At a Crossroads : The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century [1 ed.] 9781617354809, 9781617354786

Citation preview

At a Crossroads The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

A volume in UCEA Leadership Series

This page intentionally left blank.

At a Crossroads The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

Donald G. Hackmann, EdD University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Martha M. McCarthy, PhD Indiana University

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hackmann, Donald G., 1955At a crossroads : the educational leadership professoriate in the 21st century / Donald G. Hackmann, Martha M. McCarthy. p. cm. -- (UCEA leadership series) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-61735-478-6 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-61735-479-3 (hardcover) -ISBN 978-1-61735-480-9 (e-book) 1. Educational leadership--United States. 2. School management and organization--United States. 3. Educational change--United States. I. McCarthy, Martha M. II. Title. LB2805.H222 2011 371.2’011--dc23                            2011016528

Copyright © 2011 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

Contents



Foreword................................................................................................ ix



Preface.................................................................................................xiii

1

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate and Design of the Study................................................ 1 Overview of the Professoriate Across Disciplines............................ 5 The Professoriate in Educational Leadership............................... 10 Research on Educational Leadership Units and Faculty Members....................................................................... 20 Research on Leadership Preparation Programs........................... 25 Research Methodology.................................................................... 32 Overview of Remaining Chapters................................................... 38 Notes................................................................................................. 39

2

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics.................................. 41 Unit Structure, Mission, and Size................................................... 42 Graduate Degrees Offered and Student Enrollment.................... 49 Composition of Faculty in Educational Leadership Units............ 56 Faculty Support................................................................................ 65 Accreditation and Licensure........................................................... 66 Program Reforms: Curriculum and Instruction........................... 67 Distance Learning........................................................................... 70 Field Experience Requirements..................................................... 71 Summary.......................................................................................... 72 Notes................................................................................................. 74



v

vi    Contents

3

Characteristics of Educational Leadership Faculty......................... 75 Personal Characteristics of Faculty................................................. 76 Professional Characteristics of Faculty........................................... 83 Summary........................................................................................ 100

4

Professional Activities of Educational Leadership Faculty Members................................................................................ 103 Primary Role Orientation............................................................. 104 Substantive Emphasis.................................................................... 107 Professional Work Week.................................................................111 Research Activities......................................................................... 113 Teaching Activities......................................................................... 121 Service/Outreach Activities.......................................................... 128 Technology Use.............................................................................. 137 Summary........................................................................................ 139

5

Values, Attitudes, and Satisfaction of Educational Leadership Faculty............................................................................ 141 Desirability of the Professoriate................................................... 142 Needs and Issues of Concern to Faculty...................................... 152 Issues in Leadership Preparation and the Field.......................... 168 Program Orientation and Research Approaches........................ 187 Job Satisfaction.............................................................................. 193 Faculty Perceptions of Program Quality and Improvement Efforts...................................................................................... 199 Summary........................................................................................ 204

6

Profiles of Novice, Intermediate, and Veteran Faculty................. 207 Personal and Professional Characteristics................................... 208 Professional Activities.................................................................... 218 Attitudes and Satisfaction............................................................. 233 Job Satisfaction.............................................................................. 241 Summary........................................................................................ 245 Note................................................................................................ 246

7

Characteristics, Activities, and Attitudes of Clinical Faculty....... 247 Personal and Professional Characteristics................................... 249

Contents    vii

Professional Roles and Responsibilities....................................... 252 Values and Attitudes...................................................................... 256 Summary........................................................................................ 265

8

Themes, Trends, Recommendations, and Concluding Thoughts............................................................................................. 269 Profile of Educational Leadership Units...................................... 270 Profile of Educational Leadership Faculty................................... 272 Themes and Trends....................................................................... 275 Additional Recommendations for Research................................ 286 Concluding Thoughts.................................................................... 289



References.......................................................................................... 291

A

Population of Universities With Educational Leadership Degree Programs in 2008................................................................. 303

B C

2007–08 Department/Program Head Questionnaire................... 325



About the Authors.............................................................................. 355

2007–08 Educational Leadership Faculty Member Questionnaire.................................................................................... 337

This page intentionally left blank.

Foreword

“

W

hat kind of credentials do you need to run a school district?” asked Andrew Rotherham (2010) in his Time.com blog. “Is a degree in education a better predictor of a superintendent’s success than, say a track record of turning around distressed companies? These are hot questions in the education world right now.” They are also questions with significant implications for the future of university educational leadership faculty. Currently, most school administrators attain their administrative credentials from university-based leadership preparation programs. Whether this will be the case in the near or distant future is uncertain. Indeed, over the last decade multiple alternatives to university leadership preparation programs have emerged, including alternative university programs, professional association programs, district-based programs, entrepreneurial models, private or for-profit models, and experimental programs (Murphy, Young, Crow, & Ogawa, 2009). How effective and successful these programs will be in preparing future educational leaders remains to be seen. What is certain is the existence of significant shifts in production within the university community, including where leaders are prepared and who is preparing them. To begin, the number of colleges and universities that offer graduate degrees in educational leadership in the United States has increased in recent years (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007). These programs are located within a variety of institution types, from major research universities to regional institutions and liberal arts colleges. What is most interesting about the The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century, pages ix–xii Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ix

x    Foreword

growth in programs is that it has not been evenly distributed across institutional types. Rather, there have been significant shifts in where educational leaders are prepared. In general, research institutions are playing a smaller role in leadership preparation, while comprehensive institutions are playing a much larger role. For example, growth in the number of institutions offering master’s degree programs in educational leadership from 1993 to 2003 primarily was concentrated in comprehensive, liberal arts, and other nonresearch institutions. At the doctoral level, the number of programs in research and doctoral institutions grew only slightly, while the growth of doctoral programs in comprehensive institutions increased more than fivefold, from 10 institutions in 1993 to 58 in 2003. Similar trends have been found in degree production, with research and doctoral institutions playing a smaller role than in the past and comprehensive institutions playing a significantly larger role (Baker et al., 2007). Indeed in 2003, 15% of educational leadership master’s degrees awarded were earned from research institutions, 20% from doctoral institutions, and 64% from comprehensive institutions. More alarming are the student enrollments of some of the programs in some of the newly developed programs. Educational leadership candidate enrollment can be as high as 3,000 students at any given time. It is difficult to believe that high-quality leadership preparation can be provided at that scale, particularly given the importance of supervised field experiences and adult learning pedagogy (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007). Such shifts in where the majority of educational leaders are being prepared is striking and raises questions about the supply and demand of educational leaders, institutional capacity, program quality, and the faculty who are preparing future educational leaders. Fortunately, researchers increasingly are focused on addressing these and other important questions about educational leadership preparation, preparatory institutions, and the impact of preparation on leadership practice. They are looking into the questions raised by Rotherham (2010), Levine (2005), and others. However, the majority of researchers who are engaged in such research are employed within research and doctoral institutions. Thus, another question these shifts raise concerns the future of research on leadership preparation. Additionally, given the shifts in doctoral education attention needs to be paid to where and how future leadership professors are being prepared. During 2003, 31% of educational leadership doctoral degrees were awarded from research universities, 45% from doctoral universities, and 24% from comprehensive institutions. If the majority of educational leadership professors are being prepared in nonresearch institutions, what does this mean for research and preparation? In large measure this book address-

Foreword    xi

es this issue and other questions regarding the work of higher education leadership faculty. This volume presents the results of a comprehensive study of educational leadership faculty and the departments and programs in which they work. It reports on the characteristics, activities, and attitudes of educational leadership faculty members involved in university-based educational leadership preparation programs. It provides important comparisons between University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) and non-UCEA institutions, noting that faculty members at the institutions that are playing a larger role in preparing future leaders (i.e., comprehensive and nonUCEA universities) were significantly less likely to engage in research or to participate in research-focused institutions like UCEA or the American Educational Research Association. Although the book does not delve into the curriculum of educational leadership preparation programs, it is likely that research on the practice of educational leaders and school improvement is given less emphasis in institutions where faculty have less research expertise. Given the important strides made in educational leadership research over the past decade, this possibility is particularly troubling. While some of the findings shared in this volume are promising (i.e., the educational leadership professoriate is more diverse than in the past, particularly in UCEA institutions), other findings raise questions regarding program capacity, such as the trend toward smaller numbers of full-time faculty and the expanded use of adjunct faculty. These and other similar findings appear to validate many of the concerns raised by Arthur Levine in his 2005 report, Educating School Leaders, including concerns about the faculty and institutional capacity of comprehensive institutions. I suggest that readers stop often and see how the trends represent leadership preparation in their own units, colleges, states, and regions and that they look for how trends fit together and identify tensions. Importantly, this volume provides a rich and badly needed portrait of the size, structure, composition, and programming of educational leadership units as well as educational leadership faculty members’ demographic characteristics, professional expertise and preparation, attitudes, values, beliefs, and professional activities. Those interested in learning more about educational leadership faculty and the institutions in which they work will not be disappointed. Every one of these sections is an invitation to think critically about the future of educational leadership in university programs. The authors raise important questions concerning the educational leadership professoriate, such as the reasons behind the increased number of nontenure and clinical faculty members in educational leadership preparation programs. They call for more in-depth examinations of essential but

xii    Foreword

underresearched issues, such as the trend toward replacing educational leadership faculty with particular specializations (e.g., education law) with faculty who are generalists. Engaging in inquiry around such topics may point the way toward improving leadership preparation. As I considered the shifts impacting UCEA programs in particular, I asked myself this question: First, how will these trends impact UCEA institutions and faculty members’ abilities to continue to research essential problems of leadership practice and leadership preparation, while providing rigorous, relevant, and impactful educational leadership preparation? Second, how might we use the information and insights raised in this book to promote high-quality preparation and important research agendas in our near and distant future? We know that quality leadership matters, and we know that quality leadership preparation matters. How can we use research, like that provided by Martha McCarthy and Don Hackmann in this book, to advocate and realize such quality nationwide? School children and professional educators alike depend upon our colleagues’ having the foresight and courage to use research to mold a positive future. —Michelle D. Young UCEA Executive Director

Preface

S

chool systems in the United States in the 21st century are subjected to increasingly stringent requirements, as they are being held accountable for ensuring that every student demonstrates academic growth. Federal regulations have mandated that each of the 50 states implement measures to raise standards for student learning and improve educator quality. Although classroom teacher effectiveness was the initial focus of reform activities, more recently the spotlight has shifted to the individuals who are charged with leading the schools and school systems: superintendents, principals, and other administrative personnel. School administrators typically are not directly involved in classroom teaching activities, but recent research has confirmed that effective leadership behaviors and activities of school- and district-level administrators do have a positive influence on student learning. It is essential for school leaders to possess the requisite knowledge and skills to be exemplary learning-focused change agents in their organizations. The majority of the nation’s school administrators received their leadership training in higher education institutions offering graduate degrees in educational administration and leadership. Periodic investigations of educational leadership units and the faculty members they employ are important to provide information that can guide leadership preparation reform initiatives. Data on program and faculty characteristics, such as recent curricular reforms and professional activities of faculty, can be helpful to educational leadership units as they compare their characteristics with prevailing norms and practices in the field, examine trends, and plan for the future. AdditionThe Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century, pages xiii–xv Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

xiii

xiv    Preface

ally, this information can be useful to state and national policymakers as they contemplate policy recommendations for the profession. This book reports the findings of a comprehensive investigation of leadership preparation units and faculty members that was conducted in 2008. Comparisons of unit characteristics and faculty attributes are made across subgroups of institutions and faculty members, as well as with data on the educational leadership professoriate collected in 1972, 1986, and 1994. Financial support for this project was provided through the Faculty Fellows project from the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The project was codirected by Donald Hackmann (University of Illinois) and Martha McCarthy (Indiana University). The University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) sponsored the publication of this volume through Information Age Publishing, and appreciation is extended to Jennifer E. Cook, UCEA managing editor for book series, for her editorial support. Also, the University of Illinois contributed computer support and space for project operations. Drafts of the program head and faculty questionnaires were distributed for review to the following educational leadership faculty members across the nation: Nelda Cambron-McCabe, Gary Crow, Marìa Luisa González, Stephen Jacobson, Joseph Murphy, Diana Pounder, and Charol Shakeshaft. The questionnaires were updated and revised based upon suggestions that were supplied by these colleagues, and their contributions are sincerely appreciated. In addition, we are indebted to Alex Bowers, The University of Texas at San Antonio, who gave us helpful advice regarding our statistical analyses, and George Kuh, Indiana University, who provided excellent suggestions on the final chapter of this book. In addition, Tamara Hackmann reviewed the final drafts of all chapters. Several graduate assistants were involved with this project, providing invaluable support to the codirectors. EunYoung Lim from the University of Illinois was instrumental in helping to analyze the data and prepare tables. Christopher Forman from the University of Illinois spent numerous hours identifying and confirming the lists of the nation’s leadership preparation programs and faculty members. Also from the University of Illinois, Stephen Mann, Jason Swanson, and Jonathan Kosovski provided assistance with fact-checking and reviewing drafts of tables and chapters. In addition, Alli Fetter-Harrott, Emily Richardson, and Gabriel Serna, Policy PhD students at Indiana University, and Ellen Pettay, Indiana University staff member, conscientiously reviewed various drafts of the chapters and tables and offered many helpful suggestions.

Preface    xv

This study would not have come to fruition without the cooperation of several hundred program heads and faculty members in educational leadership preparation units across the United States. Both questionnaires were lengthy and averaged in excess of a half hour to complete; in several instances, the program heads graciously agreed to respond to both survey instruments. We deeply appreciate the time that our colleagues throughout the nation invested in the completion of these questionnaires. We dedicate this study to the participants, and it is our sincere hope that our educational leadership colleagues will use the information gleaned from this study to improve their leadership preparation units.

This page intentionally left blank.

1 Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate and Design of the Study

S

ince the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), schools and school districts in the United States have been scrutinized, with educators being challenged to enact reforms designed to improve the nation’s public schools. A Nation at Risk was effective in creating a national conversation focusing on issues related to educational accountability, although the federal government task force emphasized that state governments were responsible for leading school reform efforts (McCarthy & Forsyth, 2009). Less than two decades later, the federal government embraced a more aggressive stance in promoting educational reforms through the adoption of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002). This legislation required states to strengthen their school accountability processes and held every public school and school district accountable for documenting learning gains for each student through standardized achievement testing. Each state was required to annually reAt a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century, pages 1–39 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

2    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

port student achievement data for traditionally underserved populations, including low-income students, racial-minority students, English language learners, and students with disabilities. NCLB mandated that 100% of students within each school must attain state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014, with corrective measures implemented for low-performing schools that consistently fail to attain Adequate Yearly Progress. As the appointed leaders of their organizations, superintendents and principals have been responsible for initiating and sustaining effective change processes to ensure that their schools meet or exceed NCLB learning goals. On March 15, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education released ESEA Blueprint for Reform that highlighted numerous changes to NCLB proposed through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Citing a goal of a “world-class education” for every American child, President Obama noted that his administration intended to correct the flaws of the original NCLB legislation while providing an improved mechanism to accelerate school reforms and close student achievement gaps (U.S. Department of Education, 2010, p. 1). The blueprint focuses on the following key priorities: (a) ensuring that students are ready for college and careers, (b) ensuring that effective teachers and leaders are working in every school, (c) providing equity and equal opportunity for all students, (d) raising the bar and rewarding excellence, and (e) promoting innovation and continuous improvements. Although it is impossible to foresee the specific provisions that ultimately will be included in the next ESEA reauthorization, it is clear that school administrators and teachers will continue to be held accountable for promoting improved student learning. Because the job descriptions of school administrators typically do not include teaching in school classrooms on a daily basis, their effects on student achievement generally are indirect. However, a growing body of research indicates that the leadership actions of building-level principals and district administrators do influence student learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). Noting that “leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn,” Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004, p. 7) reported that the direct and indirect effects of leadership activities collectively account for approximately one fourth of the total school effects on student learning. Exemplary educational leaders can guide the development of a positive culture that facilitates student learning within their organizations; conversely, ineffective leaders can negatively influence student learning. As research has begun to confirm the important role of the leader in promoting student learning gains, this “enhanced recognition has been accompanied by increased scrutiny” (Murphy, Moorman, & McCarthy, 2008, p. 2174). Con-

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    3

sequently, greater attention has been directed to the individuals who hold leadership roles, their qualifications, and their leadership preparation. School administrators typically attain their administrative credentials from university-based leadership preparation programs, and for the past several decades the quality of this training periodically has been subject to criticism from within and outside the educational leadership professoriate (Achilles, 1994; Griffiths, 1988; Hess, 2003; Levine, 2005). Calls for reform have become more insistent since NCLB, because the expectation that schools must successfully educate every child requires administrators not only to be managers of their organizations but also to be highly proficient instructional leaders. Citing a “leadership crisis,” a report from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Broad Foundation (2003, p. 13) asserted that many schools in the U.S. were being led by unqualified administrators. Arguing that traditional leadership preparation programs and state administrative licensure procedures were “simply failing to produce a sufficiency of leaders whose vision, energy, and skill can successfully raise the educational standard for all children” (p. 16), the report proposed that routes to administrative licensure should be deregulated, so that nontraditional candidates could be placed in school leadership positions. Similarly, Hess asserted that state licensure requirements prohibited talented individuals from being eligible to compete for school administrative positions. Describing the overall quality of leadership preparation programs as “poor,” Levine noted that “the majority of programs ranged from inadequate to appalling” (p. 23). Levine observed four disturbing trends: (a) an increase in off-campus programs that were disproportionately staffed by adjunct instructors; (b) a growing number of lower tier universities awarding doctoral degrees in educational administration; (c) increasing competition for a limited number of students, which subsequently reduced program quality; and (d) unmotivated teachers who sought administrative degrees as an easy pathway to advancement on their school district salary schedules. Critics have tended to use a broad brush when decrying the deficiencies of leadership preparation programs, universally condemning all of the nation’s university-based programs for perceived fatal flaws. Countering these criticisms, others have highlighted innovative programs and have articulated their successful characteristics (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). Arguably, every profession evidences both strengths and weaknesses, and it is important for those charged with the responsibility of preparing professionals to engage in continuous learning and self-examination in an effort to improve the quality of their programming. At the national level, various initiatives have been undertaken to shine a spotlight on leadership preparation and

4    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

to facilitate reforms. Among these efforts are the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration (NCEEA) and its subsequent papers (Griffiths, Stout, & Forsyth, 1988a; NCEEA, 1987), the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA, 1989) report, the Standards for School Leaders created by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC; Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 1996, 2008), and the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership (Cambron-McCabe & Cunningham, 2002). Each of these task forces has utilized an inclusive approach by bringing together stakeholders from a variety of constituent groups, including educational leadership professors and university academic administrators, representatives of national school administrator organizations, school practitioners, state education commissioners, and elected officials. Regardless of whether reforms are proposed through revision of administrator licensure requirements by a state education department, modification of program standards by a national accreditation agency, or recommendations from national task forces reports, they usually focus on university leadership preparation programs. As discussed later in this chapter, school districts, private companies, and professional associations now are involved in preparing school leaders in some locales, but universities (either by themselves or in partnership with other entities) continue to prepare the vast majority of educational leadership degree recipients. Data are necessary to understand fully the characteristics of educational leadership faculty, their perceptions of program quality, and the characteristics of leadership preparation programs across the nation. Thus, it is important periodically to conduct empirical research on the educational leadership professoriate. This book reports the findings of a comprehensive study conducted in 2008 of educational leadership units and the characteristics, activities, and attitudes of educational leadership faculty members involved in universitybased educational leadership preparation programs in the United States. This study was designed, in part, to replicate studies of the educational leadership professoriate that were conducted in 1972 (Campbell & Newell, 1973), 1986 (McCarthy, Kuh, Newell, & Iacona, 1988), and 1994 (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997), so that comparisons could be made over time. Providing a context for the 2008 study, this chapter presents a brief historical overview of the university professoriate, the development of the professoriate in the field of educational leadership, a review of previous studies of leadership preparation programs and educational leadership faculty, and a description of the design of this study.

