The Educational Leadership Program Coordinator in Illinois

• In Event: 35.026 - From Coordination to Compliance: The Principal Preparation Program Coordinator's Changing Role

Abstract

This case study employed Habermas’ (1971) three orientations to knowledge formation: technical interest, practical interest and emancipatory interest. The researcher used a common semi-structured interview guide protocol about the impact of state-mandated program redesign. The interview protocol included 10-15 open-ended questions that were aligned with the four research questions. The Alabama case data (n=13) were collected via focus group and follow-up interviews; the Illinois (n=14) and North Carolina case data (n=13) were collected via telephone interviews. All coordinators were faculty in state-approved programs. Interview data were audio and/or field-note recorded and analyzed with the Habermas framework.
In June 2010, the Illinois state legislature enacted Public Act 096-0903, which was designed to improve the quality of principal preparation programming. This legislation was the culmination of a five-year process involving numerous stakeholders in the review and redesign of standards for principal preparation programs. Included in this collaborative process were numerous task forces consisting of members of the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), Illinois Board of Higher Education, Illinois P-20 Council, state teacher and administrator organizations, and faculty of the state’s leadership preparation programs. By Fall 2010, new administrative rules were released for public comment, which included the adoption of the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008), as well as significantly enhanced requirements for preparation programs, including rigorous admissions procedures, enhanced course content requirements, and skills- and competency-based internship experiences. This qualitative study presents findings from interviews of 14 program coordinators of the state’s 26 newly approved principal preparation programs. These faculty members reported on their institutions’ experiences with the programmatic redesign, including positive aspects, negative features, and unintended consequences of the new rules. All coordinators reported that program quality had improved, with some reporting that their faculty had engaged in curriculum restructuring in advance of the new requirements. Although the admissions procedures were highlighted as time-intensive, coordinators noted they were beneficial, because faculty had a comprehensive understanding of students’ skills and experiences upon entry into their programs. A significant consequence was that student applications had plummeted for nearly all programs, resulting in coordinators investing significant time in recruitment and marketing and the elimination of faculty positions due to low student enrollments. The deployment of the internship in Summer 2014 weighed heavily on the coordinators, who expressed concerns that their programs would be unable to fully comply with the state’s accountability requirements for this internship experience. Coordinators reported that they had experienced increased stress as a result of implementing the new regulations, and they were now collaborating across institutions to engage in policy advocacy, in an effort to encourage policymakers to revise or eliminate rules that were cumbersome and inappropriate.
The significance of this paper documents changing role of program coordinators, shifting away from merely facilitating the work of their leadership preparation programs and assuming more focused duties, which involve close oversight of state rules and regulations, enhanced efforts at statewide policy advocacy, and reaching across institutions to collaborate and coordinate shared duties.

Authors

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

• Joel R Malin, Miami University - Oxford