The Educational Leadership Program Coordinator in North Carolina

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

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the educational leadership program coordinator in North Carolina. This case study employed as a conceptual framework Habermas’s (1971) three orientations to knowledge formation: technical interest, practical interest and emancipatory interest. The interview protocol included 10-15 open-ended questions that were aligned with the four research questions. The North Carolina case data (n=13) were collected via telephone interviews. All coordinators were faculty in state-approved programs.
In August 2007, the North Carolina state legislature signed into law HB 536 that required the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt new standards for school administrator preparation programs. In fall 2008, the SBE issued a mandate to all 17 universities certified to deliver educational leadership programs to revision their Masters of School Administration (MSA) programs to ensure alignment with the new state standards and to comply with other tenets of the 2007 legislation. In response to this mandate, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) staff introduced new preparation program guidelines. Rather than basing these guidelines directly on the new state Standards for School Executives, the document introduced a new set of six evidences of effective school leadership: (a) positive impact on student learning and development, (b) teacher empowerment and leader¬ship, (c) community involvement and engagement, (d) organizational management, (e) school culture and safety, and (f) school improvement. The 17 state-approved principal preparation programs were required to conduct a program re-visioning process and to develop a new program based on the state guidelines by July 1, 2009. Findings from coordinators across the state were remarkably similar. Most coordinators cited a major increase in paperwork and other administrative duties; several noted the need for an administrative assistant to handle many duties not requiring a person with a doctorate degree. Nearly all talked about the coordinator duties being very time-consuming as they attempt to recruit and retain students, respond to emails, and serve as the program “face” at the university and in the service delivery area. Most coordinators did not have a job description, but reported being expected to maintain their regular faculty duties of teaching, research, and service. A number of the coordinators talked about working collaboratively with faculty to engage in a major program redesign; this finding is consistent with the state’s instructions to create an entirely new program. Few coordinators mentioned addressing issues related to social justice, although most cited “change” projects in their new curriculum. These projects are consistent with the state guidelines for program to produce a set of student-level evidences that demonstrate students’ readiness for principal certification.
This paper is significant because it illuminates issues and challenges addressed by educational leadership program coordinators in one of three states selected for this study. It also documents a 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.

Author

• Joy C. Phillips, Educational Research Consultant