we enter the real new millennium, with UCEA under the lead-ership of a new executive director, perhaps it is only natural for usto begin by re-examining the core of our profession: the prepara-tion of leaders and administrators for our schools. Such discus-sions inevitably lead us to question the adequacy of university-based preparation programs, and rightly so. Just as inevitably, how-ever, such discussions often lead to calls to substantively reform,even completely overhaul, our preparation programs, particularlyin light of some recent, imperative developments--in this case so-cietal and demographic changes (Reyes, Wagstaff, & Fusarelli,1999). It is true that major societal and demographic changes have oc-curred in the U.S. population in the past fifty years, and many ofthese trends are predicted to continue well into the twenty-first cen-tury. For example, income inequality continues to increase, andthe gap is not expected to narrow for the next several years. Thenation’s economic base has shifted, with rapid job growth in theservice and information technology industries; job security is a thingof the past, and job retraining now the norm. The traditional nuclearfamily has been supplanted by the more diverse families of today.The youth population has steadily risen since 1985, boosting stu-dent enrollment and creating pressure on the already overburdenedpublic school system. Immigration levels remain high, with thestrong U.S. economy continuing to attract peoples from through-out the world. The ethnic composition of the student populationcontinues to change--becoming increasingly diverse and impover-

❖ ❖ ❖

UCEA Review • Winter 2001 • 13www.ucea.org

ished (Pallas, Natriello, & McDill, 1995). Finally, the gap in stu-dent achievement and differential dropout rates continues to per-sist among different ethnic and socioeconomic groups, and in someinstances shows signs of widening. In light of these societal changes and demographic trends, thechallenges facing educational leaders are great indeed. The opera-tive question for those who prepare educational leaders, however,is to what degree, if any, changes need to be made in administratorpreparation programs to meet the needs of a changing society. Whilein some cases revisions need to be made to make individual pro-grams more effective, it will be argued in this essay that calls formajor substantive revisions or a complete overhaul of university-based preparation programs are unnecessary, even misguided. Fivemajor points will be made in this article:• Yes, demographics are changing, but that is nothing new.

Demographics are always changing in a pluralistic nationsuch as the United States.

Most educators are poor historians. A common error is the ten-dency to lapse into what I call “the fallacy of presentism”--the ten-dency to see recent events as somehow new or radically differentfrom the past. The United States is one of the most ethnically andculturally diverse nations in the world. Waves of immigrants haveentered the country throughout the past two hundred years. A re-view of data collected over the past century by the National Centerfor Education Statistics reveals near constant change in the ethniccomposition of the U.S. population. Immigration to the U.S., al-ways high, spiked twice in the last century--between 1900-1910and 1980-1990 (Huelskamp, 1993). The changing ethnic compo-sition of the student population is not a recent phenomenon. Infact, it has been in a state of constant change for at least the pastforty years. Preparation programs throughout the country regu-larly address these demographic changes and their impact on edu-cation.• Calls for revising, reforming, and reinventing our adminis-

tration preparation programs in light of changing demo-graphics are similarly not new. In fact, in the past two de-cades, educational leadership programs have been in a nearconstant state of revision.

The release of Leaders for America’s Schools by the NationalCommission on Excellence in Educational Administration (UCEA,1987) heralded what Jacobson (1990) calls the third wave of re-form: reforming administrator preparation. Since that time, uni-versities through the country have reformed their preparation pro-grams, many with assistance from the Danforth Foundation, plac-ing greater emphasis on school leadership, curriculum and instruc-tional issues, university-school district collaboration, and makingpreparation programs more relevant to the demands of school ad-ministrators, particularly through more effective internship experi-ences and problem-based learning activities (Erlandson, Skrla,Westbrook, Hornback, & Mindiz-Melton, 1999; Forsyth, 1992;Fusarelli & Smith, 1999). Calls for substantive reform of our prepa-ration programs simplistically ignore the major changes and im-provements in administrator preparation in the last two decades.• Most current preparation programs are more alike than dif-

ferent. While individual differences in course title and sequence are com-mon, administrator preparation programs are more alike than dif-ferent. Most require some knowledge of school structure and or-ganization, finance, law, and governance. Within the past two de-

cades, increased emphasis has been placed on developing an in-structional component, often coupled with an emphasis on super-vision and “best practices;” coursework emphasizing sensitivity toethnic and cultural differences is common, and recent revisions topreparation programs include greater emphasis on psychology.Internships are required in nearly all programs. Individual differ-ences among programs tend to reflect faculty interest and expertisemore so than substantive differences in educational philosophy orvision. The increased emphasis on national and state accreditationstandards will serve to further align preparation programs in thecoming decade.• Calls for substantive change ignore the knowledge base in

educational administration as well as the cumulative wisdomof academics and practitioners who created the programs wecurrently have.

Calls for completely overhauling our preparation programs im-ply that past programs were, at best, inadequate, at worst, completefailures. This makes professors of educational administration looklike cheap hack--bumbling incompetents who don’t know whatworks or what is effective. This indictment of the field ignores thefact that through experimentation and frequent revision, currentpreparation programs are built upon the knowledge base in educa-tional administration, as well as reflect the cumulative wisdom ofpractitioners and academics (many of whom have served in bothroles) (Donmoyer, Imber, & Scheurich, 1995; McCleary, 1992).Wholesale substantive change in the way we prepare educationalleaders suggests that this knowledge base is faulty. While conversations over facets of the knowledge base are im-portant, it should be pointed out that no other professional fieldroutinely undergoes such “reform contractions” as educational ad-ministration. Perhaps, indeed, there is no knowledge base in edu-cational administration-- damning indictment of departments of edu-cational administration. Or perhaps those who came before us,those who helped create preparation programs, were stupid, infe-rior, and out of touch with reality (odd for a field initially devel-oped by practitioners). Before we engage in the common educa-tional practice of reforming again, again, and again (Cuban, 1990),perhaps we need to examine more carefully the impetus for reformand the effectiveness of our current preparation programs. In somecircumstances, change may be good, but we should never assumethat wholesale change in our administrator preparation programs isalways good or better than current efforts.• If anything is in need of reform and overhaul in our prepa-

ration programs, it is how we select students for admissioninto leadership preparation programs.

The most overlooked facet of university-based preparation pro-grams is how students are selected and admitted into the programs.While most universities exercise great care and diligence in admit-ting students for doctoral study (many personally interview appli-cants for admission), admission procedures and requirements forthe vast majority of students in preparation programs at the mas-ters/professional diploma/advanced certificate level are notoriouslylow. Few universities require applicants to take the GRE or MAT.Perhaps this is a good thing, since school administrators who takethe GRE score higher only than candidates in home economics,physical education, and social work (UCEA, 1987). Fewer stillbother to interview prospective students. Why? Perhaps facultyfind doctoral students more interesting. Perhaps doctoral studentsmake better research assistants. Or perhaps faculty are less willing

14 • UCEA Review • Winter 2001 www.ucea.org

to make an investment in selecting students who will take, at most,two years of coursework and then are finished with the degree.Doctoral students, on the other hand, seldom complete their disser-tations within three or four years after beginning their program ofstudy, and only under the close supervision of f