Developing Evaluation Evidence

Center for the

Evaluation of Educational

Leadership Preparation

and Practice

DevelopingEvaluationEvidence:

AFormativeandSummativeEvaluationPlannerforEducationalLeadershipPreparation

Programs

Center for the Evaluation of Educational Leadership Preparation and Practice Page2

Center Board of Directors:

Pamela D. Tucker

AndreaK.Rorrer

MichelleD.Young

TechnicalandSeniorResearchAssociate

CoriA.Groth

ThisreportwaspreparedbyMargaretT.Orr,MichelleD.YoungandAndreaK.Rorrer.Thisdocument,DevelopingEvaluationEvidence,aswellasotherresourcematerialsforleadershipevaluationareavailablefreeofchargeforreviewordownloadfromthecenter’swebsite:www.edleaderprep.org.

TheCenterissupportedbytheUniversityCouncilforEducationalAdministration(UCEA)andtheUtahEducationalPolicyCenter.

This publication was developed and produced by the University Council for Educational Administration's Center for the Evaluation of Educational Leadership Preparation and Practice. The purpose of the center is to make available valid and reliable evaluation research tools, methods and training materials and strategies for leadership preparation programs as well as a systematic process for collecting and analyzing state data on degrees and certification by institution, and career advancement and school progress by graduates and institutions. The center provides tools, training, technical assistance and support for leadership preparation programs.

Copyright © UCEA, 2013

TableofContentsFormativeandSummativeEvaluationPlanningforLeadershipPreparationPrograms.............................. 2

EvaluationPlanningGuide ....................................................................................................................... 3

Pre‐Conditions. .................................................................................................................................... 4

ProgramQualityFeatures. ................................................................................................................... 4

FormativeAssessmentsofCandidateLearning. .................................................................................. 4

SummativeAssessmentsofCandidateLearning. ................................................................................ 5

CareerOutcomes. ................................................................................................................................ 5

LeaderPractices................................................................................................................................... 5

StaffandSchoolPractices. ................................................................................................................... 6

StaffandSchoolEffects. ...................................................................................................................... 6

StudentOutcomes. .............................................................................................................................. 7

EvaluationPlanningGuideAlignmenttoNationalAccreditationEvaluationExpectations......................... 7

EvaluationPlanningWorksheet................................................................................................................... 9

References ................................................................................................................................................. 13

Figure1.EvaluationPathwayforPreparationProgramsPreparationPrograms......................................... 3

Table1.EvaluationPlanningGuideWorksheet........................................................................................... 9Table2.EvaluationPlanningGuideBlankWorksheetforProgramUse.................................................... 12

Page2

FormativeandSummativeEvaluationPlanningforLeadershipPreparationProgramsEducationalleadershippreparationprogramsarecurrentlyengagedinformativeandsummativeevaluationoftheircandidatesandgraduatesforavarietyofpurposesanduses.Theseinclude:

• Providerelevantandtimelyinformationongraduatesandalumnioutcomestoascertainprogrameffectiveness

• Comparegroupsofgraduates’experiencestodeterminebenefitsofprogramdifferences

• Compareprogramfeaturesanddeliverytypewithotherprogramsregionallyandnationallyforbenchmarking

• Identifyareasforprogramandcourseimprovement• Makethecaseforprogramresourcesandsupport• Researchtherelationshipbetweenprogramdesign

anddelivery,graduateoutcomes,andschoolimprovementwork

Tofacilitateplanninganddatacollection,thisformativeandsummativeevaluationplannerhasbeencreated.Theplannerisorganizedaccordingtohowprograminputsandoutcomeshavebeenconceptualizedandvalidatedintheevaluationresearchonleadershippreparationprograms.Thisprogramevaluationhasmultipleuses,includingthosecitedinthetextbox.

ThePlannerincludes:

• Aconceptualmodelofthelinkbetweenleadershippreparationandoutcomes.

• Aguideforidentifyingevaluationevidence.• Anevaluationplanningworksheet.