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    5

Overview of the Professoriate Across Disciplines Higher education in the United States dates back to the 17th century, with the establishment of Harvard College in 1636 as the first higher education institution in the British colonies. Because faculty members are central to the university’s teaching and research mission, it is not surprising that professors would become subjects of empirical study. Since the middle of the 20th century, topics related to faculty characteristics and working conditions across the disciplines, including such factors as demographic profiles, salaries, job satisfaction, and research productivity, have been researched. The increased interest in exploration of faculty issues coincided with the rapid expansion of colleges and universities that occurred from 1945 until the 1970s, an era often termed higher education’s “golden age” (Cohen & Kisker, 2010; Thelin, 2004). During this period, higher education enrollments exploded throughout the United States, from approximately 1.7 million students in 1945 to 11.2 million students in 1975, with this growth fueled by overall population growth in the United States and the large numbers of post-World War II baby boomers who had reached college age. The number of doctoral and master’s degrees awarded also increased significantly during this timeframe. Faculty positions more than quadrupled from 150,000 to 628,000 in the same time span (Cohen & Kisker, 2010, p. 188). Professionalism of faculty became more established, as professors became known as experts within their disciplines, gradations of academic rank (instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor) were created, and tenure systems became institutionalized (Thelin, 2004). Professors began to experience the autonomy to distribute their work responsibilities across the domains of teaching, research, and service, and faculty research activities became part of the “academic ethos” (Cohen & Kisker, 2010, p. 299). The decade of the 1970s signaled an end to the “widespread good fortune” (Thelin, 2004, p. 317) that American higher education had enjoyed during the previous quarter century. Until this point, sporadic attention had been devoted to the quality and effectiveness of higher education in the United States. In 1967 the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education was formed by the Carnegie Corporation, and throughout the next several years this task force and its successor, the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education (1980), published a series of research reports focusing on the condition of American higher education. Deficiencies in higher education institutions also were identified by a report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which noted “disturbing trends toward uniformity in our institutions, growing bureaucracy,

6    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

overemphasis on academic credentials, [and] isolation of students and faculty from the world” (Newman, 1971, p. vii). During the 1970s, other external problems began to create challenges for higher education institutions. Double-digit inflation in the U.S. economy created “stagflation,” a phenomenon in which both inflation and unemployment rates were high; during this time, college revenues were held in check while prices of goods and services spiraled (Thelin, 2004). In addition, higher education enrollments were affected by declining birth rates and the end of the U.S. military draft. The continued proliferation of institutions and expansion of degree programs and academic fields of study had been predicated on presumptions of sustained enrollment growth and continued generous funding; consequently, many colleges and universities were financially overextended and unprepared for sustained reductions in funding (Thelin, 2004). As federal and state support for higher education began to flatten, institutions were confronted with the stark reality of finding ways to cut expenses, including cutting back on hiring new faculty, reducing clerical support, deferring maintenance on buildings, and trimming departmental budgets. After peaking in 1972–73, faculty salaries declined approximately 20% in real dollars in the subsequent decade (Schuster & Bowen, 1985). Federal affirmative action legislation also was enacted in the 1960s and 1970s, which required colleges and universities to develop policies and procedures to “promote racial access and diversity” (Thelin, 2004, p. 348) for students, faculty, and staff. Equal employment opportunity programs were implemented, and applicants were recruited from underrepresented groups; as a result, the professoriate gradually became more diverse. Faculty unionization in higher education began to gain prominence during this timeframe, as federal and state employees, including higher education faculty members, were granted the right to organize and to engage in collective bargaining activities (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). Issues such as faculty working conditions, salaries and benefits, the tenure process, and participation in institutional governance were important factors, as unionized faculty members worked to gain a voice in institutional affairs. By 1974 approximately 25% of 5-year colleges and 6% of 4-year institutions were represented by faculty unions (Garbarino, 1975). The period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, which Cohen and Kisker (2010, p. 307) described as the “consolidation era,” was marked by several factors that influenced higher education. Due to the expanded array of doctoral programs that had opened in the previous few decades, large numbers of newly minted graduates of these programs were entering a saturated academic job market as the number of professorial openings

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    7

began to dry up. Enjoying the benefits of this “buyer’s market,” many institutions elected to rely increasingly on part-time and contingent faculty— individuals who were willing to be employed in positions that would not accrue tenure (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001). Two fifths of higher education faculty members held part-time employment in 1995 compared to slightly more than one fifth (22%) in 1970 (Cohen & Kisker, 2010, p. 363). By 1985, institutions had tightened their standards not only for their faculty hiring practices but also for promotion and tenure, while reinforcing the importance of research activities for faculty (Schuster & Bowen, 1985). Concerns over a combination of factors, including tightened hiring standards, increasingly stringent promotion and tenure standards, institutional commitments to hiring individuals who were not on the tenure stream, and low faculty morale, led Bowen and Schuster (1986) to assert that faculty were an imperiled university resource. In the latter 1980s, higher education institutions began to experience significant turnover as large numbers of professors approached retirement age. Aided by affirmative action plans, by 1993 the proportion of female faculty members had risen to 39%, up from 23% in 1970, and the percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in the professoriate also had increased, although at a slower pace than for women (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). Faculty salaries, which had experienced a decline in the 1980s, began to increase in the 1990s, but they still lagged behind the pace of inflation (Howe, 1994). As higher education institutions entered the 21st century, they began to experience an era of “privatization, corporatization, and accountability” (Cohen & Kisker, 2010, p. 435). Privatization efforts occurred on several fronts and were reflected in various sectors, including the opening of privately operated charter schools in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, deregulation of the banking industry, and use of private contractors in Iraq (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). In the eyes of the public, colleges and universities began to act more like corporations, hiring directors of marketing and increasing tuition rates. Some higher education institutions were forced to explore alternative revenue sources and become more privatized as their share of state funding appropriations declined. At the same time, higher education institutions were being held increasingly accountable for a variety of outcomes, including improved student graduation rates and increased student learning documented through various student assessments (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). The number of faculty members in higher education institutions has continued to trend upward, from 924,000 in 1994 to nearly 1.3 million in 2005 (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). Data collected in 2003 indicated that the percentage of faculty hired in non-tenure-accruing appointments was in-

8    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

creasing, while the proportion of faculty hired in tenure-eligible positions was declining (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). The National Study of Postsecondary Faculty’s most recent data collected in fall 2003 documented that approximately two thirds of faculty and instructional staff employed in 4-year institutions were in full-time appointments (Forrest Cataldi, Fahimi, & Bradburn, 2005). Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) noted that in the past three decades the percentage of part-time faculty had been increasing at a rate 5 times faster than the increase in full-time faculty members. In the 21st century, public universities have experienced reductions in state appropriations, resulting in increased reliance upon other revenue streams to support their annual operating budgets, including federal research grants, alumni gifts, tuition increases, and attracting out-of-state students. Tuition at private colleges and universities increased 34% between 1994 and 2007, while tuition at 4-year public colleges increased 60% (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). Not surprisingly, these increases prompted heavy criticisms from state and national legislators. The average salary of full-time faculty grew only marginally between 1993–94 and 2006–07, increasing from $64,731 to $68,585; the salary disparities between public and private universities widened, with salaries of full professors at public doctoral universities averaging only three fourths of the salaries earned by their private counterparts (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). The growth of the proprietary sector also has accelerated recently, as for-profit institutions have become eligible to offer financial aid to students (Ruch, 2001). Most faculty who work for these universities are employed on a part-time basis in non-tenure-eligible positions. Distance education and multiple campuses typically are central features of proprietary institutions, whose leaders contend that online programming and satellite locations are more accessible to the nontraditional student. By 2006, the institution with the largest student enrollment in the United States was the University of Phoenix, with 315,000 students (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). The 21st century has experienced accountability demands for higher education institutions and for faculty. No longer content to permit colleges and universities to act with complete autonomy, states have implemented oversight mechanisms to examine institutional efficiency and effectiveness and to facilitate comparisons across institutions, including such elements as assessments of learning outcomes, reviews of faculty productivity and workloads, and student graduation rates (Alexander, 2000; Dwyer, Millett, & Payne, 2006). Whereas previously, institutions were expected simply to document compliance with state policies and rules, a transformation has occurred, in that colleges and universities now must track student progress and provide evidence of educational attainment. As Ewell and Jones (2006)

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    9

noted, “the focus of accountability is not on what institutions do but instead on how the state and its citizens benefit. The most prominent benefits here are economic: a more capable workforce and a more productive economy” (p. 12). A paradigm shift has occurred, in that the focus has moved from teaching to learning. One potential positive result of this accountability era for faculty is a renewed emphasis on teaching excellence. The workload for tenure-line faculty members typically is subdivided into teaching/advising, research, and service/outreach activities (Hackmann, Bauer, Cambron-McCabe, & Quinn, 2009). Yet, particularly within major research universities, professors are acutely aware of the tension between teaching and research responsibilities; although these two responsibilities may be given equal consideration within one’s job description, obtaining external funding and publishing in high-quality outlets clearly are weighted more heavily than teaching when considering faculty productivity for promotion and tenure and for annual merit reviews (Serow, 2000). Furthermore, displaying both teaching and research excellence can be a daunting task. Fairweather (2002) observed that “in 1992–1993 about 22% of all faculty in four-year institutions simultaneously attained high productivity in teaching and research. . . . This percentage did not vary substantially by type of institution” (p. 43). Research by Milem, Berger, and Day (2000) determined that across nearly all institution types faculty were allocating more time to both research and teaching activities. One downside of this development is that faculty must make the difficult choice either to expand the total number of hours in their workweeks or to reduce the amount of time they dedicate to their other professional responsibilities. Milem and colleagues reported a troubling finding that professors were spending less time advising and counseling students—responsibilities that are important in contributing to better learning outcomes for students. Two decades ago, Boyer (1990) argued for a reconceptualization of faculty scholarship, noting that faculty should engage in four interrelated components of discovery, integration, application, and teaching. According to Boyer, the scholarship of discovery relates to research activities, as the faculty member “contributes not only to the stock of human knowledge but also to the intellectual climate of a college or university” (p. 17). Through the scholarship of integration, isolated facts are given meaning, as research fits “into larger intellectual patterns” (Boyer, 1990, p. 19). The scholarship of application relates to the engagement of faculty, as knowledge is applied through service activities “tied directly to one’s special field of knowledge” (p. 22). Finally, the scholarship of teaching requires faculty members to be excellent teachers and scholars. As colleges and universities increasingly

10    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

are held accountable for student learning outcomes, it would be reasonable to develop institutional policies and practices that embrace and reward faculty responsibilities across these four components.

The Professoriate in Educational Leadership Compared with other academic disciplines, educational administration/ leadership is a relative newcomer to higher education. Until the latter part of the 19th century, school administrators received no formal universitybased training to prepare them for their leadership responsibilities. The first college course in school administration was not offered until 1879, when William Payne, a school superintendent, became a faculty member at the University of Michigan (Callahan & Button, 1964), despite the fact that superintendent and principal appointments had been created in city school systems several years earlier (Halpin, 1966). Public school enrollments expanded rapidly from 1890 to 1910, and graduate degree programs in educational administration were formed in response to the need to train growing numbers of school administrators (Powell, 1976). The first two doctoral degrees in educational administration were awarded at Teachers College, Columbia University, in 1905 (Callahan, 1962).

Early Educational Leadership Program Development As educational leadership preparation programs initially began to take shape, tensions emerged regarding the most appropriate design and delivery structures for these programs. Leaders of education schools at Harvard University and the University of Chicago advocated for rigorous researchbased models for full-time students, similar to those utilized in medical and law schools. However, the Dean of Teachers College at Columbia University proposed a part-time model for current school administrators focused on developing the practical skills they needed to be effective in their roles (Powell, 1976). Since these influential education deans were unable to resolve their pedagogical differences, they developed significantly different models, “thus laying the foundation for what has evolved into polar differences regarding the goals and purposes of educational administration programs” (Levine, 2005, p. 16). Arguments have been advanced that educational leadership is a “skilled craft,” an “applied science,” and a “developing science anchored in sound theory, research, and patterns of behavior” (LaMagdeleine, Maxcy, Pounder, & Reed, 2009, p. 131). Consequently, varied theories have been used to guide the design and development of leadership preparation programs.

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    11

During the first few decades of the 20th century, the structure and complexity of school administration training programs evolved in tandem with the increasing formality and bureaucratization of school systems. These preparation programs embraced modern business-management practices that were being employed in factories, training school leaders how to operate their schools in an efficient manner through the implementation of scientific management principles advocated by Frederick Taylor (Cooper & Boyd, 1988). Formal authority was centralized in the school administrative positions, and school principals and superintendents functioned as managers of their organizations. As school systems became more complex and the demand for school administrators intensified, states began to enact certification requirements for school administrators. Survey research in 1939 disclosed that 32 states required teaching experience and 40 states required a college degree as minimum qualifications to become a school administrator (M. Murphy, 1984). The enactment of administrator certification requirements rapidly accelerated over the next several years, and by 1950, 38 states required school principals to earn a graduate degree in school administration (Cooper & Boyd, 1988). These strengthened administrative certification requirements prompted many U.S. colleges and universities to establish educational leadership programs. Program expansions also occurred because of the rapid growth in elementary and secondary school district enrollments during the 1950s and 1960s, which created a demand for teachers and school administrators. The educational leadership curriculum continued to be highly technical and prescriptive, but the human relations movement of the 1930s and 1940s prompted professors also to the address the human element in their courses (J. Murphy, 1998). By the end of World War II, approximately 125 educational administration programs were operating within higher education institutions (Silver, 1982). Although universities had established formal systems for training school leaders that maintained state certification requirements and met the needs of school systems, some criticisms had emerged regarding the effectiveness of these programs. In particular, concerns were voiced regarding the relative worth of hiring professors from school administrative ranks who primarily drew upon their “personal success stories and lively anecdotes” (Marland, 1960, p. 25) when teaching their courses. The formation of the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration in 1947 (subsequently renamed the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration [NCPEA]) developed a mechanism whereby educational leadership professors throughout the nation could begin to interact and collectively examine their practices. For example, in the 1947 NCPEA meeting,

12    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

professors became interested in administrative internships upon learning that the University of Chicago and the University of Nebraska had created these experiences for their students (Barnett, Copland, & Shoho, 2009; Milstein, Bobroff, & Restine, 1991). NCPEA hosted several meetings during the following decade, facilitating conversations about the context and effectiveness of leadership preparation programs (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997).

The Rise and Decline of the Theory Movement In the late 1940s, criticisms began to intensify regarding a scant educational administration knowledge base. School administrators were chastised “for their unscientific, non-theoretical approach to administration” (J. Murphy, 1998, p. 364). Educational administration professors were pressured to develop higher quality preparation programs so that the public could be protected against ineffective practitioners. Professors began to reformulate their programs in accordance with the prevailing movements of the era. Since scientists had risen to prominence in higher education institutions over the field of business, educational leadership faculty members began to focus on developing a science of school administration (Culbertson, 1988; Greenfield, 1988). Funded by the Kellogg Foundation, the Cooperative Project in Educational Administration was formed in 1950 as a consortium of eight universities charged with the task of initiating changes in leadership preparation programs (J. Murphy, 1998). The Committee for the Advancement of School Administration was established in 1955, with the purpose of developing professional standards of performance. In 1956 the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) was created as a consortium of selected universities within the United States and Canada that offered doctoral programs in educational administration. The UCEA quickly became “the dominant force” in advancing discourse related to the improvement of leadership preparation program quality (Campbell, Fleming, Newell, & Bennion, 1987, p. 182). During the period from the late 1940s through the early 1980s, the theory movement focused on infusing social sciences content into the leadership preparation curriculum, with most of the activities guided by a relatively small group of researchers clustered in a few universities (McCarthy, 1999b). At its core was a commitment to expand “the conceptual and theoretical knowledge base of the profession by the development of a science of administration” (J. Murphy, 1998, p. 365). Through the formation of this knowledge base, it was hoped that educational administration would become articulated and delineated as a field of study and would “achieve full academic acceptability” (Farquhar, 1977, p. 335), thereby placing it on

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    13

equal footing with other academic disciplines on the university campus. As the theory movement took hold, educational administration was conceptualized as “an applied science within which theory and research are directly and linearly linked to professional practice” (Sergiovanni, 1991). Leadership preparation programs were expected to infuse social science content into their curricula (Miklos, 1983) and to adopt a multidisciplinary approach to preparing aspiring school leaders (Culbertson, 1963). As the theory movement continued to advance, it was not without its critics within the profession. Some argued that administrative theories grounded in logical positivism were limited because they were unable to account for external forces and human factors present in schools and school systems (Greenfield, 1975; McCarthy & Kuh, 1997). Others believed that, in an applied field such as educational administration, creating barriers between theory and practice was polarizing and counterproductive (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997). Faculty support for the social science frameworks peaked in the early 1980s and began a sharp decline into the 1990s (McCarthy, 1999b). Asserting that administrative science had failed, Greenfield (1988) argued that “what is lost in such approaches is human intention, value, commitment—human passion and potential” (p. 137). During the four decades in which the theory movement was prominent, many changes occurred within leadership preparation programs. The number of higher education institutions offering courses in educational administration quadrupled, growing from 125 in 1946 to 505 in 1987 (NCEEA, 1987), and the number of doctoral degrees awarded in educational administration doubled each decade (Farquhar, 1977). Due to the influence of the social sciences movement, programs began to hire professors with expertise in content specializations within the field of educational leadership, such as finance, economics, law, organizational theory, and research methods. The typical educational administration faculty member in the 1940s was a generalist and a former school superintendent who was focused on the practice-oriented dimensions of the profession. By the mid1980s, however, the typical educational administration professor was hired because of his or her expertise within a disciplinary specialization, possessed little to no practitioner experience, and was more oriented toward research than practice (J. Murphy, 1998). Divisions between practitioners and professors soon became apparent (Goldhammer, 1983). Whereas national administrator organizations, such as the American Association of School Administrators, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, initially had accepted professors within their ranks, they began to focus their efforts on their practitioner members (Achilles, 1994). National organizations began

14    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

to emerge dedicated to disciplinary specializations that were more aligned with professors’ areas of expertise, such as the National Organization for Legal Problems in Education (now the Education Law Association), the American Education Finance Association, and the Politics of Education Association1 (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997). Leadership preparation programs, as well as colleges of education, were not immune to enrollment declines that were beginning to occur in prekindergarten through Grade 12 (PK–12) school districts in the 1970s. The typical educational leadership program, which had increased from five to 10 full-time faculty members by the mid-1970s (Farquhar, 1977), had receded to its original size of five faculty members in the mid-1980s (McCarthy et al., 1988). As a result, some leadership preparation units eliminated residency requirements and lowered their admissions standards in an effort to bolster their sagging student enrollments (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997). Enrollments began to rebound, as degree programs were designed for parttime students who were permitted to maintain their full-time employment as they completed their studies.

Educational Reform Efforts and the Responses of Leadership Preparation Programs The current educational accountability movement, which now has been sustained for nearly three decades, began with A Nation at Risk in 1983 (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This report initially focused on improvements in teaching and in teacher education programs in the nation’s colleges and universities. Subsequently, the critical role of school principals and superintendents in leading substantive reforms to their educational organizations was acknowledged, and the quality of leadership preparation programs began to be closely scrutinized. Since the mid-1980s, the field of educational leadership has engaged in numerous initiatives that have been designed to critically examine the efficacy of training practices and to provide school administrators with the knowledge and skills to be effective organizational leaders. This section describes activities that have been noteworthy in providing guidance to the field, as the educational leadership professoriate has worked to improve the overall quality of leadership preparation programs. On the heels of the A Nation at Risk report and calls for educational reforms “from preschool to postgraduate study,” the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration was created through the sponsorship of UCEA (NCEEA, 1987, p. xv). This commission was given the charge “to examine the quality of educational leadership in the coun-

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    15

try” (NCEEA, 1987, p. xvi). Working over a 2-year span, this group held numerous seminars to solicit feedback from varied stakeholder groups and commissioned scholarly papers from scholars in the field of educational leadership. Their efforts culminated in a final report, Leaders for America’s Schools (NCEEA, 1987), which contained a vision of school leadership and included recommendations for public schools, professional organizations, universities, state policymakers, federal policymakers, and the private sector. The NCEEA concluded that fewer than 40% of the nation’s 505 leadership preparation programs had the necessary resources and institutional commitment to operate quality programs and recommended that more than 300 should be closed. The NCEEA also suggested that leadership preparation programs “should be like those in professional schools which emphasize theoretical and clinical knowledge, applied research, and supervised practice” (p. 20). In addition, this group recommended the formation of a national policy board, which would be charged with numerous leadership responsibilities, including policy development and monitoring implementation of the task force recommendations. The National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) subsequently was created in 1988, with representation from 10 national education organizations with interests in improving school leaders, and quickly moved forward with numerous activities designed to restructure the profession. In 1989 the NPBEA disseminated its first report, entitled Improving the Preparation of School Administrators: The Reform Agenda, which contained numerous recommendations designed to strengthen preparation programs. Included were recommendations that the number of leadership preparation programs should be reduced, programs should have a critical mass of a minimum of five full-time faculty members, school leaders should have doctoral degrees, and the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Doctor of Education (EdD) degrees should be differentiated. A slightly revised version of the NPBEA recommendations was adopted by the UCEA membership (Murphy, Young, Crow, & Ogawa, 2009). Under the direction of NPBEA, the National Commission for the Principalship was created in 1990 and charged with developing a knowledge base for the principalship. The commission identified and published 21 knowledge domains divided into functional, programmatic, interpersonal, and contextual areas. Small working groups subsequently developed the knowledge base within these domains, which could serve as a platform to guide principals’ practices as they lead the nation’s schools. These domains were published in a report entitled Principals for Our Changing Schools: The Knowledge and Skill Base (Thomson, 1993), which NPBEA intended to serve as a framework to guide the restructuring of principal licensure programs.

