RE-DESIGNING LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Re-Designing Leadership in Higher Education



Re-Designing Leadership in Higher Education

Introduction

This paper addresses the methods for change in the redesign of a Masters in School Administration and a principal leadership. Discussion for how these methods could be considered by others involved in any redesign effort, but particularly principal preparation efforts, is presented. Higher education leadership redesign always has some sort of method. However, just because there is a method does not guarantee that a re-design effort will yield the kind of product that either external or internal forces desired or foresaw. This paper will addresses three questions:

What forces served as methods for higher education leadership redesign?

How were those forces perceived by the faculty involved?

What insights can be gained from studying the methods for the redesign efforts of a particular faculty?

The Conceptual Framework for this research and the redesign is presented.

Conceptual Framework for Higher education leadership Redesign

Examining Change

The three methods that have emerged in the redesign of one Masters in School Administration may serve others in considering the forces that contribute to the work, the importance of each, and the end product: a new higher education leadership design. These three methods are identified as: external, internal and bridge.

External, Internal, and Bridge Forces: What are they?

Principal licensure programs have been under scrutiny by external agents for some time. A brief history of licensure requirements in the state of North Carolina reflects a continuing effort to generate change.

In the early 1990s all school administration programs were eliminated by the N.C. state legislature and faculty in universities had to redesign and apply for permission to offer the Masters in School Administration (MSA). At the same time if a candidate had an existing graduate degree, the ability to add a principal license was eliminated. So the only avenue was the MSA or an extended Education Specialist (Ed.S.) degree. In 2006, the State Board of Education approved an add-on license for principals and left it to the universities to define the programs with the following required elements: (1) Candidate has a graduate degree, (2) there would be an internship over a year and (3) the higher education leadership would be 18-24 graduate hours. In a department where only one person was specifically identified with the MSA (a number of faculty taught in the MSA, but had duties across a number of programs) those faculty working in the area of educational leadership met to define the add-on license and determine the best way to make it work within the available resources while ensuring that candidates would leave with the same level of preparation of the MSA candidates.

It becomes clear in such a history how external forces can influence and even mandate higher education leadership redesign. However, listening to the most recent calls for redesign (Levin, 2005); one wonders whether earlier attempts at redesign for the sake of compliance might actually have been more an effort to “show” change than to support efforts to create systemic, sustainable ...