Eachprogramisguidedbyitsowntheoryofactionorprogramtheory,whichconnectsitschoicesinprogramcontent,delivery,anddesigntoexpectedoutcomes.Weiss(1988)definesprogramtheoryas“thesetofbeliefsthatunderlieaction”(p.55)andexplainsthattheserepresentthemechanismsthatmediatebetweendeliveryofaprogramandtheintendedoutcomes(Weiss,1998).Inplanningforevaluation,programofficials,therefore,willneedtodetermineboththeoutcomestheyexpectaswellastheattributesoftheprogramtheythinkaremostinfluential.Thisplannershouldhelpprogramofficialsmaketheseselectiondecisionsbyidentifyingwhattheywanttomeasureandthesourcesofevidencetheyplantouse.Aswell,

ProgramEvaluation

Uses

IdentifyFormativeand

SummativeAssessments

IdentifyMeasuresandOutcomes(e.g.,program

andparticipantoutcomes)

EvaluatetheRelationshipbetweentheProgram

AttributeandtheOutcome

UseDataforPreparation

ProgramImprovement

Center for the Evaluation of Educational Leadership Preparation and Practice

therecommendedevaluationevidencecategoriesmayhelpprogramofficialsconsiderevaluationoptionstheyhadnotanticipated.

Figure1belowillustratesanEvaluationPathwayforPreparationPrograms.ThePathwaywasconstructedusingavailableevaluationresearchvalidatedthroughseveralstudies.AsindicatedinthePathway,therearetwocategoriesofprograminput,threecategoriesofinitialgraduateoutcomes,andtwocategoriesofexpectedschooloutcomes.Thismodelservesasablueprintforevaluationplanning,asexplainedbelow.

Figure1.EvaluationPathwayforPreparationProgramsPreparationPrograms

Programsneedawaytomeasureandtrackeachprogramattributeandoutcomeofinterest.Thisplannerenablesprogramstoidentifywhattheywanttomeasureandhowthesesourcesofevidencerelatetotheirprogramastheyselecttheirformativeandsummativeevaluationassessments.

Evaluation Planning GuideThe Evaluation planning guide includes a set of recommended sources of evaluation evidence for each kind of measure, as indicated in Figure 1. It includes types of data to be collected and recommended or available sources of evidence, including the Initiative for Systemic Program Improvement through Research in Educational Leadership (INSPIRE) survey suite (www.edleaderprep.org). The full suite provides 360° data on the quality and impact of educational leadership preparation programs (teacher, leader and program perspectives), and reflects the key elements of the evaluation planner logic model regarding how preparation impacts leadership, school conditions, and student learning. This planning guide also provides a suggested timing for data collection.

Preconditions:ProgramParticipants

PriorExperiences

ProgramQualityFeatures:

LeadershipProgramExperiences

Formativeand

SummativeLearningOutcomes

CareerOutcomes

LeaderPractices

Leadership

ImpactonStaff,SchoolPractices,and

SchoolCommunity

LeadershipImpactonSchooland

StudentPerformance

Page4

Thecategoriesandtheirdefinitionsareasfollows:

PreConditions.Forthepurposesofevaluatingleadershippreparation,thepre‐conditionsarethecharacteristicsandqualitiesthatcandidateshavepriortotheirprogramexperience.Someprogramsestablishselectioncriteriathatsetlimitsonthesepre‐conditions(suchasthenumberofyearsofpriorteaching,theinstructionaleffectiveness,andpriorleadershipexperiences).Someprogramsstrivetorecruitcandidatesthathelptodiversifythefieldorcreatemoreequitableaccesstoleadershippreparation,basedongender,race,orethnicity.Afinaltypicalpre‐conditionhastodowiththecandidates’affiliationwithalocaldistrictandthatdistrict’srelationshipwiththeleadershippreparationprogram(intheformofreferral,collaborationandfinancialsupport).Thus,primarypre‐conditionsinclude:

• demographiccharacteristicsofthecandidate.• educationalandleadershipexperiencesandaccomplishments.• districtsupport.