16    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

The following year UCEA created writing teams to update the knowledge bases in leadership preparation programs, with each team responsible for developing a taxonomy within its assigned area and to create materials that could be used in courses (Hoy, 1994). In the 1980s and the 1990s the Danforth Foundation was instrumental in providing funding to support leadership preparation units as they engaged in self-analysis and programmatic reforms. From 1987 through 1991, the Danforth principals’ program was implemented at 22 universities, as educational leadership faculty focused on improving various features of their programs, including such elements as expanding the recruitment of racial minorities and women, implementing cohort delivery models, strengthening the curriculum, enhancing field-based components, and strengthening relationships with school districts (Milstein, 1993; Playko & Daresh, 1992). The Danforth Foundation also funded a professors’ program to improve the capacity of leadership preparation programs to enact the needed reforms, a problem-based learning project, and numerous workshops and conferences to promote dialogue among faculty across the nation as they collectively conceptualized issues related to the preparation of aspiring school leaders (J. Murphy et al., 2009). Reflecting the renewed interest in reforming leadership preparation, in 1993 the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Learning and Teaching in Educational Leadership Special Interest Group (LTEL SIG, originally called Teaching in Educational Administration SIG) was formed and provided a forum in which national conversations could occur related to the improvement and reform of leadership preparation programs (McCarthy & Forsyth, 2009). Subsequently, more than 100 faculty members under the leadership of Catherine Marshall formed a group, Leadership for Social Justice, “to promote the research, practice, and policy foci that build capacity for social justice leadership” (Marshall, 2004, p. 9). This group also became an AERA SIG in 2006 and has actively pursued social justice and equity agendas in leadership preparation. Concerned that the educational leadership profession was not operating under a uniform set of standards, the NPBEA, with support of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), formed the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) in the mid-1990s. Led by Joseph Murphy of Vanderbilt University, a group of individuals representing numerous professional organizations and 24 states developed the Standards for School Leaders, which were released in 1996 (CCSSO, 1996). Within a decade, the ISLLC standards had become almost universally accepted across the United States. By 2005, 46 states had adopted the standards in toto, had modified them slightly, or had relied upon them to develop their

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    17

own set of state standards (Sanders & Simpson, 2005). Additionally, approximately half of the states have mandated that aspiring administrators must pass an examination as a condition of attaining their administrative licenses (Adams & Copland, 2005); 16 of these states required the School Leaders Licensure Assessment in 2006, which is aligned with the ISLLC standards (McCarthy & Forsyth, 2009). These standards have provided states with leverage to implement significant changes in their program accreditation policies and processes and to mandate reviews of their approved leadership preparation programs. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) educational leadership specialty area, conducted by the Educational Leadership Licensure Consortium (ELLC), has used a modified version of these standards since 2001 to guide their leadership preparation program reviews. More than 150 programs had satisfied the NCATE and ELLC requirements in 2005 (LaMagdeleine et al., 2009). The standards have not been immune to criticism, as various limitations and omissions have been pointed out (see English, 2006; Hess, 2003). Addressing some of these criticisms, J. Murphy (2005) highlighted an important focus of the ISLLC work group: “The goal has been to generate a critical mass of energy to move school administration out of its 100-year orbit and to reposition the profession around leadership for learning” (p. 180). The ISLLC standards were updated and revised in 2008, using a task force with similar composition as the initial consortium (CCSSO, 2008). In 2001, grant support was provided by the Wallace Foundation to create the State Action for Education Leadership Project, a consortium led by the CCSSO, Education Commission of the States, National Association of State Boards of Education, National Governors Association, and National Conference of State Legislatures. The Wallace Foundation awarded grants to 15 states, with an aim to encourage these states to enact legislation and policies that will enhance the capacity of superintendents and principals to improve student learning (McCarthy & Forsyth, 2009). Through initiatives funded by the State Action for Education Leadership Project, states have revised administrator licensure requirements, developed leadership institutes, created and implemented educational leadership standards, mandated continuing professional development for school administrators, and created alternative certification models (Wallace Foundation, n.d.). Also in 2001, the UCEA facilitated the formation of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation (NCAELP), another task force that included representation from numerous professional organizations interested in educational leadership. This commission “was established to improve the practice of educational lead-

18    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

ership through high-quality preparation and professional development” (Young & Petersen, 2002, p. 130) and reached an understanding that the field did not possess sufficient empirical research on educational leadership preparation to be positioned to substantively respond to criticisms and concerns. The NCAELP subsequently developed action plans to guide its work, to assist the field with the identification of innovative programs, and to identify activities that must occur from within and outside universities to ensure quality leadership preparation programs (Murphy et al., 2009). Bolstered by the work of NCAELP, and under the sponsorship of UCEA, the Journal of Research on Leadership Education was created, providing a publications outlet for scholarship related to teaching and learning in educational leadership. In addition, the Joint Research Taskforce on Educational Leadership Preparation was formed by UCEA and AERA to stimulate research on leadership preparation. Also, the LTEL SIG has been effective in promoting quantitative and qualitative research studies of learning and teaching in the field of educational leadership and supporting policy development at state and national levels (McCarthy & Forsyth, 2009). In addition, a joint UCEA/LTEL Evaluation Taskforce has been established to focus on leadership preparation program evaluation. This task force has brought together educational leadership professors to work in a variety of subgroups to develop research projects. The UCEA/LTEL Evaluation Taskforce has created a survey instrument so that faculty and graduates can assess their program quality (Murphy et al., 2009).

Alternative Leadership-Preparation Models Since the time that administrative licensure programs were established, state government agencies have elected to place the responsibility for preparing school administrators in the hands of colleges and universities. Criticisms have grown over the past few decades, decrying the wisdom of a system that privileges higher education institutions over other entities, seeking empirical evidence that the higher education monopoly has been effective in preparing high-quality school leaders, and arguing for alternative routes to school administrative careers (Finn, Broad, Meyer, & Feistritzer, 2003; Hess & Kelly, 2005). Some states have relaxed or even eliminated administrative licensure requirements (Adams & Copland, 2005). For example, Michigan no longer requires individuals to possess an administrator license, although the state legislature passed a law in 2006 permitting a voluntary school-administrator licensure program. In California, individuals can obtain a 5-year preliminary administrative credential and become principals merely by attaining a minimum score on the School Leaders Licensure Assessment, and

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    19

they are not required to enroll in leadership coursework (State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, n.d.). Several states permit the employment of school superintendents with noneducation backgrounds, and major urban centers, such as Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Seattle, have hired superintendents with varied professional backgrounds that are outside the field of education (Bianchi, 2003). J. Murphy et al. (2009) identified six alternative models that allow providers beyond educational leadership units to provide leadership preparation: alternative university, professional, school district, entrepreneurial, private, and experiential. Alternative university models restrict the preparation function to higher education institutions yet permit other departments or colleges to become involved in training. J. Murphy and colleagues (2009) cited New Jersey as an example; this state permits individuals with any type of administration degree, including public administration and business administration, to become school administrators. Professional models grant professional associations, such as state administrator organizations, the authority to train school leaders. For example, Iowa has awarded approval for principal training to a consortium comprised of regional education agencies and the state administrator association. Texas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California also have given professional associations the authority to prepare school leaders. School district models, according to J. Murphy and colleagues (2009), permit “grow-your-own” training programs, whereby large urban school districts can create their own models, whether they are stand-alone programs or in partnership with local universities. For example, Philadelphia and Houston school districts have implemented such models. Entrepreneurial models typically involve the ideas of “committed reformers” (Murphy et al., 2009, p. 16) and grant support from philanthropic foundations to develop training models. Examples are the Broad Superintendents Academy funded by the Broad Foundation, New Leaders for New Schools created by five graduate students from business and education, and Big Picture Learning, founded by Dennis Littky and Elliot Washor. A project launched in 2010, the Alliance to Reform Educational Leadership at the George W. Bush Institute, is billed as the largest initiative in history to improve school principal performance. The Alliance has established six regionally based “innovative sites” composed of various combinations of school districts, business schools, education schools, and foundations to prepare 50,000 school principals by 2020 (Aarons, 2010). Private models have been developed by for-profit firms. As an example, the Leadership and Learning Center, founded by Douglas Reeves, has developed a master’s degree program that is offered through Regent University. Finally, experi-

20    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

ential models award graduate credit to individuals for their previous work experiences. A body of rigorous empirical research on the effectiveness of nonuniversity-based programming has not yet been developed (Murphy & Vriesenga, 2006). In fact, “impact data in particular are conspicuous by their near total absence” (Murphy et al., 2008, p. 2177). Consequently, lacking evidence of their efficacy, school districts may be reticent to employ individuals who completed their training from alternative programs (Hess & Kelly, 2005). This apprehension has led some providers on the quest to locate universities as partners, so that their students can be awarded traditional university graduate credits (Hughes, 2005). The alternative pathways to administrative licensure are numerous, and therefore it is difficult to identify the number of programs in existence throughout the nation. The individuals who are engaged in training aspiring administrators, in some instances, may be school administrators who currently are practicing in school districts, or they may be individuals who are not aligned with universities and have no current school administrative experience. As noted previously, given the lack of information on the full range of alternative leadership-preparation models, this study is restricted to university programs that continue to prepare most of the nation’s school leaders.

Research on Educational Leadership Units and Faculty Members Since the mid-1960s, several studies have been conducted on leadership preparation programs and the faculty members who work within them. This section contains a brief review of this research.

Research on Educational Leadership Faculty The first major examination of educational leadership faculty members was conducted by Hills in 1965, who reported survey results of 102 respondents from a random sample of 150 NCPEA members. The focus of Hills’s study was the research activities of educational administration professors. Hills (1965) concluded that faculty members generally lacked an understanding of theory and were unfamiliar with theoretical literature, and most did not regularly read the top research journals in the field. Noting that 4 in 9 respondents had not published within the previous 5 years, he attributed the deficiencies in research and theoretical understanding to three factors. First, the majority of the respondents reported that they were

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    21

generalists and devoted more than half of their time to teaching responsibilities. Although 3 in 5 respondents were involved with service activities, only 30% reported dedicating more than 10% of their workweeks to service. Second, 88% of the respondents had served as public school teachers and administrators; consequently, they were oriented to practice and were “less likely to bring many fresh, novel views to the field” (Hills, 1965, p. 65). Finally, with a median age between 45 and 59 years, Hills postulated that most professors had completed their training before theory and research had become integrated into graduate degree programs. Hills (1965) recommended that professional development activities should be established to assist faculty members with developing the necessary knowledge and skills to be effective researchers. He concluded that professors must be engaged in continuous study, regardless of whether their activities were dedicated to improving their research or teaching capabilities. Hills’s study, although narrowly tailored to provide only limited insight into professors’ responsibilities and proficiencies, provided baseline data for subsequent research on the educational leadership professoriate. In 1972 with support from UCEA, Campbell and Newell (1973) conducted survey research on the characteristics, activities, and attitudes of the educational administration professoriate. Sending questionnaires to 1,963 faculty members in the United States and Canada, they received 1,333 useable responses. Campbell and Newell noted “alarming homogeneity” within this respondent group: 98% were male and 97% were White (p. 137). Respondents had entered the professoriate at a mean age of 39 years. Although nearly all respondents were employed in full-time positions, more than half were assigned duties outside of the educational leadership program area, including teaching general education courses and fulfilling assignments in departments outside the college of education or in university administration. Faculty members devoted a significant amount of time to teaching and advising graduate students, with 46% spending more than half of their time on these responsibilities. Campbell and Newell concluded that the professors “appear to have little time for, or inclination toward research” (1973, p. 139). Slightly more than one fourth of the respondents spent no time on research and writing, although the respondents did express a desire to be more engaged in research activities. Some role conflicts were apparent: While 68% of the professors ranked teaching as their most important responsibility, only 28% perceived that their institutions would rate teaching as their highest priority. Nearly half reported spending some time with field service activities, and they expressed a desire to be more fully engaged with this responsibility. The respondents were complacent about problems within the field of educational administration, and most did not

22    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

believe that the lack of women and racial minorities in the professoriate was problematic. Research conducted by Newell and Morgan in 1980 also provided data on characteristics of the educational leadership professoriate. A questionnaire, similar in format to the one used in the 1972 study by Campbell and Newell (1973), was administered to a random sample of 459 professors in educational administration, higher education, and community college administration. The findings related to faculty in higher education and community college administration were published (Morgan & Newell, 1982; Newell & Morgan, 1983), but the PK–12 educational leadership results were not reported. The unpublished 1980 data disclosed some trends related to the PK–12 educational leadership professoriate. Faculty notably increased their respect for theory and their interest in research between 1972 and 1980 (Newell & Morgan, 1980). Approximately 40% of the faculty agreed that disciplinary specialists make the best educational leadership professors, nearly double the proportion of respondents who maintained this viewpoint in 1972 (Newell & Morgan, 1980). The mean age of faculty increased by 4 years, from an average of 47 years in 1972 to 51 years in 1980, and the proportion of racial minorities and women in the professoriate increased significantly. The results of the 1980 study disclosed that the educational administration professoriate was becoming more diverse and that a higher percentage of faculty members were committed to using theory and research to guide the practice of educational administration. With support from UCEA and the Danforth Foundation, McCarthy and colleagues (1988) conducted survey research on the educational leadership professoriate in 1986, replicating the Campbell and Newell (1973) study in part to facilitate longitudinal comparisons. They distributed a questionnaire to over 3,000 faculty members at 372 universities with educational administration degree programs, receiving 1,307 useable responses. Noting that only 11% of respondents were female and that 8% were persons of color, McCarthy and colleagues concluded that women and minorities continued to be woefully underrepresented in the professoriate. The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and over half stated that they intended to retire by 2000. Extending the trends reported in prior studies, an increasing number of faculty were engaged in research activities, with over half of the respondents indicating that they dedicated at least 10% of their time to research. Faculty expressed satisfaction with their positions and career choices, and they generally were unconcerned about problems within the field of educational administration and with preparation program quality. Although faculty stated that curriculum reform was a critical need facing

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    23

the field, 4 in 5 respondents rated their own preparation programs as “excellent” or “good.” These factors led McCarthy et al. to conclude that substantive curriculum reforms were unlikely. McCarthy and Kuh (1997), with support from NCPEA and UCEA, conducted a study of the educational leadership professoriate in 1994, using a questionnaire that retained many items used in the 1972 and 1986 studies. From a random sample of 883 faculty members, responses were returned from 486 respondents. The professoriate had experienced a high amount of turnover, with 3 in 5 faculty members hired within the past decade. One fifth of the respondents in 1994 were women, and 11% were persons of color. The mean age of faculty had increased to 54. With regard to involvement in scholarly research, differences across institution types had diminished, due primarily to the fact that faculty in comprehensive and non-UCEA-member institutions reported increased participation in research and writing. Additionally, recent hires into the professoriate were more likely to possess school administrative experience. As with prior studies of the professoriate, respondents generally were satisfied with their positions and their programs, and they identified relatively few problems in the field. Some studies have examined characteristics of selected subgroups of the educational leadership professoriate. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of research studies related to women, faculty of color, and non-tenure-track faculty in leadership preparation programs. Women As was noted in the previous section, the percentage of women in the educational leadership professoriate has continued to increase. Research in 1994 disclosed that fewer women had attained the rank of professor and that they were less likely to be tenured than their male colleagues (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997). This finding was not unexpected, since larger numbers of women only recently had been hired into the professoriate. Differences in professional attributes, satisfaction, and salary compensation have been identified in the few studies of female educational leadership professors that have been conducted. Analyzing the data from McCarthy et al.’s (1988) study, Iacona (1987) noted that women were more likely than men to cite research as their primary professional strength and to dedicate more time to scholarly research and writing. In addition, compared to their male colleagues, female faculty were significantly less likely to report being content with their positions and their salaries. Also analyzing data from McCarthy et al.’s (1988) study, Pounder (1989) concluded that

24    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

women earned academic-year salaries that were on average $3,000 less than those of their male peers. Differences have been noted related to faculty retention, with women more likely to report family considerations and men tending to cite salary concerns when considering moving to another institution (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997). Given the increasing numbers of female educational leadership faculty members, one may assume that they have begun to influence the values and attitudes within the professoriate. However, McCarthy (1999a) concluded that women’s attitudes toward problems and issues in the field actually had become more closely aligned with those of their male colleagues by the mid-1990s compared with attitude data collected a decade earlier. More recently, Rusch (2004) investigated gender differences in perceptions of departmental culture. She conducted survey research with a sample of 114 educational leadership professors in UCEA institutions and discovered that women and men had significantly different perceptions of culture in their units. Men reported that conversations on topics related to sex and race occurred twice as frequently as females reported their occurrence. Women described the dialogue as uncomfortable, whereas men perceived the conversations to be insightful and open. Rusch asserted that there was a “troubling fault line” (p. 39) between male and female professors in their views of the climate within their departments. Faculty of Color Compared with the gains experienced by women, the increase of racial minorities in the professoriate has been incremental, leading McCarthy (1999a) to conclude that “the prospects for race equity do not seem as bright as the prospects for gender equity in educational leadership units” (p. 195). Examining the incidence of faculty of color by institution type showed gains have been higher at research and comprehensive institutions than in doctoral institutions; in addition, UCEA-member institutions have employed higher percentages of racial-minority faculty than non-UCEA institutions (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997). The growth in minority faculty members may be constrained by the applicant pool; Pounder, Crow, and Bergerson (2004) noted that only 12% of doctoral graduates from educational leadership programs were persons of color. It is unfortunate that the research base on faculty of color in educational leadership programs is sparse (Hackmann et al., 2009). Iacona (1987) concluded that the differences between racial-minority and White faculty members were negligible in terms of their satisfaction with their positions

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    25

and with their departmental structures. McCarthy and Kuh (1997) reported that faculty of color were more likely than White faculty to rank research as their primary professional strength and to consider moving to another institution due to family concerns and geographic location. Pointing out the limited numbers of faculty of color in leadership preparation programs, Quezada and Louque (2004) asserted that racial-minority professors can be more effective in attracting students of color into their programs. Clinical Faculty In 1987 the NCEEA recommended the creation of clinical positions, as a mechanism to create a balanced educational leadership faculty group with diverse academic and experiential backgrounds. This approach provides an opportunity for units to employ individuals with school administrative experience in full-time, non-tenure-line positions, who can be assigned to teach practice-oriented courses, supervise students’ field placements, and maintain relationships with school districts and state professional organizations. Generally, clinical appointments do not hold the expectation for research responsibilities (Hackmann, 2007). Yet, because of the extensive administrative experiences and solid field relationships that clinical faculty bring to their positions, they often enhance the credibility of leadership preparation programs (Bredeson, 1996; Hackmann, 2007). Despite the increase in clinical positions, the characteristics and responsibilities of these individuals have been relatively ignored in the empirical research (Hackmann et al., 2009). Clinical faculty have reported being attracted to these positions for their own intellectual growth and due to a personal motivation to prepare the next generation of school leaders (Pounder, 1994). Yet, clinical faculty can experience ambiguity if their professional duties are not fully delineated and may experience role conflict if they assume responsibilities that may be viewed as within the domain of tenure-line faculty (Hackmann, 2007; Hart & Naylor, 1992).

Research on Leadership Preparation Programs Studies on educational leadership preparation programs have been conducted through the years, examining such aspects as growth in the number of programs, size of faculty, degree offerings, and the changing nature of curriculum, pedagogy, and field experiences. This section provides an overview of research on these elements.

26    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

Number of Leadership Preparation Programs The number of colleges and universities that offer graduate degrees in educational leadership in the United States has increased in recent years, although the estimates vary, sometimes because institutions from Canada are included in these enumerations. These estimates have fluctuated between approximately 300 and 500 over the past four decades. Research by Campbell and Newell (1973) identified 299 institutions in the United States and 12 in Canada with educational administration professors. Culbertson and Silver (1978) identified 375 U.S. and Canadian institutions awarding graduate degrees in educational administration in a study sponsored by UCEA and the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration. M. Murphy (1984) stated that in 1984, 395 institutions were offering educational leadership degree programs, and an additional 100 offered educational leadership coursework. McCarthy et al. (1988) included 366 leadership preparation programs in the United States in their 1986 study, and McCarthy and Kuh (1997) surveyed 365 U.S. programs in 1994. McCarthy (1999b) noted that their studies focused on units offering degree programs and did not include more than 100 institutions offering only administrative licensure coursework. The NCEEA (1987) reported that 505 U.S. universities offered graduate courses in educational administration, although this commission did not specify whether or not every institution offered programs leading to graduate degrees. More recently, Baker, Orr, and Young (2007) identified 472 degree-granting programs in the United States in 2003. Two years later, Levine (2005) estimated the number at approximately 500 programs offering graduate degrees, with a combined total of over 600 institutions when licensure-only programs were included. It appears difficult to obtain the precise number of leadership preparation programs in the United States, depending on criteria used for this enumeration. For example, a unit may offer coursework leading to administrative licensure, yet the university may not award a graduate degree to individuals who complete the coursework. Alternatively, an institution may offer an “educational leadership” graduate degree for school administrators that does not result in school administrative licensure. Identifying leadership preparation programs may become more challenging within states that no longer require administrative licensure for school principals and superintendents. Institution Type and Graduate Degrees Since the 1980s, most educational leadership units have been located in comprehensive institutions, as identified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,2 and the majority of units have offered only the master’s degree (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007; McCarthy et al., 1988; Mc-

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    27

Carthy & Kuh, 1997). Baker, Orr, and Young (2007) analyzed data from five national datasets to examine trends related to the number of educational administration degrees awarded in recent years. They noted that 15% of educational leadership master’s degrees awarded in 2003 were earned from research institutions, 20% from doctoral institutions, and 64% from comprehensive institutions or other types of institutions. Growth in the number of institutions offering master’s degree programs in educational leadership from 1993 to 2003 primarily was concentrated in comprehensive, liberal arts, and other institutions. Similarly, growth in educational specialist (EdS) degree programs primarily occurred in comprehensive institutions (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007). An earned doctorate increasingly is becoming a desirable qualification for individuals who aspire to the school superintendency (Orr, 2007), and in 2000 nearly 45% of superintendents had earned this degree (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000). Data gathered over time indicate that the number of institutions offering doctoral degree programs in educational leadership is increasing. In 1978, doctoral programs were available in 38% of institutions with leadership preparation units (Davis, 1978); by 2003, that proportion had increased to 42% (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007). Whereas the total number of research and doctoral institutions with doctoral programs grew only slightly, comprehensive institutions increased more than five-fold, from 10 institutions in 1993 to 58 in 2003. In 2003, 31% of educational leadership doctoral degrees were awarded from research universities, 45% from doctoral universities, and 24% from comprehensive institutions (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007). Numerous concerns about the expansion of doctoral degree programs beyond research and doctoral universities have been expressed by some researchers (Levine, 2005; Orr, 2007), who have argued that comprehensive institutions may lack the faculty capacity and institutional resources to offer rigorous programs, may be unprepared to support the development of students’ research skills, and may not have sufficiently high admissions standards. These concerns also have extended to the quality of preparation of educational leadership faculty members. Trends over the 10-year period 1990–2000 indicated that fewer educational leadership professors were receiving their terminal degrees from research universities, and by 2000 nearly equal numbers of educational leadership faculty members had been hired with degrees from nonresearch and research universities (Baker, Wolf-Wendel, & Twombly, 2007). This finding raises a concern about whether faculty from nonresearch institutions have sufficient research skills, not only to fully develop their own personal research agendas but also to supervise their students’ research activities.

