Using Improvement Science to (Re)Design Leadership Preparation: Exploring Powerful Learning Experiences Across Five University Programs

• In Event: 77.016 - Preparing Leaders for Continuous Improvement: Addressing Systemic Educational Inequities Through Preparation Partnerships

Abstract

Purpose

In 2014, the University Council of Educational Administration (UCEA) launched an inquiry process to guide and support the development and improvement of leadership preparation. The Program Design Network (PDN) emerged from this process in 2016 as a signature initiative. The PDN builds on UCEA’s research and development work and its success in fostering networks by supporting intentional collective action around continuous program improvement in university-based preparation of educational leaders. In this paper, we describe this initiative, which brought together educational leadership faculty and a doctoral student from five universities across the country who shared an interest in aligning leadership preparation curricula and program redesign in one of UCEA’s PDNs. Starting from the premise that many faculty in leadership preparation programs are ill-prepared to design learning experiences that enable future school leaders to engage in high quality activities that ultimately prepare them for improvement science, we utilized a case study approach to explore the question: What factors influence the capacity of university-based leadership preparation programs to provide powerful, equity-oriented learning experiences for learners?

Data Sources and Methods

Our data derives from multiple sources collected within the collaborations of the PDN including: a) notes from our online synchronous meetings (Fall 2016 through Spring 2018; b) field notes from a site visit to a UCEA member institution; c) physical artifacts collected from our meetings, such as Ishikawa (fishbone) diagrams, a “5 Whys” protocol, and our articulated initial “theory of improvement” driver diagram which conceptualized the shared improvement aim and drivers of change for our network (Bryk, et al., 2015; LeMahieu, et al., 2017); and d) a document review of each program’s current leadership curriculum. We analyzed the data as a group, utilizing reflections of our individual experiences in the PDN that supported our work in using improvement science tools to support our own individual program’s redesign.

Findings

Our findings suggest that (a) embedding powerful learning experiences into leadership preparation coursework requires more than structural adjustments to existing curriculum. Such changes necessitate deep collaboration, ample time, and sufficient resources including human, financial, and social; yet (b) most faculty are not prepared to make such adjustments and are not provided the types of support described above that are necessary for success, and (c) universities may not be prepared to allocate the human and fiscal resources needed to realize such deep change.

Significance

Understanding the factors that support or hinder redesign work is quite significant; indeed, there is little evidence that redesigned programs are actually making strides toward preparing future school administrators to improve student learning (Cosner, Tozer, & Smylie, 2012). This paper reflects our initial steps in the process; ultimately, we will return to our universities to utilize the same process, and in time embed the same strategies in our courses so that our students will learn them as well.

Authors

• Sonya Diana Hayes, The University of Tennessee - Knoxville

• Corrie Stone-Johnson, University at Buffalo - SUNY

• Amy L. Reynolds, University of Virginia