ProgramQualityFeatures.Priorresearchhasunderscoredthequalityfeaturesofleadershippreparationprogramsandtheirinfluenceongraduateoutcomes(DarlingHammond,Meyerson,LaPointe,&Orr,2009;Jackson&Kelley,2002).Theseinturnrepresentprogramdimensionsandcanbeusedtomeasurehowtheyvarytheircontent,deliveryandquality.Thesedimensionsinclude:

• philosophyortheoryofaction• curriculumandcoursecontent(relationshiptonationalstandards,focuson

instructionalleadershipandotherprogrampriorities)• instructionalapproaches(suchasuseofproblem‐basedlearning,casestudies

andactionresearch;technologysupportedlearning)• internship(length,focusandquality)• candidatesupportanddevelopment(includingcohortstructuresandadvisement)• assessments(includingexams,portfolioassessments,culminatingprojects,and

statecertificationassessments)• post‐programsupport(suchasseminars,mentoringandcoaching,andjob

placementassistance).• faculty(whetherdedicatedtotheprogram,tenured,research‐engaged,and

havingschoolanddistrictleadershipexperience)• organizationalsupports(logisticsandeaseofuse).

FormativeAssessmentsofCandidateLearning.Ascandidatesprogressthroughtheircourseofstudy,programfacultyandofficialsneedtoassesslearningandskilldevelopmentforfeedbackandcontinuousimprovement.Formativeandinterimassessmentsprovide


informationthatcanbeusedtoidentifycandidates’skillsandcompetenciesthatmayneedfurtherdevelopmentaswellaswaysinwhichtosupportsuchdevelopmentpriortocompletionoftheprogram.Thesecanincludecourse‐relatedorinternship‐relatedassignments.Itisalsoimportanttodeterminehowtheseassignmentsareevaluated(suchaswitharubricorotherratingtool),andhowresultsaretracked.

• course‐relatedknowledgeassessments• skillspecificassessments• dispositionalassessments• internship‐relatedassessments• standards‐basedtasksandprojects• mid‐programassessments.

SummativeAssessmentsofCandidateLearning.Atthecompletionofaprogram,candidates’learningandskilldevelopmentcanbeassessedthroughavarietyofculminatingassignmentsandproducts,whicharethenevaluatedusingarubricorotherratingtool,andthroughstandardizedleadershipassessmentssuchasstateandnationalexams.Summativeassessmentsaredesignedtoassetcandidates’attainmentofprogramdefinedcompetenciesandreadinessforlicensureorcertificationandforinitialleadershippositions.Theresultscanbecompiledaspartoftrackingindividualcandidatesandsummarizedbygroupandprogram.

CareerOutcomes.Aprimaryintentionofeducationalleadershippreparationprogramsistoinfluencethecareeradvancementofcandidates,includingthenature,timingandefficacyofsuchadvancement.Dependinguponaprogram’smissionandpurpose,thefocusshouldbeontheextenttowhichcandidatesbecomeschoolanddistrictleadersandareabletoadvancefairlyrapidlyintosuchpositions.Programsneedtotrackgraduates’careersovertimeforthetypesofleadershippositionsassumed,thelengthoftimeinandbetweenpositions,andtheeaseorchallengeofgainingadvancement,andtoexploretheextenttowhichprogramsareyieldingequitableoutcomesbasedongender,race/ethnicityandotherrelevantdemographiccharacteristics.Thiscanbethroughself‐reportedinformationorasobtainedfromdistrictorstateemploymentinformation,andshouldincludebothschoolanddistrict,andsupervisoryandnonsupervisoryleadershippositions.Suchmeasuresinclude:

• typeofposition• lengthoftimetoadvancetoeachleadershipposition• retentioninleadershipposition• easeofadvancementintoleadershippositions.