28    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

Size of Faculty Leadership preparation units need sufficient numbers of full-time faculty members to offer the requisite courses for their programs, to advise students, and to fulfill the professional responsibilities of the unit. The NCEEA (1987) and NPBEA (1989) recommended that each unit contain a minimum of five full-time educational leadership faculty members. Units offering doctoral degrees may need additional faculty members so that they can staff both their master’s and doctoral degree programs. Research on educational leadership units has noted that the mean number of faculty has varied through the years. A study of 342 units conducted in 1975–76 reported a mean faculty size of 6.5 across units, with an average of 8.7 faculty members in institutions offering doctoral degrees and a mean of 5.1 faculty members at other institutions (Davis, 1978). McCarthy et al. (1988) reported a mean of 5.0 faculty members in educational leadership degreegranting units in 1986, and McCarthy and Kuh (1997) noted the mean had increased to 5.6 by 1994. Research and doctoral universities historically have employed more full-time faculty than other institutions. In 1994, research and doctoral universities averaged two more faculty members than did comprehensive institutions (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997). Program Design and Delivery Educational leadership programs historically have been designed for part-time students who maintain employment as full-time educators (Davis, 1978), with courses typically offered in evenings and on weekends. In an effort to facilitate improved learning experiences for students, many educational leadership units have implemented the cohort delivery model (Grogan, Bredeson, Sherman, Preis, & Beaty, 2009). A cohort typically involves an intact group of students who complete all or the majority of their coursework and course experiences in a prescribed sequence (Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, & Norris, 2000). Although research has not conclusively supported the effectiveness of the cohort model (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2003; Donaldson & Scribner, 2003; Grogan et al., 2009; Tucker, Henig, & Salmonowicz, 2005), this approach is estimated to be employed in more than half of U.S. leadership preparation programs (Barnett et al., 2000). A growing number of units are utilizing distance education approaches as alternatives to traditional on-campus classroom instruction. These delivery mechanisms may involve off-campus locations (e.g., either based within school district classrooms or university satellite campuses) or the use of various forms of distance technology, such as courses delivered through videoconferencing, online formats, or blended models involving a combination of face-to-face classes and online sessions. In survey research involving

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    29

doctoral programs at 109 institutions, Hackmann and Berry (1999) determined that more than half used some form of distance education, including off-campus courses (used by 46% of respondents), interactive video (25% of respondents), and Internet courses (17% of respondents). Sherman and Beaty (2007) found that UCEA member institutions predominately relied upon traditional face-to-face models, although many were beginning to experiment with blended delivery approaches. Curriculum The curriculum provides the essential content knowledge for school leaders—what they “should know and be able to do” (Osterman & Hafner, 2009, p. 272). Earlier research on the curriculum in educational leadership programs, which primarily was conducted prior to NCLB, focused on identifying course content used within the majority of programs. In studies of UCEA and non-UCEA doctoral programs conducted by the UCEA Center for the Study of Preparation Programs in 1987 and 1989, Norton (1992) noted that the most popular courses completed by PhD students in nonUCEA institutions were school law, education policy, education finance, personnel administration, and administrative theory, and the most popular EdD courses were personnel administration, school law, education finance, educational leadership, and organization and administration. Pohland and Carlson (1993) examined curriculum reform in UCEA institutions through an examination of course titles, and they found that changes had been incremental. Although Pohland and Carlson noted some shifts in course content in the early 1990s, they concluded that “the primacy and legitimacy of such course domains as law, business management, organizational theory, administrative behavior, personnel administration, etc. . . . remained largely unchallenged” (p. 2). Surveying education heads to identify required coursework for principal licensure, Levine (2005) more recently reported that 4 in 5 programs offered instructional leadership, school law, educational psychology, curriculum development, research methods, historical and philosophical foundations of education, teaching and learning, child and adolescent development, and the principalship. Since the development and subsequent widespread adoption of the ISLLC standards, some states have moved away from mandating a set of discrete courses for administrative licensure to permit leadership preparation programs more flexibility in determining how to incorporate the standards into their overall curriculum (Hackmann & Wanat, 2007). In these instances, the curriculum may shift from distinct specializations, such as law and finance, and faculty may choose to design their course experiences in a the-

30    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

matic or interdisciplinary format. However, leadership preparation programs generally seem to be adhering to courses with content specializations. One topic that has generated extensive discussion over the past 15 years is leadership for social justice, as leaders are called upon to ensure that they address social inequities in their organizations (Brown, 2004; CambronMcCabe & McCarthy, 2005; McKenzie, Skrla, & Scheurich, 2006). Although Osterman and Hafner (2009) noted that leaders must possess the skills to work effectively with diverse students and their families, a high percentage of administrators reported that their programs inadequately prepared them for their interactions with diverse populations and school environments (Levine, 2005). Closely aligned with social justice is the role of ethical leadership (Beck & Murphy, 1994; Osterman & Hafner, 2009), as school leaders employ ethics of care, justice, and critique in creating schools as ethical and moral learning environments. The core of school leaders’ practices has shifted through the years from management activities to instructional leadership, and more recently the focus has changed to leadership for learning (Copland & Knapp, 2006; Hallinger & Heck, 2010). Some scholars have called for leaders to maintain a consistent focus on “core technology of schooling, or learning, teaching, curriculum, and assessment” (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2007, p. 179), so that they can promote improved student learning in their schools. In light of the data-driven decision-making mandates of NCLB (2002), more attention is being focused on data analysis and problem-solving skills for school leaders. Pedagogy Various pedagogical changes have been documented over time in educational leadership programs. In addition to web-based or web-assisted courses and videoconferencing, some programs have incorporated the use of case study methods into their classrooms, with students working in teams to dissect the cases, strategize alternative scenarios, and identify solutions to the dilemmas presented (Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, 1996; Taylor, Cordeiro, & Chrispeels, 2009). Problem-based learning also has been used in leadership preparation programs, which moves student engagement to a deeper level than the case study method. In a problem-based learning scenario, the instructor functions as one of many resources to students as they actively struggle with an authentic administrative problem and access a variety of learning resources to solve the problem (Bridges & Hallinger, 1993). There are some testimonials that problem-based learning helps principals

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    31

connect what they learned in their classes to their administrative practices (Chrispeels & Martin, 1998), but Taylor et al. cautioned that relatively little empirical research substantiates the effectiveness of problem-based learning activities in leadership preparation programs. Field Experiences Field experiences and administrative internships have been integrated into educational leadership programs as a mechanism for aspiring school leaders to understand how to connect curriculum understandings to professional practice (Barnett et al., 2009). Internships were first introduced in the 1940s (Milstein et al., 1991); 117 programs had implemented required internship experiences by the 1960s (Hencley, 1963), and 220 universities were utilizing internships by the 1990s (Milstein et al., 1991). Twenty-five states mandated internship experiences for administrative licensure by the 1980s (Cordeiro & Sloan-Smith, 1995). Barnett et al. (2009) noted that the primary goal of the internship experience “is for the potential school leaders to increase their knowledge and skills in communicating, organizing, collaborating, and managing resources” (p. 375). However, the internship has been perceived as less than effective when interns complete their field experiences in the same schools in which they teach and/or if their mentor principals are not highly proficient (Crocker & Harris, 2002; Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Levine, 2005). Some who study internships advocate a full-time model to allow aspiring school leaders to be fully engaged in administrative practice (Carr, Chenoweth, & Ruhl, 2003), although relatively few leadership preparation programs have implemented these full-time experiences. The North Carolina state legislature, through statutory mandate, has created a full-time internship, providing a $35,000 annual salary to support the intern during this year-long experience (Barnett et al., 2009). According to Barnett et al. (2009), empirical research on internship effectiveness is scant, with publications reporting on single programs or describing grant-supported program clusters, such as Danforth Foundation models in the 1980s. The limited research to date has focused on how internships assist aspiring administrators in understanding their roles (Milstein & Krueger, 1997), socialize individuals into administration (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003), impart practical knowledge and skills (Cordeiro & Sloan-Smith, 1995), and connect those entering the field with high-quality administrative mentors (Daresh & Playko, 1992).

32    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

Research Methodology Building on prior research, this study involved a longitudinal examination of educational leadership units and faculty characteristics, using survey research methods. Five research questions guided this investigation: 1. In what ways have educational leadership units changed in size, structure, composition, and degree offerings in the past quarter century? 2. What changes have occurred in personal characteristics (e.g., sex, race, age) and professional characteristics (e.g., academic rank, tenure status, salary, content specialization, administrative background, educational background) of educational leadership faculty since the 1970s? 3. How do educational leadership faculty allocate their time across the professional responsibilities of teaching and advising, research, and service/outreach? Have their workloads changed over time? Do workloads differ by various personal or professional characteristics? 4. What are educational leadership faculty members’ attitudes toward current issues in the profession and the preparation of school leaders? Do these attitudes differ when examined by various personal or professional characteristics or organizational affiliation (e.g., NCPEA and UCEA)? Have these attitudes changed over time? 5. To what extent are educational leadership faculty satisfied with their roles and the institution’s leadership preparation programs? Are satisfaction levels related to personal or professional characteristics or institution type? Have satisfaction levels changed over time?

Unit and Faculty Surveys Population The population for this study consisted of graduate educational leadership programs in universities in the United States and PK–12 educational leadership faculty members who held full-time employment in these units in 2008. Excluded from this population were university programs offering administrative certification coursework that did not culminate in graduate degrees, as well as non-university-based entities that were engaged in administrator training and certification, such as school districts and state administrator organizations. We elected to exclude programs that did not

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    33

award graduate degrees as well as preparation programs that were not affiliated with colleges and universities, because the majority of school leaders nationally continue to be prepared by institutions of higher education. Also, we wanted to collect data that generally were comparable to data amassed in previous studies of the educational leadership professoriate so we could provide longitudinal comparisons to studies conducted in 1972, 1986, and 1994. Some minor differences were identified comparing the 2008 population to populations used in prior studies of the educational leadership professoriate. The 1972 and 1986 studies of the educational leadership professoriate included some faculty members who worked in higher education administration; however, significant differences were not identified in the 1986 study between higher education and educational administration faculty on variables of interest. Subsequently, the 1994 study included only faculty members in PK–12 educational leadership. In addition, the 1972, 1986, and 1994 studies included a small number of universities and faculty members from Canada. As noted above, the population in 2008 focused solely on PK–12 educational leadership faculty members in the United States. We engaged in intensive efforts to identify all U.S. programs that offered graduate degrees in PK–12 educational leadership, including reviewing populations used in prior studies and directories maintained by the Educational Testing Service (2000) and Peterson’s Graduate and Professional Programs (2007), searching websites maintained by NCPEA and UCEA, reviewing educational leadership programs accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2010), and consulting institutional websites. Telephone contacts were made with institutions that had incomplete websites to determine the existence of leadership preparation programs and obtain contact information. We identified 614 programs with PK–12 educational leadership programs, and all department chairs, department heads, or educational leadership program coordinators (referred to as program heads) of these units were contacted by e-mail in January 2008 and invited to complete the online program head questionnaire. Individuals from 24 institutions responded that they did not have an educational leadership program, resulting in a total population for the study of 590 units. Appendix A contains a list of these institutions. The population of educational leadership faculty members was limited to individuals who held full-time employment as faculty members and were assigned to their institutions’ PK–12 educational leadership programs in the United States. This population was developed from lists of faculty members maintained on the NCPEA and UCEA websites as well as the institutional websites of the 590 educational leadership programs we identi-

34    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

fied above. Additionally, the program heads responding to the unit survey were asked to provide the names and e-mail addresses of their full-time educational leadership faculty members. These names were incorporated into the database compiled through our review of websites, yielding a total population of 2,694 faculty members. The entire population was surveyed in this study. Researchers in the 1972 and 1986 studies also surveyed the entire population, but a random sample of 940 faculty members was surveyed in the 1994 study. Instrumentation This study required the development of two questionnaires. The questionnaire sent to program heads was structured to collect information on characteristics of the educational leadership units, including the department name, faculty size, structure, faculty composition, resources, degrees offered, and student enrollments. In addition, the questionnaire collected data on programmatic changes occurring over the past 10 years, including structural modifications, curricular restructuring, and instructional reforms. The individual faculty survey collected information on faculty demographic characteristics (e.g., sex, race, academic preparation, administrative background); professional activities; and values, attitudes, and beliefs related to the field of educational leadership. To facilitate longitudinal comparisons, the two questionnaires retained most items contained in studies conducted in 1972, 1986, and 1994 (Campbell & Newell, 1973; McCarthy et al., 1988; McCarthy & Kuh, 1997). However, the instruments were revised and updated to reflect emerging issues and reform efforts that have occurred in educational leadership programs over the past several years. Draft questionnaires were reviewed by seven nationally recognized educational leadership colleagues, and items were revised, added, or eliminated based upon their suggestions. The instruments subsequently were revised upon feedback from staff of the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois. As a final step, the surveys were incorporated into online formats, using QuestionPro software, and they were piloted with four program heads who were educational leadership faculty members. Appendix B contains the program head questionnaire, and Appendix C includes the faculty questionnaire. Both survey instruments used the term PK–12 educational leadership to denote programs preparing current and aspiring school leaders (principals, superintendents, etc.). The introductory section of the questionnaires emphasized that the focus of this study was on PK–12 educational leadership, excluding the field of higher education and/or any other programs that may be housed within the same department as PK–12 educational lead-

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    35

ership programs. Although various terms are used to describe PK–12 educational leadership programs (e.g., educational administration, educational leadership, leadership preparation, educational management), the term educational leadership is used throughout this book to describe the units and faculty members under investigation. Survey Distribution As noted, educational leadership program heads initially were contacted on January 18, 2008, and asked to complete the online programhead questionnaire. Three follow-up e-mail reminders were distributed at regular intervals, with the last e-mail invitation sent on February 21, 2008. Usable questionnaires were returned by 217 of the 590 program heads, for a response rate of 36.8%. E-mail invitations were sent to the 2,694 educational leadership faculty members on March 19, 2008, inviting them to complete the online faculty questionnaire. Four follow-up e-mail reminders were distributed at regular intervals, with the final invitation sent on May 19, 2008. When electronic notification was received that an individual faculty member’s e-mail address was undeliverable, the researchers contacted the institution to confirm the faculty member’s employment status and to obtain a correct e-mail address. Numerous individuals replied that they were no longer eligible to participate in the study, due to one of the following reasons: They were no longer working at the institution, they were not working in the area of educational leadership, or they were not employed in full-time faculty positions. After removing these individuals, the study’s population was reduced to 2,377 full-time educational leadership faculty members. Usable questionnaires were completed by 895 full-time faculty members, yielding a response rate of 37.7%. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated for all variables on the program head and faculty questionnaires, using the SPSS 17.0 statistical package. Two-tailed independent t-test procedures, analysis of variance, and chi square were used to identify significant differences in characteristics, activities, and attitudes based on sex, race, organizational affiliation, administrative experience, and length of time in academe. In addition, the Levene’s test was conducted to test an equal variance assumption between groups. When the assumption of equal variance was violated, results were reported with the unequal variance t test. Differences reported as significant are at the .05 level, unless otherwise noted within the text.

36    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

Within those tables that reported descriptive statistics for variables in which “zero” would be a legitimate response (e.g., percentage of time dedicated to various professional responsibilities, number of publications), those who did not respond to an item were combined with those who indicated “zero.” For other variables, nonrespondents were eliminated from the calculations. The decision to include nonrespondents in calculations was made based upon the practice in the prior studies, which enabled comparisons over time. The variables of particular interest in this study are explained below. Institution type.  Educational leadership programs are located within a variety of institution types, including major research universities and small regional colleges. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education created a classification system of colleges and universities in 1970, and these classifications subsequently were revised in 1976, 1987, 1994, 2000, and 2005. The basic classification framework was revised substantially in 2005 (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, n.d.), and the new framework consequently is not completely aligned with previous systems. Within the 2005 Carnegie system, doctorate-granting institutions must annually award at least 20 doctoral degrees and then are further differentiated based upon research activity (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, n.d.). We have included the Carnegie classifications of Research Universities—very high research activity (RU/VH) and Research Universities—high research activity (RU/H) in the research category, Doctoral/Research Universities in the doctoral category, and the remaining colleges and universities in the comprehensive institution category. Using this modified system in 2008 permitted us to categorize universities into the same three categories (research, doctoral, and comprehensive) that were used in previous studies and therefore facilitated longitudinal comparisons. Based upon this system, 31% of respondents (n = 67) in 2008 were from research universities, 12% (n = 26) were from doctoral universities, and 57% (n = 124) were from comprehensive universities. The breakdown of the 217 program-head respondents by institution type generally mirrored the distribution of the total population of 590 units under the Carnegie classification system, although the respondents were somewhat overrepresented in the research university category and slightly underrepresented in the doctoral and comprehensive categories. Table 1.1 provides a comparison of the 217 program-head respondents in 2008 to the total population of 590 educational leadership units in the United States by institution type. Sex and race.  Data gathered over time indicate that the percentages of female and racial-minority faculty members in the field of educational leadership continue to increase. It is important to examine these trends

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    37 Table 1.1  Comparison of 2008 Programs to Total Population of Educational Leadership Units Respondent group N = 217 Institutional classification Research universities Very high research activity High research activity Doctoral/research universities Comprehensive universities Master’s colleges and universities (larger programs) Master’s colleges and universities (medium programs) Master’s colleges and universities (smaller programs) Baccalaureate colleges: Arts & sciences Baccalaureate colleges: Diverse fields Special focus faith: Theological seminaries, Bible colleges, and other faith-related institutions Special focus other Tribal colleges

Population N = 590

n

%

n

%

67 41 26 26 124 73

30.9

144

24.4

12.0 57.1

63 383

10.7 64.9

29 9 2 7 1 2 1

and to determine how background characteristics, professional activities, values, attitudes, and beliefs differ by sex and race. Administrative experience.  Educational leadership is an applied field that is dedicated to the training of current and aspiring administrators, and educational leadership units often strive to employ faculty members who have served as administrators in PK–12 schools and school districts. However, some units also may seek to hire professors with specific curricular and research expertise; for these units, prior administrative experience, while preferred, typically is not required. A comparison of the characteristics, professional activities, values, attitudes, and beliefs of faculty with and without administrative experience can be helpful to illuminate differences and potential tensions between these two groups of faculty members. Professional affiliation with UCEA and membership in NCPEA.  The two major professional organizations in the United States that are focused solely on PK–12 educational leadership professors are the UCEA and the NCPEA. UCEA membership is held by the institution, rather than by individuals. Consequently, respondents were noted as UCEA-affiliated if their universities were UCEA member institutions in Spring 2008, when this research was conducted. UCEA affiliation does not ensure that the respondent was

38    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

actively involved in UCEA activities, but it is assumed that the respondents are influenced by their program’s involvement in this organization. NCPEA membership is held by the individual, and individuals included in the 2008 NCPEA membership list were classified as NCPEA members. Data were collected for UCEA-affiliated faculty in the 1972, 1986, and 1994 studies; data by NCPEA membership were collected in the 1994 study. Length of time in academe.  Within the past few decades, the overall educational leadership professoriate has experienced a significant amount of turnover. The 1986 and 1994 studies analyzed the characteristics, professional activities, values, attitudes, and beliefs of faculty based upon the length of time they have been educational leadership faculty members, apportioned by new faculty (5 years or less in academe), intermediate faculty (6–10 years in academe), and veteran faculty (11 or more years in academe). Analyzing data for these groups provides an opportunity to discern whether the values and belief systems of new faculty differ from their more experienced colleagues and can foreshadow emerging norms within the professoriate.

Overview of Remaining Chapters Chapter 2 contains data collected from program heads on the size, structure, composition, and programs of educational leadership units in 2008. Chapters 3 and 4 present information collected from educational leadership faculty members in 2008 related to their demographic characteristics and professional activities. Chapter 5 provides an analysis of faculty members’ attitudes, values, beliefs, and levels of satisfaction on a variety of issues related to educational leadership preparation, including the quality of their own preparation programs and those across the United States. Within each chapter, distinctions are made across various educational leadership faculty subgroups, including by sex, race, UCEA and NCPEA affiliation, and institution type. Chapter 6 reports on the characteristics, values, attitudes, and beliefs of respondents when analyzed by the length of time that they have been employed as educational leadership faculty members, with a particular focus on novice faculty members who have been working in academe 5 years or less. Chapter 7 reports on characteristics of clinical faculty respondents—faculty employed in academic appointments that were not eligible for tenure. Finally, Chapter 8 provides a profile of educational leadership units and faculty members in 2008 and explores several themes and trends identified in this study.

Overview of Research on the Educational Leadership Professoriate    39

Notes 1. In June 2010, the name of the American Education Finance Association was changed to the Association for Education Finance and Policy. 2. The Carnegie institutional classification system is described in the subsequent section explaining the study’s methodology.

This page intentionally left blank.

2 Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics

T

his chapter provides data on educational leadership units in 2008— both stand-alone departments and educational leadership programs located within larger departments. This information was collected from department chairs or program coordinators of educational leadership units (referred to as program heads). Examining longitudinal data on educational leadership units is important to identify trends in the preparation of current and aspiring school leaders and to ascertain the characteristics of full-time faculty who are preparing them. Institutional factors, such as unit structure, program mission, and resources, collectively can influence program quality, faculty morale, and faculty productivity. Throughout this chapter, the data are compared with information on educational leadership units reported in prior studies of the professoriate that were conducted in 1972 (Campbell & Newell, 1973), 1986 (McCarthy et al., 1988), and 1994 (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997).1

At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century, pages 41–74 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 41

42    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

Information on educational leadership unit characteristics was received from 217 program heads in 2008, which represented 36.8% of the total population of 590 educational leadership units. As was noted in Chapter 1, based upon the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (n.d.) classification system of higher education institutions that was used in 2008, 31% of respondents (n = 67) were from research universities, 12% (n = 26) were from doctoral universities, and 57% (n = 124) were from comprehensive universities. This breakdown of program-head respondents by institution type was fairly comparable to the breakdown of the total population of 590 educational leadership programs by institution type. However, this was not the case for program-head respondents grouped by UCEA affiliation. About one fourth (24%, n = 51) of the responding educational leadership program heads were from UCEA-member institutions, which represented 65% of the total UCEA institutional membership in 2008; 76% (n = 166) were from institutions that were not affiliated with UCEA, which comprised only 32% of non-UCEA institutions. Thus, when respondents were compared by UCEA affiliation, UCEA institutions were overrepresented by a 2:1 ratio. Included in this chapter is a profile of educational leadership unit characteristics in 2008 as reported by program heads, as well as a comparison of these data to responses collected from program heads in 1986 and 1994. Unit data were not requested from program heads in the 1972 study. When appropriate, data are examined by institution type and UCEA affiliation.

