Papers 1–3 Front Matter: Methods and Significance

• In Event: Authentic Cross-Institutional Partnerships for Leadership Preparation: A Role-Diverse Dialogue About Partnership Initiation

Abstract

Papers 1-3: The following three papers share the same perspectives, modes of inquiry, data sources/evidence, and scholarly significance. We will therefore foreground those aspects here. Our total word count conforms to AERA’s requirements of no more than 500 words per paper (i.e., we do not exceed 1500 words total for these descriptions and the three papers that follow).

Perspectives. At the heart of our research/practice endeavor is the following theory of how change for LTELs will occur: If aspiring leaders engage in strategic inquiry (Panero & Talbert, 2013), then outcomes for English learners will improve. We have three main drivers (Fullan, 2016) underlying our theory of change: learning will occur from cycles of continuous improvement, from doing real work, and from one another across and through the partnership.

Modes of inquiry. We are engaged in nested practitioner action research (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007), where program instructors are studying our practice of leadership development, while our core instructional device is leading our program candidates to study their practice of teaching and leading bilingual emergent students. (This symposium presents the former, while a companion submission to the Leadership for Social Justice SIG presents the latter.)

Data sources/evidence. We rely on (1) fieldnotes and documents from our process of program co-design, facilitated and captured by a state agency focused on district continuous improvement, and (2) fieldnotes from two years of partnering to co-teach the leadership preparation program coursework. We also draw on two-years of candidates’ coursework and district student achievement data to support our presupposition that the program itself was “successful” for leadership candidates and LTEL students alike.

Scholarly significance. Recent efforts call attention to the need for improvement of university leadership preparation programs (Wang, et al., 2018). While universities traditionally take on the task of program redesign in isolation, the pressing need to better equip program candidates to meet school-level challenges requires partnerships that enhance leadership preparation program relevance to real world problems. Typical responses include university-initiated redesign efforts that integrate evidence-based program features (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007) and consider contextual factors that affect candidate participation, preparedness, and program completion. By contrast, the panelists in this session aim to highlight the process of developing an authentic partnership to improve leadership preparation programs. To this end, session panelists will discuss the processes involved in the co-design and co-construction of authentic partnerships across institutions.
Widespread need for improvement of university leadership preparation programs exists (Wang, et al., 2018). Authentic research-practice partnerships are one avenue to meet this need (Farrell et al., under review). Papers 2-3 surface potential barriers to universities and districts partnering successfully—and suggests ways to manage the barriers. Tensions and challenges will arise as institutions with different core aims attempt to partner with one another; nonetheless, as such partnerships are proving valuable to K12 student success, the guidance to managing these tensions and challenges provided in these papers is a real contribution to scholarship.

Author

• Nell Scharff Panero, Hunter College