LeaderPractices.Bydefinition,leadershippreparationprogramsaredesignedtodeveloptheskillsandcapacitiesofeducationalleaders,whichbecomemostevidentintheirpracticesasschoolanddistrictleaders.Whilesomeleadershipskillsandcapacitiesare

Page6

developedbyallprograms(particularlythosedefinedbynationalleadershipstandards),someprogramsemphasizecertainskillsoverothersanddevelopadditionalskillsthroughtheirprogramcontentanddelivery.Variousprincipalassessmenttoolsandsurveysaredesignedtodocumentprincipals’useofeffectiveleadershippractices,asreportedbythemselvesorothers,andcanbeusedaspartofaprogramevaluationsystem.Theseinclude:

• principalpracticesurveys• supervisorsatisfactionsurveys• 360‐degreefeedbackassessmentsonleadershippracticesbysupervisors,

teachersandothers• Principalevaluationsystems,suchasVal‐Ed

(http://www.discoveryeducation.com/products/assessment/val_ed.cfm)(Goldring,Porter,Murphy,Elliot,&Cravens,2007)

Theiruse,however,shouldreflectalignmentwiththepreparationprogram’sprioritiesanddesign,andbeusedtoillustratestrengthsandgapsinprograms.

StaffandSchoolPractices.Asresearchoneffectiveleadersshows,principalshavetheirgreatesteffectonstudentlearningthroughtheirworkwithteachersandinorganizingschoolconditionstooptimizingteachingandlearning(Leithwood&Jantzi,2008;Robinson,Lloyd,&Rowe,2008).Therefore,evaluatingtheeffectsofpreparationonleadershippracticesshouldlookfirstatchangesintheseareas.Suchchangeswouldincludechangesinteachers’instructionalpractices,supportofstrugglingstudents,andcollaborativeworkwitheachothertoimprovestudentlearning.Otherchangeswouldbemoreorganizationalintermsofimprovingtheavailabilityofrelevantinstructionalresources,betteruseofschooltimeandfacilities,staffprofessionaldevelopment,improveduseofstudentdatatoguideimprovement,andcoherenceofprogramsandservicesinsupportingstudentlearning.Assessingtheseimprovementscanbedonethroughprincipal,teacherandsupervisorsurveys.

StaffandSchoolEffects.Asschoolconditionsimproveandstaffmembersmakeprogressonimprovingteachingandlearning,thereshouldbeculturalandclimateeffectsonstudents,staffandthelargerschoolcommunity.Theseeffectsinclude:

• studentattendanceandpositivebehavior• studentengagementandacademiceffort• teacherattendanceandrespectfultreatmentofstudentsandcolleagues• teacherengagementandacademicchallenge• improvedschoolclimate• distributedandcollaborativeleadership• improvedparentparticipation.


Student,teacher,principalandsupervisorsurveys,interviews,andotherfeedbackmechanismsareamongthebestmethodsfordeterminingtheseeffects.

StudentOutcomes.Theultimateimpactofleadershippreparationonleadershipeffectivenessisdeterminedbythedegreetowhichstudentachievementimproves.Suchimprovements,however,areusuallymediatedfirstintheareasofteachingandschoolorganization,asnotedabove.Theseimprovementstaketimetoaffectpositivelystudentlearninggains,whichcurrentlyarebestmeasuredthroughstandardizedtests.Thus,studentperformancelevelsshouldbetrackedandevaluatedlongitudinallytogaugetheimpactofleadershipbothpriortoandduringaprincipal’stenure.Implementationexperts,however,suggestthatstudentachievementgainsasaresultofleaderactionswillnotbeapparentforatleast3‐5yearsafterimprovementworkbegins(Fullan,2001).