Unit Structure, Mission, and Size This section provides information on departmental reorganizations that have occurred during the past decade and an analysis of mission statements of the leadership preparation units. In addition, it addresses the average number of full-time educational leadership faculty members and information on faculty from outside the department and adjunct faculty who regularly teach in leadership preparation programs.

Departmental Restructuring Departmental restructuring of educational leadership units appears to be relatively commonplace. More than two fifths (43%) of the program heads reported that their departments had engaged in a departmental reconfiguration within the past decade. Their descriptions of restructuring efforts included merging the educational leadership unit with related disciplinary areas, repositioning the program from within one department

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    43

to another, transitioning from a program area within a department to an autonomous department, and creating new degree programs or disciplines within the existing unit. One fourth (25%) of the program heads reporting some form of reconfiguration indicated that departmental mergers had occurred. The discipline most frequently combined with educational leadership was higher education, followed by school counseling, special education, and curriculum and instruction. In the 1994 study, 41% of program heads reported that they had experienced departmental reconfigurations within the preceding decade, with nearly half of the reorganizations involving departmental mergers. Therefore, it appears that the pace of departmental mergers declined considerably in the past decade. Given the current condition of the U.S. economy and the significant budget shortfalls and reductions in higher education funding levels, it is a distinct possibility that higher education institutions will implement department consolidations as cost-saving measures. Approximately one third (35%) of the 2008 program heads reported that their department titles had changed within the past 10 years. In contrast, nearly half of respondents in the 1994 study had reported new department titles within the prior decade. An examination of departmental titles in 2008 disclosed an overwhelming preference for identifying the department’s focus on leadership rather than administration. Forty-four percent of the 217 units included leadership in their titles, whereas 12% used the term administration. Indeed, reflecting a trend reported in the 1994 study, the most commonly described change in reconfigured titles (34% of the 2008 units) was replacing the term administration with leadership. Five percent of the units in 2008 elected to include both terms in their department titles, and only 4% of departments that previously had used the term leadership had changed to administration within the past decade. Consistent with the 1994 study, in 2008 research (63%) and doctoral (50%) universities were much more likely to use leadership in their department titles than were comprehensive institutions (33%). One fourth (25%) of the units used the generic term education for their title, noting that their units were combined with other specializations in departments or divisions of education, schools of education, or colleges of education. A much higher proportion of comprehensive institutions (38%) than in doctoral (12%) or research (6%) universities clustered all PK–12 education programs into one generic education unit. Due to unit consolidations in the past decade, 7% of program heads reported that the terms leadership or administration had been removed from their department titles.

44    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

Mission Statements Program heads were asked to describe the mission of their PK–12 educational leadership programs, and 87% of respondents responded to this request. The mission statements were analyzed to identify broad themes across the units. Two major categories emerged—units that provided practical descriptions of their activities and those whose statements were aspirational in nature. The practical mission statements described the basic functions of the units: to prepare and certify aspiring public school principals and district administrators. Some unit mission statements described specific geographic regions that the unit served, such as a particular urban region, portion of the state, or the entire state. The aspirational mission statements provided more detailed information regarding the unit’s or institution’s values, aims, and goals. These statements focused on preparing educational leaders who demonstrated specific behaviors, such as strategic, political, instructional, organizational, or community leadership. These mission statements displayed a tendency to articulate a conceptual framework that would be foundational to administrative practice. Topics that appeared across many of these mission statements included social justice, democracy, diversity, ethics, and reflection.

Unit Size The number of U.S. colleges and universities housing educational leadership degree programs has increased significantly since the early 1900s. The exact number of programs is difficult to quantify because of numerous factors. Some programs are operated jointly by two or more institutions, in a variety of forms. For example, one combined program may be operated through sister campuses of a state public university; it may be offered through distinct public or private universities that entered into a formal agreement to offer a joint program; or the joint program may be delivered by a for-profit institution with numerous campuses across the United States. Some academic officials consider their programs that span institutions to be one unit with a shared faculty, whereas others identify each program as an autonomous unit. Another complicating factor is that some institutions provide degrees in PK–12 educational leadership for school leaders (typically for administrators of private schools) but do not award administrative licensure, so these institutions are not included in listings of state-accredited institutions offering coursework leading to principal or superintendent licensure. A few program heads reported that they decided to focus on the preparation of researchers and professors in the field of educational leader-

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    45

ship and policy, electing to forego programming focused on obtaining state administrative licensure for their students. Also, some programs may be in the process of becoming formally recognized and approved within their institutions and seeking state accreditation, and others may have had their accreditation status revoked or may be in the process of being closed down within their universities. There are conflicting reports regarding how many U.S. institutions offer graduate educational leadership programs, but it is evident that the number continues to increase. In 1946 school leader preparation programs were housed within 125 institutions (Silver, 1982). McCarthy et al. (1988) identified 366 degree-granting institutions in 1986, and McCarthy and Kuh (1997) placed this number at 365 in 1994. Baker, Orr, and Young (2007) identified 472 U.S. programs that offered master’s degrees, 162 that offered specialist degrees, and 199 that offered doctoral degrees in 2003. As noted in Chapter 1, our extensive efforts for this study disclosed 590 degree-granting educational leadership programs housed in higher education institutions; this number reflects only university-based programs and does not include programs offered by alternative providers, including school districts or professional organizations. Over the past few decades, calls to reduce significantly the number of U.S. institutions with educational leadership programs have emerged from a variety of sources (Levine, 2005; National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration [NCEEA], 1987; NPBEA, 1989; Thomson, 1993). Concerns primarily have focused on institutional capacity to deliver high-quality programs, particularly among universities that are not classified as research or doctoral institutions by the Carnegie Foundation. In 1987 the NCEEA asserted that fewer than 200 of the 505 educational leadership programs had “the resources and commitment to provide the excellence called for by the Commission” (p. 23). Also advocating for reductions in programs, Levine (2005) claimed that the overabundance of programs was creating intense competition for students; as a result, institutions were “lowering admissions standards, watering down programs, and offering quickie degrees” (p. 24). Citing rapid growth in programs and advanced degrees that had occurred within comprehensive institutions between 1993 and 2003, Baker, Orr, and Young (2007) asserted that these institutions “are less able to deliver a quality program, particularly quality doctoral programs” (p. 386). It seems clear that university academic administrators have not heeded the calls for reductions in leadership preparation programs. Undoubtedly, the most visible indicator of institutional resources and capacity is the number of full-time educational leadership faculty members

46    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

assigned to the program. It is important for units to have sufficient numbers of professors so they can adequately address the responsibilities inherent in offering high-quality student learning experiences. These duties extend beyond merely teaching the requisite courses that are required for administrator preparation and include such activities as advising students, supervising students’ field placements, engaging in research, supervising student research, evaluating program effectiveness, collaborating on curricular reforms, recruiting potential students, monitoring the admissions process, maintaining outreach with local school districts and professional associations, fulfilling state or national accreditation mandates, and providing service to the institution and profession (Hackmann et al., 2009). The number of faculty members necessary to adequately staff an educational leadership program is dependent upon the number of enrolled students and the types of degrees (e.g., master’s, EdS, EdD, PhD) and licensure programs (e.g., principal, superintendent) that are offered. Programs offering doctoral degrees, in contrast to those that do not offer the doctorate, likely will need to employ additional faculty members to supervise dissertation research activities. The NCEEA (1987) advocated for “a minimum of five fulltime faculty members” (p. 24) but did not distinguish between institutions offering doctoral programs and those with master’s-only programs. The program standards of UCEA (1998) mandate a “critical mass of tenure-line full-time faculty members,” which UCEA describes as typically five or more. Membership in UCEA is only available for institutions that offer doctoral degrees in educational leadership. Research during the past three decades indicates that the mean number of educational leadership faculty members in units is in flux. Davis (1978) reported a mean of 6.5 faculty members per unit in 1976. By 1986 this mean had decreased to 5.0 with a median of 4.0 (McCarthy et al., 1988); the NCEEA reported a median number of 3.9 faculty members in 1987. By 1994 the number of full-time faculty members per unit had increased to a mean of 5.6 and median of 5.0. By 2008 the mean again declined, dropping to 4.8 faculty members in educational leadership units, a loss of 0.8 full-time faculty since the mid-1990s (Table 2.1). The modal unit size was 3.0 in 2008 compared to 5.0 in 1994 and 2.0 in 1986. The median unit size in 2008 was 4.0 compared to 5.0 in 1994 and 4.0 in 1986. The decline between 1994 and 2008 was evident across all institution types. In 2008 research universities reported 0.1 fewer faculty than in 1994 (mean of 6.5 in 2008 compared to a mean of 6.6 in 1994), doctoral universities lost an average of 2.0 faculty (mean of 4.5 in 2008 compared to a mean of 6.5 in 1994), and comprehensive universities reported 0.8 fewer faculty (mean of 3.9 in 2008 compared to 4.7 in 1994). Both UCEA-member and non-UCEA units lost faculty mem-

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    47 Table 2.1  Number of Faculty in Educational Leadership Units by Institution Type and UCEA Affiliation Mean

Median

Mode

Type/affiliation

1986

1994

2008

1986

1994

2008

1986

2004

2008

All programs Research Doctoral Comprehensive UCEA Non-UCEA

5.0 7.0 6.2 3.8 8.2 4.5

5.6 6.6 6.5 4.7 7.7 5.2

4.8 6.5 4.5 3.9 7.1 4.0

4 7 5 2 8 4

5 6 6 4 7 5

4 6 4 3 7 3

2 7 5 3 6, 8 2

5 5 5 2, 5 6 5

3 5, 6, 8 3, 4 2 8 2

bers. UCEA-member units reported a mean of 7.1 faculty members in 2008 compared to a mean of 7.7 in 1994, and in 2008 non-UCEA units reported a mean of 4.0 faculty members compared to a mean of 5.2 full-time faculty members in 1994. In 2008, 4 in 9 educational leadership units (44%) met the NCEEA’s recommended minimum of five full-time faculty members. In 1994, approximately three fifths of program heads reported having at least five fulltime faculty members in their leadership preparation programs. The number of full-time educational leadership faculty reported across the units in 2008 ranged from 0 to 16, and approximately 4% of units had no full-time faculty. Differences were significant by institution type: 78% of research universities, 38% of doctoral universities, and 27% of comprehensive institutions employed a minimum of five full-time faculty. More than four fifths of UCEA-member programs compared to only one third of non-UCEA-affiliated programs met the five-faculty minimum. The difference in the mean faculty size between educational leadership units in research and comprehensive universities increased between 1994 and 2008; research institutions employed 2.6 more full-time faculty members than comprehensive institutions in 2008 compared to a difference of 1.9 faculty members in 1994. Similarly, the gap in mean faculty size between UCEA and non-UCEA units grew from 2.5 in 1994 to 3.1 in 2008. The 2008 data indicated that, as it relates to size of faculty, educational leadership units in doctoral universities are becoming more similar to comprehensive institutions than to research universities. As has been true in prior studies, the average number of faculty members in non-UCEA units was more similar to that reported in comprehensive institutions than to research universities in 2008, and the mean faculty number in UCEA units was more similar to that in research universities. This was not surprising, because 73% of the respondents from non-UCEA institutions were located in compre-

48    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

hensive universities, and 84% of the respondents that were UCEA-member programs were situated in research universities. The program heads reported whether faculty size within their units had increased, remained stable, or decreased compared with a decade earlier. More than one third (37%) reported that their faculty numbers had increased, 38% reported they remained the same, and 25% reported a decrease. When examined by institution type, increases in the number of faculty members were reported by 39% of comprehensive, 36% of doctoral, and 33% of research institutions. Decreases were reported by 17% of comprehensive, 27% of doctoral, and 38% of research universities. Units remained the same in 44% of comprehensive, 36% of doctoral, and 30% of research institutions. Analyzed by UCEA affiliation, 40% of non-UCEA institutions reported increasing faculty size compared to 28% of UCEA institutions. Twenty percent of non-UCEA institutions reported losing faculty members compared to 38% of UCEA institutions, and 40% of non-UCEA compared to 34% of UCEA institutions maintained their faculty size. Thus, full-time faculty members were added primarily in educational leadership programs located at comprehensive and non-UCEA institutions, where the majority of school leaders are being prepared. Examining the number of full-time faculty members reported by the program heads, these data do not fully align with their statements regarding the increase or decrease in overall faculty numbers, because it would appear that the means of full-time faculty in 2008 would have increased compared with 1994. There are three possible explanations for these discrepancies. First, 14 years have passed since the 1994 study, and program heads reported on changes occurring only within the last decade. It is possible that some faculty adjustments occurred in the years between 1994 and 1998, which would not have been documented by the program heads. Second, program heads might not have been employed continuously in their units for the past decade and therefore might have inaccurately reported the faculty changes that had occurred within their units. Third, this study focused only on full-time faculty members, and program heads possibly elected to include part-time educational leadership faculty members when reporting faculty employment trends within their units. University faculty members with appointments outside the educational leadership unit also may be called into service to support leadership preparation programs. Sixty-three percent of program heads reported regularly relying upon colleagues outside their units to teach educational leadership courses, and the mean number of colleagues called into service by these units was 1.7 faculty members. This practice was consistent across institution types, with 60% of research, 69% of doctoral, and 63% of comprehen-

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    49

sive institutions reporting using faculty members from outside educational leadership units in their preparation programs. Additionally, 64% of UCEAmember and 63% of non-UCEA member institutions used nondepartmental faculty colleagues to teach courses. Educational leadership units also frequently employ adjunct faculty members to teach courses. Adjuncts usually maintain full-time employment elsewhere, such as in positions as school principals or superintendents, and are hired to teach one or more educational leadership courses on a temporary per-course basis. Program heads were asked the number of adjunct instructors who were regularly utilized, and their responses ranged from 0 to 100. Actually, two program heads reported using 80 and 100 adjuncts, and due to these extremely high numbers their responses were considered outliers and excluded from this analysis. Thus, when these responses were excluded, the range was from 0 to 37. The mean number of adjunct instructors regularly used per unit was 5.4 in 2008, which was considerably higher than the mean of 3.0 adjuncts that was reported in 1994. Consistent with the 1994 study, research universities used fewer adjuncts (4.2 per unit) than doctoral (7.2) or comprehensive (5.7) institutions. UCEA member programs averaged 4.6 adjunct faculty members per unit compared to 5.7 adjuncts for non-UCEA institutions. Stated from another perspective, the institutions with fewer full-time faculty members regularly used more adjunct instructors than those with higher numbers of regular faculty members. Given that the average number of full-time faculty members has decreased since 1994, it was not surprising that units more frequently are relying on adjunct instructors to staff their courses.

Graduate Degrees Offered and Student Enrollment Included in this section is information on the graduate degrees offered by the leadership preparation programs and the average number of students enrolled in the units. Data also are reported by institution type and UCEA affiliation.

Graduate Degrees Reports over the past few decades have provided contradictory recommendations regarding the necessity and appropriateness of various graduate degrees in educational leadership. The NPBEA (1989) recommended the elimination of master’s degree programs. In contrast, Levine (2005) subsequently argued that the master’s degree should be revitalized. Observing that too many degree options existed in the field, Levine suggested

50    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

that a new degree, a Master’s in Educational Administration, should be created. He argued that the EdD degree credential was unnecessary for school administrative positions and that doctoral and comprehensive institutions lacked sufficient institutional resources to offer doctoral degrees. Therefore, he advocated eliminating the EdD in educational leadership and reserving the PhD degree for individuals interested in becoming researchers and scholars. The 2008 respondents noted that the master’s degree was the degree most commonly offered, with 95% of the responding program heads stating that their units offered this degree option for students (Tables 2.2 and 2.3). The proportion of educational leadership units with master’s degree programs has remained consistent for several decades, with 93% offering this degree in 1976 (Alkire, 1978), 91% in 1986, and 92% in 1994. Slightly more than 1 in 4 (27%) of the units in 2008 offered only the master’s degree option for students; in comparison, 29% of units in 1994 offered only this degree. Table 2.2  Degree Structure of Educational Leadership Units in 1986, 1994, and 2008 by Institution Type Percentage of units

1986

1994

2008

1986

1994

2008

1986

1994

2008

Comprehensive

2008

No graduate program Master’s only EdS only EdD only PhD only Master’s/EdS Master’s/EdD Master’s/PhD EdS/EdD EdS/PhD EdD/PhD Master’s/EdS/EdD Master’s/EdS/PhD Master’s/EdD/PhD EdS/EdD/PhD Master’s/EdS/EdD/ PhD

Doctoral

1994

Degrees

Research

1986

All institutions

3 27 1 2 1 17 5 3 1 0 2 13 5 7 1 14

2 29 1 3 0 15 12 5 2 0 1 9 5 8 0 9

0 27 2 0 0 13 18 3 1 0 1 15 6 8 0 6

3 3 0 4 0 0 9 2 2 0 0 13 9 19 0 37

2 2 0 5 0 0 15 11 2 0 3 5 15 21 0 21

0 0 0 0 0 0 18 6 0 0 4 15 13 25 0 18

2 9 0 4 0 5 14 5 0 0 4 23 9 7 2 16

0 4 0 4 0 9 24 4 4 0 0 13 7 11 0 20

0 8 0 0 0 8 35 4 4 0 0 35 8 0 0 0

3 44 3 1 2 28 1 3 1 0 2 9 1 1 1 3

2 50 2 2 0 24 6 2 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

0 46 4 0 0 21 14 1 1 1 0 11 1 0 0 0

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    51 Table 2.3  Degree Structure of Educational Leadership Units in 1986, 1994, and 2008 by UCEA Affiliation Percentage of units UCEA Degrees No graduate program Master’s only EdS only EdD only PhD only Master’s/EdS Master’s/EdD Master’s/PhD EdS/EdD EdS/PhD EdD/PhD Master’s/EdS/EdD Master’s/EdS/PhD Master’s/EdD/PhD EdS/EdD/PhD Master’s/EdS/EdD/PhD

Non-UCEA

1986

1994

2008

1986

1994

2001

0 0 2 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 12 16 16 2 37

0 0 0 3 0 0 18 5 3 0 3 8 13 25 0 25

0 0 0 0 0 0 18 8 2 0 2 14 10 27 0 20

3 32 1 2 1 20 5 3 1 0 2 13 3 5 0 9

2 34 1 3 0 17 11 4 2 0 1 10 4 4 0 6

0 36 3 0 0 17 18 1 1 1 1 16 4 1 0 1

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

The EdS and Certificate of Advanced Studies are very similar degree options and are typically structured as 6th-year programs, representing the equivalent of 1 year of graduate coursework beyond the master’s degree. For the purposes of this study, both degrees have been reported as the EdS. This degree option was not nearly as popular as the master’s degree and was somewhat less popular than doctoral degrees: 43% of the units offered the EdS in 2008 compared to 52% in 1986 and 41% in 1994. Differences were noted by subgroups, with 45% of research, 53% of doctoral, and 39% of comprehensive institutions offering this degree in 2008. Forty-six percent of UCEA member and 44% of non-UCEA institutions offered the EdS. Continuing a trend noted in both 1986 and 1994, more than half of the 217 educational leadership units offered a doctoral degree option in 2008: the EdD, PhD, or both. And the percentage of units offering a doctoral degree continues to increase; whereas 54% of units offered a doctoral degree in 1994, this percentage rose to 58% in 2008. Not surprisingly, research universities (100%) were far more likely to offer educational leadership doctorates in 2008 than were comprehensive institutions (29%). Similarly, 100% of the UCEA-member programs and 43% of non-UCEA programs offered doctor-

52    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

ates.2 As some researchers have noted (Baker, Orr, & Young 2007; Levine, 2005), the number of comprehensive institutions offering advanced degrees is increasing. Twenty-two percent of educational leadership units at comprehensive universities offered a doctoral degree in 1994; that percentage increased to 29% by 2008. Nearly 1 in 4 units (24%) overall offered the PhD, and this degree was significantly more likely to be available at research institutions in 2008, where 67% provided this option. Only 12% of doctoral universities and 3% of comprehensive universities offered the PhD. Nearly half of the 217 units (49%) offered the EdD; 81% of research, 82% of doctoral, and 26% of comprehensive universities awarded EdD degrees. The percentage of institutions offering both the EdD and PhD degrees has diminished over time, and the dual degree options appear to be now available only within research universities. Whereas 24% of all institutions offered both doctoral options in 1986, 18% provided both degrees in 1994, and 14% did so in 2008. Over time, research institutions have maintained a consistent focus on both the PhD and EdD options, with 53% offering both degrees in 1986, 45% in 1994, and 45% in 2008. Twenty-nine percent of doctoral institutions offered both degrees in 1986 and 31% did so in 1994, but no doctoral universities offered both doctoral degrees in 2008. Similar trends were recorded for comprehensive institutions: 7% offered both doctoral degrees in 1986, but none provided both options in either 1994 or 2008. Among UCEA institutions, 57% offered both degree options in 1986, 53% in 1994, and 49% in 2008. For non-UCEA institutions, 16% offered both in 1986, 11% in 1994, and 4% in 2008. Some educational leadership units elect to offer the full array of degree programs (master’s, EdS, EdD, and PhD) for their students, but this practice is becoming increasingly less common. The percentage of units offering all four degree options decreased from 14% in 1986 to 9% in 1994 and 6% in 2008 (Table 2.2). In research universities, all four degrees were offered by 37% of respondents in 1986, 21% in 1994, and 18% in 2008. Whereas 16% of respondents from doctoral universities offered all degrees in 1986 and 20% in 1994, none offered all four options in 2008. Similarly, within comprehensive institutions, 3% offered all degrees in 1986 but none offered these options in 1994 and 2008. In UCEA institutions, 37% offered all degrees in 1986, 25% in 1994, and 20% did so in 2008; in non-UCEA institutions, 9% offered all four degrees in 1986, 6% in 1994, and 1% in 2008 (Table 2.3).

