Improvement Leadership Education and Development (iLEAD) Research-Practice Preparation Partnership: Fordham University and New York City Region Districts

• In Event: 64.025 - Problem-Focused and Place-Based Leadership Development: The Improvement Leadership Education and Development (iLEAD) Research-Practice Preparation Partnership

Abstract

Improving leaders’ capacity in improvement science is our shared problem of practice—as a design challenge for Fordham’s leadership preparation programs and as a leadership development challenge for our partner districts. Fordham University seeks to develop improvement science leaders by: (1) documenting partner districts’ improvement initiatives as teaching cases; (2) soliciting input and feedback on our course development; and (3) exploring means of collaboration through co-teaching, enrolling candidates from their districts, and other leadership development opportunities. The districts’ aim is to improve their school and district leaders’ capacity to use improvement science for continuous school improvement.

Data

We evaluate our graduates’ (and current school and district leaders’) improvement science skills using a pre- and post-program assessment around problem solving and inquiry practices. We will also document the types of improvement science projects the graduates complete and the organizational impact of their work. Finally, we are constructing teaching cases of examples of improvement science work.

Intended Outcomes

As members of the iLEAD RP3, we seek to develop an EdD program effective in preparing school and district leaders in using improvement science for continuous school improvement. We also aim to transform these preparatory experiences into leadership development units that partner districts can use to support improvement capacity-building of school and district leaders.

Current Accomplishments

At Fordham, we have engaged our division’s faculty in learning improvement science, through book study; redesigned our EdD program around improvement science; and piloted a leadership development unit on instructional coherence and improvement science. We submitted an IRB for our teaching cases research with our four partner districts.

The districts have identified examples of improvement science in their work and facilitated collaborative research to document these examples. District leaders are now exploring what their leadership development needs are in improvement science.

Together, we are finalizing an MOU that outlines a three-year commitment to our collaborative work. Also, we have begun to co-construct teaching cases in improvement science efforts in each district; solicited district feedback on three courses and an interim assessment for our new EdD program; and submitted a proposal for IES funding on improvement science-related leadership development.

Our major challenge has been time to work together and a clear schedule. We developed this schedule in our summer retreat and plan to continue co-locating our meetings in each other’s districts.

Significance

We have tried to adopt improvement science principles to how we work together in a partnership, by defining and measuring the problem of practice (leadership development in improvement science) and now, to pilot new courses and program model, using leading and lagging indicators of effectiveness. We draw on prior research on district-university partnerships (Orr, 2011; Orr & Barber, 2006; Orr, King, & La Pointe, 2010; Thompson & Orr, 2010) as a guide for effective practices on authentic partnership practices—creating shared leadership, jointly developing our goals, objectives and learning strategies, and having an MOU that outlines our respective roles, responsibilities, and commitments.

Author

• Margaret Terry Orr, Fordham Graduate School of Education