EvaluationPlanningGuideAlignmenttoNationalAccreditationEvaluationExpectationsThisplannerisalignedtorecommendedevaluationoutcomesforprogramsseekingnationalaccreditationthroughtheNationalCouncilforAccreditationofTeacherEducation(NCATE).UnderNCATE,individualeducationalleadershippreparationprogramswithincollegesorschoolsofeducationarereviewedforrecognitionstatusbyaspecializedprofessionalassociation(SPA)usingnationallyrecognizedstandards.TheEducationalLeadershipConstituentCouncil(ELCC)istheNCATE‐SPAforleadershippreparationandisgovernedbytheNationalPolicyBoardforEducationalAdministration(NPBEA–www.npbea.org).ELCCprovidesbothstandardsandguidelinestoprogramsforthepreparationofeducationalleaders,includingexpectationsforprogramevaluation.Together,thesestandardsandguidelinesclarifyexpectationsagainstwhichindividualprogramscanbecomparedandthekindsofdataandoutcomesforprogramimplementationandimpactassessments.

ELCCrequiresseventypesofassessmentsandrecommendsspecificevidence:

• statelicensureassessmentorothercontent‐basedassessment;

The Initiative for Systemic Program Improvement through Research in Educational Leadership (INSPIRE) survey suite is aligned with the ELCC and UCEA standards and was designed to provide measures for most of these evaluation categories.

INSPIRE survey items have demonstrated both validity and reliability (Pounder, 2012). For more information on the INSPIRE survey suite visit: www.edleaderprep.org.

Page8

• assessmentofcontentknowledgeineducationalleadership,usingcomprehensiveexaminations,essays,andcasestudies;

• assessmentofabilitytodevelopsupervisoryplanforclassroom‐basedinstruction,suchasschoolimprovementplans,needsassessmentprojects,andfacultyinterventionplans;

• assessmentofinternship/clinicalpracticeusingfacultyevaluationsofcandidates’performances,internship/clinicalsitesupervisors’evaluationsofcandidates’performances,orcandidates’formativeandsummativelogsandreflections;

• assessmentofabilitytosupportstudentlearninganddevelopment,suchaspost‐graduate360surveys,employersatisfactionsurveys,andcommunityfeedbacksurveysofcandidatesorgraduates;

• anassessmentofthecandidates’applicationofcontentknowledgeineducationalleadership(suchasactionresearchprojectsandportfoliotasks);and

• anassessmentofcandidates’abilitiesinorganizationalmanagementandcommunityrelations(suchas,school‐basedstrategicplans,schoolsimulations,andschoolinterventionplans).

WhenreviewedbyELCC,programsareratedontheiruseandqualityoftheseseventypesofassessment.Qualityisdeterminedby:

• theextenttowhichtheassessmentdescriptionandscoringguidesarealignedtospecificELCCstandardelements;

• howthescoringguideisusedtomeasureprogress;• howaggregateddataarealignedtospecificELCCstandardsandtheassessment

scoringguide;and• whetherresultsshowbothareasofcandidatesuccessandprovideanimprovement

planforareasinwhichcandidatesarenotsuccessful.Toencouragethatevaluationdataareusedforprogramimprovementandimprovedgraduatepreparation,ELCCrequiresthatprogramsdescribehowtheirfaculty“areusingthedatafromassessmentstoimprovecandidateperformanceandtheprogram,asitrelatestocontentknowledge;pedagogicalandprofessionalknowledge,skills,anddispositions;andstudentlearning”(NationalCouncilforAccreditationofTeacherEducation,2008)(p.2).Thus,datacollection,analysisandusemustbedocumentedandtheirrelationshiptoprogramdecisionsshouldbenoted.


EvaluationPlanningWorksheetThesecondcomponentoftheevaluationguideisaworksheetforprogramstocompleteintheirevaluationplanning,seeTable1below.Importantly,programofficialsshouldidentifyoneormoresourcesofevidenceforeachcategory.AblankformisprovidedasTable2tobeusedforprogramevaluationplanningpurposes.