Student Enrollment Program heads reported that the total number of full- and part-time students in their units ranged from 2 to 2,610. The three largest units, in

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    53

terms of student numbers, enrolled in excess of 1,500 students. The mean number of full- and part-time students enrolled in degree programs per educational leadership unit in 2008 was 153 students. In 1994, the average was 166 degree-seeking students per unit. When the number of students working toward their administrative licenses or certificates without also obtaining a degree (“licensure-only”) was included in these numbers, units averaged 178 students in their educational leadership programs. The average student–faculty ratio in 2008 was 38:1, but as the total number of students per unit increased, this ratio also increased. Units with fewer than 100 students had a 15:1 student–faculty ratio, and the ratios for the remaining enrollment strands were as follows: 200–299 students, 30:1; 300–399 students, 38:1; 400–499 students, 49:1; and 500 or more students, 139:1. Thus, units with the highest enrollments (500+ students) averaged 9 times more students per faculty member than those with the lowest enrollments (fewer than 100 students). Since 1994, comprehensive institutions have increased their proportion of degree-seeking students, accounting for 57% of students in 2008 (Table 2.4). Including licensure-only students, this proportion increased to 59%. In the 1994 study, 43% of degree-seeking students were enrolled in comprehensive institutions, 32% of the students were enrolled in research Table 2.4  Percentage of Educational Leadership Students in 2008 Across Degree Programs by Institution Type and UCEA Affiliation Degree Degree students   Master’s   EdS   EdD   PhD   Total

All programs

Research

Doctoral

Comprehensive

UCEA

NonUCEA

64 18 15 3 100

19 3 8 2 32

6 1 3 0 10

39 14 4 0 57

11 1 6 1 19

53 17 9 2 81

1

9

2

12

5 1 3 0 10

34 12 4 0 59

9 1 5 1 18

45 14 8 1 80

Degree and licensure-only students  Administrative 14 4 licensure only   Master’s 55 16   EdS 16 3   EdD 13 7   PhD 2 2   Total 100 32

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

54    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

universities, and 10% were enrolled in doctoral universities. In 1994, 84% of degree-seeking students maintained part-time enrollments, and in 2008, 92% of students were enrolled as part-time students. As noted in Table 2.4, 64% of degree-seeking students in 2008 were seeking master’s degrees; when licensure-only students were included, 69% of the total number of enrolled students were classified as master’s or licensure only. Eighteen percent of students working toward degrees were enrolled in doctoral studies (3% in PhD programs and 15% in EdD programs). In comparison, 24% of students in the 1994 study were seeking doctoral degrees. Units with doctoral programs averaged 35 students per full-time faculty member, whereas units that did not offer doctoral degrees averaged 46 students per faculty member. For doctoral-degree units, research universities reported student–faculty ratios of 32:1 compared to a ratio of 38:1 at doctoral and comprehensive universities. UCEA-member and non-UCEA-member programs in 2008 averaged the same number of degree-seeking students (M = 152). When including licensure-only students, UCEA-member programs averaged 173 students and non-UCEA programs averaged 178 students. There was relative parity in enrollments between UCEA and non-UCEA units, but considering the mean number of faculty members per unit, UCEA institutions averaged 24 students per faculty member compared to an average of 44 students per faculty member for non-UCEA institutions. In addition, all UCEA institutions offered doctoral degrees, whereas fewer than half (47%) of nonUCEA institutions offered doctoral programs. The student–faculty ratio for non-UCEA programs with doctoral programs was 44:1 compared to the 24:1 ratio for UCEA institutions. The number of universities that have joined UCEA has risen significantly in the past decade, but the number of non-UCEA leadership preparation programs also has increased. Consequently, UCEA programs accounted for only 19% of degree-seeking students in 2008, which was comparable to the proportion of students in UCEA institutions in 1994 (18%). Nearly 3 in 5 (57%) doctoral students were completing their studies at research universities, with 25% at comprehensive universities and 18% at doctoral universities. Two in five (38%) doctoral students were studying in UCEA-member institutions compared to 62% in non-UCEA universities. The majority of students in comprehensive universities were earning master’s or EdS degrees (93%). This also was the case in research and doctoral universities, but to a lesser extent: 69% of students in these two institution types were working toward master’s or EdS degrees. Eighty-eight percent of students in non-UCEA institutions compared to 69% in UCEA institutions were seeking master’s or EdS degrees.

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    55

Graduate assistantships are an important resource for individuals who are engaged in full-time study, not only as a means of financial support to sustain students who do not hold full-time employment but also because they provide an opportunity for students to engage in research activities under the supervision of educational leadership professors. Program heads were asked if they provided student assistantships but were not asked to quantify how many assistantships their units offered; thus, support may be provided for only a small portion of a program’s students. Of those units with EdD and/or PhD degree programs in 2008, nearly half (47%) provided assistantships for some doctoral students (not tabled). Nearly two thirds (64%) of research universities provided assistantships for doctoral students compared to 45% of doctoral universities and 35% of comprehensive institutions. Two thirds (67%) of UCEA-member institutions provided doctoral assistantships, whereas 39% of non-UCEA institutions awarded assistantships. Assistantships at the master’s or EdS levels were provided at 32% of institutions, including 27% of research, 31% of doctoral, and 34% of comprehensive institutions. Almost two fifths (39%) of UCEA-member programs compared to 31% of non-UCEA programs, provided assistantships for master’s and EdS students. Overall, at least one student assistantship was provided at some degree level (master’s, EdS, EdD, and/or PhD) in 53% of the responding units. Given this finding that only slightly more than half of the educational leadership programs provided funding to support individuals desiring to pursue full-time studies, it was not surprising for program heads to report in 2008 that 92% of educational leadership students elected to complete their programs on a part-time basis. Some higher education institutions mandate that their students complete an on-campus residency during their degree programs. Similar to prior studies, units were more likely to have residency requirements in place for doctoral study than for EdS or master’s degrees. Slightly over half required a residency for their doctoral degree programs, with 52% requiring residency for the PhD and 51% for the EdD. Thirty percent required students to maintain residency for EdS programs, and 30% of the responding units mandated residency for master’s programs. It appears that institutions increasingly are eliminating on-campus residency requirements, as far more programs required a period of campus residency in 1994 (84% of PhD and 78% of EdD programs) than in 2008. As higher education institutions increasingly explore distance-learning options such as off-campus locations, online courses, and blended models, it seems logical to assume that their programs will consider abandoning this time-honored tradition of campus residency, assuming that their university policies would permit the elimination of this requirement.

56    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

Use of the cohort delivery model is becoming increasingly commonplace in leadership preparation programs. Under this approach, groups of students typically progress through most or all of their courses in lockstep fashion, engaging in problem-solving activities, enjoying social interaction with their peers and faculty, and collaborating on research activities and projects (McCarthy & Forsyth, 2009). In 2008, cohorts were most common in master’s programs, with 69% of program heads who responded to this survey item reporting their use (not tabled). Only 29% of EdS programs employed a cohort model. At the doctoral level, students in 47% of the EdD programs matriculated in cohorts compared to 36% of the PhD programs. When compared with 1994 data, the use of cohorts had increased at all levels, with the exception of the EdD. In 1994, cohorts were in operation in one fourth of master’s programs, one sixth of EdS programs, more than half of EdD programs, and one fourth of PhD programs.

Composition of Faculty in Educational Leadership Units This section reports information on the composition of faculty in educational leadership units by sex, race, tenure status, rank, and academic appointment as documented by program heads. In addition, data are reported related to recent faculty hires and reasons for faculty departures from their units.

Distribution of Faculty by Institution Type and UCEA Affiliation Research institutions employed 40% of the educational leadership faculty in 2008 but represented only 31% of the educational leadership units nationally. Educational leadership programs in comprehensive institutions employed 49% of the faculty but comprised 57% of the educational leadership units, whereas doctoral institutions employed 11% of the faculty and comprised 12% of the units. When these distributions were compared to prior studies, the proportion of faculty members at research institutions had increased, from 30% in 1986 to 32% in 1994 and 40% in 2008. UCEA-member institutions also represented larger percentages of faculty (33%) than of units (24%) compared to non-UCEA institutions that employed about two thirds (67%) of the educational leadership faculty but represented more than three fourths of the units (76%). Similarly, the percentage of faculty employed at UCEA institutions increased from 28% in 1994 to 33% in 2008, but the number of UCEA-member institutions also increased during this period. The increase in the reported percentages of faculty from research and UCEA-member institutions might be due, in part, to the fact that the research universities were somewhat overrepresented in the respondent

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    57

group in 2008, when compared with the total population of 590 universities offering educational leadership programs. Research universities comprised 31% of the units responding to the questionnaire but only 24% of the total population of educational leadership units. Similarly, the UCEA-member institutions constituted 24% of the respondent group but only 13% of the total population of universities with educational leadership programs. However, as was noted in Table 2.1, the mean number of faculty members employed at research universities and UCEA-member institutions also was much greater than the mean number of faculty at doctoral universities, comprehensive institutions, and non-UCEA institutions. Therefore, the increases can be attributed in part to the fact that research and UCEA-member institutions have more faculty members with appointments in their programs.

Sex and Race Maintaining a trend that was documented in 1994, diversity by sex and race continues to increase in the educational leadership professoriate. Program heads in 2008 reported that 45% of all full-time faculty members were female compared to 12% in 1986 and 29% in 1994. Proportions of female faculty members were virtually identical across institution types and by UCEA affiliation, varying between 44% and 46% of overall faculty (Table 2.5). A similar pattern was documented in 1994 regarding the lack of variance by institution type and UCEA affiliation. The overall percentage of faculty of color also increased, although not as dramatically. In 1986, program heads reported that 8% of the faculty members were from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. This percentage increased to 13% in 1994 and to 19% in 2008 (Table 2.5). In 2008, program heads reported that 81% of respondents were White, 10% were Black or African American, 5% were Hispanic or Latino/a, 2% were Asian, 1% were biracial or multiracial, 1% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and fewer than 1% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A somewhat higher percentage of faculty of color were employed in research universities (21%) than in doctoral (15%) or comprehensive (19%) institutions, and UCEA programs (22%) employed more faculty of color than non-UCEA programs (18%). As reported in Table 2.5, white women represented 35% of all full-time faculty members in 2008, racial-minority women comprised 10% of the total faculty, and racial-minority men represented 9% of all faculty members. As a result of the gains among these subgroups, the educational leadership professoriate is no longer dominated by White men. Whereas in 1994, nearly two thirds (63%) of the faculty members were White men, that percent-

58    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century Table 2.5  Sex and Race of Faculty Reported by Program Heads in 1986, 1994, and 2008 by Institution Type and UCEA Affiliation Type/ affiliation by year

Percentage of faculty Female

All   1986 12   1994 29   2008 45 Research   1986 11   1994 26   2008 45 Doctoral   1986 13   1994 28   2008 46 Comprehensive   1986 12   1994 31   2008 45 UCEA   1986 11   1994 29   2008 46 Non-UCEA   1986 12   1994 29   2008 44

Minority Minority female male

White female

White male

7 8 9

11 23 35

81 63 46

1 6 12

6 6 9

9 20 33

83 67 47

90 88 85

3 4 8

7 7 8

10 23 39

81 65 46

8 15 19

92 86 81

1 6 9

7 9 10

11 25 36

81 60 45

89 71 54

9 14 22

91 87 78

1 6 12

8 7 10

9 23 34

82 64 44

88 71 56

8 13 18

92 87 82

2 6 9

6 8 9

11 23 36

81 63 47

Male

Minority

White

88 71 55

8 13 19

92 87 81

2 6 10

89 74 55

8 12 21

92 88 79

87 72 54

10 12 15

88 69 55

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

age decreased to 46% in 2008. The percentage of women among faculty preparing school leaders now is comparable to the percentage of women in administrative roles in our nation’s elementary and secondary schools. Women held slightly over half of public and private school principalships in the 2007–08 school year (Snyder & Dillow, 2010); however, they continue to be underrepresented in the superintendency, as fewer than one fourth of superintendents are women (Glass & Franceschini, 2007).

Academic Appointment, Rank, and Tenure Status Program heads in 2008 noted the type of academic appointment, rank, and tenure status of educational leadership faculty, reporting that 84% of

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    59

full-time faculty were in tenure-eligible positions. Of the total numbers of faculty reported to be employed in full-time appointments, 34% were professors in tenure-line positions, 26% were associate professors in tenure-line positions, 25% were assistant professors in tenure-line positions, and 16% occupied non-tenure-line positions (Table 2.6). For the purposes of this study, those individuals hired in non-tenure-line appointments are referred to as clinical faculty. When examined by institution type, the distributions across tenureline faculty ranks were not dramatically different, but doctoral universities Table 2.6  Percentage of Faculty by Academic Appointment, Rank, and Tenure Status Reported by Program Heads in 1986, 1994, and 2008 by Institution Type and UCEA Affiliation % by academic appointment/rank Type/affiliation by year All   1986   1994   2008 Research   1986   1994   2008 Doctoral   1986   1994   2008 Comprehensive   1986   1994   2008 UCEA   1986   1994   2008 Non-UCEA   1986   1994   2008

% tenured

Associate Assistant Clinical Professor professor professor professor (tenure-line) (tenure-line) (tenure-line) (all ranks) All faculty

Tenureeligible only

60 47 34

28 33 26

12 20 25

0 0 16

81 71 48

81 71 57

57 52 34

31 29 27

13 19 21

0 0 18

80 77 54

80 77 66

60 48 39

29 31 15

11 22 34

0 0 12

80 70 47

80 70 54

62 44 33

26 36 27

13 21 25

0 0 15

81 68 44

81 68 50

62 52 39

28 30 23

10 18 24

0 0 15

84 79 55

84 79 66

59 46 32

28 34 27

13 21 25

— — 16

79 69 46

79 69 53

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

60    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

reported higher proportions of professors (39%) and assistant professors (34%) and a correspondingly lower proportion of associate professors (15%) in comparison to research and comprehensive universities. UCEA institutions also reported more professors (39%) than did non-UCEA institutions (32%) and somewhat fewer associate professors (23% for UCEA, 27% for non-UCEA). Over time, the educational leadership professoriate has become more evenly distributed across tenure-line academic ranks. Whereas 60% of faculty members were professors in 1986, this proportion dropped to 47% in 1994 and 41% in 2008 (Table 2.6). The proportion of associate professors remained relatively constant during this time, with 28% holding this rank in 1986, 33% in 1994, and 30% in 2008. The number of assistant professors increased in the past few decades, growing from 12% of the overall professoriate in 1986 to 20% in 1994 and 29% in 2008. These trends were consistent by institution type and UCEA affiliation, with each subgroup reporting lower portions of professors and higher percentages of assistant professors. The employment of full-time clinical faculty in educational leadership programs has been advocated for more than two decades (Griffiths, Stout, & Forsyth, 1988b), but the number of faculty members in these positions was negligible in the 1986 and 1994 studies. Program heads in 1986 and 1994 reported no faculty members in clinical appointments, whereas 3% of respondents to faculty questionnaires in 1986 and 1% of respondents in 1994 reported being in clinical positions. Due to their very small numbers, the characteristics and activities of clinical faculty were not analyzed in 1986 and 1994. Clearly, the increase in clinical faculty from about 1% to almost 16% of full-time faculty in only 14 years is a significant finding and therefore is more fully examined in Chapter 7. Research universities reported a higher percentage of clinical faculty (18%) than doctoral (12%) and comprehensive (15%) universities in 2008. Comparable proportions of clinical faculty were employed in UCEA (15%) and non-UCEA (16%) programs. According to National Center for Education Statistics data on full-time faculty in all fields working in 4-year colleges and universities during the Fall 2009 semester, 25% of faculty members were employed in institutions with tenure systems but were not on the tenure track, and an additional 7% worked in institutions with no tenure systems (Knapp, Kelly-Reid, & Ginder, 2009). Thus, it appears that educational leadership units, with 16% of their fulltime faculty in clinical roles, may continue to hire more non-tenure-line faculty as is evident across disciplines. Table 2.6 also includes the distribution of individuals who had attained tenure, and trends indicate that the portion of tenured educational leader-

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    61

ship faculty members has declined since 1986 across all institution types. Program heads in 2008 reported that slightly fewer than half (48%) of all full-time faculty members had attained tenure. In comparison, 81% of faculty members in 1986 and 71% in 1994 were tenured. Higher proportions of tenured faculty members were reported in research (54%) universities than in doctoral (47%) or comprehensive (44%) institutions. Similarly, UCEA institutions (55%) reported higher percentages of tenured faculty than did non-UCEA institutions (46%; Table 2.6). The proportion of females (49%) who were tenured in 2008 decreased slightly from 1986 (52%) and 1994 (58%), and the percentage of males with tenure declined much more dramatically, going from 84% in 1986 to 76% in 1994 and to 48% in 2008. Among White faculty, 81% were tenured in 1986, 74% in 1994, and 49% in 2008. The percentage of minority faculty who were tenured also evidenced a similar trend but with a more marked downward slope, going from 81% tenured in 1986, to 54% in 1994, to 46% in 2008 (not tabled). Examining faculty distribution by sex and race across academic appointment (Table 2.7), several patterns were observed. The proportion of Table 2.7  Percentage of Faculty Across Academic Appointment and Rank by Sex and Race Reported by Program Heads in 1986, 1994, and 2008 Appointment/rank by year Professor   1986   1994   2008 Associate professor   1986   1994   2008 Assistant professor   1986   1994   2008 Clinical facultya   1986   1994   2008

Female

Male

Racial minority

White

4 17 39

96 83 61

6 10 14

94 90 86

18 31 46

83 70 54

12 15 19

88 85 81

38 52 51

62 48 49

12 19 31

88 81 69

— — 48

— — 52

— — 12

— — 88

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. a Clinical faculty were not analyzed by sex and race due to the very small percentage of clinical faculty documented by program heads in these studies.

62    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

tenure-line professors who were women more than doubled between 1994 and 2008: 17% of professors in 1994 were women, and 39% of professors in 2008 were female. The proportion of tenure-line associate professors who were women increased from 31% in 1994 to 46% in 2008. Slightly more females (51%) than males (49%) held the rank of tenure-line assistant professor in 2008. Racial-minority representation increased at all tenure-line ranks, continuing a trend observed since 1986. Faculty of color comprised 14% of professors (compared to 10% in 1994), 19% of associate professors (compared to 15% in 1994), and 31% of assistant professors (compared to 19% in 1994). Only 12% of clinical faculty, compared to 20% of tenure-line faculty, were persons of color.

Reasons for Faculty Departures Faculty members may leave their departments for a variety of reasons, including voluntary separation (such as accepting a faculty appointment at another university) and involuntary termination (such as denial of tenure). Program heads in 2008 were asked to enumerate the number of faculty members who departed over the past 10 years and to indicate the reasons for their separation from their units: denial of tenure, encouragement to leave the institution prior to tenure denial, accepting an academic position at another university, accepting a nonacademic position at another university, accepting a position in a field outside higher education, retirement, and death. The award of tenure is not only an important professional milestone but also essential to ensure continued employment within one’s institution. Eighteen percent of responding program heads in 2008 reported that tenure had been denied to one or more individuals in their units within the past 10 years (Table 2.8); in 1994, tenure denials had occurred in 23% of units in the prior decade. The average number of tenure denials per unit increased only incrementally, growing from 0.36 in 1986 to 0.38 denials in 2008. Research universities reported the highest average number of denials during this 10-year period, averaging 0.59 denials per unit compared to 0.33 in doctoral and 0.28 in comprehensive institutions. UCEA programs heads reported fewer denials on average (0.22 per unit) in their units within the past decade than non-UCEA programs (0.44). Many higher education institutions have mechanisms in place to review a faculty member’s scholarly productivity and professional performance a few years prior to the actual tenure decision. Within some universities, these procedures may be formalized, such as a mandated 3rd-year review conducted by a committee of tenured faculty, whereas other institutions may simply provide informal feedback from the department chair. One fifth of

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    63 Table 2.8  Tenure Denials and Encouragement to Leave (Prior 10 Years) Reported by Program Heads in 2008 by Institution Type and UCEA Affiliation Denied tenure

Type/affiliation

Percentage of units

Average no. denials per unit

All programs Research Doctoral Comprehensive UCEA Non-UCEA

18 26 27 12 20 18

0.38 0.59 0.33 0.28 0.22 0.44

Encouraged faculty to leave prior to tenure decision

Percentage of units

Average no. faculty encouraged to leave per unit

20 19 18 19 17 21

0.35 0.32 0.33 0.36 0.19 0.39

program heads in 2008 reported that faculty members had left their units within the past 10 years after being encouraged to leave prior to a negative tenure decision, and the average was 0.35 departures per unit (Table 2.8). The average number of encouraged departures was consistent across institution type. However, UCEA programs reported fewer such departures (0.19 per unit) than did non-UCEA programs (0.39). When the involuntary separation factors (denial of tenure and being encouraged to leave) were combined, it was not unexpected that research institutions facilitated more involuntary separations than other institution types, as these institutions arguably have more stringent promotion and tenure policies and procedures. However, the percentage of faculty involuntarily terminated from non-UCEA institutions was twice that of UCEA institutions, which appears counterintuitive and deserves further investigation, given the fact that a large percentage of UCEA institutions are classified as research universities. One possible explanation for this phenomenon could be the likelihood that UCEA member units more frequently recruit faculty members from other institutions (whether experienced assistant professors or tenured associate or full professors). If this is the case, then these individuals already might have been socialized into the expectations of the profession and have established research agendas and successful teaching records. Program heads reported additional factors that influenced faculty to separate from their institutions over the past 10 years. These reasons included the following: retirement (68% of units, averaging 1.26 departures), accepting an academic position at another higher education institution

64    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

(47% of units, averaging 0.80 departures), accepting an academic position outside higher education (21% of units, averaging 0.32 departures), death (11% of units, averaging 0.14 departures), and accepting a nonacademic position in another higher education institution (9% of units, averaging 0.11 departures).

