AASA WEBINAR: DISTRICT- UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS April 26, 2011
Dec 26, 2015
AASA WEBINAR: DISTRICT-
UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS
April 26, 2011
ABOUT THE WEBINAR Overview and prior research (Terry Orr)
Leadership preparation (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe & Orr, 2009)
District-university partnerships (Orr, King, LaPointe, 2011)
Impact of preparation on leader practices (Orr & Orphanos, 2011)
District-led partnerships: strategies, experiences and outcomes Jefferson County Public Schools (Lynne Wheat) St. Louis Public Schools (Sheila Smith-
Anderson)
CONTEXT Need for more quality school leaders
Leader turnoverChanging expectations for school
performance Instructionally effective Data analysis Change manager
Difficulties finding and retaining quality
States and districts focus on graduate-level leadership preparation
APPROACHES TO QUALITY PREPARATION
Conventional approach uses:
District options use:
state standards the quality and
effectiveness of multiple local providers
State licensure standards to assess leader eligibility
Discerning consumer—sets standards for candidate selection
Competitor—add more programs and services to the preparation pipeline
Collaborator—work with local universities to tailor a program
PROGRAM INVESTMENT OUTCOME: PROGRAM DESIGN Redefined the scope of leadership
preparation3-4 yearsLicensure preparation as foundationDistrict-specific seminars on operations and
systemsMore full-time internships
Recruitment and selectionMore extensive criteria and stepsMore job-like (focused on instructional
leadership readiness)Tied to internship opportunities
PROGRAM INVESTMENT OUTCOME: QUALITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION
Content: Instructional leadership, change and district operations
Varied instructional time, course sequencing, and format (more executive)
More experiential pedagogical practices Longer, more intensive internships More assignments and assessments
linked to actual school leader tasks (e.g. using data, planning, problem solving)
Greater use of district personnel in program delivery
IN-KIND RESOURCES AND EXPERTISE
District University
Clarified needs and expectations for school leadership
Candidate recruitment
Leadership specialists Authentic context District information Internship placements Transition to
leadership positions Space
State registered program leading to leadership certification
Capacity to organize and delivery program content
Candidate support Faculty expertise Relevant theory and
research Assessment Credit and degree
management Higher education resources
PARTNERSHIP ATTRIBUTES Bridge leader Institutional commitment and support Shared vision and expectations for
leadership Shared governance and accountability Resource commitment Two-way organizational learning Commitment to continuous improvement
CHALLENGES AND HINDRANCES
Within the districtLeadership turnover Insufficient quality leaders for mentoringDisconnections between leadership
preparation, selection, supervision and evaluation
Within the universityLeadership turnoverHigher education policies and accreditation
demandsFinancial viability
PARTNERSHIP INFLUENCE ON LEADER QUALITY Better prepared leader candidates Greater readiness for initial positions
and smoother transition into an initial position
Enable collective leadership capacity District learning benefits (about
leadership) University learning benefits (about
preparation and about urban district needs)
THE INFLUENCE OF QUALITY LEADERSHIP PREPARATION
Leadership-focused program content and quality internship are the most influential features for leader outcomesImpacts how much graduates learn
about leadershipImpacts how principals focus their work,
particularly for school improvement. Quality preparation has a positive
influence on leaders even for those who work in challenging school settings.
ILLUSTRATIONS FROM THE FIELD Jefferson County Public Schools which
partners with four local universities, recruiting high quality candidates and insuring district-university defined competency preparation
St. Louis Public Schools used a competitive RFP process to select one university partner that met district needs, standards and expectations
HOW TO FIND A UNIVERSITY FOR PARTNERSHIP Jefferson County Public Schools works
with four local universities and uses their competitive relationship to leverage program change and alignment to district priorities
St. Louis Public Schools used a competitive RFP process to have local universities identify how they would redesign their programs and contribute resources to meet district leadership preparation requirements
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTJefferson County Public Schools uses
Memoranda of Understanding to frame expectations for district-university partnership programs
St. Louis Public Schools uses a contract to outline its “non-negotiables” which the local university proposes to achieve
DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF STANDARDS Jefferson County’s competency
development process started with one university and broadened to include four, as well as state representatives
St. Louis’s used its non-negotiables and adopted the NYC Leadership Academy standards and Leadership Preparation and Practices Worksheet to frame expectations
INNOVATIVE COURSE CONTENTSt. Louis’s innovative approach to content and
course structure abandoned the conventional syllabus and course format
to use more issue and problem-driven inquiry and analysis among faculty and candidates throughout the program
Used a Backward Design process to align course content to the context of St. Louis Public Schools
University assigned a faculty liaison to be housed in the central office; the liaison and program director could work quickly in adapting the content and courses to issues and problems
Jefferson County identified core courses that were co-designed and team-taught by district and university instructors, reflecting district priorities Assigned district liaisons to work as adjuncts in each
university
QUALITY INTERNSHIP PLACEMENTS
Both use a medical model approach to internships Selecting quality internship supervisors Rotating among schools
Jefferson County’s two tier internship model: 105 hours within the preparation program Full-year paid internship for a small number of highly qualified
candidates, who rotated between 2-3 schools (within the same division)
St. Louis created full time release for leadership candidates, enabling 80% full time work and 20% coursework Rotated between 2-3 schools (of different levels) throughout the
year, based on candidate needs and leadership opportunities Many candidates became certified for school leadership in two
levels Each candidate had a university mentor and a business mentor
(from the Boeing business partnership) through the placement year
FUNDING OPTIONS: BOTH DISTRICTS
District contributions University contributions
Grant funding enabled scholarships and paid internships
In-kind contributions of space and resources
St. Louis business partnerships support interns
JCPS uses general funds for selected internships
St. Louis obtained deep discounts in university tuition and fees
SUSTAINING THE PROGRAM Balancing innovation
Starting with a willingness to completely rethink preparation, from the ground up, in constructing a new program
Protecting the program, once created, from continual redesign (particularly with leader turnover)
Navigating turnover In district leadership (superintendents,
experienced principals) In university leadership (deans, department chairs,
and faculty) Having a champion Continuously connecting to school
improvement
REFERENCES Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson,
D., LaPointe, M. & Orr, M. T. (2009) Preparing principals for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey Bass (an earlier report is on the Wallace Foundation website http://www.wallacefoundation.org)
Orr, M. T., King, C., LaPointe, M. (2010). Districts Developing Leaders: Lessons on consumer actions and program approaches from eight urban districts. Newton, MA: EDC, Inc. (also available on the Wallace Foundation website)
Orr, M. T. & Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders Educational Administration Quarterly. 47:18-70
CONTACTS
Jefferson County Public Schools St. Louis Public Schools
Lynne WheatExecutive director Administrator Recruitment & DevelopmentJefferson County Public Schools3332 Newburg RoadLouisville KY 40218Phone (502)[email protected]
Sheila Smith-AndersonExecutive directorLeadership DevelopmentSt. Louis Public Schools 801 N. 11Th Street Third FloorSt. Louis, Missouri 63101Phone (314)[email protected]
ADDITIONAL CONTACTSMargaret Terry OrrBank Street
College of Education
610 W. 112th Street
New York, New York 10025
The Wallace Foundation
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Pages/default.aspx