Table1.EvaluationPlanningGuideWorksheet

COMPONENTS POSSIBLEMEASURESAndASSESSMENTS

DATASOURCE TIMELINE Relationshipto

NCATE/ELCCRequirements

PRE‐CONDITIONS INSPIRE surveyEnrollmentdocumentationObservations/codedwithrubrics

Beforeoratbeginningofprogramstart

Documentationneeded

Prioreducationalandleadershipexperience

Instructionaleffectiveness PROGRAMFEATURES INSPIRE‐Program

featuressurvey

INSPIRE-Graduate surveyProgramdocumentation

Duringtheprogram ELCCevaluationrequirement

Evidenceofprogramfeatures

Candidatefeedbackontheirexperiencewithselectedprogramfeatures

FORMATIVELEARNING

GradesProgramdevelopedrubricsOn‐linemanagementprogram

Throughout/atregularintervalsthroughouttheprogram

ELCCevaluationrequirement

Portfolioofaccomplishments In‐basketsortingactivityto

assessproblemsolving

Conductandwriteupofateacherobservation,assesswithrubric

Casestudyorschoolimprovementplananalysis,assesswithrubric

Interns’documentationof

Page10




theiraccomplishmentsforschoolsandstudentlearning

Courseperformance/Grades

standards‐basedtasksandprojects

SUMMATIVELEARNING

INSPIRE surveyStandardizedassessmentsNASSPassessmentcenter

Attheendoftheprogramandregularintervalsafterprogramcompletion

Stateornationalleadershipassessments

Self-reports on learning efficacy by leadership area (INSPIRE)

Pre‐postassessmentofleadershipknowledgegains,usingaknowledgeassessmenttool

Assessmentcenterevaluation CAREERADVANCEMENTOUTCOMES

INSPIRE surveyEmploymentdocumentation

Atregularintervalsafterprogramcompletion

ELCCevaluationrequirement

Whetheradvancedtoasupervisoryschoolleadershipposition(assistantprincipalorprincipal)

Whetheradvancedtootherleadershippositions(districtornonsupervisory)

Lengthoftimetoadvancement

LEADERSHIPPRACTICES

INSPIRE survey

Principal evaluations

VAL‐Ed

Atregularintervalsafterprogramcompletion,suchasannuallyorbiennially

Amountoftimespentoneffectiveleadershippractices

Perceivedefficacyasschoolleader

Supervisorratingofprincipalefficacy

Teacherratingofprincipalefficacy

STAFFANDSCHOOL INSPIRE survey Atregularintervals





PRACTICES Districtclimatesurveys

afterprogramcompletion,suchasannuallyorbiennially

Newteacherretention Distributed

leadership/teacherroleinpolicymaking

Teachercollaboration(PLCs) Changesinschoolconditions

tosupportstudentlearning

Changesinhowstaffworktoimproveinstructionaleffectiveness

STAFFANDSCHOOLEFFECTS

INSPIRE surveyDistrictannualreportsonstaffDistrictclimatesurveys

Atregularintervalsafterprogramcompletion,suchasannuallyorbiennially

Teacherengagementandeffort

Studentengagement Academicrigororpressof

school

Reductioninschoolproblemsthatinterferewithlearning

Staffattendance Positiveworkingconditions Parentassessmentsofthe

school

STUDENTOUTCOMES INSPIRE surveyDistrictassessmentsandreportsonstudentperformance

Trackannually,butlookforeffectsafterlongitudinally(everythreeyears)inaschoolleaderposition

Reductioninstudentproblemsthatinterferewithlearning(student‐related)

Studentachievement Studentattendance Creditaccumulation(hs) Retention(hs) Graduation(hs)

Page12

Table2.EvaluationPlanningGuideBlankWorksheetforProgramUse

COMPONENTS POSSIBLEMEASURESANDASSESSMENTS

DATASOURCE TIMELINE

PRE‐CONDITIONS

PROGRAMFEATURES FORMATIVELEARNING

SUMMATIVELEARNING

CAREERADVANCEMENTOUTCOMES

LEADERSHIPPRACTICES

STAFFANDSCHOOLPRACTICES

STAFFANDSCHOOLEFFECTS

STUDENTOUTCOMES


NationalCenterfortheEvaluationofEducationalLeadershipPreparationandPracticehttp://www.edleaderprep.org

References

DarlingHammond,L.,Meyerson,D.,LaPointe,M.M.,&Orr,M.T.(2009).Preparingprincipalsforachangingworld.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐Bass.

Fullan,M.(2001).Leadinginacultureofchange.SanFrancisco:Jossey‐Bass.Goldring,E.,Porter,A.C.,Murphy,J.,Elliot,S.N.,&Cravens,X.(2007).Assessinglearner‐centered

leadership:Connectionstoresearch,professionalstandardsandcurrentpractices.Nashville,TN:VanderbiltUniversity.

Jackson,B.L.,&Kelley,C.(2002).Exceptionalandinnovativeprogramsineducationalleadership.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,38(2),192‐212.

Leithwood,K.,&Jantzi,D.(2008).Linkingleadershiptostudentlearning:Thecontributionsofleaderefficacy.Educationaladministrationquarterly,44(4),496‐528.

NationalCouncilforAccreditationofTeacherEducation.(2008).Programreportsforthepreparationofeducationalleaders:NationalCouncilonAccrediationforTeacherEducation,http://www.ncate.org/ProgramStandards/ELCC/ELCCWebReport(SchoolBldgLevel)July1.doc).

Orr,M.T.,Jackson,K.,&Rorrer,A.(2009).FollowingupGraduates:DevelopmentoftheSchoolLeadershipPreparationandPracticeSurvey(SLPPS)andaSharedResearchProcess.UCEAReview.

Robinson,V.M.J.,Lloyd,C.A.,&Rowe,K.J.(2008).Theimpactofleadershiponstudentoutcomes:An

analysisofthedifferentialeffectsofleadershiptypes.Educationaladministrationquarterly,

44(5),635‐674.Weiss,C.H.(1998).Evaluation:Methodsforstudyingprogramsandpolicies(Seconded.).UpperSaddle

River,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Pounder, D. (2012). School leadership preparation and practice survey instruments and their uses. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7, 254-474. doi:10.1177/1942775112455265

Page14


High-quality leadership preparation and development are essential to high-quality practice, which in turn optimizes the capacity of schools and central offices to support student engagement and learning. To support data-informed educational leadership preparation program improvement efforts, UCEA established the Center for the Evaluation of Educational Leadership Preparation and Practice. This Center provides:

1. Surveyandevaluationresearchforprogrambenchmarkingandanalysisofprogramfeatures,graduatecareerandleadershippractices,andrelatedschoolandstudentoutcomes.

2. Asystematicprocessforcollectingandanalyzingstatedataondegreesandcertification,careeradvancement,andschoolprogressbygraduates.

3. Technicalassistanceandsupportforleadershippreparationprograms,includingregionaltrain‐the‐traineropportunitiestoincreaseevaluationcapacitylocally.

4. Asustainablesystemforevaluationresearchtosupportprogramimprovement.

5. Policyanalysisandpolicydevelopmentsupport.

TheUniversityCouncilforEducationalAdministration(UCEA)isaninternationalconsortiumofuniversitiesthatofferdoctoralprogramsineducationalleadershipandadministrationandaremarkedbyadistinguishingcommitmentandcapacitytoleadthefieldofeducationalleadershipandadministration.UCEAhasasinglestandardofexcellenceformembership:Superiorinstitutionalcommitmentandcapacitytoprovideleadershipfortheadvancementofeducationalleadershippreparation,scholarship,andpracticeconsistentwithUCEA'sestablishedmission.UCEA'smissionistoadvancethepreparationandpracticeofeducationalleadersforthebenefitofallchildrenandschools.UCEAfulfillsthispurposecollaborativelyby1)promoting,sponsoring,anddisseminatingresearchontheessentialproblemsofpractice,2)improvingthepreparationandprofessionaldevelopmentofschoolleadersandprofessors,and3)influencingpolicyandpracticethroughestablishingandfosteringcollaborativenetworks.TolearnmoreaboutUCEA,pleasevisitourwebsiteatwww.ucea.org


To learn more about the Center for the Evaluation of Educational Leadership Preparation and Practice, please visit the Center website: www.edleaderprep.org

Developing Evaluation Evidence

Documents