Recent Faculty Hires According to program heads, 72% of educational leadership faculty members in 2008 had been hired within the past 10 years (recent hires). This figure can be misleading and easily misinterpreted, because it represents the cumulative total of turnover that occurred within institutions during the preceding decade. For example, an institution with three fulltime educational leadership faculty lines might have two individuals who maintained employment throughout the 10-year time period, while the remaining line might have been filled by four different individuals during the decade. Although the program head might have reported four hires, in reality, only one member of the current faculty would be termed a “recent hire.” Even so, these data, combined with retirement data, provided an indication of the extent of turnover within the educational leadership profession over the past decade. When previous studies were examined, a picture emerged of a professoriate that is turning over more rapidly than in the past. The percentages of recent hires documented by program heads were 57% in 1986, 63% in 1994, and 72% in 2008. Women have been beneficiaries of recent hiring patterns: They represented one third of new hires in 1986, 40% in 1994, and 49% in 2008. Some institution types have been more aggressive in their hiring practices. Fiftyfive percent of recent hires in doctoral institutions and 54% in research universities in 2008 were women, whereas only 43% of recent hires were women in comprehensive institutions (Table 2.9). Within UCEA institutions, 57% of recent hires were women compared to 46% in non-UCEA institutions. These patterns by type of institution and UCEA affiliation were evident in 1994 as well, when research universities and UCEA institutions reported that 51% of their recent hires were women. Racial-minority representation also has increased among recent hires, but at a more measured pace than for women. In 1994, 20% of recent hires were faculty of color; this percentage increased to 24% in 2008. Higher percentages of recent hires in 2008 were persons of color in research institutions (29%) and UCEA institutions (30%). Non-UCEA institutions reported that 21% of recent hires were faculty of color, and doctoral and compre-

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    65 Table 2.9  Percentage of Recent Hires (Prior 10 Years) Reported by Program Heads in 2008 by Sex and Race Across Institution Type and UCEA Affiliation White

Racial minority

Total

Type/affiliation

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Racial minority

All programs Research Doctoral Comprehensive UCEA Non-UCEA

36 37 43 33 39 35

41 34 36 47 31 44

13 17 12 10 18 11

11 12 8 10 12 10

49 54 55 43 57 46

24 29 20 20 30 21

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

hensive institutions each reported that 20% of their faculty members were people of color (Table 2.9).

Faculty Support Professional development activities assist professors in remaining abreast of recent developments in their field. The typical professional development vehicle for educational leadership professors is participation in annual conferences of national associations dedicated to educational leadership. Higher education institutions often provide an annual monetary allocation for faculty members, which they can access to support their professional growth. The annual allotment per faculty member to support travel to professional meetings in 2008 ranged from zero to $20,000; the mean amount was $1,350, and the median and modal amounts were $1,000. The mean in 1994 was $794; when adjusted for inflation by using an inflation calculator from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, that amount would be equivalent to $1,154 in 2008 currency. The mean 2008 allotment was higher at research universities ($1,622) than at doctoral ($1,283) and comprehensive ($1,223) institutions. UCEA institutions provided a mean allocation of $1,779 compared to $1,128 at non-UCEA institutions. Fewer than 1% of program heads said their units provided no professional development funds; they reported that faculty were responsible for generating professional development funds through individual grants. Approximately 1 in 4 (26%) units provided funding in the amount of $500 or less. In addition to funding for conference travel, higher education institutions often provide other professional development opportunities for

66    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

professors. Program heads reported an array of resources for faculty, and the most frequent responses were the following: professional development workshops and seminars for faculty that were delivered either within their colleges or schools of education or university wide (noted by 31% of respondents); technology training (8% of respondents); funding for instructional materials, books, or software (5%); statewide conferences (4%); and grant-writing workshops (2%). Nearly one fourth (23%) reported that no professional development opportunities were offered, either within their units, colleges or schools, or universities. Clerical support is essential through the employment of office professionals, who can assist faculty with routine departmental responsibilities and can address student needs. The modal ratio of educational leadership professors per clerical support staff member across all educational leadership units was 8:1; the mode in 1986 and 1994 was 5:1. The median in 2008 was 7:1, and the mean was 7.8:1; coincidentally, these were identical to the median and mean in 1994. Four percent of program heads in 2008 reported that their units employed no office support staff. The mean ratio of faculty to clerical support by institution type was 7.6:1 in research universities, 7.1:1 in doctoral universities, and 8:1 in comprehensive institutions. UCEA institutions reported a ratio of 7.1:1, whereas non-UCEA institutions documented 8.0 faculty members for each clerical staff member.

Accreditation and Licensure Leadership preparation programs typically obtain accreditation through the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, educational leadership specialty area), the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), or their state accreditation processes.3 Eighty-six percent of program heads provided a response to the item requesting information on the accreditation their leadership preparation programs had attained. Seventy-nine percent reported that their programs had received state accreditation, 71% reported obtaining NCATE accreditation, and 6% had TEAC accreditation. Each of the 50 states is responsible for creating its own administrative areas of responsibility for which educators can obtain their licensure, and therefore the classifications are not uniform across the nation. For example, some states have elected to group all school administrative positions into one broad classification of PK–12 administration, whereas others have separated the classifications into the superintendency and the principalship. Some states have further subdivided principal licensure into elementary or secondary, or elementary, middle, and secondary. More recently, some

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    67

states have created a teacher-leader license in recognition of the important role that teachers can play in providing leadership in their schools. The program heads were asked to identify the administrative licenses for which their units prepared individuals. Their responses should be considered with knowledge of the variation in administrative licensure classifications across the states. For example, a program head might have indicated that the unit did not offer distinct principalship or superintendency programs, because the state education department might have established a combined PK–12 administrative license with no separate principal and superintendent licenses. Ninety-six percent of the program heads provided a response to this question. Ninety-eight percent of those responding offered programs that would permit students to obtain some type of state administrative licensure, and many offered more than one type: 92% prepared individuals for principal licensure, 64% for the superintendency, 63% for PK–12 administration, 32% for special education director, 23% for teacher leadership, and 18% for school business official licensure. Of the 2% of respondents from institutions that did not offer state licensure options, two noted they were located in states with voluntary administrative licensure, one prepared individuals for leadership roles in private schools, and one was located in a research institution that had decided not to provide a licensure program for its students.

Program Reforms: Curriculum and Instruction It is important for educational leadership faculty members to regularly assess their programs’ effectiveness in preparing school administrators who have the essential skills to lead schools and school districts. Faculty may determine that the curriculum and instructional methods occasionally need to be revised to reflect new understandings about effective teaching and learning practices in schools, as well as emerging understandings of effective leadership behaviors that promote school improvements. This section describes programmatic reforms enacted by the educational leadership units over the past decade. As was noted in Chapter 1, the development of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996) was an important activity in that it established national standards that have been adopted by the vast majority of states. Some of these states have used the ISLLC standards to mandate significant reforms to their accreditation processes, and leadership preparation programs have been required to revise their curricula and

68    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

instructional practices in order to document their adherence to these new requirements (McCarthy & Forsyth, 2009).

Programmatic Changes Changing state accreditation requirements may require units to implement programmatic reforms; additionally, educational leadership faculty members periodically may choose to examine their programs and make structural changes. Consequently, the program heads were asked to list any programmatic changes they had made during the past 10 years that were beyond modifications to their curriculum or instructional practices. Seventy percent of the program heads provided responses, which encompassed 247 topics. The most significant development, noted by nearly half of the program heads (n = 70), was enhancement of their internship or other field experience requirements. Respondents indicated numerous changes, including increasing the number of clock hours required, infusing clinical activities throughout courses in addition to the required internship, more clearly articulating the required internship activities, increasing the field supervisor’s contact with the administrative mentor, providing mentor training, and shifting the internship from an elective activity to a program requirement. Other topics identified by more than 10 program heads were the following: the implementation or expansion of cohort models (n = 46); expanded recruitment efforts, which often were accompanied by efforts to attract a more diverse applicant pool (n = 22); program restructuring as a result of the ISLLC standards or state/national accreditation reforms (n = 18); development of online or blended courses (n = 16); enhanced collaborative efforts with school districts, including school district involvement in program development, student recruitment, and student admissions (n = 15); and more stringent admissions criteria (n = 13).

Curriculum Changes Program heads also rated the extent of curriculum change in their units in the last 10 years, using a 5-point scale (1 = no change, 5 = very extensive amount). The mean was 3.75, which fell between a moderate amount and large amount. Reported changes were greater for comprehensive institutions, with a mean of 3.64; research universities reported a mean of 3.33, and the mean for doctoral universities was 3.05. The mean for UCEA-member units was 3.23 and was 3.56 for non-UCEA programs. In 1994, program heads reported a comparable mean score (3.60) when noting the extent of

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    69

curriculum reforms, so the impact of the ISLLC standards and state leadership preparation reform initiatives is somewhat uncertain. The program heads indicated that the ISLLC standards or a state modification had influenced their program’s curriculum between a moderate and significant degree overall using a 4-point scale (1 = no influence, 4 = significant influence). The mean was 3.52 for all respondents, and the means generally were consistent across institution types, with a mean of 3.40 for research universities, 3.67 for doctoral universities, and 3.56 for comprehensive institutions. Program heads of UCEA institutions reported a mean of 3.43, and the mean for non-UCEA institutions was 3.55. Program heads were asked to respond to an open-ended question inquiring into the content areas or topics that were receiving more attention in their programs than was the case 10 years ago. More than four fifths (83%) provided responses, listing 345 different topics. The majority of responses addressed the need to provide school leaders with the necessary skills to improve their schools and to improve learning opportunities for diverse students. The topics mentioned by at least 20 program heads were the following: instructional leadership/leadership for learning (n = 53); data-driven leadership (n = 40); social justice, diversity, and equity (n = 24); student assessment and evaluation (n = 23); technology (n = 22); and curriculum leadership (n = 20). At least 10 program heads reported these topics received more emphasis: ethics, special education, law, school reform strategies, and finance. Program heads also identified the content areas that received less emphasis in their programs than 10 years earlier; 68% responded to this item and listed 181 topics. At least 10 program heads reported the following topics were being emphasized less: school management (n = 24), finance and budgeting principles (n = 16), school facilities (n = 15), curriculum (n = 14), and organizational theory (n = 12).

Changes in Instructional Strategies Program heads were asked to characterize the amount of change in instructional strategies used in their units in the past 10 years, using a 5-point scale (1 = none, 5 = very extensive amount). The mean was 3.48, indicating that the extent of change was between moderate and large. The reported changes were greater at comprehensive institutions, with a mean of 3.74; research universities recorded a mean of 3.33 and doctoral universities a mean of 3.05. The mean score of non-UCEA institutions was 3.56 compared to a mean of 3.23 at UCEA institutions.

70    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

When asked to list the most important changes in instructional strategies used within their programs in the past 10 years, 80% of program heads provided responses and listed a total of 242 topics. The most frequently mentioned instructional change was the implementation of online instruction, including courses that were fully Internet-based and blended models that incorporated a combination of face-to-face and online instruction (n = 61). Closely related was the second most frequent response, which was the integration of technology into instruction (n = 31). Program heads mentioned that various forms of technology were being used to support student learning, including access to Internet resources, posting course materials online, and uses of various forms of technology within the classroom. Additional instructional strategies identified by at least 10 program heads were the following: case studies (n = 27), problem-based learning activities (n = 16), constructivist teaching strategies promoting active student engagement (n = 15), group projects (n = 14), and performance assessments of students (n = 12).

Distance Learning Courses can be delivered in varied formats, including face-to-face instruction on the university campus or at off-campus locations. In addition, distance learning options may be used, which include interactive video formats, Internet-based instruction, and blended models that include both face-to-face and web-based instruction. In 2008, 69% of program heads reported that their programs were delivered in face-to-face formats in offcampus locations. By institution type, 69% of research, 71% of doctoral and 67% of comprehensive universities reported off-campus sites. Eighty-one percent of UCEA institutions and 66% of non-UCEA programs reported delivering their programs away from the university campus. The number of off-campus locations reported by the programs ranged from 0 to 90. Excluding one outlier that reported 90 off-campus sites, the mean number of off-campus locations was 2.5 and the median was 2. Whereas 4 in 5 units reported three or fewer off-campus sites, 4% (eight units) reported offering their programs in 10 or more off-campus locations. By institution type, research universities averaged 2.8 off-campus locations, doctoral universities averaged 2.4, and comprehensive universities averaged 2.5 sites. UCEA programs reported an average of 2.3 off-campus locations, and non-UCEA programs averaged 2.5 sites. Thus, consistent patterns were observed across types of institution and by UCEA affiliation. Comparing student enrollments and staffing levels, units with off-campus locations averaged 222 students and 5.1 full-time faculty members. Units

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    71 Table 2.10  Percentage of Units With Distance Learning Reported by Program Heads in 2008 by Institution Type and UCEA Affiliation

Type/affiliation

Most or all courses delivered online

Some courses via interactive video

Some blended courses

No distance learning used

All programs Research Doctoral Comprehensive UCEA Non-UCEA

18 18 24 17 14 19

17 23 19 14 19 17

60 56 62 62 65 59

27 26 24 29 16 31

Note. Blended courses include some combination of face-to-face, web-based, and interactive video. Percentages may exceed 100 because respondents could select more than one item.

offering only on-campus courses averaged 84 students and 3.5 full-time faculty members. The student–faculty ratio for units without off-campus programming was 24:1 compared to a ratio of 43:1 for units with off-campus locations. The units that were more extensively involved with off-campus delivery—those reporting 10 or more off-campus locations—averaged 203 students per full-time faculty member. The use of distance learning approaches was a common practice across the leadership preparation units, with 73% reporting using some form of distance learning in 2008, whether delivering most or all of the program online, using interactive video, or using blended models with a combination of face-to-face and either web-based or interactive video. For those employing distance learning, the most commonly used approach was a blended model, with program heads in 3 out of 5 units reporting this method. Differences by institution type and UCEA affiliation were negligible (Table 2.10). Units using some form of online course delivery averaged 40 students per full-time faculty member compared to an average of 30 students per faculty member for units that did not have some form of distance learning.

Field Experience Requirements Given the attention being focused on connecting university coursework to practical applications, it is informative to ascertain the number of clock hours that students must complete for their clinical experiences (i.e., field experiences, practice, internships). Program heads were asked to provide this information for their principal and superintendent licensure programs. Responses were provided by 76% of program heads (n = 165) regarding their clinical experiences in their principal preparation programs. The

72    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

clock hours of field experiences required for principal licensure programs ranged from 27 to 1,000 hours, with a mean of 297 hours. Comprehensive universities averaged 294 hours, doctoral universities reported an average of 343 hours, and the mean for research universities was 286 hours. UCEA institutions required an average of 283 clock hours of clinical experiences, and non-UCEA institutions required an average of 301 hours. Data on clinical experiences for aspiring superintendents were provided by 40% of program heads (n = 87). The requirements ranged from 28 to 1,000 clock hours, with a mean of 270 hours. Comprehensive universities required an average of 287 hours of clinical experiences for superintendent licensure compared to 315 hours at doctoral universities and 219 hours at research universities. Non-UCEA institutions mandated 280 clock hours of clinical work for aspiring superintendents compared to 241 hours at UCEA institutions.

Summary This chapter has reported on some trends across the nation’s educational leadership units that—depending upon one’s perspective—are both disturbing and encouraging. The number of university-based educational leadership preparation programs has increased in the past decade, even though calls for reductions in these programs have come from a variety of sources throughout the past quarter century. Some might argue that this proliferation can create healthy competition among programs and increased selection for potential students, yet it appears to have come at the expense of some important indicators of quality. Growth in the number of leadership preparation programs primarily has occurred within comprehensive institutions. Furthermore, comprehensive institutions have been responsible for an increase in the number of units offering doctoral degree programs within the past decade, even though some scholars have argued that non-research universities are not adequately positioned to offer quality doctoral programs (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007; Levine, 2005). Also problematic is the fact that, even as the overall number of educational leadership programs has grown, the number of full-time faculty members assigned to each unit has declined since 1994. The typical leadership preparation program contains an average of 4.8 faculty members—a loss of nearly one faculty member per unit since 1994—and 5 in 9 programs do not maintain minimum staffing levels that have been recommended by organizations dedicated to educational administration. As a result, units with fewer full-time educational leadership faculty members report regularly calling upon higher numbers of faculty members from outside their units

Educational Leadership Unit Characteristics    73

and adjunct faculty members to teach courses in their programs. Another trend that should be noted is the increasing numbers of part-time students; in 2008, over 9 out of 10 students were completing their programs on a part-time basis. Also, fewer than half of institutions with doctoral degree programs reported providing graduate assistant support. This lack of institutional funding can create financial difficulties for individuals who wish to complete their studies as full-time students. Some interesting changes over time were related to overall composition of the educational leadership professoriate, as reported by the program heads. The professoriate is becoming increasingly diverse; 4 in 9 educational leadership faculty members in 2008 were women, and 1 in 5 was a person of color. The turnover in faculty since 1994 has implications for diversification across academic ranks, as the proportion of individuals who have attained the rank of professor and associate professor has decreased, while the proportion of assistant professors has increased. Another interesting development has been the dramatic rise in the proportion of clinical faculty members. These shifts in type of academic appointment have affected the proportion of tenured faculty as well. Whereas high percentages of educational leadership faculty members had attained tenure in 1986 and 1994, fewer than half of educational leadership faculty members were tenured in 2008. Program heads reported numerous changes that had been implemented within their programs over the past decade, and they cited the ISLLC standards as influential in promoting these reforms. A high percentage reported enhancing their clinical experience requirements. Additionally, nearly 7 in 10 programs employed the cohort delivery model for their master’s programs, and almost half utilized cohorts for their doctoral programs. Curriculum reforms have strengthened content in the areas of leadership for learning, data-driven leadership, social justice, student assessment and evaluation, and technology. The most frequently mentioned instructional change was related to technological innovations, including Internet-based courses and hybrid models including a combination of web-based and faceto-face courses. In addition, program heads reported that faculty members were integrating technology into their instructional methods. Nearly 70% of the units delivered their programs in face-to-face delivery models at off-campus locations, and nearly three fourths reported using some form of distance learning mechanism to deliver their courses, such as online, interactive video, and blended delivery models. Clearly, the extensive use of technology in delivering preparation programs is the most noticeable change in educational leadership units since the mid-1990s.

74    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

Notes 1. Because frequent comparisons are made to the 1972, 1986, and 1994 studies of the educational leadership professoriate, a citation is provided only the first time each study is referenced within a chapter. Subsequent references to these studies will not contain the in-text citation. 2. Although 100% of research universities awarded doctoral degrees in 2008, 33% offered only the EdD, 19% offered only the PhD, and 47% offered both the EdD and PhD. 3. On October, 10, 2010, the NCATE and TEAC governing boards approved the consolidation of these two organizations into a new accreditation body, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2010). The merger will take place within a 2-year period.

3 Characteristics of Educational Leadership Faculty

I

n contrast to Chapter 2, which presented unit data collected from educational leadership program heads, the remainder of the chapters in this book present descriptive data collected in 2008 from 895 respondents who were employed as full-time faculty members. These respondents worked in 366 institutions across 49 states and the District of Columbia, with Alaska being the only state from which a response was not obtained. Specifically, this chapter focuses on the characteristics of full-time educational leadership faculty, with subsequent chapters addressing faculty activities and attitudes and selected subsets of the educational leadership professoriate. For most items, respondent characteristics are reported by sex, race, school administrative experience, type of institution in which respondents were employed (research, doctoral, comprehensive), affiliation with UCEA, and membership in NCPEA. Comparisons are made to comparable data that were collected on faculty characteristics in 1972 (Campbell & Newell, 1973), 1986 (McCarthy et al., 1988), and 1994 (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997). The proportion of respondents employed in educational leadership programs that held membership in UCEA was slightly higher in 2008 (30%) At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century, pages 75–102 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 75

76    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

than in 1986 (28%) and 1994 (27%). This slight increase was not unexpected, as UCEA has expanded its membership since the 1994 study. It is important to note, however, that in 1972, 43% of the respondents were in UCEA programs. Among 2008 respondents, 17% were NCPEA members compared to 14% who reported this designation in 1994. Membership in NCPEA is held by the individual, whereas institutions belong to UCEA. All educational leadership faculty members in UCEA-member institutions were considered UCEA faculty. Fourteen percent of NCPEA members were employed in UCEA-member institutions, and less than 8% of respondents affiliated with UCEA programs were NCPEA members. Distribution of respondents across institution types showed some changes from previous studies. Nearly half of the 2008 respondents (47%) worked in comprehensive institutions compared to 43% of respondents in 1986 and 40% in 1994. Forty-three percent of respondents in 2008 were located in research institutions compared to 35% in 1986 and 39% in 1994. Finally, 10% of the 2008 respondents were employed in doctoral institutions compared to 22% in 1986 and 21% in 1994. Apportioning the entire population of 2,377 educational leadership faculty members in 2008 by institution type, 51% worked in comprehensive universities, 10% in doctoral universities, and 38% in research universities. Therefore, it appeared that the respondents in 2008 were slightly overrepresented in the research university category and slightly underrepresented in the comprehensive institution category; a similar respondent pattern was evident in the 1994 study. Consistent with previous studies, there was significant alignment between UCEA affiliation and designation as research universities in 2008; 87% of UCEA faculty members were located in research institutions. Only 23% of the faculty belonging to NCPEA were employed in research universities, whereas 60% of NCPEA members worked in comprehensive institutions.

Personal Characteristics of Faculty This section reports on the personal characteristics of the faculty respondents in 2008, including sex, race, current age, age upon entering the professoriate, and anticipated retirement age. Comparisons are made to the 1972, 1986, and 1994 studies as appropriate.

Sex and Race The studies conducted in 1972, 1986, and 1994 documented an increasingly diverse educational leadership professoriate with respect to sex and to a lesser extent in terms of race. Of the 895 respondents to the fac-

Characteristics of Educational Leadership Faculty    77

ulty questionnaire in 2008, 401 (44.8%) were female and 494 (55.2%) were male. Although women traditionally have been underrepresented in the educational leadership professoriate, the gender gap has narrowed significantly since the 1994 study, when 20% of educational leadership faculty were women. In fall 2007, women comprised 45% of faculty members in all U.S. postsecondary institutions and 39% of full-time faculty members in public 4-year institutions (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). Therefore, the proportion of women in educational leadership units closely mirrors the composition across disciplines in higher education institutions. In the 1994 study, 11% of the respondents were from racial-minority groups. In 2008, 129 (14.6%) of the 883 faculty respondents who reported their race were people of color, and 754 (85.4%) were White. The 2008 racial minority breakdown was as follows: 7.6% Black or African American, 2.6% Hispanic or Latino/a, 1.9% biracial or multiracial, 1.5% Asian, 0.8% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.2% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. In Fall 2007, faculty of color comprised 23% of full-time faculty in all postsecondary institutions and 24% of full-time faculty in 4-year public institutions (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). Thus, it appears that the proportion of minority faculty in educational leadership units falls below the minority percentage across all disciplines in postsecondary institutions. As with prior studies, because of the low percentages in each category of faculty of color, a combined minority subgroup is used for analysis purposes. Comparing the respondent distributions from the faculty questionnaire with the percentages of full-time faculty reported by program heads in 2008, female representation was virtually identical—approximately 45% (Table 3.1). But program heads reported that the racial minority composition of their units was 19%, which is 4% higher than the proportion of racial-minority respondents to the faculty questionnaire. Consequently, faculty of color might be slightly underrepresented in the 2008 faculty data, compared with the population of full-time educational leadership faculty in the United States. This phenomenon also was evident in the 1994 study. The data from both the program head and faculty questionnaires clearly showed that female representation in educational leadership units has increased significantly over the past several decades. In 1972, women comprised only 2% of educational leadership units compared to 45% in 2008 (Table 3.2). Racial minority representation did not grow as dramatically, although it increased five-fold over the same time period, rising from 3% in 1972 to 15% in 2008 using the faculty data. Although the percentage of racial-minority women increased from 3% to 8% between 1994 and 2008, the proportion of racial-minority men decreased slightly, dropping from 8% in 1994 to 7% in 2008. The proportion of White women more than doubled

78    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century Table 3.1  Educational Leadership Faculty Composition in 2008 by Sex and Race % of faculty respondents (N = 895)

% of faculty reported by program heads (N = 1,115)

Female Male

45 55

45 55

Racial minority White

15 86

19 81

Racial-minority female Racial-minority male White female White male

8 6 37 49

10 9 35 46

Sex/race

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Table 3.2  Percentage of Faculty Respondents by Sex and Race in 1972, 1986, 1994, and 2008 Sex/race

1972

1986

1994

2008

Female Male

2 98

10 90

20 80

45 55

Racial minority White

3 97

7 93

11 89

15 85

Minority femalea Minority malea White femalea White malea

— — — —

2 5 9 84

3 8 17 72

8 7 37 49

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. This category was not used in the 1972 study.

a

in this same timeframe, from 17% in 1994 to 37% in 2008. As was noted in Chapter 2, White men no longer comprise the majority of the educational leadership professoriate—although they continue to be the dominant subgroup in terms of overall faculty numbers. In 2008, White men comprised 49% of respondents to the faculty questionnaire, whereas they represented 72% of respondents in 1994. Table 3.3 provides the sex and race of 2008 respondents by institution type, UCEA affiliation, NCPEA membership, and administrative backgrounds. Differences were not statistically significant, but the proportion of

Characteristics of Educational Leadership Faculty    79 Table 3.3  Sex and Race of 2008 Respondents by Institution Type, UCEA Affiliation, NCPEA Membership, and Administrative Experience Percentage of respondents Racial minority

White

Female

Male

Female

Male

Total minority

Total female

All programs Research Doctoral Comprehensive

8 8 3 9

7 6 7 7

37 38 39 35

49 48 51 49

15 14 10 16

45 46 42 45

UCEA Non-UCEA

9 8

8 6

41 35

42 52

17 14

50 43

NCPEA Non-NCPEA

5 9

5 7

37 36

54 48

9 16

42 46

Administrative experience No administrative experience

6 9

5 6

35 37

53 48

11 16

42 46

Subgroup

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

women was slightly higher in research than in doctoral and comprehensive institutions, and racial minority representation was higher in comprehensive than in research and doctoral universities. Higher proportions of female and racial-minority faculty were employed in UCEA programs than non-UCEA programs. Of NCPEA respondents, 42% were women compared to 46% of non-NCPEA respondents, and 9% were persons of color compared to 16% of non-NCPEA respondents. Consistent with prior research (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997), faculty who had school administrative experience were slightly less likely to be women and people of color compared to their colleagues without administrative experience.

Age This section highlights information on the reported age of the 2008 respondents, including the mean age of respondents at the time of the survey, their age upon entering the professoriate, and their projected retirement age. Data also are compared to prior studies that have examined the age distribution of educational leadership faculty members. Mean Age of Faculty Respondents Previous research has reported that the average age of the educational leadership professoriate has been trending upward, and the 2008 data de-

80    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century Table 3.4  Age Distribution of Respondents in 1972, 1986, 1994, and 2008 Percentage of respondents Age 39 and under 40–49 50–59 60–69 70 and over Mean age

1972

1986

1994

2008

22 39 26 13 1 48

9 27 47 17 1 52

2 29 43 25 2 54

8 16 34 40 2 56

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

termined that this trend is continuing. The mean age of faculty increased from 48 years of age in 1972, to 52 in 1986, to 54 in 1994, to 56 in 2008. One quarter of the faculty were aged 60–69 in 1994, but this percentage had increased to 40% by 2008. More than three fourths of the faculty (76%) in 2008 were 50 years of age or older compared to 40% in 1972 and 70% in 1994. Reversing a trend observed over the past few decades, the proportion of faculty in 2008 who were 39 years of age and younger increased from 2% in 1994 to 8% in 2008. Table 3.5 reports the age distribution in 2008 by subgroups. The largest differences in mean age were based on race and whether faculty members had been school administrators: White faculty members averaged 5 years older than faculty of color, and those with administrative experience also reported a mean age 5 years greater than those who did not possess such experience. Non-UCEA respondents on average were 2 years older than UCEA faculty, whereas NCPEA members on average were 2 years older than non-NCPEA respondents. Men reported a mean age that was 3 years older than women. No differences in mean age were observed by institution type. Analyzed by subgroups over time, only racial-minority faculty and faculty with no administrative experience showed a slight decrease in mean age between 1994 and 2008 (not tabled). Age variations were observed between female and male educational leadership faculty, although the gender differences were smaller than they were in the mid-1980s. The mean age for women increased from 44 in 1986 to 49 in 1994 to 54 in 2008, while the mean age for men increased from 53 in 1986 to 55 in 1994 to 57 in 2008. The gender difference in mean faculty age narrowed from 9 years in 1986 to 3 years in 2008. The mean age of faculty of color decreased slightly from 52 in 1994 to 51 in 2008, while the mean age of White faculty increased from 54 in 1994 to 56

Characteristics of Educational Leadership Faculty    81 Table 3.5  Age Distribution of 2008 Respondents by Institution Type, UCEA Affiliation, NCPEA Membership, Sex, Race, and Administrative Experience Percentage of respondents 39 and under

40–49

50–59

60–69

70 and over

Mean age

All institutions Research Doctoral Comprehensive

8 13 4 5

16 17 16 14

34 28 39 38

40 39 36 41

2 3 4 1

56 56 56 56

UCEA Non-UCEA

13 6

19 14

26 37

40 40

3 2

54 56

NCPEA Non-NCPEA

3 9

16 15

39 33

40 40

2 3

57 55

Female Male

9 7

17 14

44 27

30 48

0 4

54 57

21 6

20 15

29 35

27 42

3 2

51 56

3

13

38

44

3

57

19

21

26

32

2

52

Subgroup

Racial minority White Administrative experience No administrative experience

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

in 2008. The mean age of faculty with no administrative experience declined from 53 in 1994 to 52 in 2008, but the mean age of those with administrative experience increased from 55 in 1994 to 57 in 2008. Two subgroups reported the highest proportions of faculty who were age 39 years or younger: 21% of faculty of color and 19% of faculty with no administrative experience were in this age group. Age Upon Entering the Professoriate The mean age that the faculty respondents in 2008 entered the professoriate was 44 years. This entering age increased significantly since the 1994 study, which reported a mean entry age of 38 years. The mean entry age had been fairly consistent from the early 1970s through the mid-1990s (Table 3.6). Differences in the mean entry age were disclosed for various subgroups in 2008 (Table 3.7). Respondents who entered academe prior to 1998 reported a mean entry age of 38 years; faculty entering after 1998 became faculty members on average at 48 years old. This gap in entry age

82    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century Table 3.6  Age That 1972, 1986, 1994, and 2008 Respondents Entered the Professoriate Percentage of respondents Age

1972

1986

1994

2008

9 51 32 7 1 39

14 55 25 6 1 37

12 52 27 9 1 38

9 30 24 32 5 44

29 and under 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 Mean age

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Table 3.7  Age That 2008 Respondents Entered the Professoriate by Institution Type, UCEA Affiliation, NCPEA Membership, Sex, Race, Administrative Experience, Type of Appointment, and Years in Academe Subgroup

Mean age at entry

Research institution Doctoral Comprehensive

42 43 46

UCEA Non-UCEA

42 45

NCPEA Non-NCPEA

46 44

Female Male

44 44

Racial minority White

44 41

Administrative experience No administrative experience

48 38

Tenure-line faculty Clinical faculty

43 51

Entered academe prior to 1998 Entered academe since 1998

38 48

can be attributed, in part, to the fact that educational leadership units are hiring increasing numbers of individuals with school administrative backgrounds—both in tenure-line positions and in clinical appointments. Faculty with administrative experience reported a mean entry age of 48 years

Characteristics of Educational Leadership Faculty    83

compared with an entering age of 38 for those without administrative experience. The mean entering age of clinical faculty was 51 years compared to 43 years for tenure-line faculty. Anticipated Retirement Age The mean anticipated age of retirement for respondents in 2008 was 67 years, which had not changed since 1994 and was only slightly higher than the retirement age of 64 years documented in 1986 (not tabled). Five percent of the 2008 respondents reported that they planned never to retire (some stated they would retire “when they plant me” or “when they close the lid”). Projecting retirement trends may be further complicated by the economic turmoil currently being experienced in the United States, as the federal government is faced with projected shortfalls in Social Security funding levels and legislators in many states are confronted with underfunded educator pension systems due to stock market declines (Eckstein, 2009). Some individuals may choose to defer retirement and remain in the workplace for economic reasons. Another factor that can influence retirement projections is the reality that educational leadership faculty—particularly clinical faculty—may enter the professoriate after having accrued sufficient years of school teaching and/or administrative experience to become vested in their state educator retirement systems. Clinical appointments may be more tenuous than tenure-line positions, and clinical faculty who are already drawing monthly pensions may be less inclined to view their professorial positions as longterm employment. Increased turnover in educational leadership units can be predicted with confidence, despite some uncertainty regarding retirement plans. With a mean age of 56 and 42% of the 2008 respondents 60 or older, it is reasonable to assume that faculty retirements will occur with increasing regularity in the coming decade.

Professional Characteristics of Faculty This section provides information on the personal characteristics of the 2008 faculty respondents, including data on their academic rank and tenure status, school administrative backgrounds, compensation, employment history, and educational backgrounds. Comparisons are made by subgroups, when appropriate, as well as with prior studies of the educational leadership professoriate.

84    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

Academic Rank and Tenure Status The faculty respondents in 2008 were asked to report their academic appointments and tenure status. Academic ranks for tenure-line faculty were classified as professor, associate professor, and assistant professor. Non-tenure-line faculty were asked to provide their job titles, which are reported in Chapter 7. Several non-tenure-track respondents indicated that they were in clinical appointments that were differentiated across ranks of clinical professor, clinical associate professor, and clinical assistant professor. Non-tenure-line respondents, regardless of their rank, were classified as “clinical faculty” and reported as one subgroup. The academic appointments of the 2008 respondents were distributed as follows: professor (tenure line), 27%; associate professor (tenure line), 29%; assistant professor (tenure line), 28%; and clinical faculty at all ranks, 16% (Table 3.8). Compared with the distributions of educational leadership faculty cited by program heads in Chapter 2 (professor, 34%; associate professor, 26%; assistant professor, 25%; clinical, 16%), the faculty respondents appeared to be underrepresented at the professor rank and slightly overrepresented at the associate and assistant professor levels. The distribution of faculty respondents across academic ranks has changed dramatically, compared with previous studies of the professoriate. Most noticeable was the dramatic decrease in the proportion of respondents who had attained the rank of professor, which peaked at 59% in 1986, declined to 54% in 1994, and dropped sharply to 27% in 2008 (Table 3.8). This reduction in faculty at the professor rank was marked by gains in assistant professors (moving from 17% of the respondents in 1972 to 28% in 2008). The share of associate professors has remained relatively consistent through the years (30% in 1972, 27% in 1986, 31% in 1994, and 29% in 2008). Therefore, in the years since the 1994 study, educational leadership units have become much more balanced within the academic Table 3.8  Educational Leadership Faculty by Academic Appointment and Rank in 1972, 1986, 1994, and 2008 Percentage of respondents Appointment/rank Professor (tenure-line) Associate professor (tenure-line) Assistant professor (tenure-line) Clinical (non-tenure-line)

1972

1986

1994

2008

50 30 17 3

59 27 10 3

54 31 15 1

27 29 28 16

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Characteristics of Educational Leadership Faculty    85

ranks and are beginning to come into alignment with data documenting rank across disciplines. The significant change in the percentage of all full-time educational leadership faculty occupying clinical roles (from 3% in 1972 to 16% in 2008) reflects a national trend across disciplines. Indeed, data from the National Center for Education Statistics indicated that in the fall of 2008 almost one third of full-time instructional staff working across disciplines in 4-year public universities were in non-tenure-line positions (Knapp et al., 2009). Thus, perhaps the percentage of clinical educational leadership faculty will continue to increase to reflect national norms. Faculty in research universities, male faculty members, and faculty with no administrative experience were somewhat more likely to be professors than were their counterparts (Table 3.9). The lower representation of women at the rank of professor can be attributed, in part, to the high numbers of female faculty entering the professoriate in the past decade who might Table 3.9  Academic Appointment and Rank of 2008 Respondents by Institution Type, UCEA Affiliation, NCPEA Membership, Sex, Race, and Administrative Experience Percentage of respondents Tenure-line

Non-tenure-line

Professor

Associate professor

Assistant professor

Clinical

Research institution Doctoral Comprehensive

31 20 25

26 35 30

24 32 32

20 14 12

UCEA Non-UCEA

27 25

24 31

31 29

18 15

NCPEA Non-NCPEA

28 27

34 28

32 28

6 18

Female Male

22 31

31 27

29 28

17 14

Racial minority White

24 28

21 30

40 26

15 16

Administrative experience No administrative experience

29

27

23

21

36

28

28

8

Subgroup

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

86    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

not have had sufficient time to advance through the academic ranks. A higher percentage of racial-minority respondents (40%) were assistant professors compared to White respondents (26%). Of those respondents who were in tenure-line faculty appointments, 57% were tenured in 2008, which was less than the proportion documented in prior studies (not tabled). Nearly two thirds (65%) of tenure-line faculty were tenured in 1972, 73% in 1986, and 74% in 1994. If clinical faculty were included in the 2008 calculations, 48% of all respondents were tenured. In 2008, respondents had held tenure for an average of 10 years, down from a mean of 14 years in 1994 and 12 in 1986, yet above the mean of 8 years reported in 1972 (Table 3.10). Of the tenure-line respondents in 1972, two thirds (67%) were either untenured or had been tenured for 5 years or less; similarly, two thirds (67%) were in these two categories in 2008, although the percentage of untenured faculty was higher in 2008 (43% compared to 35% in 1972). In 2008, 12% of tenure-line faculty had held tenure for 16 or more years compared to 9% in 1972, 20% in 1986, and 33% in 1994. The proportion of tenured faculty calculated from the respondents to the 2008 faculty questionnaire differed somewhat from the data collected from the program heads. Whereas 57% of tenure-eligible faculty respondents reported being tenured in 2008, program heads reported that 61% of their tenure-line educational leadership faculty members were tenured. Prior studies also have noted differences between these two respondent groups; in 1986 program heads reported tenured faculty percentages of 81% compared to 73% of the respondents to the faculty questionnaire. In 1994, the program heads reported that 71% of their faculty members were tenured, whereas the faculty respondent percentage was 74%. Table 3.10  Years Since Tenure Was Granted Reported by 1972, 1986, 1994, and 2008 Respondents Percentage of respondents Years since tenure

1972

1986

1994

2008

0 or no response 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 Over 20 Mean

35 32 15 9 5 4 8

27 15 18 21 14 6 12

26 20 12 9 12 21 14

46 20 11 10 6 7 10

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Characteristics of Educational Leadership Faculty    87

School Administrative Backgrounds Leadership preparation units ideally have some faculty members who have served as school administrators, so that the collective faculty brings practitioner expertise to the program to enhance course experiences and field connections. Respondents in 2008 were asked to provide information about all professional positions they had held in their careers. Responses to this question were obtained from 704 respondents, representing 79% of the total respondent group. These responses were categorized into three categories: (a) building-level administrative experience (principal or assistant principal), (b) district-level administrative experience (superintendent, assistant or associate superintendent, human resource director, as well as other central-office administrative positions), and (c) no administrative experience. Whereas only one third of the 1994 respondents had served as school administrators, two thirds of the 2008 respondents (67%) indicated their work backgrounds included prior school administrative experience, as either building-level or district-level administrators (Table 3.11). Sixty percent in 2008 had served as building-level administrators and 39% had disTable 3.11  Percentage of 2008 Respondents Reporting Administrative Experience by Institution Type, UCEA Affiliation, NCPEA Membership, Sex, Race, and Type of Appointment Building-level administrative experience

District-level administrative experience

Either buildingor district-level experience

No administrative experience

All institutions Research Doctoral Comprehensive

60 52 65 68

39 31 47 46

67 57 73 76

33 43 27 24

UCEA Non-UCEA

50 66

31 43

54 73

46 27

NCPEA Non-NCPEA

71 58

45 38

78 64

22 36

Female Male

57 62

35 42

64 68

36 32

Racial minority White

57 61

23 41

59 68

41 32

Tenure-line Clinical faculty

57 75

35 58

63 84

37 16

Subgroup

Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

88    At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century

trict-level administrative backgrounds. Clinical positions often are created to be staffed by experienced school administrators, so it was not surprising that clinical faculty respondents were much more likely to be former school administrators; 84% had administrative experience compared to 63% of tenure-line faculty. The 2008 data appeared to contradict Levine’s (2005) findings that only 6% of educational leadership faculty members had served as principals and 2% were former superintendents. Some differences in administrative experience were observed with respondents grouped by certain variables. For example, analyzed by institution type, higher proportions of faculty members at comprehensive (76%) and doctoral (73%) universities possessed administrative experience compared to faculty at research institutions (57%). Similarly, non-UCEA respondents (73%) were more likely to be former administrators than were their UCEA colleagues (54%), and 78% of NCPEA-member respondents were former administrators compared to 64% of non-NCPEA respondents. Differences by sex and race were less disparate: 68% of men were former administrators compared to 64% of women; 68% of White faculty were experienced administrators compared to 59% of faculty of color.

Faculty Compensation This section reports various forms of faculty compensation, including academic-year salary and supplements to salary for activities such as summer school teaching, overload payments for additional responsibilities, administrative stipends, and consulting fees. Data also are reported by sex, race, institution type, UCEA affiliation, and NCPEA membership. Academic-year salary The mean academic-year (9- or 10-month) salary for all respondents in 2008 was $67,000 (Table 3.12). The average 9-month contract salary for all full-time faculty members in public 4-year institutions in the 2007–08 academic year was $72,857 (Snyder & Dillow, 2010), for a salary differential of $5,357 between the mean for educational leadership faculty and the mean for faculty across disciplines. The mean salary for educational leadership faculty members in 1994 was $52,500. Using the Consumer Price Index inflation calculator of the U.S. Department of Labor (n.d.), $76,271 would have been a comparable salary in 2008. Thus, average salaries for educational leadership faculty members over the past 14 years do not appear to have kept pace with inflation.

$74K

$67K

17

$65.5K

0

0

1

0

1

5

13

8

18

21

$61K